Not a "bug"
This was deliberate on Tesla's part for the "aggressive" driving profile, but NHTSA called them out on it.
Tesla will switch off a feature in its Full Self-Driving software, present in more than 50,000 vehicles in the US, that allowed the cars and SUVs to roll past stop signs at junctions without coming to a halt. All way Aerial view of an all-way stop According to recall documents on America's National Highway Traffic Safety …
Common behaviour is not always legal, or indeed safe or sensible. The 'feature' that allowed Tesla cars to travel through red lights and stop signs without actually stopping reminded me of a Rolling Stones lyric:
"You always have the Lord by your side.
And I was so impressed by this that I ran twenty red lights in his honour.."*
The fact that Tesla decided to enable a feature that allowed illegal and potentially dangerous behaviour in its 'self driving' modes will doubtless exercise the lawyers and AI ethicists.
* 'Faraway Eyes' Probably not quite correct but you get the gist.
I agree - common behaviour is not necessarily a good way to go. Another feature of the more aggressive mode is leaving less space between cars when pulling out to change lanes. GOOD - because sometimes you simply won't be able to pull out otherwise because of the constant stream of morons who sit nose-to-tail in the outside lanes. But another feature of aggressive mode is then staying in those lanes and not pulling back in - because that's common practice. BAD - that's part of why our motorways are so congested. It may be common practice, but it's illegal and increases the level of stupid/selfish on the roads.
Agree.
We either need better lane discipline or get over the idea of a specific lane for overtaking.
My personal preference would be better lane discipline although that requires the near impossible feat of talking sense into drivers, because allowing "under" taking doubles the lanbe change risk vectors.
Better lane discipline should not be that hard. It's the default in most of the world. Germany, NL, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Czechia, Poland and Italy (those are the countries I've driven in anyway) don't seem to have much problem with it. Barring the occasional wanker in a BMW or Audi.
Seriously? You haven't seen how many people take the shortest line across a roundabout with marked lanes instead of sticking to those lanes? Especially the sort that spiral towards the exits.
And you haven't seen a roundabout with lanes marked that just makes you think WTF do I do here?
"It's still an example of getting it wrong, no matter who orchestrated it!"
Of course it is! You've never see a spoof video on The Toobs of Ewe before?
Here's Walker Construction's video update, as the roundabout was opening:
https://www.facebook.com/walker/videos/456870328911831/
alphagoo maps' streetview (currently) has pictures of the intersection as it was before roundabout construction started. You can go ogle it for yourself here.
Better lane discipline is easy to sort out (if the police ever wanted to). Start pulling people over and giving them fines / points for bad lane discipline.
It's not rocket science. If you start enforcing the law, then people start observing the law. Good lane discipline is detailed in the highway code. There's been minor clarifications to the highway code over the last decade which has better defined "Stay left unless over taking" but the police haven't had a concerted campaign to enforce the rules.
That this was even considered to be a good idea is beyond scary,
Self driving vehicles have to be perfect in how they operate and obey traffic controls. Programming in behaviour that emulates bad human drivers is incredible.
This just sums up the total free for all in this area and Tesla/Musk's attitude to everything they do. All the automated decision making has to be audited by third parties, if it cannot be or they will not permit it (and this is ANY company involved in this field) they have to disable the entire capability, maybe even lose there license to operate in the case of Waymo and so on.
Honking like mad is not an effective response to transgressions by other road users.
Tesla will instead implement an automated system where any person, vehicle or object that gets too close to their vehicles ( or is occupying a parking spot they might desire), is labelled as a paedophile on social media...
I often wonder why Chevrolet and Ford didn't do that when they took Ralph Nader to court over his idiocy about the Corvair and the Pinto. Would have been most amusing, seeing as Nader had no license to drive. He'd have been laughed out of court, and today we wouldn't have the myths about two perfectly normal (for the time) automobiles.
"In England the attitude is that the authorities make the law but we the people decide whether to obey."
This is so clearly nonsensical that I can't believe this myth still persists. It's one of those things that's so bafflingly incorrect that one doesn't know where to start. There is no practical difference, regardless of intent.
Tesla not only think they're above the law, they also seem to think they can rewrite the law.
But we have to accept that not everyone does come to a complete stop at stop signs if they think it is safe to continue without actually stopping.
The question is whether the law allows that, in some states if not others?
If it does then Tesla were allowing something which is allowed, otherwise they were allowing something which isn't.
If it's not allowed but Tesla believed it was, that isn't "rewriting the law"; it's being wrong. Just as drivers who don't stop at stops signs when they are meant to would be.
> not everyone does come to a complete stop at stop signs if they think it is safe to continue without actually stopping
Yes, and I confess I do it myself sometimes. But I'm a human with good eyesight and a fairly good situational awareness, while Tesla's "autopilot" has repeatedly proven not to be capable of noticing a vehicle smack in front of it. I definitely wouldn't trust Tesla's "autopilot" not to miss the 18-wheeler barrelling down the road in your direction. And while it's true you're a Tesla driver and should respected by the commoners, that won't necessarily prevent said truck from obliterating you, if all of a sudden you jump in front of it.
Incidentally it's having a 4-way stop that is part of the problem. It is far safer to have a clear priority than to allow drivers to sort it out on the spot.
And there is nothing particularly unsafe about 'give way' as opposed to (come to a complete) 'stop'. Most of Europe uses give way rather than stop at the non-priority road of a junction, without having any particular problems.
In the UK a "Stop" sign is invariably used when the visibility is restricted with the aim hat drivers do not just shoot out without assessing the traffic.
"Stop" means just that, stop before proceeding, "Give Way" mean that traffic on the (usually main road) has the right of way.
In either case if you exit the junction and cause an accident, you are to blame.
This kind of "feature" is when you use machine learning to analyze the actions of human drivers and emulate them. If they want to make the car behave more like a human driver, then it is going to mimic the bad behaviors as well as the good.
I am waiting for the "feature" when the car starts telling off any police officer that pulls it over that "I pay your salary with my taxes"
"I am waiting for the "feature" when the car starts telling off any police officer that pulls it over that "I pay your salary with my taxes""
Then I'll wait for the video to go viral of a cop taping a big ticket to a self-driving car with the note saying, "Actually, my salary is paid with traffic fines like these..."
Cop salaries are NOT paid with traffic fines. Common misconception (or urban myth, perhaps?).
Several years ago, the local rag ("The Sonoma Sun") interviewed the City of Sonoma's Police Chief. One of the burning topics was (and still is) automobiles ignoring traffic rules around the pedestrian-heavy, tourist-centric Sonoma Plaza.
Specifically the reporter asked (paraphrasing) "Why don't you post a couple cops around The Plaza and ticket violators?". The Top Cop answered "Because we lose money for each citation issued. After the Court System takes their cut, we receive approximately $7 per citation ... which doesn't even pay the time it takes the officer to write the ticket and file the paperwork that follows".
See our local scoff-laws in action here. Note that this was a four-way stop before the street to the lower left was converted to outdoor dining (because Covid). Also note that the restaurant under the camera (Maya) is one of the best places to eat in Sonoma County. Highly recommended.
"Cop salaries are NOT paid with traffic fines."
It really depends where in the US. There are various small towns on interstates notorious for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html
But you're right, mostly they're funded by civil forfeiture.
Not sure what all the fuss is about this feature. I've been self-driving cars for decades :-)
Because that's what it means, isn't it? The alternative would mean the car drives itself, which it clearly doesn't. If the car drove itself, the people in the car would all be passengers.
Shrug.
Rolling through stop signs could also be called "cop mode" since they are some of the more notorious offenders.
IFF Tesla's sensors are up to the task, rolling stops aren't a big deal. Sure, some people are clutching their pearls about the lawbreakers who roll through stop signs. The main safety issue is that rolling stops are conducive to "hiding" a moving vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian behind the A pillar. A full stop gives such an object time to move into the driver's field of view. A properly designed autonomous vehicle won't have a blind spot from the A pillar.
I have no idea if Tesla's sensors are up to the task.
>I have no idea if Tesla's sensors are up to the task.
They almost certainly are. Tesla's cameras are a bit like having eyes in the back of your head -- the car has 360 vision, unobstructed by the car's interior and with a much higher refresh rate than a human.** (Who may also be distracted.) Motorcyclists -- at least the ones who try to stay alive -- are very aware of the limitations of human perception, the car driver's lament that "they never saw you" being only too true because of the limitations of human perception. The Tesla has much better perception than a human so is quite capable of going across a four way stop safely. However, Teslas live in a human environment and much mimic humans which means that -- legally -- they have to come to a full stop. Its no big deal, I live in a very law abiding community with a very bored police force so I never perform 'rolling stops' -- they're worth north of $500 a pop. (The fine is modest but the fees and assessments tacked on to it inflate the cast.)
I don't understand the hostility towards Teslas by some contributors to this site. We're supposed to be technical sorts so we should be able to understand both the capabilities and the limitations of this driving mode. Its interesting and it probably works as well as a human -- its unfortunate that this just isn't good enough, its got to be beyond perfect.
(**Human visual acuity drops off rapidly away from the center of vision. Its a rare person that can accurately track a moving object with just their peripheral vision.)
"I don't understand the hostility towards Teslas by some contributors to this site."
Being a car guy, and a computer guy, and a guy who knows how sensors, servos, actuators and the like work and can be combined, I know how much can go wrong. Frankly,the concept of self-driving vehicles sharing the road with actual human drivers scares the shit out of me. Far, far too much to go wrong.
Couple that with the out-right lie of a so-called "emission-free" vehicle that is powered by electricity ...which as any fool can see is generated primarily from fossil fuels. Emmision-free my pasty white butt.
To say nothing of the entire "renewable energy" lie ... Thee is no such thing as renewable energy, entropy says no.
"Its a rare person that can accurately track a moving object with just their peripheral vision."
Thankfully, most humans can detect very, very slight movement in their peripheral vision, making your point rather pointless in this context.
"Thankfully, most humans can detect very, very slight movement in their peripheral vision, making your point rather pointless in this context."
There's a huge difference between detecting motion and actually being able to identify and track the same motion, especially against a backdrop of additional motion all around it. The hardest place to find a needle isn't a haystack, after all, but within a bunch of other needles; that's why it was always so hard to find Waldo/Wally.
@jake - but reacting to something in peripheral vision can take a long while
Here's a situation I recall - I was walking, not driving so would not have been so "on alert" as in a car, but indicates the slowness of peripheral vision detecting something and brain becoming aware.
Walking with partner on an uneven footpath by a waterway, with the awkward footing main focus on the path to avoid trips / falls.
Mentioned to partner "it's a long time since we saw a grass snake"
(despite its name, this snake is common by water and often swims to catch prey)
Shortly after that I pointed out a grass snake swimming in the nearby water.
.. So peripheral vision had detected it, subconscious had IDed it as a grass snake*, but it took a long time before consciously aware (enough delay to get out a short sentence related to what subconscious had registered).
In a driving situation, that big delay before being consciously aware could be nasty.
.. this was not a situation where the snake was "headed at me" (it was going same direction, in front and to my left relative to my position, and obviously a small, unobtrusive thing compared to a car, so not analogous to a (non distracted) driving situation but shows the (lack of) speed in message processing.
*I like my wildlife, so brain will "background" ID most things, even relatively uncommon ones - just like your average person does not need to consciously process a robin, sparrow / whatever is a really common creature where they are.
More likely it was the other way around ... you remembered grass snakes existed, and then your brain found one that you would have otherwise missed completely, just like you likely missed many others in the days/months/years since you had last remembered grass snakes existed.
Humans have a unique ability to tune out things that we deem unimportant.
I'm a hunter (mostly with a camera now), so I tend to see wildlife everywhere. Used to drive my Wife nuts because I'd always see the lizard, snake, racoon/possum in a tree, deer on the far hillside, birds everywhere, the odd feral European honey bee colony (which I often repatriated) ... to say nothing of mushrooms (edible and poisonous), and all kinds of edible plants. Now, after many years of walking in the wild with me, she sees these things by herself.
A couple of years ago, when I was walking the dawgs downtown I watched a young Redtail Hawk take a pigeon in mid-air. It landed in a muddle, obviously shaken up by the hit. It leaned against a car tire on the curb, wings covering its prey, shaking its head and trying to get its bearings. I stopped a couple from walking past it ... but they couldn't see it, just 15 feet away, even when I pointed it out to them! To them, it was a pile of leaves drifted up against the tire. When the bird took off with its prey a few seconds later, the woman let out a little screech and the man jumped ...
ANYway, keep your eyes and your mind open, you never know what you might see :-)
Couple that with the out-right lie of a so-called "emission-free" vehicle that is powered by electricity ...which as any fool can see is generated primarily from fossil fuels. Emmision-free my pasty white butt.
This is simple stuff. They are emission free at the point of use, so the engines are not contributing to local air pollution. You know how ICE cars pump out noxious gas at approximately the height of a child's face? EV engines don't do that.
And when you get the personal transport to be emission free, the continued progress towards renewable electricity supply will improve things further. The fact that current energy comes partly from fossil fuels is not a reason just to give up and not do anything about it.
"You know how ICE cars pump out noxious gas at approximately the height of a child's face?"
???? Are you in a habit of forcing children to the ground to huff exhaust?
My car exhaust is roughly at ankle height to a full adult. As are the vast majority of vehicle exhausts. Any toddler capable of walking is going to have it's face well above that exhaust.
"My car exhaust is roughly at ankle height to a full adult. As are the vast majority of vehicle exhausts. Any toddler capable of walking is going to have it's face well above that exhaust."
They also come out hot so tend to rise...right to the height of a child's face, which is pretty damn common in neighborhood streets. Heck, in crowded city streets, enough hot exhaust allows it to get up to the height of an adult human's face. Thus the frequent complaints of smog.
right.... It rises, but ONLY to the height of a childs face. No more... Let's ignore the general turbulence in the wake of a car then or general wind and air movement. Nope, stays right at that height.
It's fine if you want to complain about the exhaust emissions of cars, you are entirely correct that breathing smog isn't exactly a good thing for anybody. But the whole "Right into a child's face" thing is needless "think of the children" bullshit that doesn't pass the sniff test. And if we're complaining about smog, keep in mind power plants producing all that "clean" power for those batteries also produce plenty of particulate too. And that particulate also has a tendency to blow around and end up right into the face of children and adults alike.
The height of the exhaust pipe is irrelevant, most of the exhaust is gas or very fine particles and therefore is in the air in close proximity to the vehicle at ankle, child head and adult head heights.
Nimbyism has nothing to do with it. Small ICE is much more inefficient than a fossil fuel turbine. Power stations can also capture particulate emissions at an industrial scale that is impossible to cost-effectively fit onto every car.
Even if 100% of an electrical car's electricity is from fossil fuels, it is still more environmentally friendly than an ICE car.
What I'd really like to see is a bit like an odometer but sort of in reverse... a clock that (roughly - I mean you've no idea how your juice was generated) counts down carbon emissions saved (versus ICE only) over the vehicle lifetime. It's reckoned that an EV / Hybrid has higher emissions during construction, but has lower emissions over a working lifetime.
With a feed of data about the generation mix in the country of use / recharge and the latest mpg average for an ICE-only matching class of vehicle, it would be a feature that should be possible.
Certainly interesting to those who change their vehicle every 1 or 2 years - you don't know what the 2nd hand market for EVs is going to look like. If you buy one because of the eco-credentials, do you not sell it until it's gone net-neutral?
>They are emission free at the point of use
Err no, they aren't and the evidence is increasingly showing that they actually produce more non-tailpipe emissions than ICE vehicles.
>You know how ICE cars pump out noxious gas at approximately the height of a child's face?
Think of the children!
One of the (slightly) surprising research findings is how a 2~3-foot high hedge between the carriageway and the pavement can significantly improve air quality on the pavement for pedestrians.
Err no, they aren't and the evidence is increasingly showing that they actually produce more non-tailpipe emissions than ICE vehicles.
Err yes, I clearly used the words “EV engines don’t do that”. Exhaust emissions come from the tailpipes of ICE engines but not EV ones. Did you not know that? “non-tailpipe emissions” are an irrelevance to my comment.
The argument about non tailpipe emissions is to do with extra torque and tyre wear. Fixable.
Brake dust can actually be less where regenerative brakes slow the vehicles without pad on disk friction.
Correct, but programming in bad habits is the start of a very slippery slope, particularly at the moment where there appears to be absolutely no culpability against the people producing the vehicles.
This just shows why the law has to catch up quickly in the area of responsibility. The companies behind this have to be both accountable and be prosecuted.
If there are "X" number of accidents caused by software then increases consequences up to directors being imprisoned, just like poor drivers.
The problem with that argument is that the unpredictable humans are supposed to share the roads with the supposedly near-perfect self-driving cars (which aren't, not by a long-shot). Obviously, things will go wrong ... and because there are more variables involved when you introduce something new, there is automatically more that will go wrong.
> Thankfully, most humans can detect very, very slight movement in their peripheral vision, making your point rather pointless in this context.
As a motorcyclist, I can tell you this detection is not massively reliable in the context of actual road scenarios.
i.e. they may *detect* the movement, but then instantly forget they detected it after looking the other way, before pulling out and... 'sorry, I didn't see you'
It's also a known issue that humans are not as good at judging speed and distance of a single approaching light vs multiple lights.
For all the issues with 'self driving' systems - and there are plenty - this is one area that a computer could easily beat a human at, because it won't 'forget' it just noticed an object approaching, and it can look in both directions at once.
"instantly forget they detected it after looking the other way"
Or passing it, in the case of cyclists - hence the tendency to cut in once the cyclist is behind the b pillar. It's blindingly obvious if you ever get a chance to ride a tandem in traffic; tandems are so unusual that people stare, consciously think about you, etc, and as a result don't cut you up. Oh, and even black cab drivers let you in, because they want to have a good stare at you.
>As a motorcyclist, I can tell you this detection is not massively reliable in the context of actual road scenarios.
Thank you. I have been riding motorcycles for 57 years (is it really that long????) and I'm only too aware of the "I didn't see him" excuse because its not an excuse, its reality. There is a big difference between seeing and perception which is made worse by a motorcycle's small frontal area making depth perception tricky (drivers may actually see you but are prone to get your speed and distance wrong).
This informs my car driving as well. One of the problems humans have that Tesla doesn't is that they exercise judgment. Sometimes this is to the good and gives a human an edge over a machine -- they'll know that such and such a stretch of road has hazards or they can interpret other visual or aural clues as to what's going on around them. Other times -- and all too often -- they'll use their experience to know that they can do such-and-such because there's never a problem. Until there is and there's an accident. The Tesla, being a machine, doesn't exercise judgment, anticipation or insider knowledge -- it will be both a very good and a very stupid driver, possibly the very best provisional license holder that's never passed a driving test.
Alex, I;m a biker too ... and what you say is absolutely true. Most humans have not been properly trained to drive their cars. That doesn't alter the fact that these pseudo-autonomous vehicles don't belong on the street with human drivers.
Yes, a computer COULD beat a human. But they don't. Not yet, anyway ... and possibly never will. But until they do, this kind of thing should not be allowed on the road.
> But until they do, this kind of thing should not be allowed on the road.
Agreed!
I also think we're looking at the problem (human drivers) the wrong way - by trying to replicate human drivers on an individual level.
Sure, at some point software will be clever enough to better human drivers. But before then, as that may a good while away, we should utilise the other power of computers we don't have - networks.
Motorways/highways and cars being networked together so they don't have to look for other cars because they *know* where they are, seems a much lower hanging fruit than 'full self driving'.
You get on the motorway and the car syncs to the 'grid' and autopilot takes over - all cars can accelerate and decelerate simultaneously and agree on lane changes etc.
Though there is the obvious problem that it wouldn't be 'all cars' until it is all cars, but it still seems like a worthy intermediate step
But as you say, you'll need an intermediary step to the intermediary step: the ability to detect and describe those cars incapable of joining the mesh. There is also the risk of the network going down or being jammed or sabotaged, in which case you'll need the fallback methods anyway. I can just picture pea-soup fog at the same time as the network goes down. Look up "1990 Interstate 75 fog disaster" for a picture of just how bad it can get, and this is before modern traffic densities and habits.
I agree ... but I see your Tennessee fog and raise you a California dust storm. Eyeball the 1991 Interstate 5 dust storm. To say nothing of common Winter driving conditions over most of the United States.
"and this is before modern traffic densities and habits."
I question this ... From my perspective, today's driving densities and habits have not changed appreciably since (roughly) the mid 1980s, when we finally came out of the so-called "energy crisis of the '70s".
Your "intermediary step" isn't going to happen until you remove the automobile from the hands of individual drivers. And THAT isnl't going to happen as long as there are family heirloom '60s and'70s cars in garages across the United States. Any politician who even suggests banning classic cars from the roads will probably be tarred & feathered and run out of town on the rail. And they know it, too. There are far too many folks, of all political, religious, ethnic and etc. stripes who are into classic cars to run that kind of risk with a political career. The installed base is really that large.
How large? By some estimates, there are some 50,000,000 vehicles on US roads that are over 40 years old. These aren't old junkers, these are carefully maintained family heirlooms, licensed and insured to be driven. And they ARE driven, daily, both for utility and for fun. Outlawing all these vehicles would alienate a LOT of voters.
Manually driven over-the-road vehicles will be with us for at least another century, and very probably much longer.
Perfection is not the target - getting at least as good as the average driver is, and frankly that's a pretty low bar.
Emissions from an EV are way lower than from an ICE, and are remote from population.
Two major benefits - even if we burn oil in a power station that's still more efficient than petrol in a car at point of use, but not all grid power is coal generated, not by a long shot.
"Thee (sic) is no such thing as renewable energy, entropy says no"
That's just being obtuse about context. Yes, what we call 'renewable' isn't really renewable or infinite in literal, physics terms, but we can count on a predictable and constant supply of 'renewables' for the next billion years or so.
Then come up with a better name that describes it properly. Calling it "renewable" is a blatant lie. Or fuzzy thinking or outright ignorance, depending on who is using the term. Regardless, it does not endear itself to the literal, scientific set.
Thee typoes in mine were because the new pup in the house was insisting on helping. My sincere apologies for any inconvenience they caused you. Beer?
"the computer cannot necessarily understand what that object is, why it is there, or what it is doing. It certainly cannot accurately infer what the object is about to do next."
I've seen a LOT of humans in charge of large chunks of moving metal who have similar issues (or take the point of view that they are more important than everything else around them)
One of the more important things about self-driving vehicles is that it sets a minimum skill level which humans should be able to attain before being issued with a license
My opinion for several years has been that as soon as computers are shown to be better/safer than humans, insurance actuaries will start forcing the issue by way of premiums - and if government-issued licenses are low quality they're likely to start insisting on higher level testing to qualify for lower premiums when manually controlling the vehicle
Now try this. Computers are driving, computers are better than humans, nobody is paying for insurance anymore (what for? I'm not driving). Source of revenue is gone.
However, insurance companies will enforce premiums on human drivers while their number decreases, just to extract additional revenue.
This is actually happening with EV where authorities are exempting them of certain taxes and subsidize electricity to encourage adoption. As the number of EV is increasing, they've start losing some of the revenue.
According to some videos on YouTube, that minimum skill level you mention is sometimes so low that humans would never be able to achieve it. I loved the one with the driverless Waymo that got stuck in traffic and then tried to run away from its support crew.
"I don't understand the hostility towards Teslas by some contributors to this site."
IMO most of the hostility is directed at Tesla as a company for their blatant lies & marketing strategy.
The idea of a car with all of the features of a Tesla appeals to me a great deal but with a huge caveat! The technology should be set up in such a way that, if the driver does not respond to a potential problem in time, the software will do it for you. It should also be dialled down so some features are disabled/enabled as I prefer, lane assist on narrow roads as an example.
It should not be marketed as "Auto-pilot" or "Full Self Driving" no matter how much Elon winks at the camera and says how the driver must touch the steering wheel & the fine print includes "Not actually a self driving car".
Any world in which "Do not dry your pet in this product" has to be put into the instructions for a microwave oven is not ready for a car to be marketed as "Self Driving".
"The technology should be set up in such a way that, if the driver does not respond to a potential problem in time, the software will do it for you. It should also be dialled down so some features are disabled/enabled as I prefer, lane assist on narrow roads as an example."
From my perspective, if you can't drive ... DON'T!
"From my perspective, if you can't drive ... DON'T!"
The trouble is, from many other people's perspectives, it's not a matter of do or don't. It's do or starve. Dying in a crash would likely be preferable to people like them because they lack any kind of alternative (and no, they can't really afford or have access to anything else).
a width restriction that's been in the news a fair amount recently. It eats cars. Frequently. And sometimes quite messily.
Opinion is divided over this road feature. There are those who say that the drivers that crashed can't drive. There are those who say that the width restriction is too intolerant of position and speed (in both directions, too fast and too slow).
So this reply is to say that your use of the word "can't" indicates sloppy thinking. Do you mean those without a valid UK driving license? Do you mean those "lacking" in skill and if this is the case how do you assess what is a lack of skill? Do you apply a test of reasonableness here? In which case it all becomes very subjective.
I suppose the question in the context of this article is, "Has a Tesla in auto-pilot mode ever fallen foul of this width restriction?"
"There are those who say that the width restriction is too intolerant of position and speed (in both directions, too fast and too slow)."
If it's the one I've seen videos from recently, it might be observation bias - I don't know how frequently people hit width restrictions in general, but they're always badly scarred, and I saw one recently that had been hit hard enough the post was about 20 degrees off vertical.
The standard of driving in the UK is pretty near the top of the list globally, and it's still shockingly poor.
If it is this one:
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/12/woodmere-avenue-britains-infamous-width.html
Then this last article contains a clue:
Neil Greig of road safety charity IAM RoadSmart dubbed the width restriction “not fit for purpose”. He added:“The lack of distinctive markings on the [first left] post and the slight curve of the pavement, along with the dropped kerb as you approach the width restrictions, allows you to position onto the pavement (without realising it) which is all making a confusing situation worse.”
When lots of people make the same mistake, it isn't always because they're idiots: sometimes there are external factors that come into play. Much like 'dark patterns' nudge you into particular courses of actions, poor road markings, confusingly placed street furniture, and proximity to a busy junction can all provide confusion and distractions that make it more likely for people to make mistakes. Aeronautical safety recognised this a long time ago, and tries to reduce the cognitive processing required to make the correct decision in stressful situations: people are fallible and have well-known limited capabilities. I suspect there is one or several factors that conspire to make this specific width restriction more likely to trip people up than others,
NN
From my perspective, human drivers are occasionally bad. They get punished by the laws of the land, or killed by the laws of physics.
The prospect of being killed by a "full self driving" car that frequently fails to achieve the level of safety as safely as a drunk BMW driver is not appealing, and should not be allowed on public roads until the thing can consistently pass a driving test.
I don't know which way to vote on this! Everything in the driving test is applicable for a self-driving vehicle but you are correct... I could pass a driving test in a blizzard or during autumn when the roads are a foot deep in leaf fall. On top of which a human driver is supposed to get better with experience whereas a self driving vehicle will perform only as good as or worse as time goes on (sensor degradation).
"The trouble is, from many other people's perspectives, it's not a matter of do or don't. It's do or starve. Dying in a crash would likely be preferable to people like them because they lack any kind of alternative (and no, they can't really afford or have access to anything else)."
That's a whole 'nuther kettle o' worms, and outside the scope of this discussion ... however, I'll point out the obvious: Not a single one of those people could afford a Tesla.
"That's a whole 'nuther kettle o' worms, and outside the scope of this discussion ... however, I'll point out the obvious: Not a single one of those people could afford a Tesla."
But it goes to the point of self-driving cars in general because of people who really shouldn't be driving but must due to circumstances. This creates the worst kinds of human drivers: ill-conditioned drivers.
I don't understand the hostility towards Teslas by some contributors to this site. We're supposed to be technical sorts so we should be able to understand both the capabilities and the limitations of this driving mode.
That's exactly why the hostility exists - we recognise the gap between reality and the BS poured over this alleged capacity by Musk, only to quickly declare it "optional" and "always under guidance by the driver" when it goes rong yet again..
It's interesting and it probably works as well as a human
.. which is about the most dangerous assertion of all. It isn't. Not by a long shot. It is nowhere near good enough, nor should it be declared as such after quickly shoving all the mishaps under the carpet. Oh, and these 360º seeing Teslas are the same under investigation for quite a few mishaps, so maybe it would be good if they focused on what was in front of them. Being able to see 360º doesn't really help if it totally misses a truck parked acrioss the motorway.
The worst part is that Musk's BS encourages complete morons to do things that no normal, capable driver would ever attempt, like playing a game (that's, shockingly, accessible to a driver while the vehicle is driving) or rigging the system so they can go and do something else instead of maintaining situal awareness like they should. On that topic, I also take issue with the myth that a driver can somehow magically take over when the car totally unexpectedly decides it can't hack it anymore - situational awareness takes time to build and needs to be maintained. A driver playing games doesn't do that, as anyone who has ever tried to quickly read an email on a mobile while driving canb testify.
Oh, and last but not least, Musk never asked anyone their permission to make them part of a beta test where errors could lead to injury or even death on account of doing this with vehicles that weigh around 2 tonnes or more and can go from zero to a definity-capable-of-killing-people 60mph in six seconds, steered by morons who think the automatic driving has arrived because Musk tells them so.
I don't understand the hostility towards Teslas by some contributors to this site.
Tesla sell something called "Full Self Driving", which only gets you the occasional ability to detect traffic lights. That's like calling a slice of toast a "Full English Breakfast".
Bunch of con merchants => hostility
"Sure, some people are clutching their pearls about the lawbreakers who roll through stop signs."
Last time I checked, "stop" had a very simple meaning in law.
Complaining about people breaking the law is considered "clutching at pearls" these days?
I believe the word we're looking for here is "entitled".
You agreed to abide by the rules of the road when you signed for your license.
If the law is more commonly broken than complied with, then it suggests it's a really bad law.
The actual wtf at the root of this story is that the US doesn't use give-way lines. It's complete stop or nothing, whether or not a complete stop is necessary.
Over here, stop signs are only used where e.g. sightlines are obscured and a complete stop is necessary, so people comply with the rare few they come across.
> If the law is more commonly broken than complied with, then it suggests it's a really bad law.
The application of the law can be faulty. While in a high-traffic area a "Stop" should be scrupulously respected, it's less true on some country road where you only see a car every couple minutes, and view is unobstructed to both sides: It's clear in this case the "Stop" sign is only there for legal responsibility reasons (so you can't sue them if you have a problem).
Now that does not mean taking the law into your own hands and/or deciding which parts should apply to you, it only means softening the rough edges - when it doesn't harm anybody and won't put anybody in danger.
FYI I'm a biker, so I'm painfully aware of the necessity of respecting road rules, because it won't help me any to know I was right if I end up in a wheelchair or a box. If something goes wrong, it's me who'll get smeared all over the crash barrier, not the guy inside the tank-like SUV.
"If the law is more commonly broken than complied with, then it suggests it's a really bad law."
That is an entirely different kettle o' worms. If you (that's the royal "you") don't like a law, or laws, there are mechanisms to change it or them.
"the US doesn't use give-way lines."
Absolutely incorrect.
Last time I checked, "stop" had a very simple meaning in law.
The word "stop" appears seven times in the contents page of the Road Traffic Act alone. Which one did you check and what definition did you find?
You agreed to abide by the rules of the road when you signed for your license.
No I didn't. Because (a) I didn't sign for my licence and (b) we aren't bound only by laws we sign up for, whatever the sovereign citizens say.
Same goes for the Official Secrets Act: we're all bound by it; signing it only confirms that we have seen the text.
IFF Tesla's sensors are up to the task, rolling stops aren't a big deal.
It is.
Drivers may decide to ignore the law, but companies making cars, certainly pretend-automatic ones, should not because then it soon becomes a question of where you want to draw the line. What's next to ignore? Pesky rules about having to wear a seatbelt? Hey, not fitting them will save soem more money! Speed limits? Pah.
No, no, no. If you want the laws changed, you follow the process for it. No exceptions, even if you're willing to pay $5k for someone to stop reporting on Twitter where your private jet is.
I'm thinking of situations like when you're queued up waiting for a break in a long line of traffic to which the rules require you to give way. Humans eventually get pushy and barge in/through but slavish following the law is sometimes going to mean sitting there for hours, potentially creating a massive jam. If we do manage a transition to fully automatic driving, the (long) period with both humans and computers at the wheel is going to be very ... interesting.
You'll rarely ever see a stop sign in most of the world, and if you do, it's there for a reason. But in California, every intersection seems to have one. Actually stopping would drive you nuts, so no one does. Tesla is just recognizing the reality of the situation, but of course you're not allowed to put it on writing.
But, as every other poster in this thread has pointed out, it is important that self-driving cars must behave *differently* than all other drivers on the road.
Because if 'self-driving' cars behaved like all other drivers, we wouldn't have unexpected behaviour.
And everybody knows, it's the unexpected behaviour of other drivers that keeps you alert and aware while driving.
"I live and drive in the UK and I cannot think or recall a place where there is a stop sign equivalent to the ones in the US. Or even a stop sign at all."
Oh, bullshit. Here's one. Took me well under a minute a minute to find. Want me to dig up a couple thousand more?
There's another use I've just remembered.
It's on level crossings and is usually accompanied by a plate stating the class of vehicle that is required to stop (clear of the crossing) and the driver must use the wayside phone to get permission to proceed from the railway signaller.
I *think* there are also similar ones on a couple of very narrow, very bendy roads in the Lake District or in Scotland, though they may be on private land. I've vaguely remembering something about quarrying. So it could also be in Wales.
ooh, please, can you?
Meanwhile, I can drive from Scotland to Southampton without seeing one, I can drive around any of three cities near me without seeing one, I literally don't know where the nearest one to me is because I see them so rarely.
In San Francisco I had to stop 14 times in 800m. No other traffic.
There's one in my town. It's there because a cycle lane crosses the junction. It is barely ever obeyed, although when we had COVID marshals there to stop people using the road, it was very, very much obeyed! These guys had body cams, a button to leave a digital marker on the recording and an attitude.
As someone else who lives and drives in the UK, I can well understand why the previous comment was made, because stop signs genuinely aren't commonplace here, and it'd be quite easy for many drivers to have genuinely never encountered one whilst driving.
And even for those of us who *have* seen them, we may not be able to remember where they were - I sure as hell can't recall any places which have them, despite knowing for certain that they exist, so in that context I could also have written a response worded identically to that of the previous commenter - note that they're not claiming such signs don't exist *at all* in the UK, merely that they couldn't think/recall of any places which had them...
I have to agree, I know of no stop signs where I regularly drive. Hundreds of roundabouts and traffic lights (too many traffic lights!), but no stop signs.
The only ones I know of around here are out in the sticks, where it's single lane roads with high hedges either side. There is almost no visibility when pulling out of a junction, so they often have stop signs. None in the towns / city where I regularly drive*.
*I'm sure there are some around on the housing estates or on some odd, tight little junction. But none where I drive.
I suppose the question in the context of this article is, "Has a Tesla in auto-pilot mode ever fallen foul of this width restriction?"
It’s not bullshit you jerk. I said I don’t know of one or see them and it’s true. They just don’t exist in my life, because they are rare.
I also live in the UK, and we do have them. We even adopted the red hexagonal shape from the US in the mid 70s (was a red circle, with a triangle inside, with STOP in text before then).
They are not very common in the UK compared to Give Way, but they are used in places where for example visibility out of a junction is restricted, and so stopping first is safer.
Quote "The only signs more urgent than stops are round (infinite-sided) signs, usually for things like railroad crossings."
Interesting, as the UK is basically the opposite. Circular signs tend to be more informational, for things like speed limits, restrictions such as no left/right turn, i.e. important, but not quite life threatening!
For warnings, we have triangles, so junction ahead, school crossings, low bridge, railway crossings etc. These might be supplemented by a small rectangular sign below, with other info, such as distance to the junction/crossing etc. Which being the UK, could be in Yards or meters :-)
All-Way Stops (this includes three-way stops at a T intersection) can occur where two roads of equal footing (like two neighborhood streets) intersect, so neither one can claim primacy, and there's been a demonstrated risk of accidents (either auto/auto or auto/ped) requiring a forced stop. It may also be necessary if there's no room for something like a roundabout (say a city intersection that's already fully built-up) or where pedestrian traffic is being encouraged (like a downtown intersection--cars must also yield to pedestrians at a stop sign).
The equivalent in the UK would be unmarked junctions, typically in older housing areas, so a 3 way or 4 way junction of residential streets, and no road markings, so no clear right of way.
Were very common years back, not as common now, but there are still a few near to where I live in the midlands, such as estates of older 1920/30s terrace houses.
In the UK, there is no defined priority at an unmarked junction excepting (now) pedestrians (including mobility scooters), cyclists and horse riders.
I'd debate the sense of horse rider and indeed the cyclist one, as it really depends on if, by allowing them priority as a driver, it would mean I'll then have to overtake them in a second or two. I'd rate overtaking from behind as more dangerous than waiting in someone's sight for a second or two.
I mean, if I was going straight ahead on a bike and arrived at a junction at the same time as a car to my left, turning left onto the road I intended to go onto, I'd slow down or even stop to let them get ahead, depending on if it was a busy road or not. They might just need a second or two longer to assess the state of the junction - being faster they'll not have had the opportunity to gather information that I would have on my slower bicycle, and if they take that second, decide it's clear except for me that they'll have to give priority to... well, I'd rather have them gone than meet them again.
Here in the UK they are a thing but as other have pointed out we have 'give way' signs to re state the usual rule of the road or where priority is not assumed in the usual way. 'STOP' signs are for when an additional hazard is present, pulling out against a blind bend or perhaps a screening structure. The intent is to enforce a stop and look-wait-proceed, presumably because of some increased risk of incident etc.
Quite sensible really, sounds like the US is going overboard with them a tad.
Rolling stops in California have always been illegal. Very easy way of getting a moving violation ticket outside the big cites where the local small town police cruisers have little to do. Like in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos etc.
Back in the 1990's the PD in Palo Alto were notorious for rolling stop traps just off Page Mill, Oregon Expressway etc. Less so now but its second nature for locals to be extra careful in cities like Palo Alto and Los Altos etc at four way stops.
The rules are pretty simple in cities like SF. At four way stops you slow down and roll to the line at walking pace. If there is no vehicles or pedestrians at the intersection you roll at a walking pace across the line checking for idiot cross traffic who might not stop. Usually cyclists. Then you accelerate if safe. Otherwise its a complete stop. Always. If any other traffic or pedestrians around. Because if anything goes wrong and you did not stop then you are automatically at fault. Even if the other party caused the accident.
This becomes second nature and is far less disruptive than all the bloody roundabout and speed bumps in the UK. Four way stops are a great way of keeping urban traffic speeds low. Try getting above 25mph while driving in the Sunset or Noe Valley in SF. Or 20 mph for that matter.
Thats the law. And as for Tesla. They have a very long history of irresponsible (criminal) behavior resulting in the deaths of almost a dozen people by this stage. Quite apart form all their other "interesting" business practices. Sooner or later Musk will be hauled up in court. If not for negligent manslaughter then for his other "activities"..
"Try getting above 25mph while driving in the Sunset or Noe Valley in SF. Or 20 mph for that matter."
Nah. The only reason I drive in any of those is when I take Sunset[0] to avoid 19th between the Bridge and 280 ... Otherwise I avoid San Francisco entirely. Hell-hole of a city.
[0] The lights are timed for approximately 37 MPH, the speed limit is 35. Go figure.
@jake
Sunset Blvd was limit 35mph / sync 38mph (+10%) for several decades but has not been synced since the lights were added at the High School by Pacheco about 20 years ago. Which broke the every two block pattern. Very easy to get on the sync 20 plus years ago. Almost impossible to traverse without at least one light (and usually two) now.
The sync 38 mph was due to the original configuration of the traffic lights when they were added in the 1960's. To keep the speed below 40 mph. It was basically a raceway through the sand dunes when built in the 1930's.
Oak / Fell was the same getting on / off the Central Freeway before they pulled down the on-ramp. Synced for 35mph. When traffic was light then all lights from 19'th to the freeway were synced so a clear run at 35mph. Now its huge mess ruined by the 1%'ers. The cyclists. A parking lot like Army St.
So not a local then.
Unless you live in the nicer bits of Marin or in Los Altos or Los Gatos I'll take the "hellhole" of SF over the soul destroying nowhere that is the rest of the Bay Area. Basically Bakersfield by the Bay. With hills. But none of the Central Valley small-town neighborliness.
There is a very good reason by its called The City. And SJ and Oakland most definitely are not.
Surely a "rolling stop" is more environmentally friendly...as the vehicle is still moving.
Whereas, coming to a complete stop, even for a few seconds, means you lose the kinetic energy you had when last moving and you now have to use more energy to get moving again.
I know that in theory US-based "STOP" signs should be used on more (potentially) dangerous junctions...but it does seem that in many cases they have been put there to impede traffic, rather than keep it moving.
(We have a similar problem in the UK, with "timed" traffic light signals that stop traffic, even if no other traffic is crossing the junction...this is especially more wasteful, in the early hours, when few vehicles are travelling on local roads.... ).
>We have a similar problem in the UK, with "timed" traffic light signals that stop traffic, even if no other traffic is crossing the junction...this is especially more wasteful.
Last year a new coffee outlet opened in a new yet to be let warehouse/business estate, the entrance to which is controlled by traffic lights.
To get into the estate requires a change of lights on a busy A road, to get out also requires a change of lights. At the rate the drive thru operates most changes of lights are for a single vehicle either entering or exiting the estate. Typically, for each change of lights, 6 vehicles are waiting to go straight through (ie. remain on the main road)...
Traffic lights here (California) are trending towards being more sensible ... during commute hours (school run, whatever), they move traffic in the direction of the commute at the expense of slowing traffic going other places just a bit. During times of lighter traffic and on weekends, they work on a more as needed basis, sometimes erroneously called "Sunday lights".
Frankly, I wish we had more roundabouts in logical places. We're getting there, if slowly, but as with people all over the world we are in the throws of an epidemic called NIH.
Agreed on the roundabouts/rotaries. However, I regularly see people come to a full stop before entering them...
It seems that not many people in the US know the traffic laws - police officers included. Worse, they often differ significantly between states, and sometimes between localities.
4-way stops are likely mostly due to ego.
Nobody is willing to decide which route is busier, so they stop them all instead of having a through and yield, or through and stop direction.
It's irrelevant though. If the AI won't obey traffic laws, then it's not allowed on the road.
Rolling stops (or even proceeding without slowing) often makes a lot of sense and in many cases can increase safety.
In those cases there ought to be a yield-sign rather than a stop-sign. However, I am not at all confident that US-drivers can handle them.
For the record, I hold a driver's license from a (northwestern) European country as well as a US license. Decades experience driving on both continents.
"We have a similar problem in the UK, with "timed" traffic light signals that stop traffic, even if no other traffic is crossing the junction...this is especially more wasteful, in the early hours, when few vehicles are travelling on local roads...."
This drives me nuts. The city where I live had a traffic light installing spree a few years back. It was like the council dropped them from the sky and installed them wherever they landed. They also put traffic lights around just about every medium to large roundabout in the city. These are all 24 hours a day too. I get that a particular junction on a roundabout may not be able to move during rush hour as cars will always be coming from the right, but 99% of the time, you sit at the lights staring at a completely empty roundabout.
I don't understand the aversion to part-time lights. I get that people may be initially confused as to when the lights are / are not operating, but the funny thing is, when the lights on the main roundabout near me are faulty, it seems to flow perfectly fine at any time of day.
The whole point of a roundabout is normally that it doesn't NEED traffic lights. And if it does that it's often better to just put in a traditional 4-way with traffic lights (Unless you really need 6 connections at awkward angles or something which is rare).
In NL atleast they use flashing Amber lights to indicate a traffic light is "out of use"/inactive. Perfectly clear that it means "use your bloody eyes" and hard to ignore.
We (UK) have flashing amber as well, which basically means stop if not clear, go if clear (i.e. give way).
But they only seem to use them on pedestrian crossings, and quite rarely as well, and it only comes on after a red. (So you're only giving way to pedestrians, not cars).
But we do have a lot of lights that have sensors, that detects cars on approach. So if it's quiet, and your approaching a red light, even if its only just changed to red, it will switch back to green for you if there is no one else coming at the lights from a different entry point. (same sensors also pick up queues, so they can adjust timings at peak times, that's the theory anyway!).
Agreed, but legally the color is "yellow", not "amber" (per the RVV 1990).
By the way, traffics lights in the Netherlands do not feature an "orange" light - legally it's "yellow".
Curiously, in the USA people call this middle light "yellow" when in fact most traffic codes refer to it as "amber".
They also put traffic lights around just about every medium to large roundabout in the city.
I drove from Carlisle to Edinburgh today. 50% of the northbound traffic on the M74 turns off for Edinburgh and immediately meets a roundabout with four separate sets of lights on it. Even at quite times the congestion is dreadful, and it's all completely unnecessary. It's roundabout!
If you're rolling, you aint stopped. Really, how much of an inconvenience is it? Especially if you're driving an automatic or electric car, just ease off the brake.
There are a fair few STOP signs in the UK but mainly outside of urban areas. They tend to be placed on a minor road when crossing a bigger one, when the driver really should be concentrating on looking at what's coming rather than inching the vehicle forward for a quick getaway - junction on a bend, high speed traffic, complex junction etc.
Also anyone who has driven or navigated a road rally in the UK will know all give ways and stops are to be properly stopped at, unless in quiet zones and specified otherwise by the organizers, and may be observed. Doesn't really slow anyone down.
"There are a fair few STOP signs in the UK but mainly outside of urban areas."
Do you guys ignore stop signs so often you no longer even realize they are there? I've spent almost 20% of my life in the British Isles, and I remember plenty of stop signs, all over the place.
'Give way' signs don't mean stop. Actual stop signs are rare. Not vanishingly so, but not common.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306388/traffic-signs-england-research.pdf
According to that, something like 150k give way signs of various types - I've added together the two lines referring to them, but that may be double-counting 30k or so - and 4k stop signs.
That's about the ratio I had guessed before googling.
Jake: What areas did you drive around?
STOP signs seem to differ a lot by area. (I used to be an engineer, covered a lot of millage back then!)
As an example, my home town has lots of them, but they also have a lot of old roads just outside town, where small narrow roads, often joining 60mph roads (national speed limit roads), and have obstructions to sight, such as walls, hedges, blind corners etc. So STOP rather than GIVE WAY, in lots of places.
Where I live now (different county), they are extremely rare, simply because very few roads round here have the same issues. Also if the road is wide enough, my local council seems to favour mini roundabouts, rather than STOP signs, we have them all over the place.
For ref, local signage is managed by local government, there is no central mandate stating what signs need to go where other than some guidance. So yo can also get one council simply favouring, or disliking STOP signs.
So a junction in one place, has GIVE WAY, but a near identical junction a few miles away, post a county or town/city border, so managed by a different council, has a STOP instead!
I expect that there are rules about when a STOP sign is needed, but they are probably a bit loose.
I only know of one on the roads that I use regularly: it's at a four way junction and it's only on the approach that has the most traffic. The other 3 approaches are all GIVE WAY. I think that it is because one approach is a small residential road with much less traffic than the other three and the other two of the better used approaches have good visibility of all the other approaches whereas the one with the STOP sign has NO visibility of the residential road.
Actually, now I think about it, I have never used that residential road so it also may have a stop sign.
But this whole discussion reminds me of my driving instructor (50 years ago) frequently taking me on a route used by the testers because it included an approach to a junction with a STOP sign. If you didn't actually come to a stop, apply the handbrake, and get into neutral before ostentatiously checking for traffic before moving on then you would fail the test.
"Jake: What areas did you drive around?"
Pretty much all of the UK (including NI and all of the larger outlying islands, and quite a few of the smaller ones[0]). It's not like it's a big place, and I was a tourist quite interested in pre-Roman history (actually, I'm easily distracted by anything newly discovered from the middle ages back). A tourist with a work visa, but a tourist nonetheless.
[0] Obviously I walked or biked on many of the islands, sans car or motorcycle.
Any half-decent self-driving car probably doesn't even need to slow to a crawl, let alone stop, much of the time.
Being able to "see" in all directions simultaneously and without missing a shitload of information between frames, completely solves the problem that stop junctions exist to address.
The only reason for stopping (oops, sorry) Teslas doing this is; "It is the rules and is must be done. Ugh, hit with rock".
> Being able to "see" in all directions simultaneously and without missing a shitload of information between frames
Tesla's autopilot has repeatedly proven not to be able to spot large vehicles right in front of it, so your argument doesn't really apply here,
Tesla's autopilot is more like the grandpa with limited situation awareness who should indeed take twice the time before deciding anything. We'll talk again when your type of omniscient vehicle AI becomes available. (Or maybe not, I'm not sure I'll live that long...)
(Didn't downvote you though.)
When I'm anonymous President of the World, self driving cars will be legally required to come with the 'Autoticket' (TM, Pat Pending...) module. When the car detects that it has contravened a road traffic rule the module will automatically generate a fixed penalty notice. for the relevant car company. To be fair to the company automatic disqualification of the relevant model car won't happen at 12 points, we will be generous and allow maybe a few hundred. But when the points are exceeded the company gets disqualified and all of that model gets parked for a year. Accidents that meet a 'dangerous driving' standard, like crashing in to a stationary truck without braking or running over a cyclist pushing their bike across the road, would justify larger penalties.
I can't see why an autopilot shouldn't be held to the same standard as a driver - if you would ban a human from driving for doing it, ban the car manufacturer if their machine does it.
But that's the thing. In England & Wales at least it has recently been announced that if a car is self driving then the manufacturer will be considered liable and the responsibility of the "driver" will be much lower. If the features are "driver assist" only then the driver will be liable.
I think we can all see what's going to happen with this can't we. Nobody will want to sell self driving cars here. Even cars that are sold as self driving in other territories as self driving will be sold as driver assist in this country.
On a related note I have been concerned by reports from the US that Tesla expect to be able to carry out their own investigation into collisions and just tell the police their results. This wouldn't wash over here. The police will expect all logs to be handed over as evidence complete and untampered.
I still think there will be some wiggle room for the driver where driver assist functions are enabled, but only if the driver can prove they were unable to override the driver assist feature. I can actually see this happening. Imagine you are driving along with driver assist enabled and a car stops in front of you. You attempt to brake or otherwise take evasive action and the "driver assist" decides it's safe to proceed at 70mph and ignores your input. This is where I think fly by wire features are risky. Direct mechanical control of safety critical features is absolutely necessary.
When are all the regulatory officials going to learn one simple trick, which they not only CAN do, but have every obligation to do, that will shut Musk off at the pass and remove his ability to endanger the driving public:
"Musk: pay VERY close attention. You will clear with us ANY of your ideas for what you think is the ideal automobile BEFORE you implement them and offer them for sale. You MAY NOT build and offer for sale an automobile which has any capabilities beyond those available on a top-of-the-line 2015 Toyota Camry, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SAY YOU CAN.".
Llivia is a tiny bit of Spain that's surounded by France. It's connected to Spain proper by a Spanish main road, the N154, which crosses the French N20 just after crossing the border. It used to be the case that both roads claimed priority, with predictable consequences.
There's a bridge now.
-A.
A recent twitter post - Watch a Tesla with FSD try to drive through a moving train.