Tesla Thread

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, tater said:

A few things.

One, I don't disagree that it's not ready for primetime on full self driving (FSD). Two, that crash was 2018, which is a huge amount of training data ago, and Tesla have not themselves released FSD as acceptable for unsupervised use, it's like cruise control, you are supposed to pay attention (I for one think they should use the interior camera to monitor driver attention to keep even autopilot on).

Three, and related to what I posted WRT police cars, I think that it IS ready for that given the current state of affairs with some modification for that specific task. I mean that autopilot and/or current FSD being on for a few seconds here and there is certainly better than NO self driving and NO driver attention, which is what happens when someone (a police officer in this case) is looking at a screen, and the vehicle is moving.

So I'm not saying we can have FSD police cars with no intervention by the driver (I think we agree here), but I am saying that the police are pretty much required to look at screens while driving more than the ZERO PERCENT OF THE TIME they should be looking at a screen (I NEVER take my phone out of my pocket while driving, and as far as I am concerned, touching a phone while driving should have your DL instantly revoked. The second time it happens, for life). So it would have to be a hybrid for of autopilot/FSD for police vehicles. Something where it turns on automatically if the driver glances at the computer, then turns off when his attention goes back to driving. My idea here is that during those moments of required inattention, the car has some driving being done, vs no driving being done, if that makes sense.

So cop needs to pull something up on the screen, and his Tesla patrol car sees his inattention (use existing selfie cam in car to see where driver gaze is), and the car maintains current route/lane keeping for him while he is paying attention to screen. Nothing more.

In this case I would ban Tesla model 3. Never tried one but the user interface of that thing thing looks horrible. You do not want touch screens in an car. Yes it might be an option but not the default one. Design the user interface for someone blind because you have to have the eyes on the road. Unless it has an serious head up display its another fail, minimizing the distance from the information to the road is critical. And why don't the passenger has his own screen. He might be watching an movie, playing an game or act as an map reader sending data to the driver display. 

If you have two officers in an car, the non driver will do all of the tasks. Being stationary let you trace all the passing cars. rather than the few around you, you might want one spotter and one or more interceptor downrange on an highway as you can not simply wave cars down. 
You have the fun setting there and speed check generate an traffic jam as all leave rubber then they spot it. 
And using your phone then you parking break is on is safe as in an static queue. 

[tater]

26 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

In this case I would ban Tesla model 3. Never tried one but the user interface of that thing thing looks horrible. You do not want touch screens in an car. Yes it might be an option but not the default one. Design the user interface for someone blind because you have to have the eyes on the road. Unless it has an serious head up display its another fail, minimizing the distance from the information to the road is critical. And why don't the passenger has his own screen. He might be watching an movie, playing an game or act as an map reader sending data to the driver display. 

There's also a screen in the place the usual speedometer, etc would be, and you don't need to touch the screen to tun on autopilot, etc, that's all on the wheel, basically (or the signal stems).

You can't have a movie running on the screen if the car is in drive, only parked.

26 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

If you have two officers in an car, the non driver will do all of the tasks. Being stationary let you trace all the passing cars. rather than the few around you, you might want one spotter and one or more interceptor downrange on an highway as you can not simply wave cars down. 
You have the fun setting there and speed check generate an traffic jam as all leave rubber then they spot it. 
And using your phone then you parking break is on is safe as in an static queue. 

Very few PDs in the US have 2 officers in a car I think, our PD certainly doesn't.

The point here is that autopilot—follow current road, avoid obstacles and obey speed/traffic laws—is perfect for police. If paying attention (you're supposed to on autopilot at all times!), then it's no different than driving, the cop is paying attention, the car is moving, and the cop overrides at will. If the officer has to look at screen for a second, then the car is at least being actively controlled, and has a non-zero chance of avoiding hazards. If the driver is looking at a screen while moving (happens all the time, look at police in cars) without autopilot, and a hazard appears at that exact moment, there is an accident without self driving, and maybe none with it.

[StrandedonEarth]

That's the thing I don't like about the current self-driving features in cars, not just Teslas: It's difficult for a human to stay focussed on the road when not actively driving, nearing impossible the longer one is on the road. Heck, humans have a hard enough staying focused on the road after a long highway cruise even when actively driving

[tater]

45 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

That's the thing I don't like about the current self-driving features in cars, not just Teslas: It's difficult for a human to stay focussed on the road when not actively driving, nearing impossible the longer one is on the road. Heck, humans have a hard enough staying focused on the road after a long highway cruise even when actively driving

Yeah, as people see it working perfectly in the 90-whatever % of cases where it works fine, they assume it's perfect, when in fact what keeps us from all getting killed is how well humans deal with those relatively rare edge cases (that none the less happen pretty often since there's so much driving going on).

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Still suggesting the rear-mounted, water-cooled, and shielded Maxim's machine-gun in the police car.
Imagine how much impressive would be "please, get your car to the right!"

 

[Wjolcz]

23 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

That's the thing I don't like about the current self-driving features in cars, not just Teslas: It's difficult for a human to stay focussed on the road when not actively driving, nearing impossible the longer one is on the road. Heck, humans have a hard enough staying focused on the road after a long highway cruise even when actively driving

I get this point of view (my anti-tech friend has a similar view on the issue; he thinks autopilots take the 'fun' out of driving a car yourself) but nowadays people don't need self-driving features to become distracted/sleepy while driving. As I said a page or two ago: Recently, I almost got ran over by a guy in a Mercedes looking at his phone. And it's not like he was driving fast or anything, he just decided it was perfectly fine to take his eyes off the road while rolling through a busy crossroads (I was pretty sure he would stop but he obviously didn't). That wouldn't have happened if the car had some form of a basic autopilot/autobrake feature. IMO car autopilots can only make a positive impact (pun sort of intended). People are not perfect and have terrible reaction time compared to a computer.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Wjolcz

[tater]

14 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

I get this point of view (my anti-tech friend has a similar view on the issue; he thinks autopilots take the 'fun' out of driving a car yourself) but nowadays people don't need self-driving features to become distracted/sleepy while driving. As I said a page or two ago: Recently, I almost got ran over by a guy in a Mercedes looking at his phone. And it's not like he was driving fast or anything, he just decided it was perfectly fine to take his eyes off the road while rolling through a busy crossroads (I was pretty sure he would stop but he obviously didn't). That wouldn't have happened if the car had some form of a basic autopilot/autobrake feature. IMO car autopilots can only make a positive impact (pun sort of intended). People are not perfect and have terrible reaction time compared to a computer.

My wife got rear-ended by a kid on his phone. She was parked at a red light, and he was going down a road with a 55mph limit (Paseo del Norte)... He looked up in time to lock the brakes up on his Mitsubishi. He left ~300ft of skid marks, THEN hit her. Her car (BMW 335xi Coupe) ended up in the middle of the intersection (totaled). His car was also totaled, but he ended up in the oncoming traffic lane on the other side of the intersection (a couple hundred feet from the point of impact). Conservatively he was doing 80-90 when he started braking. A slightly later reaction? I would have gotten a call to see my wife in the hospital as a patient (instead of picking her up at the crash scene and taking her to the hospital to operate on someone else, lol). A little longer time to react or worse brakes? OMI.

Self driving, even as an obligatory assist can't come soon enough, IMHO.

[mikegarrison]

On 2/26/2020 at 4:30 PM, tater said:

If paying attention (you're supposed to on autopilot at all times!), then it's no different than driving, the cop is paying attention, the car is moving, and the cop overrides at will. If the officer has to look at screen for a second, then the car is at least being actively controlled, and has a non-zero chance of avoiding hazards.

If you are looking at the screen, you are not paying attention. This applies to police officers just as much as it does other drivers. I think you are totally wrong here -- if the system is good enough for police to use while on their computer, then it's good enough for anyone to use while on their computer. But it's not. Yet.

Semi-autonomous vehicles are entering a very dangerous zone where they are not reliable enough for fully-autonomous use but they easily tempt people into treating them like they are. This has been an increasingly dire problem in airplanes for decades -- the more the computer does for the pilot, the less the pilot is ready and able to do. Pilots have mandatory training, co-pilots are required, and air traffic is controlled externally to help avoid any incidents. Cars have none of that (even the training -- what's required for driver training in the US is a bad joke).

[tater]

1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:

If you are looking at the screen, you are not paying attention. This applies to police officers just as much as it does other drivers. I think you are totally wrong here -- if the system is good enough for police to use while on their computer, then it's good enough for anyone to use while on their computer. But it's not. Yet.

It's not good enough yet. Good enough to "be one the computer" the way I am right now, communicating with you, means full self driving, get rid of the steering wheel and pedals driving.

The goal here (IMO) is to be better than nothing for a few seconds here and there.

So I think you are totally wrong. Right now, the cops use those same computers already, then the car is moving, and no one, and nothing is doing the driving. I am arguing that an imperfect system that on a scale of self driving from 0 to 100 might only be a 1 is still less dangerous than what we currently see all the time, which is police cars that are "self driving" with a capability on that scale of "0."

When the cop is looking at the screen—which he already does like 1000 times a day—the car can do things like brake if a kid or car runs in front. I'm only asking that it be measurably better than an uncontrolled car careening down the road.

 

1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:

Semi-autonomous vehicles are entering a very dangerous zone where they are not reliable enough for fully-autonomous use but they easily tempt people into treating them like they are. This has been an increasingly dire problem in airplanes for decades -- the more the computer does for the pilot, the less the pilot is ready and able to do. Pilots have mandatory training, co-pilots are required, and air traffic is controlled externally to help avoid any incidents. Cars have none of that (even the training -- what's required for driver training in the US is a bad joke).

This I think is 100% true. People are amazingly skilled at driving when you think about it, even lousy drivers. The self-driving systems are not close yet I think.

Comma ai (openpilot) has the right idea for their version of "autopilot" (like the Tesla version only supposed to be used on highways). Theirs watches the driver, and even turns the thing off if it sees a cell phone in the frame (or the eyes not looking at the road). Autopilot properly used is basically like cruise control, but with lane-keeping. We tested it on a regular road for kicks and it still worked, but that's not what it's for, and it doesn't navigate, it just stays on the road, and stops for obstacles, etc. FSD on a Tesla? I'll believe it when I see it (the Cybertruck I ordered doesn't have it turned on, I'll pay more later if it ever becomes an actual thing—on the plus side mine has such a high order number it will be a long time before I have to decide to actually buy it or get my $100 back, lol).

The downside of my suggestion is that the cops could decide to look more at the screen than they already do. That is not my intent, my intent is only for the car to remain under (computer) control during the few seconds the officer looks away from the road.

[StrandedonEarth]

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB). In fact, the local provincial auto insurance monopoly, ICBC, offers a discount for vehicles with AEB. IMO, it should be mandated as standard equipment for all vehicles going forward. Even if a particular manufacturer's system is inferior, it's better than nothing.

I don't think any FSD system (capable of rendering pedals and steering wheels redundant) can be operational without the infrastructure for V2X connectivity (vehicle to other vehicles as well as traffic monitoring and control) in place. I'd love to get into a discussion of how I think traffic control should be overhauled, which is long overdue, but that would require politics.

But it certainly seems Tesla missed the boat by not monitoring for driver attentiveness. Odd that Autopilot allows cruise control to be set significantly higher than the posted speed limit.

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Right now, the cops use those same computers already, then the car is moving, and no one, and nothing is doing the driving.

This is not allowed by the policy of many police departments. For good reason.

Yes, I'm sure officers do it, just like other drivers check their phone when they are driving despite it being a) illegal, and b) a bad idea. But I'm pretty sure most departments have policies that say officers are not supposed to be typing into their laptops while driving except in extremely limited circumstances (if even at all).

Adding "autopilot" *might* be better, but on the other hand if it encouraged them to be doing paperwork or checking their email or whatever while driving, it might also be worse. Just like it was worse for this guy in Mountain View.

Edited February 28, 2020 by mikegarrison

[tater]

33 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

But it certainly seems Tesla missed the boat by not monitoring for driver attentiveness. Odd that Autopilot allows cruise control to be set significantly higher than the posted speed limit.

I'd never use any autopilot if it had to be set to the speed limit. Not ever. Traffic never moves that slowly in my experience. the highway speed limit is 75 here, and the ambient traffic moves at closer to 85.

Just now, mikegarrison said:

This is not allowed by the policy of many police departments. For good reason.

Yes, I'm sure officers do it, just like other drivers check their phone when they are driving despite it being a) illegal, and b) a bad idea. But I'm pretty sure most departments have policies that say officers are not supposed to be typing into their laptops while driving except in extremely limited circumstances (if even at all).

Yeah, probably correct. People are not supposed to speed, either. I see cops looking at the computer screen pretty much every time I am next to a police car, so I'd say that while likely not allowed, compliance is very nearly zero.

[StrandedonEarth]

25 minutes ago, tater said:

I'd never use any autopilot if it had to be set to the speed limit. Not ever. Traffic never moves that slowly in my experience. the highway speed limit is 75 here, and the ambient traffic moves at closer to 85.

Well, I did say significantly, and I don’t consider 85 in a 75 to be significantly over.   But I would consider 20 over to be significant, which is common in my area. Worse when people blow a red light at over 70kph in a 50kph zone, which regularly happens 50 feet from my driveway. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by StrandedonEarth

[mikegarrison]

9 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, I did say significantly, and I don’t consider 85 in a 75 to be significantly over.   But I would consider 20 over to be significant, which is common in my area. Worse when people blow a red light at over 70kph in a 50kph zone, which regularly happens 50 feet from my driveway. 

20 kph is only 12 mph.

Around here, you can put your cruise control at 70 mph and drive right past the police all day long in a 60 mph zone. They won't bother you unless you are going faster than 70.

[StrandedonEarth]

11 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

20 kph is only 12 mph.

Around here, you can put your cruise control at 70 mph and drive right past the police all day long in a 60 mph zone. They won't bother you unless you are going faster than 70.

Yes, but it’s a bigger fraction of 50 than 75.   And I did say “over 70”

It’s an easy stretch of road to get speeding on, but I limit myself to 70. And I slow down before the light and make every effort not to run red lights. Because that’s when collisions happen, often severe. 

On the highway, 120 in a 100 kph zone is generally accepted by police, but people go blowing by at 140 or more quite often, traffic permitting. 

[tater]

They need to change the laws, frankly. They could require cars to report their speeds, for example. Exceed speed, ticket gets sent via email. Years ago I thought that the police should either do that on limited access toll roads (get ticket with time stamp, drive X miles, pay at booth) since they knew exactly what your average speed was. If they didn;t enforce that 100% (since they have the time stamp and distance data) then they should stop pretending they care, and go to a subjective "reckless driving" standard. But that's a digression.
 

[mikegarrison]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

They need to change the laws, frankly. They could require cars to report their speeds, for example. Exceed speed, ticket gets sent via email. Years ago I thought that the police should either do that on limited access toll roads (get ticket with time stamp, drive X miles, pay at booth) since they knew exactly what your average speed was. If they didn;t enforce that 100% (since they have the time stamp and distance data) then they should stop pretending they care, and go to a subjective "reckless driving" standard. But that's a digression.
 

I seem to recall some states did try to give people fines for going from point A to point B on a controlled access toll road in too short of a time. But people just pulled in to those island rest stops they have and ate lunch or whatever.

Coming from out west, I was unfamiliar with the "turnpike" style highway when I first moved to Massachusetts. Out here a "rest area" is a parking lot next to some picnic tables and a restroom. There it was a place where you had a restaurant (some family-friendly chain like HoJo) and a gas station, all with exclusive access to the turnpike traffic because people didn't want to go through the toll booths more than they had to. (This was before RFID "easy pass" tolls.)

Edited February 28, 2020 by mikegarrison

[steve_v]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

They need to change the laws, frankly. They could require cars to report their speeds, for example.

My vehicle won't be reporting anything to anyone, ever. If the fuzz want to know how fast I'm driving, they can do the work to find out the old fashioned way.
I will categorically never own anything that tracks and reports my whereabouts or activities, least of all a car.

My current vehicle has zero computers in it, so good luck reporting anything. Hell, it doesn't even have crumple zones or power steering - just a nice solid ladder chassis and tubular steel bullbars. It'll be staying that way too.
The flip side is that I won't be falling asleep with the cruise-control I don't have on, I won't be looking at my phone because driving requires full concentration and both hands, and I won't be distracted by passengers because it's too loud in the cab to hear them anyway.
A nice set of drum brakes is also a lot more effective at enforcing safe speeds and following distances than any cop will ever be.

If you ask me, complacency causes far more traffic accidents than does speeding - cars that are so easy to drive that the operator doesn't have to pay attention result in operators not paying attention.
Teslas on autopilot don't crash because the autopilot is bad, they crash because the autopilot is there, and it allows the driver to take their attention away from the activity of driving.

[mikegarrison]

11 minutes ago, steve_v said:

My current vehicle has zero computers in it

Even my bicycles have computers. I mean, yeah, I get it -- sort of. I'm in no hurry to install a "track my driving" box just to let my insurance company decide if they think I'm driving safely. Never mind my 35-year record of having only three chargeable (my fault) claims. (One of those was a parking lot minor collision and another happened on a race track in the rain.) But wow, I like anti-lock brakes. And computer-controlled variable valve timing. And all the other goodies that computers can do to make your car go fast and stop fast and burn less fuel doing it.

Edited February 28, 2020 by mikegarrison

[tater]

I wasn't saying I want that sort of tracking, I'm saying that such tracking would now be trivial to require, and if the government doesn't do it, they are not doing, well, due diligence on enforcing speed limits. It's sort of like (IMO) having to defend copyrights or lose them. If the gov could enforce speed 100% of the time, easily (easier than current enforcement with no risk to police with stops), and they chose not to, they are explicitly saying they don't care. Most cars speed much of the time, and they could be ticketed easily 100% of the time, but aren't. The police are training us to speed, then randomly (or not randomly) punishing a tiny fraction of speeders.

[mikegarrison]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I wasn't saying I want that sort of tracking, I'm saying that such tracking would now be trivial to require, and if the government doesn't do it, they are not doing, well, due diligence on enforcing speed limits. It's sort of like (IMO) having to defend copyrights or lose them. If the gov could enforce speed 100% of the time, easily (easier than current enforcement with no risk to police with stops), and they chose not to, they are explicitly saying they don't care. Most cars speed much of the time, and they could be ticketed easily 100% of the time, but aren't. The police are training us to speed, then randomly (or not randomly) punishing a tiny fraction of speeders.

We're talking about democratic societies here, right? "The government" is us. We're collectively saying, "hey Big Bro, don't track my speed please." 

[steve_v]

36 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I like anti-lock brakes. And computer-controlled variable valve timing. And all the other goodies that computers can do to make your car go fast and stop fast and burn less fuel doing it.

I like them too, until they develop faults that cost more to fix than a new vehicle. Which they do, and fairly regularly at that. I can fix pretty much any system in my vehicle with a screwdriver, a piece of fencing wire and a hoseclamp... and it's still running nearly sixty years after it was manufactured. Show me a modern car that can do that.

I'd actually be pretty okay with computerisation of vehicles if those computers were readily available, hackable, user serviceable items. Expensive diagnostic gear and dealer-only service, no thanks.

I don't need my vehicle to second-guess me (and on ABS, I have been able to cadence-brake effectively for many years), talk back to or beep incessantly at me, refuse to start if I'm not in the seat with my foot on the clutch, lock itself unexpectedly, or draw so much parasitic power that the battery runs flat in a week of not being used. I don't need to be reminded to put on a seatbelt, notified that it's icy out, or hassled constantly if I'm 5km/h over the speed limit either.
It's called using your good judgement and driving to the conditions, and if you don't use it you will loose it. Many people apparently already have.

As for speed, why do you need to go fast when you're not on a racetrack?

 

24 minutes ago, tater said:

such tracking would now be trivial to require

And equally trivial to disable, which I would do in a heartbeat were I foolish enough to buy a vehicle with it installed.

 

Bonus guessing game: What's british, drives all four wheels, constantly leaks oil out and water in, and goes nearly anywhere you point it?

Edited February 28, 2020 by steve_v

[mikegarrison]

In 20 years I have never had a vehicle experience an anti-lock brake problem. As a reason for not wanting them, that's pretty far down on the list.

I did have a variable valve timing failure once. It wasn't even in my S2000, it was in my Element.

I don't drive all that fast when I'm not on a racetrack. (Some might say I don't really drive fast when I am on a racetrack.) Here's me about 10 years ago at Sears Point. I made my fastest lap of the day, and then the next lap was I so keen on trying to catch the car in front of me that I just got a little too much of the curb on Turn 2.

I actually haven't done much tracking in the last decade. Other stuff to do, you know?

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by mikegarrison

[steve_v]

55 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

In 20 years I have never had a vehicle experience an anti-lock brake problem.

IME, wheel-speed sensors and deep mud don't mix. At all. But maybe that's just me.
Then again I've only ever owned one vehicle with them (and am actively trying to be rid of it), so my sample size is limited and mostly comprised of other people's cars.

Over here if a safety feature is fitted it must work, and an ABS problem is the only reason I have a nasty (but fast) little pile of crap languishing in my driveway right now. The manual states "the vehicle will continue to operate with conventional servo-assisted braking", but apparently that's not good enough for the powers that be.

Solution: A vehicle that doesn't even have rear seatbelts, let alone ABS, because that which was never fitted from factory cannot fail a WOF.

I have had many instances of "you're a sparky, can you disable this stupid ABS light so I can pass inspection", so presumably other people must have ABS failures too.

I avoid computers-on-wheels myself, partly because I'm cheap and more because I like being able to maintain my own stuff, but I've worked other people's modern vehicles a great many times - and it's almost always electronics or sensor problems.

Lambda sensor failures running into multiple-hundreds to replace, crank position sensors that randomly die and leave you immobilised, throttle position and MAF sensors causing random and dangerous stalls, mystery "check engine" alerts that even dealers can't find a cause for, vehicles that die whenever you hit a puddle with the offside front wheel or won't start because the seatbelt sensor is full of muck, the list goes on.
I'll take points, carburettors and manual windows over that hassle any day. Dog forbid a Tesla with all the unnecessary electronic japery that entails.

Landy: No spark? Fit spare coil from built-in spares compartment, connect 3 wires, be rolling in five.
Tesla: Sad Face? Contact your dealership. Prepare walking boots because snowflake in hell's chance of figuring out what's wrong with it.

True story: Sections of leather hats make serviceable fuel-pump diaphragms (or gaskets), and can be installed on the side of the road in under 20 minutes. Does not excuse forgetting to pack spare fuel pump.

True story #2: If your lucas (prince of darkness) ignition switch completely disintegrates or the wiring loom self-immolates, the vehicle can be started and driven with the aid of a large screwdriver, a few exciting sparks, and a 400mm length of random wire. If your random wire is too short, just move the coil closer to the battery and secure with shoelaces.

 

Left your headlights on? Flat battery? Nobody around to jump you? No problem, just use the factory starting handle.

Edited February 28, 2020 by steve_v

[tater]

9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

We're talking about democratic societies here, right? "The government" is us. We're collectively saying, "hey Big Bro, don't track my speed please." 

I'm saying set better speed limits

If people are comfortable driving 90, set that as the max speed, or have an unlimited lane on the left—certainly out here in the West

On topic, that would kill EV range.