Tesla Autopilot 2.0 Is Coming This Year, Source Confirms (technobuffalo.com) 136
An anonymous reader writes from a report via TechnoBuffalo: A source close to Tesla Motors confirmed to TechnoBuffalo that Tesla Autopilot 2.0 is coming soon. Other media outlets like Teslarati have reported on prototype Model S and Model X vehicles operating in the wild sporting two forward facing cameras, which may indicate part of the new hardware necessary to take advantage of Autopilot 2.0's additional features. "The dual camera system is capable of recognizing and reacting to stop signs and traffic lights with no driver input," said the source. The current Autopilot software cannot simply stop itself at a light or a stop sign on its own -- it needs a car in front of it in order to automatically slow down or stop. The added cameras should help Autopilot 2.0 read and react to traffic lights and stop signs, and thus bring Tesla's cars closer to autonomous driving. The source did mention that Tesla's current test vehicles with Autopilot 2.0 are running "very beta" software that was likely the precursor to v8.0. U.S. regulators are actively investigating 25,000 Tesla Model S cars after a fatal crash involving a vehicle using the "Autopilot" mode was reported. Despite the tragedy, Elon Musk recently said that Autopilot could save half a million lives every year if Tesla Autopilot was universally available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now when there's too much sunlight we can have Teslas not recognise traffic lights, and drive straight through intersections causing T-bone accidents and pileups.
It's a shame their programmers who work on this full time will never think of this problem and add detection and maps/GPS augmentation. You should probably call them up and offer your advice.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "should" in the quote. The authors were expanding on how it works, and guessing, so they used less accurate language to reflect that they were guessing. Any uncertainty or imprecision was added by the authors, and doesn't represent the quotes the story is based off.
You should have recognized that.
Re: (Score:2)
What really will make this system come into its own are three things:
1. Having non-vision sensors installed which will happen at some point (RADAR, LIDAR, sound based sonar, etc etc etc)
2. Having the fleet of autonomous systems communicate with the network /
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, people are just as blinded by the rising / setting sun in their eyes. Not to beat a dead horse, but as long as the system proves more safe to operate than people per mile traveled it should be a beaming success (pun intended).
Wearing a helmet while driving has already proven itself safer than not wearing a helmet, yet the world isn't flocking to helmet wearing in cars.
This is why nerds get picked on, not everything in this world is solvable with pure logic.
What really will make this system come into its own are three things: 1. Having non-vision sensors installed which will happen at some point (RADAR, LIDAR, sound based sonar, etc etc etc)
Doesn't the Google version already have this?
2. Having the fleet of autonomous systems communicate with the network / roadway and other vehicles. This will make vehicle-to-vehicle accidents far less likely.
Until there is a bug or crash in the system, then it instantly affects EVERYBODY.
Of course no-one will try to exploit such a system either.
3. Having the major thoroughfares autonomous-mandatory...
George Orwell would be rolling in his grave...
Robot cars are an interesting novelty, but
Re: (Score:2)
Wearing a helmet while driving has already proven itself safer than not wearing a helmet, yet the world isn't flocking to helmet wearing in cars.
I've not seen that. Do you have date for that, or are you making it up as an example?
Of course no-one will try to exploit such a system either.
You've indicated you think the system will be a single grid with a single failure taking out everything, then think that if there's a single bad-actor spewing bad data, the system will be unable to identify it, and handle it. You assume a perfect system that's 100% useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've not seen that. Do you have date for that, or are you making it up as an example?
https://infrastructure.gov.au/... [infrastructure.gov.au]
You've indicated you think the system will be a single grid with a single failure taking out everything,
I think such a system can be no more reliable than an IP network, which as an former network engineer, I wouldn't bet my life with.
It might improve overall safety numbers in theory, but current road deaths are not purely random, so comparing stats of a somewhat controllable environment to a completely uncontrolled (by the vehicle occupant's input capability) is not an accurate comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Robot cars are an interesting novelty, but lets not pretend they are going to save the world.
This was never about "saving the world", but this IS about saving lives lost every year due to ignorant humans who think they can safely operate 3,000 pounds of steel at 60MPH while eating/drinking/reading/texting/putting on makeup, while falling asleep at the wheel because they're drunk.
And much like modern medicine that has side effects up to and including death, this will be wholeheartedly approved by society and governments under the "greater good" principle. Even if 10,000 lives are lost a year due to
Re: (Score:2)
This was never about "saving the world", but this IS about saving lives lost every year due to ignorant humans who think they can safely operate 3,000 pounds of steel at 60MPH while eating/drinking/reading/texting/putting on makeup, while falling asleep at the wheel because they're drunk.
What about those of us who already manage to do that? It sounds suspiciously nanny state to me, lowest common denominator etc...
Even if 10,000 lives are lost a year due to autonomous vehicles, it will be seen as a massive improvement over human navigation.
And you base this on what exactly? I have a GPS now, it is still much worse at me than navigating.
The difference the robot car fanboys don't get is that 20000 lives lost to to people who probably had some part in the cause (not always but sometimes), is still better than 10000 lives lost at complete random. Because for the other 320000000 million people that don't die on the road,
Re: (Score:2)
This was never about "saving the world", but this IS about saving lives lost every year due to ignorant humans who think they can safely operate 3,000 pounds of steel at 60MPH while eating/drinking/reading/texting/putting on makeup, while falling asleep at the wheel because they're drunk.
What about those of us who already manage to do that? It sounds suspiciously nanny state to me, lowest common denominator etc...
You don't "manage" to do jack shit when it comes to multitasking behind the wheel. You're either lucky that day, or you're not. You take your life in your hands every time you drive with humans around anyway, and that gets amplified across the masses when distracted driving becomes acceptable and the norm, as we've seen with the increase of texting-while-driving incidents and deaths, which is a form of distracted driving created by this generation.
Even if 10,000 lives are lost a year due to autonomous vehicles, it will be seen as a massive improvement over human navigation.
And you base this on what exactly? I have a GPS now, it is still much worse at me than navigating.
Clearly you don't remember what it's like to not even see
Re: (Score:2)
You don't "manage" to do jack shit when it comes to multitasking behind the wheel.
What I meant was, those of us who already manage to operate a vehicle without being distracted, drunk or multitasking...
Most people manage to operate their vehicles and not die, just a small percentage of idiots can't, why should the rest of us be punished for their poor choices?
GPS has improved navigation for the masses. If it hasn't for you for some reason, then you are an anomaly; a mere outlier that will be ignored for the greater good.
GPS has made improvements because we can choose when and when not to use it. You couldn't say the same thing if every single person was forced to use it, all the time.
I agree in that it becomes tricky to justify autonomous systems to replace those who genuinely pay attention on the road and minimize risk as much as possible. But as they improve autonomous systems over any human's reaction time, proving that even the best of drivers are no match for the computer, then the argument becomes less and less relevant.
Well get back to me when that day comes, because today and the n
Re: (Score:2)
Wearing a helmet comes with a significant penalty in the form of inconvenience. Putting cameras on your car does too, but much less so for a reasonable fraction of the populace than wearing a helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
Wearing a helmet comes with a significant penalty in the form of inconvenience.
You mean just like on motorbike? Or just like a seat belt in a car?
I don't think you've thought this through very well...
try it on some odd road intersections to see how w (Score:2)
try it on some odd road intersections to see how well it can read them.
https://goo.gl/maps/4ZPHdY2Yyp... [goo.gl] (red ball and arrow to move froward)
https://goo.gl/maps/t3KKvqox3e... [goo.gl] (same area)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] map of the same area (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palatine+Rd,+Illinois/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fa68d09ccd74b:0xfca0232fc69002a9?sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3lJXw-N3NAhWIlR4KHTsACy4Q8gEIHTAA)
https://goo.gl/maps/3smiCDrMKe... [goo.gl]
https://goo.gl/maps/pAAP3ErXqn... [goo.gl]
https://goo.gl/maps/i2WCocaC7D... [goo.gl]
https: [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure they will do better than me on those particular intersections. A human driver who has never been there will have to slow down and go "WTF? Which light is for which road?". An automatic system will have these relatively rare intersections hard-coded into its database so it knows exactly which light is which.
Re: (Score:2)
So how much do you want to per load in to the DB and what happens after 1-3 years when they say no more updates buy a new car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But is the state willing to go court over the issue if tesla try's some DMCA BS to stop 3rd party shops from loading updates? and what about anti trust issues with that move?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I don't really know or care if they're smarter than me, but having actually worked on certified aircraft autopilot design, I know that they've demonstrated a complete rejection of best practices in life safety critical design.
GPS augmentation (Score:2)
The theory goes something like:
a detailled enough map could indicate which intersections DO have a traffic light.
If the car doesn't see neither a green light nor a red, but map indicates there should be one, the car should be able to know that it has missed a traffic light and slow down and safely ask to hand control back to the human in time.
(It's NOT entirely possible. There are database like SCDB.info that counts all known speed- / redlight- traps. Knowing that some European Cities put a dual function sp
Re: GPS augmentation (Score:2)
You could do your scouting at night to determine where traffic lights are. Probably would make the problem much easier. Though probably is much easier to just make the system work better.
Night time (Score:2)
You could do your scouting at night to determine where traffic lights are. Probably would make the problem much easier.
Counter example 1:
~15 years ago, when I was in the US in Florida, they used to shut down traffic lights at night when the streets were empty anyway (to save power ? to avoid people waiting needlessly at a red light on an empty crossing ?)
In the rare occurence when two car meet, you're supposed to following the usual yielding rules.
There's simply no traffic light to see at night.
Counter example 2:
Here around (Switzerland) most traffic light are adaptive. (change color only when there's someone waiting).
Durin
Re: (Score:2)
also free data and no roaming fees yes you can pick up canada / mexico towers fringe roaming while still in the usa and some plans that can be up to $15-$20 a meg.
translation (Score:2)
If you use perfectly up to date maps, that means you need some data transmission to get updates to the maps.
If you use cellular data to get the updates, you're in to a recieve a surprise on your phone bill if the car decides to pick a neighouring antena which is considered as roaming.
(Can happen a lot in a region like Europe, where there are a lot of small different countries.
You can often be close to the border, and the strongest signal picked by the car's computer might be on ther other side of the border
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.thestreet.com/stor... [thestreet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Now when there's too much sunlight we can have Teslas not recognise traffic lights, and drive straight through intersections causing T-bone accidents and pileups.
It's a shame their programmers who work on this full time will never think of this problem and add detection and maps/GPS augmentation. You should probably call them up and offer your advice.
You still have the issue of recognizing the colour of the light, a light that's burnt out, a light that is covered because of repairs, different bulb types, stop signs that fell down or got knocked off centre, etc, etc.
The issue isn't that Telsa has dumb programmers, I'm sure they're brilliant.
The issue is they're being given an incredibly difficult task with extremely high stakes and a very short time line because Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car.
Someone just died because of a bug
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And people get distracted and miss stop signs and stop lights all the time. The question isn't whether "it will result in deaths" the key word that you have in there that's ambiguous is "Additional". Additional in comparison to the technology not-existing or additional in addition to the (1) that has occurred.
Absolutely the latter. I wager the edge cases where the code fails will vastly be outnumbered by the edge cases where a human brain fails.
Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And people get distracted and miss stop signs and stop lights all the time. The question isn't whether "it will result in deaths" the key word that you have in there that's ambiguous is "Additional". Additional in comparison to the technology not-existing or additional in addition to the (1) that has occurred.
I didn't include "additional" by accident, I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it.
Absolutely the latter. I wager the edge cases where the code fails will vastly be outnumbered by the edge cases where a human brain fails.
Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car. In part because he measures "Additional" by relative terms instead of sensationalist media outlets who measure it in absolute terms. Relative terms is in my not so humble opinion the obvious way we should be measuring safety. If we ban technology which is superior to the status quo, because it's not perfect we're denying life-saving technology because of irrational paranoia.
Long-term AI's will probably be safer, but I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure how far off we really are. The whole idea of this human-AI driving partnership may be fatally flawed from a safety perspective. It may never be safer than pure human drivers due to the inevitability of human distraction and the erosion of the human
Re: (Score:2)
"I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it"
No, not likely. It's almost certain that Autopilot will be the *cause* of some deaths but it'll also be responsible for saving many more lives.
The same guy who died in the tractor-trailer crash posted a video some months back that the car's reaction likely saved his life.
This time around, he was driving very irresponsibly and the truck he hit was executing a maneuver that isn't
Re: (Score:2)
"I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it"
No, not likely. It's almost certain that Autopilot will be the *cause* of some deaths but it'll also be responsible for saving many more lives.
The same guy who died in the tractor-trailer crash posted a video some months back that the car's reaction likely saved his life.
This time around, he was driving very irresponsibly and the truck he hit was executing a maneuver that isn't allowed in sane jurisdictions - something that Florida has rarely been confused with.
You mean this video [youtube.com]?
a) Even if he did get hit the likely outcome would have been the ditch. Dangerous and possibly fatal but a far cry from "likely saved his life".
b) Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen enough merge / double lane change accidents to know that "most" drivers are *not* aware of what's going on around them.
And I'm sure that motorcyclists will feel safer when more sensor-equipped cars can identify them and alert or react accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
This. A lot of the autonomous car proponents (and programmers in general for that matter, a lot of my co-workers are pretty scary drivers) seem to be under the impression that being "in the right" means you're somehow not going to have an accident and/or you'll magically be spared in the event of having one just because you had right of way and the other guy was an idiot. It never seems to occur to them that even accidents that would be 100% the other guys fault can be avoided if *they* actually pay attenti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They died because both of those things happened at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, have the programmers who "work on this full time" figured out how to handle sunlight? And weren't they working "this" full-time before?
Wait, you're saying they didn't have "detection and maps/GPS augmentation" before?
And maybe they shou
Re: (Score:2)
Now when there's too much sunlight we can have Teslas not recognise traffic lights, and drive straight through intersections causing T-bone accidents and pileups.
It's a shame their programmers who work on this full time will never think of this problem and add detection and maps/GPS augmentation. You should probably call them up and offer your advice.
Just because someone is "working on it" doesn't mean it can be solved.
We all know cameras are crap at image recognition. Why do Tesla/Google Car fans pretend this problem will just go away if someone thinks about it hard enough?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they're on it. They've gotten some interesting data [hybridcars.com] recently.
Not Autonmous but assisted driving... (Score:2)
Tesla is not advertising auto drive cars but installing and developing a system that assists the driver in performing the task of driving. Tesla states in numerous places and in bold print that the driver should be attentive and always ready to assume control, just the same way anyone driving with standard cruise control should. No current system will help a driver with cerebral anal inversion syndrome in full control to avoid doing something stupid or downright fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe Musk shouldn't be calling it, "Tesla Autopilot 2.0". If we're talking about a glorified cruise control, then maybe it should be marketed as autopilot.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that is true, but even large commercial aircraft on autopilot keep someone in the pilot seat watching what is going on. Maybe people should take some personal responsibility and RTFM before using something that could put their life in jeopardy. Maybe someone could read the warning label on the inside of the visor regarding the system before jacking in a Harry Potter DVD and letting a piece of computer software make their decisions for them. The bottom line is when did we suddenly expect to have truth
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is not advertising auto drive cars but installing and developing a system that assists the driver in performing the task of driving.
Then maybe Musk shouldn't be calling it, "Tesla Autopilot 2.0". If we're talking about a glorified cruise control,
Guess what? That's what a normal autopilot is anyway. They were originally fitted to sailboats, which really puts the cruise into cruise control. Airplanes came substantially later; the job is a lot harder than doing what a nautical autopilot does. But a Nautical autopilot doesn't handle all the tasks of sailing for you, either. The real problem with marketing something as autopilot is that if you use the word correctly, the average person won't understand what it does, because they are an undereducated dip
Re: (Score:2)
I was trained to sail solo. Part of that training is the construction of an autopilot. It consists of a length of rope and the ability to tie a few knots.
Re: (Score:2)
I was trained to sail solo. Part of that training is the construction of an autopilot. It consists of a length of rope and the ability to tie a few knots.
I've seen the insides of an early (magnetic) sailboat autopilot, which is more what I'm talking about. Someone I knew was repairing it for someone I didn't. This is just the control bits, I don't know what the actuator looks like at all. It was about the size of a can of pumpkin.
Re: (Score:2)
Autopilot is a glorified cruise control, even on planes. That's precisely what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Or pull over until visibility conditions improve as you're supposed to do in heavy fog.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is what is generally referred to as "doubling down".
Re: (Score:2)
My Subaru Outback has a camera system that lets it automatically set distance to the next car ahead of it.
When there's too much sun for it to see, it disables itself, warns you loudly, and requires you to drive manually.
Strikes me as reasonably sane.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll wait for v3.0, which will include the feature where it notices trucks turning in front of you.
Why is Slashdot pushing this story so hard? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why is this story on the front page *twice*? Look, the technology in and of itself isn't evil. It's a tool. That said, Musk is on the record as wanting to make driving illegal. You can mod me Troll all you want, and throw around pejoratives like "SJW" all you want; but if you have networked cars, automated driving, and it's illegal to drive then that's a fascist enabling tool. Not the "right kind of person"? You don't drive. This is why I hope this particular venture fails hard. Electric cars? Yes.
Re: Why is Slashdot pushing this story so hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
You alread need to be "the right type of person" to drive. After getting 16-18 depending on the State, you have to meet requirements by the big, fascist government before you are given a driver's license. Or risk going to jail.
I fail to see what the difference with autonomous cars would be except in some post apocalyptic survivor fantasy you may be preparing your daily choices for.
Re:Why is Slashdot pushing this story so hard? (Score:4, Informative)
OK, I probably should have checked the reference before releasing the hounds. If this is to be believed [computerworld.com] then Musk was simply speculating on such a possibility and actually advocating for a right to manual control. If their quotes are accurate, then I must stand corrected. Ahh, the perils of Slashdot, which lacks reddit's delete button. My errors are all there for posterity, not the first time and probably not the last.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving manual makes far more sense than letting software decide what gear to be in (usually the wrong one).
Absolutely not. What makes the most sense is letting the software decide what gear to be in for efficiency, and then driving appropriately to what the software decides, slowing down up hills and accelerating down them and so on. It would be a lot safer and more efficient than what most people do, which is to say, drive like shit. On a typical trip on the PCH for example, the average driver slows down up every hill, then accelerates up to cruising speed again... while going up hill. The average driver, in fa
Re: (Score:2)
Slowing down going uphill and speeding up going down may be more efficient, but it's less safe (not to mention far more annoying to be stuck behind) than maintaining a constant speed regardless of relief.
No. What's unsafe is refusing to do the same when others do it, or pass safely if you're not happy with that. If we all do it, it's quite safe. I don't mean slowing to a crawl, but some deceleration is normal, and it's wasteful to pin it on your way up a hill. People with particularly efficient vehicles may not even be able to do the same speed you'd like. I for one would love to haul ass everywhere, but maybe that's not practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and I missed this one. Double-replying is bad form, but:
As to washing clothes by hand, funny, there are daily articles on why washing clothes by hand is far more beneficial than letting a machine, run by software, do the same thing. As any woman if she'd rather wash her more delicate clothes by hand or take a chance on having them torn to shreds in a washing machine.
I'd ask an intelligent woman. She'd tell me that she puts her delicates into a mesh bag from Daiso that cost $1.50, and then puts them into the washing machine.
Re: (Score:2)
We get it - you like driving cars. You like the sound. Or you like the sensation. Or you like something else about it. That's fine. Not everyone else finds amusement in this particular chore, which is something you should understand, and which should prevent you from deciding what everyone likes and wants based on your predilection for said chore.
Re: (Score:1)
In other words, the very thing the whiner at Gartner and many thousands of others want to do: prevent me from deciding what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is wrong, since nowadays, automatics are at least as efficient, if not more efficient, than manual transmissions. They're also more reliable (a Car Talk newspaper article I read over the weekend said he'd be surprised to do a transmission rebuild after even 150K miles, but clutches would have to be replaced in a manual).
I hope they get radar (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They do have radar. It is mounted below the bumper, points straight ahead, and generally does a very good job recognizing other vehicles on the road. The collision you are undoubtedly referring to involved a trailer without side-guards covering the entirety of the traffic lane, with the only radar reflective surface being high enough to be discarded as 'overhead obstruction' and the single camera failing to see enough contrast between the bright sky and white trailer to trigger collision warnings.
The ster
They already have radar (Score:2)
The current system already has radar.
The radar is the primary sensor for the traffic-aware cruise control that slows the vehicle down below the set speed when there is a slower vehicle in front.
The camera is the primary sensor for watching the stripes on the road to handle the steering. The camera also watches for vehicles and reads speed limit signs.
The sonar is the primary sensor for auto-park and summon features. It's also used to detect if the lane is clear for lane changes and to swerve to avoid side
Re: (Score:2)
The big thing that's missing is the radar that Google uses, a big spinning cylinder on top of the vehicle. It can map vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles that a camera would not be able to see. Elon doesn't like that it's ugly. I'll take ugly to get a more capable system.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be ugly if it's implemented on a larger vehicle. In particular, semitractors tend to have those big fiberglass aero bits on top where you can stick that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably wasn't a big fan of the $75,000 price tag each LIDAR unit costs. Luckily those prices have been dropping, and are predicted to continue to drop as demand for them increases.
Naaah I'm sure it's only because it's ugly, not because it would nearly double the price of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon may also be betting on technology getting good enough to no longer need LIDAR. Such as this: http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/sens... [ti.com].
Re: They already have radar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already do. Obviously, they need to adjust the algorithms. The camera was fooled by the lack of contrast between the side of the truck and the sky (white truck and white clouds, perhaps). The radar was fooled by the open space under the truck, making it look like an overhead sign. The good news is that unlike most traditional accidents, this one will result in an improved design that should eliminate similar accidents in the future.
LIDAR instead (Plz, Tesla !) (Score:2)
A little radar could go a long way in helping with collision avoidance.
Actually they have a long range radar pointing around the car.
And short range sonars around the car.
But they are mounted low (as in any other car) and not correctly distinguish a object that is close and high.
(Like the trailer).
Dual camera, by the simple reason of using stereoscopic correlation, can correctly pinpoint anything in 3D space, instead of relying on simple inference from quick projection or using motion cues.
(Similar to what is done by most japanese brands and some mercedes)
NOW, TESLA, COULD YOU
Re: (Score:2)
Except that as Google has demonstrated, an autonomous vehicle needs to behave like a human to "fit in" even when it skirts the law. Slowing traffic and causing people to continually pass you isn't safe.
Re: (Score:2)
To not exceed the speed limit, when any "auto" feature is enabled.
There should be a rule that unless the car is totally under manual control, it cannot exceed the speed limit.
As soon as that's mandatory for the cruise control in your current car first, amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
It can just look at the speed limit signs instead of trying to guess what speeds the road was engineered for. That's why they're there.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now instead of working autonomously 99% of the time, it'll work autonomously 99.9% of the time! That's good enough for me to just let it do its thing while I watch a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
You may only watch 99% of the movie otherwise you'll die. And if you figure out the wrong moment to not watch the movie but focus on the street you'll die too.
Re: (Score:3)
You may only watch 99% of the movie otherwise you'll die. And if you figure out the wrong moment to not watch the movie but focus on the street you'll die too.
Huh. Wasn't that the plot of "The Ring" ?
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why People Freeze [cti-home.com]
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It kind of sounds to me like if you're incapacitated to the point where the autopilot might save your life, you shouldn't be driving at that point anyway. Having the autopilot will just encourage people to bet their lives on a piece of equipment they clearly don't understand.
Like texting, which people do while driving a LOT! They shouldn't do that, like people shouldn't rely on autopilot. As a pedestrian I want some sort of auto collision avoidence on these multi ton death machines operating near feet from me that people obviously are not paying enough attention to the operation of.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
The current Autopilot software cannot simply stop itself at a light or a stop sign on its own -- it needs a car in front of it in order to automatically slow down or stop.
In v3.0 they'll add a check for huge trailers too, I hope?
Re: (Score:1)
Now, now. Let's not lose our heads over this...
I hear they added some AI (Score:1)
Now it scans social media and won't let you start it if you've ever posted pictures of yourself doing stupid things while in the driver's seat.
Reading signs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the signs is not particularly complex. My BMW i3 reads the speed limit signs and duplicates them on the dashboard.
What about if I print off my own version of a road sign with 5km/h on it? Because no-one would ever think of doing that for a laugh...
The release notes (Score:1)
-Fixed bug where the car would crash into things if the sun was too bright
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my area, people drive around all the time with paper tags so faded you can't read them. Police don't enforce it. Drunks get DUIs and keep driving. The state never (seldom) impounds their cars. That would be step in the right direction. My un-insured coverage is /more/ than my liability insurance!
In the past several years the drunks who've lost their cars
U.S. regulators are actively investigating 25,000 (Score:2)
Are U.S. regulators really actively investigating 25,000 Tesla Model S cars? Are they making appointments with the owners and checking under the hood or something?
Re: (Score:2)
(Insert obligatory BSOD joke here)