there's enough in that assertion that the state of CA and the fed gov't are investigating them.
OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
That’s the problem. Autonomy has to to perfect or 99.999999% perfect for adoption.
I don't object to the eventual automation of automobiles. At least not as long as there's an override switch to permit manual driving. I'm all for it, given how badly most people drive today.
What I DO object to are two things:
#2 is because #1 is very unlikely to ever be good enough to replace people entirely using just in-vehicle sensors. I won't say never, because sensor technology will improve a lot in the future and maybe in 50 years, it'll be good enough and reliable enough, with software that is good enough and reliable enough, to work without v2v and v2i.
OTOH, driver assistance that scans the road ahead or to the sides, that monitors whatever it can monitor (such as a driver dozing off or not watching the road) is a good thing for most drivers. The car can assist the driver all the time, just so long as the driver is required to do the steering and braking. Remove those elements from the task and drivers will just stop paying attention at all until it's too late.
What I DO object to are two things:
- Anything other than 100% fully automated driving. That is, if a human has to pay attention, then ban it.
- Trying to implement these fully automated driving systems prior to the development and infrastructure deployment of v2v and v2i systems.
#2 is because #1 is very unlikely to ever be good enough to replace people entirely using just in-vehicle sensors. I won't say never, because sensor technology will improve a lot in the future and maybe in 50 years, it'll be good enough and reliable enough, with software that is good enough and reliable enough, to work without v2v and v2i.
OTOH, driver assistance that scans the road ahead or to the sides, that monitors whatever it can monitor (such as a driver dozing off or not watching the road) is a good thing for most drivers. The car can assist the driver all the time, just so long as the driver is required to do the steering and braking. Remove those elements from the task and drivers will just stop paying attention at all until it's too late.
So ... just feelings here. No data. Hard to take your POV seriously.
I mean, I was enjoying a beautiful morning outside and posting casually at the time. Wasn't looking for homework.
But, now that I'm at the desk: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-06/ADAS-L2-SGO-Report-June-2022.pdf
Spoiler alert: Tesla has damn-near three times the number of crashes of ALL other reporting companies combined!
Not true. The data will speak for itself. Any sensible regulator will see this.
Maybe read the report:
Summary Incident Report Data Are Not Normalized
Reporting entities are not required to submit information regarding the number of vehicles they
have manufactured, the number of vehicles they are operating, or the distances traveled by those
vehicles. Data required to contextualize the incident rates are limited. Data regarding the number
of crashes reported for any given manufacturer or operator, therefore, have not been normalized
or adjusted by any measure of exposure, including the operational driving domain or vehicle
miles traveled. For example, a reporting entity could report an absolute number of crashes that is
higher than another reporting entity but operate a higher number of vehicles for many more
miles.
So NHTSA basically says this report is useless.
And yes, spoiler alert, Tesla has the most reported ADAS accidents because they have, by far, the biggest fleet of ADAS drivers. ADAS accidents/mile driven is what we need. Tesla has that data (as does NHTSA) but I won't bother to link as I'm sure it will be dismissed as propaganda.
You figure Tesla has the biggest fleet because they let their tech out to beta testers? I'm starting to feel some kind of relationship here.
And that relationship is coming full circle:
"And the reason why so many of these accidents were in Tesla vehicles probably has something to do with the fact that people who drive these vehicles probably rely more on the semi-autonomous driving component than people driving other brand cars. Tesla makes a big deal out of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems, more so than other automakers, and this may make people more willing to use these systems than in another car where they are not as big a part of the appeal.
However, even if Tesla's self-driving tech is some of the most advanced in the industry, a series of high profile incidents that resulted in fatalities brought a lot of negative press to the automaker, as well as a probe by the NHTSA. Currently, Tesla is being investigated for the 'phantom braking' phenomenon, as well as Autopilot, with the latter stretching to include some 830,000 vehicles that could be affected."
"And the reason why so many of these accidents were in Tesla vehicles probably has something to do with the fact that people who drive these vehicles probably rely more on the semi-autonomous driving component than people driving other brand cars. Tesla makes a big deal out of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems, more so than other automakers, and this may make people more willing to use these systems than in another car where they are not as big a part of the appeal.
However, even if Tesla's self-driving tech is some of the most advanced in the industry, a series of high profile incidents that resulted in fatalities brought a lot of negative press to the automaker, as well as a probe by the NHTSA. Currently, Tesla is being investigated for the 'phantom braking' phenomenon, as well as Autopilot, with the latter stretching to include some 830,000 vehicles that could be affected."
looks like you're buying into the hype. lots of cars with L2. you just seem to think that tesla is different.
Belly is Tesla Hype's biggest, bestest customer ... BY FAR.
beta testers for software are generally volunteers. when you have to pay for it as an upgrade...it's not a beta. it's production software with Beta in its name as a way to get around regulators and failed acceptance testing.
You're missing the point. We don't need a normalized comparison between brands. It's irrelevant.
We need to figure out why cars, with self-driving features engaged, are driving themselves into first-responder vehicles, or swerving into oncoming traffic, for hitting pedestrians. That's the problem. And that's the point. The brand is irrelevant.
Normal people don't GAF about which brand's implementation of a bad tech concept is killing the fewest people per mile. That'd be like doing a comparison of dictators to see which dictator killed the fewest citizens per month and then holding that dictator up as some kind of great person.
Thank you - beat me to it. It figures Mr Bad Faith would post a completely useless report. My (our?) assertion has been that vehicle automation makes driving safer. Not perfect, but better. The idea that automated vehicle systems need to be 99.99% perfect is absurd, but this is the argument of an unserious troll.
I never made that argument, dope. Re-read the thread ...eyes open!
But Belly's reply was not.
Also you just kind of threw out a garbled pile of text that replies to multiple things as if they're one. Too short to be verbal diarrhea, but I think verbal shart is on the nose.
In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.31 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.59 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.
To be clear, you don't actually know how to read. I've been as positive as anyone on EVs. I follow them on a daily basis and post stuff here when I find it interesting. Also smack down the CE retards on those weekly "let's post bad headlines in the EV thread" email chain days.
Sorry that you view "not motorboating Musk's scranus at every opportunity" as "bad faith," but that's a you problem.
Sorry to interrupt the kerfuffle, but I thought you were all waiting with baited breath on my latest F150 Lightning news. My production week was moved back to my original September 19 production date. I'm under 4 weeks until my vehicle will be built!!
Lol ...I am looking forward to impressions and reviews.
Discussions about automated driving are NOT confined to EVs. So I'm not sure how you got that anybody who is raising issues w/automated driving is posting "in bad faith" about EVs.
I don't know what the exact percentage is. But your point is valid. Technology failures that lead to death are never acceptable. It's technology so when it fails, we're supposed to fix it using deterministic engineering approaches.
Human activity that leads to accidental death is also usually considered unacceptable. However in this case, humans cannot ever be deterministically fixed. We can train and/or punish. But we're imperfect and we're never going to be perfect.
Thus there is no deterministic way to correct a system that relies on imperfect human attention and also lulls humans into inattentiveness. We cannot fix the human attention component of the system. However, we can improve technology such that human attention is no longer required.
Thus we need to ban any system that builds in the lulling of the driver into inattentiveness and wait until the technology is good enough that driver attention is no longer required. Otherwise, we're basically saying "hey the technology relies on an imperfect component so we're okay with that technology killing people". Which is pretty evil.
At that point, technology will still kill humans. But not due to a known and insurmountable weakness in relying on humans that are being lulled into inattentiveness.
Here's a thread from the F150 Lightning forum with one person's review that has positives and negatives. I'm getting the Lariat extended range. I'm a bit concerned about the comments on quality of interior finish. I thought the finish of my Maverick Lariat kind of sucked and was very cheap.
Thoughtful comparison of Rivian and F150. Really like the gear tunnel in the Rivian. Great idea.
Tbh, I've never been impressed with Ford interiors. Did you get leather or whatever leather approximation in both the maverick and f150?
"You do not need to worry about range with these trucks, but you do need to be willing to change your driving style. There are lots of reviews from people driving the truck at a constant speed, interstate, etc. If you do that, you will never ever get good efficiency. It is night and day difference range wise to travel on the highways and byways changing speed from 48-62 with stops and driving and using the brake regen with the contour of the road. In my experience the difference in terms of range is quite honestly 30-50 miles"
Who the hell actually drives like this? This guy has to be the biggest ahole on the road.
In the Maverick, it was fake leather, which was one of the positives. Everything else-dashboard, door panels, headliner screamed of total cheapness. I think the F-150 has the same fake leather, which I am OK with. Their interiors are pedestrian. Lincoln, their luxury brand, is a step up.
The other thing is the cabin noise in the Maverick was unnerving after driving an Audi for 11 years. Yeah, I know, Ford is not Audi. But it was a huge difference. The Volvo S60 we traded the Maverick for is quiet like a library.
I plan to jam the brakes on my Lightning ever 5 miles or so on my 30 mile slog up the Parkway.
Then you might find out how long an EV fire really lasts after you get rear ended.I plan to jam the brakes on my Lightning ever 5 miles or so on my 30 mile slog up the Parkway.
Freedom of movement...freedom for a business to sell products
Setting an arbitrary date based on no real data to ban gas powered vehicles
How about we let the infrastructure grow organically before we get to the point we ban things. Why would anyone set dates to ban a product we have been using gor more than a century
If the technology develops where its beyond obvious great but i suspect thats not where we will be
Agreed, not really a fan of forcing it on people that way. I don't see it as un-American, although it seems heavy handed. CA is pretty heavy handed with a lot of car stuff.
I will be surprised is that deadline is met. But we'll see.
The government can and does restrict the sale of all kinds of stuff, often with good cause. And not sure I understand the freedom of movement argument; people are still free to move about.
However, I agree the date is a little arbitrary and aggressive. And I very much agree that infrastructure should be allowed to grow more first. Perhaps CA should offer more incentives for companies to expand public infrastructure and for apartment complexes to install charging stations, etc.
I think it likely that a lack of infrastructure and energy supply issues may well force CA to push their target date out.
Lets think of the Founding Fathers. What would they say about this nonsense?
The slave states forced acceptance of slavery while many were for banning it. Yeah.. a very differnt thing.. but you can see there weer conflicts.
But what would have been an equvalent? Banning the use of horses because of the farts and excrement? We all ahve feet, right? Well.. not the Revolutionary War veteranse with blown off legs.
They never would have supported anything so reckless and so against the freedom this country was founded in order to protect.
And the only thing the pro-FF-ban people would be able to say is, well, we are destroying the planet! Which is stiff unproven and nowhere near an immediate threat even if real. ANd we cna always move inland to live on the new coast.
Jersey Shore PA might actually be on the shore one day.. whether or not humans existed and added to some climate crisis. The sun fluctuates output, the earths rotation wobbles... *stuff* happens in climate tens of thousands of years ago and since. Through all recorded hsitory and what ice core samples showed happened in re-history.
This is nonsense. We need a good economy in order to afford the remedies we will one day need. This green deal is just idiocy.