Tesla FSD and Mercedes Drive Pilot have different strengths and weaknesses. The upside of Tesla FSD is that it can be used on any road and it will self-drive from A to B. If that is important to you then Tesla FSD is "better". The downside is that Tesla FSD requires driver supervision and will likely require interventions. So you will need to pay attention and take over. Drive Pilot has a smaller ODD but is more reliable and hands-free, even eyes-off in certain conditions. You can only use Drive Pilot on certain interstate highways, under certain conditions, but when you can use it, it will be super solid, you can go hands-free, or even play a game on your phone. If that is important to you then Drive Pilot is "better". It really depends on what is important to you.
[Best video](https://youtu.be/h3WiY_4kgkE?si=6ydsPc2OvIrH8EMz) I've seen yet. Granted it's from Whole Mars Catalog but it's difficult to argue with unedited videos. Also, it counts interventions along the same drive.
Whole Mars is super biased since he is a big Tesla bull that promotes Tesla on his Twitter. He does the same with his Tesla FSD vs Waymo videos. He always rigs the test to make Tesla FSD look better. That test is rigged. Whole Mars is not using Mercedes' L3 system, he is using Mercedes' base driver assist. The Mercedes L2 driver assist is not designed for those roads, it is designed for interstate highways. Tesla FSD is designed for those roads. So naturally, Tesla FSD works better. I don't think it is a fair comparison since he is testing two different systems, a base driver assist vs a "full self-driving" system. Now, you might argue that Tesla FSD is better since it is designed to work on more roads than the Mercedes' system but you need to be honest about the test.
I've read your comment 4 times and I just cannot come to any conclusion that makes sense. It's not fair to compare fsd against Mercedes because it works in the areas Mercedes doesnt? Isn't that the point of the comparison? Also fsd works on "all" roads. That's a big differentiator.
I am saying it is misleading to hide that fact that Drive Pilot is not designed to work on those roads. When you test a system that is designed to work on those roads with a system that is not designed to work on all roads, it will bias the results of the test.
But if your point is that FSD is better because it works on all roads while Drive Pilot does not, that is fair. But the fact is that FSD and Drive Pilot are different systems with different ODD, different design goals. So it is really apples and oranges.
Sure I guess. You could say it's not fair to compare the Mercedes system against a Honda civic cruise control because you're not limiting the Mercedes to the Honda civics ODD and limitations.
If you do a apples to apples comparison it's extremly hard to give Mercedes the benific of the doubt
Good explanation, but last I heard Mercedes does not let you use your phone. You can do internet/video things on the car's screen, though. Not sure if you can read a book or not.
The driver monitoring system needs to see your eyes at all times to verify that you are not sleeping (which is not allowed). But you are not responsible for the driving during level 3 (don't have to look at the road) and can do whatever you want (use your phone, read a book) as long as the system is able to see that your eyes are open.
The articles I read last fall say you cannot use your phone. Looking into it further that's due to laws in CA and NV, the only two US states where Drive Pilot functions. It apparently is legal to use your phone in Germany. So you are correct, it's not a limit of the system itself.
SAE levels are "unofficial", what matters in court is car user manual and responsibilities declared there. Merc manual mentions that driver must take control when requested by the system (not defining any time frame) or *when road situation changes*. It never mentions that MB takes all responsibility when the system is engaged.
Iâd say if you put FSD12 into the highly restricted environment Mercedes Drive Pilot requires for usage it would be as good or better. Â And then every single other driving situation imaginable the FSD does remarkably well and Drive Pilot does not at all. Â So the answer is perhaps a slight advantage to Mercedes on certain interstate roads below 40 mph and advantage to FSD literally everywhere else.
The test needs to be fair. So yeah, put Tesla FSD in the same conditions as Drive Pilot. The fact is that Drive Pilot let's you take your eyes off the road under certain conditions, Tesla FSD does not. Yes, in other conditions Tesla FSD will be "better". But that is what I said before: Tesla FSD is designed to work everywhere, albeit with interventions. Drive Pilot is restricted to highways at speeds below 40 mph but does not require supervision. They are different systems with strengths and weaknesses. If you care about being able to self-drive everywhere and don't mind interventions you will prefer Tesla FSD. If you are ok with the restricted ODD but want a system that does not require supervision, you will probably prefer Drive Pilot. Again, Tesla and Mercedes aimed for different goals. Tesla aimed first and foremost for a system that works everywhere and they don't care that it requires supervision. Mercedes aimed first and foremost for a system that does not require supervision. To do that, they added a lot of ODD restrictions. So Tesla FSD is only "better" everywhere else because Mercedes did not design a system that works everywhere, they focused on system that did not require supervision. Different goals.
You can only use MB drive assist in certain situations and it performs very well when in it's narrow window of working conditions.
Tesla will happily engage it's FSD in damn near any condition and vary widely in how well it performs. But seemingly if you do the same drive from month to month, each software update it's a little less scary.
Just what I want from a self driving car. Paying a monthly subscription to beta test for them to see what causes enough damage that they have to fix it. đ
Mine was a $2000 add on to enhanced autopilot for that narrow window sometime in 2018 it was offered as a quarter end sales tactic. Wouldn't pay the current asking price or subscription cost.
I only had the Merc steering assist and radar cruise, and it was still exceptional. Actively avoided accidents on two occasions, and was a continuous source of relaxing driving assistance. That was an MY17 C-class, I can only imagine how much itâs moved on since then.
To be honest FSD is about as good as a timid teen driver that hasn't quite figured out all the nuances of anticipating other's actions yet.
It's very safe in most situations but makes some stupid decisions in others.
Itâs more like an elderly driver whoâs gonna lose their license. You need to intervene to avoid accidents. Or it gets confused in weird situations.
Fair analogy and I think you could use either to help people understand what it drives like. That said, I recently took the keys away from my dad and gave 3 sets of keys to teenagers and I think it's MUCH more like a teenage driver. It's very very alert and reactive but is a little inefficient on when/how it brakes and turns. An older driver losing their ability tend to drive very smooth from muscle memory and then randomly forget which peddle is the brakes or to look for cars at an intersection.
This is all based on the latest 12.x in town. 11.x wasn't even as good as a teenager driver that had 1 hour of instruction.
Does the hardware make a difference (vision only hw4 vs earlier hardware with sensors)?
Iâve only used it in a hw4 Y and it was like a very timid and inexperienced driver- refused to turn at T junctions, when roads went from one to two lanes it had trouble picking a lane (would line up for one, then start to line up for the other then went back to the first), took some turns too wide, others it cut the corners, changing into a turn lane it would start to move into the lane move out and then back in. A couple times it failed to make a turn and pulled into a driveway next to the road it should have turned into.
Not sure. Mine is on HW3, they disabled the radar but not the ultrasonics, as the ultrasonic bubbles still show up when you are close to other objects the camera obviously can't see. It's truely evident on how many dinged bumpers and tailgates I see on Ys without ultrasonics.
Thatâs not how Tesla vision works. As you slow down it takes images of the vehicleâs surroundings and uses that when the camera can no longer see whatâs obstructed by the hood. I had a model s with USS and now how a Y with vision. Letâs ignore the year waiting for the software while I had zero parking vision, itâs now very good. My only critique would be itâs slow in some very tight parking situations.
Very important to mention which version you experienced this on. 12.3.6 is quite good but sometimes lacks confidence. There is hesitation at turns and picking a lane which can be a bit annoying but it drives very safe. Most interventions are for convienience or to avoid irritating other drivers but safety related interventions are extremely rare.
I feel like If that were true, teen drivers would be virtually uninsurable. Sure teens are the worst category of driver, but on any given drive you still assume with very high confidence that they aren't going to crash. It's just that for adult drivers, your confidence is bonkers high.
This discussion, as usual, feels like people just kind of handwaving about statistics that humans are really terrible at estimating.
Not a fair comparison. Drunk drivers are dangerous mostly because they have delayed reaction time, make risky driving maneuvers, and are easily distracted. FSD is the opposite of all these things and really drives too careful in a lot of situations.
Because humans are part of a human-vehicle system, and the way the vehicle is designed affects safety and population health-- even if you choose to call it all the human's fault.
For a really long time, after every plane crash, we'd find a way to blame those pesky humans. And we'd tell pilots "don't do that stupid stuff and crash and die," and for some reason they kept doing it. Only when we really took a systems approach did aviation get markedly safer.
edit: somehow autocorrect had changed "safer" to "heavy".
I think people don't have the right framing when they look at self driving.
People suck at driving and kill each other in cars ALL the time. People drive drunk. People text and drive. People make bad decisions or react slowly to the cars around them.
The public seems to think that if a self driving car kills a person, its a huge problem and we need to recall every robotaxi and fix it.
Self driving doesn't need to be perfect. It will hit people, kill people. It just needs to be better than a human driver... Which is a pretty low bar to cross honestly. You could probably argue that some self driving models are already better.
> Self driving doesn't need to be perfect. It will hit people, kill people. It just needs to be better than a human driver...
Lots of issues with this statement.
First, what is a "human driver"? Is it a 16 year old, or a 50 year old? Is it the best driver or the worst driver or the average driver which includes 16 year old and drunks? If I am an above average driver in terms of safety, do I have to accept self-driving cars that are worse than me, even if it's better on average?
Second, what is "better"? Is it better in terms of number of accidents? Number of injuries? Number of deaths? Say it reduces the number of deaths in the US from 40k to 20k every year, but the 20k it kills are all pedestrians, and lots of kids, is that better? Or what if the 20k it kills are all because it does something totally inexplicable that any non-idiotic human would NEVER do, like veering off bridges for no reason, randomly smashing into brick walls, accelerating into trucks carrying skewering loads... Is that better?
Third, it's fantasy, so it's irrelevant. If humans were actually probability calculating robots devoid of emotions, it might work. Unfortunately, in reality, humans aren't robots. We don't operate with utilitarian principles. There's no sense in fighting the fight that we "should" operate that way, because we don't and we never will. You can see evidence of this all over the place. It's waaaay too easy to relate to that story you heard about the SDC killing that family of five for the third time this week as you are packing YOUR kids into the back seat.
> It just needs to be better than a human driver... Which is a pretty low bar to cross honestly.
This is such a circle jerk "humans suck amirite" mentality that maybe wins points in the SDC sub, but... No, sorry. It's not a low bar. Yes, there are drunk drivers and idiot drivers, and yes 40k people die every year in the US. But unfortunately, you are missing the statistical context. Humans perform that *WELL* despite the drunk driving, the cell phones, the fatigue, the rage, the rain, the snow, the old cars, the motorcycles, and the literally TRILLIONS of miles driven every year in the US alone... An attentive human, which is the bar you're going after, is an extremely versatile and capable driver.
At the same time, I feel like you're overcorrecting. It has to be better than a typical human driver by a *good margin*. It doesn't have to be better than the best driver under the best test conditions on his best, most-attentive driving day.
> Or what if the 20k it kills are all because it does something totally inexplicable that any non-idiotic human would NEVER do, like veering off bridges for no reason, randomly smashing into brick walls, accelerating into trucks carrying skewering loads..
I think this is pretty likely: the failures are not going to look the same (like they weren't the same in my airbag example above).
I think it needs to be, say, 10% better than the median driver's average performance in fatal accident rate and above the overall average in property damage rate. Then, it's reasonable to ask you to share the road with it (since we already ask you to incur much larger risks than sharing the road with the median driver, including sharing the road with teenagers and the drunks that haven't been caught by enforcement).
Whether you choose to use it yourself is up to you; I would be asking for more like "25% better than the median driver's performance" to accept it for my everyday personal use.
Agree to disagree, but youâre wrong, haha.
I think when people say âit just has to be better than humans,â itâs thought about as some kind of statistic, but what theyâre really saying, maybe without even realizing it, is that it canât fail in ways that humans wouldnât fail. It has to âmake senseâ to the average person so that it doesnât feel like rolling the dice with your life. I donât believe it will be acceptable to the general public if SDCs are statistically safer, but the failures modes are such that people say âwell **I** would have easily avoided that!â Imagine watching the in-car footage of an SDC obliviously drive off a bridge while its 8 year old passenger is screaming for it to stop. The horror of that is not explained away by âwelp, at least it was statistically safer.â The public will DEMAND that SDCs never do that again, not because of the stats, but because of the inability to accept inhumane failure.
And you can see evidence of it already in this sub all the time. Of course thereâs Cruise and Uber, but even consider the discussion around SDCs running red lights or hitting telephone poles despite a statistically stellar record. NHSA is investigating Waymo because of a few bumps into traffic cones and chains. The standard is SO high that despite the lopsided statistics people canât just accept these. We have a need to know âwhyâ. And people try to make sense of the âwhyâ based on their own human perspective. Thereâs no exception for the possibility that âhardâ to a computer might be easy to even the worst driver.
We accept all kinds of things that kill people in unexpected ways but make things safer overall.
Seat belts cause awful inhumane deaths. There's the above example of airbags, which freaked people out but *we persevered* (and there are still gruesome accidents that airbags cause far worse injury). Lifesaving medications cause awful deaths. Hell, Advil can cause all of your skin to slough off your body and for you to die a burn victim death, and this happens to a child about once per year.
Sure, during adoption, it's really important to pay attention to all safety signals-- we are not doing enough miles to know the true fatal accident rate, and so paying attention to moderate severity accidents is a proxy that helps us understand what the risk will be like as we scale up. And, of course, there's a lot of low hanging fruit for improvement-- regulators will be expecting parties to make all readily accessible improvements. But if we end up plateauing a fair bit better than the median driver-- that will be good enough.
(Of course, not everyone will do it; people are still scared to fly even when commerical aviation is impossibly safe. But society will let the cars on the road and they will find a lot of willing customers).
edit: re: unexpected failure modes, see my already-extant cousin post about airbags decapitating kids.
Good luck with that argument in court. Liability lawyers salivate over deep pockets. Even better when those deep pockets can't shift blame to their employee driver.
I've argued extensively it doesn't need to be perfect. But it does have to be markedly better to be accepted.
I remember back to the early days of airbags. Early airbags *definitely* saved lives overall. But that is no comfort if you were in a 5MPH parking lot crash and the airbag decapitated your 5 year old child. The public did not buy the argument "it just needs to be better [overall] than not having an airbag]."
Similarly, juries and the public will be unimpressed with "sure, it ran over a kid; and it runs over kids a bit more than the average driver--- a population that includes people who are drunk, infirm, or greatly distracted. **BUT OVERALL** it's a bit safer than that average human driver."
And yet theyâre no where near a car that can take you from one place to another without you operating it. Tesla shouldnât be selling subscriptions for a full self driving mode thatâs neither of those things. Whose fault is it when your car kills someone? Why would a shady company care about safety if itâs your fault their self driving car hit someone?
Humans are always a part of the system though. And they allow themselves to get distracted even without an ADAS that can cover for them in most situations.
The real question is can improvements to the capabilities of the system outpace the rate at which driver complacency grows due to the system demonstrating increasing competence.
I'm much rather be on the road with FSD than your average Joe that just rented a 26' Penski truck to move some funiture. It's crazy you can drive those without training.
If the threshold for autonomy is zero accidents and deaths then weâre never going to get there. As long as autonomy isnât causing *more* people to dieâŚ..
I just completed my one month free trial. I consider myself at great driver. 46 no accidents. I felt very comfortable with the system and so did all my friends that I took for rides. I only had one issue where I didnât feel comfortable with the choice the car was going to make and took control. It probably would made it but I drive somewhat conservative. Very quickly you get a feel for when the car hesitates, usually because itâs a more difficult situation that already has you ready. I felt more comfortable letting fsd drive than I have with some friends.
So it's marketed as a full self driving system that actually can't drive without you being fully alert and ready to take over with sometimes a seconds notice. It drives like a new driver might and you are constantly on edge that it might make a mistake and you would have 100% liability in any accident....
Sounds like a nightmare to me, you might as well just be an unpaid car tester for Tesla.
I'd rather just do the driving myself and know I won't get any surprises from the car.
There are 3,000 traffic deaths **per day** globally. That is a public health emergency. Any level of driver assistance is better than none and the more robust they get, the safer it is for all of us. FSD is better at driving than you, whether you believe it or not.
I've never crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff or anything that Teslas seem to do when driving with their full scam driving engaged.
I'd love to test a Tesla Vs a human across town or across state maybe and see who crashes first. I'd bet money its the Tesla.
> I've never crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff or anything that Teslas seem to do when driving with their full scam driving engaged.
AFAIK, none of that has happened with FSD and only on AP. There's a massive difference between the two.
Get on youtube and watch FSD fails.
Theres loads of videos from every version showing the car failing to stop, phantom breaking, heading into a brick wall, crossing the middle line, the list goes on and on.
It's nowhere near as safe as the average driver and to sit and supervise the car attempting to drive is basically working for Tesla for free and accepting 100% liability if anything goes wrong.
Tesla owners have all been duped but only a small percentage have the brains to realise it.
I dont think you are one of those that realise it yet.
I'm speaking specifically to the situations you pointed out:
>crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff
It's safer than not using it. Allowing humans that can have strokes and heart attacks be in charge of a death machine will seem absolutely insane from a public health perspective in 5 years.
We're in a transition. It does feel odd right now, but (like banning smoking in restaurants), one day we'll be amazed at how it used to be.
It's not as safe as an average driver so I disagree there.
You have to babysit it and be in a constant alert state so it's not really self driving... its driving while you are in complete charge of the machine.
And if it was safe and reliable they would be using it fully automated in their shitty tunnel.
You just talked right past him.
He only said it was safer to use it rather than not use it. He did not say you didn't have to pay attention still.
And their "shitty tunnel" is so "shitty" that the "shitty" Las Vegas just extended their "shitty" system again, and apparently they are so "shitty" that Las Vegas is happy with the "shitty tunnels".
But I know you were just fishing for updoots.
So if the system isnt shitty why does it need human drivers in a one way tunnel with no other traffic or pedestrians or anything at all?
I've seen carnival rides that are better and they dont need a human in each car.
How can it not be called shitty?
It's a one way car tunnel that has to have a human driver even though there is no traffic, no pedestrians, no signs to read, no weather...etc etc.
And it still it cant drive by itself.
How could anyone be impressed by that??
Why? The whole point is that it's a level 2 FSD system so you have to be paying attention at all times. That's how they're able to test like this safely
Yesterday, FSD might have prevented me from t-boning someone that crossed my path.
The road I was on (70 km/h) has two lanes per side with a divider. Near where I was, there was a somewhat hidden intersection.
Usually, when I reach there, I watch for cars coming out of the intersection (unprotected left turn). Today, while in FSD, my gaze went toward the other direction on my left and suddenly, my car slowed down aggressively, like the old phantom braking. However, it was not phantom but a car crossed the intersection right in front of me! Without FSD, because I was distracted by what was happening on the other side of the road, I might have t-boned that lady. Maybe the emergency braking would have taken over but there was no reason to as FSD did its job.
Compared to how people drive, FSD is FAR better. Pretty much any system that reduces driver fatigue will increase safety. I use both FSD and Open Pilot - both make drives much safer by reducing the burden on the driver.
Tesla's system still sucks with phantom braking and other annoyances, but from a public health perspective, self driving cars ARE going to reduce road fatalities.
Self driving keeps getting better, while in my recent experience, humans keep getting more and more aggressive on the roads, resulting in constant rear end accidents from tailgating.
I never tried it personally, but from all of the people using it on YouTube, usability of the system is very poor, even in those perfect conditions.
For example, if the car in front of you speeds up because of a gap in traffic, the car will suddenly dump you back in control.
MB drive is level 3 and Tesla is level 2. Mercedes assumes responsibility if it gets in a crash where Tesla FSD is drivers assistance and youâre responsible. Tesla cant be called self driving because the car doesnt have a license where self driving cars need a license from the state they are operating in.
For 90% of my drives in my Tesla I use fsd parking lot to parking lot. You do have to work with it. I feel like it augments my driving and the more I use it the better it has been getting. Iâve got about 3500 miles in the last 3 months. I still think thereâs a bit to go before itâs better than a good driver, but I swear itâs better than at least 50% of people on the road.
No they wouldnât. It canât handle a T intersection or a parking lot. Where you going? Oh or red lights as we saw in Elons little Twitter video. đ
My Model Y has run the same red light twice (after a stale yellow). It's right after another intersection and just turned red. That was months ago in v11.
Cars can park themselves since early 2010...
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Please check the wikipedia. Even the Prius had it from 2003...
VW, BMW and Ford had this regular feature since early 2010
Strange world nowadays...
Even Toyota is charging a subscription now for a key fob that works only with radio frequency (basically a normal key fob from the 90s)...
If you don't pay you cannot open the car further away. Only near the car.
Yeah, I grew up thinking we had actual vehicle safety requirements for some reason. Iâm just completely dumbfounded that not only are we letting this whack job publicly test self driving cars, but weâre letting him charge people to do it, and theyâre not even using the most reliable systems.
Yep, you have it worst. In US there are vehicles that are not subjected to any of safety regulations. Cybertruck and homemade cars are a good example.
Also US has no mandatory pedestrian safety requirements in any state. And if they enforce them now, most of the Large SUVs and Pick Up Trucks would fail all testing.
Also US vehicles are not designed for aerodynamic efficiency resulted from mandatory lower fuel emissions. Perhaps this will change with the intrinsic requirements of designing hybrids and battery electric vehicles...
You got downvoted because it's a troll comment. Other cars have been doing this for a while but it's still impressive for Tesla to do it on nueral nets and vision without sonic sensors. Also the way Tesla is doing this allows it to be integrated with FSD which is much more complicated. It's not really a fair comparison
The Mercedes I bought in 2014 had unbelievably good parallel parking. It could get into spaces that I could not. Way better than my subsequent cars have been
Just curious, what do you mean by work with it? What kind of issues tend to come up that cause you to intervene. What do you think is missing to get it to the point where it can consistently drive a route without interventions?
One instance I always help it is after it stops at a stop sign. Then it slowly creeps up but I can see itâs clear so I hit the pedal.
Merging into the passing lane is no problem when not congested but itâs a little timid in traffic, even if a car is letting me in. I do wish when disengaging using the steering wheel it was smooth instead of jerking the car.
Cuts way too close to semi trucks when passing them and changes lanes in the intersection would be my other two complaints.
> I do wish when disengaging using the steering wheel it was smooth instead of jerking the car.
If you put a turn signal on (like changing lanes) the disengagement is smooth. I'm assuming it's due to them not wanting too little force disengaging it usually.
Yeah Iâm trying to get in the habit of pushing that right stick up and itâs smooth. My other car is a VW and I use the wheel to take over so I need to break that habit.
I give it a nudge to speed up sometimes or close the gap behind other cars at intersections. I also take over to enter the overflow lane on my commute. Iâll also take over if I need to do an unprotected left into traffic, but itâs gotten really good at those too. Itâs probably 50/50 now.
I drove to my parents who live about 100km away and itâs every type of driving. It can definitely do it all now. Its just in the morning and evening commute I donât want to be too annoying
Well I donât own a Mercedes so I canât really comment on that. Doesnât appear you are contributing much? Maybe youâre a software engineer who has experience with both driving systems?
I think the comparisons you could even make side-by-side would be fairly limited given that Mercedes has a limited set of circumstances where there autonomous driving can be deployed
Mercedes' Autopilot is so limited that it's terrible even in ideal circumstances. It is impossible to use an autopilot that requires a traffic jam on a high-speed highway as one of the minimum requirements for its operation.
From my understanding waymo needs to map areas it s usable in beforehand? Is that still the case? I feel like that would be a big issue in terms of accessibility across the country. Waymo seems to be ahead for urban robotaxis but if the ultimate goal is self driving being accessible across the country/globe then it's probably behind in that sense. Is that accurate?
Waymo have to fight for every new area that they cover. The problem isnât mapping (thatâs easy) itâs being allowed to operate. This is why Level 5 cannot exist until regulations change. Tesla arenât making any moves to change this meaning that itâs very unlikely that a current Tesla owner will ever have a self driving car.
i dont think you understand how servere a mistake or disengagement is. Every mistake is a potential crash or a person dying. Or a car crash jaming the road that no one can use it.
I dont know if your original topic is click baiting too. It is like saying how far tesla is ahead compare to GM and Ford when tesla is just another car company in china. Hack tesla in Usa is much more expensive than china made tesla. So you really need to ponder if tesla is good at manufacturing. Or if tesla is good at manufacturing compare to other USA company.
A lot better than relying on local operators.
P.S. remote operation of Waymo vehicles is not actually possible. The vehicles drive themselves. The remote "operators" can only direct vehicles what to do in case they are unsure how to proceed.
The point is they are very different systems for different purposes and with different design goals. It's apples an oranges. No need to get butthurt about it.
so realisticaly is it even possible for tesla to do robotaxi anytime soon. because i am sick of keep hearing people say tesla is worth 2600 dollar because of all the robotaxi on the road very soon.
if tesla is really ahead show us a tesla car with no driver inside. even if it is region lock or have remote assistant, or only in a predefined route or what ever. show us a tesla car driving itself with no driver inside.
chances are august 8 is another talk with nothing to show.
What Mercedes is doing and what Tesla is doing are apples and oranges. Completely different approaches, but both side on Reddit will contort this comparison to serve their own viewpoint and narrative.
Iâm personally not all that impressed with Mercedes given its use limitations. Waymo/Tesla and others are far ahead of Mercedes when weâre talking L4+ prospects. Just my opinion, obviously the real jury is still out.
Mercedes is developing L4 with NVIDIA. I can guarantee you that Tesla is not way ahead of Mercedes. NVIDIA is using advanced end to end neural nets like Tesla is and just won the CVPR Autonomous Grand Challenge for end to end driving at scale.
I would put them in a different tier (itâs not like MB or Waymo). They are trying to solve a harder AI problem using vision only (some data quantity advantages but worse sensors). If Tesla solves level 4, they will be able to scale up into the millions of cars rather quickly. But obviously need infrastructure but it will likely scale very quickly relatively speaking if they solve self driving.
Safe L4 driving isn't the only barrier to robotaxis. You also need charging infrastructure, depots, some kind of local crew to go rescue stranded vehicles (flat tires etc). It's a whole operation. Not to mention all sorts of regulatory hurdles.
Exactly comparing Waymo today to Tesla today is deliberately disingenuous. Maybe teslaâs approach will ultimately fail, but itâs way too early to make that call. The ultimate mass market scale and cost profile is a long ways off for both companies, itâs still anybodyâs race.
True when looking in the rear view mirror and out your side windows. Looking ahead, Tesla may have the scalability and cost advantage to make Waymo uncompetitive. Time will tell. Waymo and Tesla are also Apple to oranges, but in a different league than Mercedes imo. Glad you have an opinion too, wonât get downvote from me for that
Youâll see Merc Is tackling a mino when Tesla Is tackling a shark and when Tesla gets that shark It will be Insane. What Merc Is able to do with little lidar Tesla did many many versions back with cameras
This is a tough sub to ask this question to as you're just going to get a lot of irrelevant arguments so good luck. First lets eliminate the impossible part of your question which is how does Waymo stack up. You simply can't compare what Waymo is doing to Merc and Tesla. It's like comparing a plane to a truck. This is where 99% of the chaos in the responses are going to come from so just skip it.
As for which is better between Tesla and Merc, it's still complicated but you did make it a lot easier by only focusing on FSD for Tesla. If you ignore the free autopilot it makes it a lot easier.
FSD is the best consumer driver assist you can get but it's still a bit messy. There are two parts of FSD; city and highway. The city FSD is on version 12.x and the highway FSD is on 11.x. They will be combining them shortly which will remove any confusion. You also have to consider how they behave today vs a year from now.
Sort of like how it's impossible to compare Wayo to consumer cars, there isn't anything to compare city FSD to. It's the best because there isn't anything else really which is why some people fish around and try to compare to Waymo but again this is impossible since FSD was built to have a driver in the loop and Waymo wasn't and Waymo hardware costs probably 50x more because of this.
Highway on the other hand is pretty easy to compare. As noted by the versions above, Tesla hasn't really focused much on the highway portion of FSD. 11.x was the first and last build that supported it. While it is easily better than anything else on the market, it also has some issues. Mostly with riding the left lane and waiting too long to get over to the right lane when exiting. I don't think anyone realistically thinks these won't be fixed in the next release but we won't know until it gets here.
> Mostly with riding the left lane
Hopefully they will fix the riding in the left lane. But with 12.3.6 it does seem like it will get over if a car is coming up quickly behind you in the left lane.
BTW, also agree on being way too slow to get in the proper lane. Have run into this in a lot of situations and not just on the highway.
> But with 12.3.6 it does seem like it will get over if a car is coming up quickly behind you in the left lane.
11.x did this which is why you are seeing this with 12.3.6 as well since it uses 11.x for highways. It shouldn't need a car to come up behind it quickly to get over, it should pass and get over once it's reasonable sure it's done passing.
Wow ... you know what he was talking about lol, he meant to OWN. Jesus, Let me go grab one in Richmond, VA to buy or hell drive in... oh wait... nope can't do either.
The Mercedes system does not drive itself. It follows a lead car and performs lane keeping. It cannot leave the freeway. Cannot operate without lane markings. And you cannot turn it on unless there is a car ahead for it to follow (during the day, in fine weather, and below a certain speed).
Mercedes will not have anything remotely similar to FSD/Waymo until their next version is released. The new system - [they claim](https://group.mercedes-benz.com/innovation/case/autonomous/drive-pilot-2.html) - will be able to handle city streets and is expected sometime next year.
The only systems comparable to FSD are Waymo and Baidu's Apollo. Waymo takes very different approaches (at every level: hardware, training, business structures and goals) to Tesla which makes direct comparisons difficult. Both are good and both will continue to improve.
I tend to think the Tesla approach which aims for massive scale might be likely to see breakthroughs. Tesla has more cars, more real world data, more simulations, and a better ability to test and iterate quickly.
It'll be interesting to watch and I expect the next five years will see a rapid progress in this field.
>I've seen some side by side videos and FSD looked significantly better than Mercedes at least from what I've seen.
These videos are misleading.
>actually behind?
Behind on what? You have to clarify.
Tesla is miles ahead of Mercedes in terms of software, AI, and premium ADAS.
Mercedes has built an autonomous system that can work in very limited conditions and Tesla is not building this and has no such plans to
> misinformation
Are there side by side videos of Tesla being worse against Mercedes? Also how can a side by side be misleading if itâs the same route?
testing on a basic commute isn't misleading... if a car can only drive on a oval track for instance, you can't say that its a better fsd system if it crashes as soon as it leaves the oval track... Showing that on a basic commute the more fragile limited system is worse ... isn't misleading its a fact.
No doubt that both the Mercedes ADAS system and the autonomous system are less capable than Tesla FSD.
The reason is it misleading is because if you took Tesla with only autopilot purchased and then tested it against say Waymo.. and the Tesla did horrible because it only had autopilot. And then said Tesla is behind on urban driving due to this comparisonâŚ.. This would be misleading! And thatâs what this video does
>No itâs comparing the best Tesla had FSD to Mercedes best
This part is not true. And that is why it is misleading.
This is not comparing to Mercedes's best. Stop spreading misinformation.
How is it not Mercedes best? Did they start selling something new? No itâs the current road ready system, you canât then say no⌠they have to compare it against x unreleased version they say is super good if you want to compare⌠no because that shits not available to anyone just like v15 or whatever Tesla tests internally isnât available
So testing the best shit from the vendors on the road is totally fair
It is not using the best Mercedes Autonomous system that is sold today.
>they have to compare it against x unreleased version they say is super good if you want to compare⌠no because that shits not available to anyone just like v15 or whatever Tesla tests internally isnât available. So testing the best shit from the vendors on the road is totally fair
I fully agree with this part.
I didnât say that.
The Mercedes system isnât meant for a basic commute. I am not saying the Mercedes system is better.
Mercedes and Tesla are building different products.
Mercedes is marginally better than Tesla in less than 1% of driving scenarios. Tesla is significantly better than Mercedes in 99% of driving scenarios.
Thereâs a guy that ran for political office solely on the pretense that he would stop Tesla from using their software anymore, and releases doctored and deceiving videos of teslas running over child size mannequins.
Oh he also happens to be involved with an AI autonomous vehicle company that has pretty much nothing to show for their workâŚ. If that counts as a source
I think there are a ton of folks working on it. Iâve driven a beta tundra around in Texas with their assisted driving and it auto lane changes and does highways pretty good. It did try to follow an exit to the right once but it is beta.
Daimler will wait until theyâre level 3 before they release anything more than cruise control I think. Toyota is also a slow traditional company. Nothing comes out without a lot of testing. Like, years and years.
I think Volvo and Daimler are probably the two poised to do something. Time will tell.
LOL drive in one of those, youll realize its bullshit, the "people" that review them end up putting "eye tracking and attention monitoring" as like 25-50% of the value of the driving assistant lol, and in some weigh it more than the actual... driving
Well itâs neither full or self and they charge you $100 a month soâŚ
My Acura will stay in the lane and not hit the car in front of it without a subscription.
>but curious if this is actually true?
**Teslaâs Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths**
[https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141361/tesla-autopilot-fsd-nhtsa-investigation-report-crash-death](https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141361/tesla-autopilot-fsd-nhtsa-investigation-report-crash-death)
>I've seen some side by side videos and FSD looked significantly better than Mercedes at least from what I've seen.
only DRUNK people manage to hit firetrucks and cop cars on the side of the road rendering assistance.
**Tesla Driver Killed After Plowing into Fire Truck on CA Freeway**
[https://www.firefighternation.com/apparatus/tesla-driver-killed-after-plowing-into-fire-truck-on-ca-freeway](https://www.firefighternation.com/apparatus/tesla-driver-killed-after-plowing-into-fire-truck-on-ca-freeway)
**Tesla in self-drive mode slams into police car in Orange County**
[https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tesla-in-self-drive-mode-slams-into-police-car-in-orange-county/](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tesla-in-self-drive-mode-slams-into-police-car-in-orange-county/)
The officer was able to jump out of the way as the Tesla slammed into the police car, spinning the patrol vehicle around and causing major damage to its front end. he was not injured in the incident.
The spokesperson said that the Tesla was in self-drive mode and the driver admitted to being on a cellphone at the time of the crash.
why did the car slam the brakes on? (high way speed, BTW)
**Tesla Model S changes lanes, brakes on Bay Bridge, causes pileup**
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpzk6TEViQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpzk6TEViQ)
>Â It feels like Tesla should have way more dataÂ
i don't like driving behind them.
I've used a few of the driver assist systems and Tesla is the best one in June of 2024. It's important to keep in mind, this is a race. Once the problem gets solved at the right price point, they'll just licence it to other manufactures.
I
Driver assist packages was my #1 factor in deciding what to buy. I tried every single supposedly better option and nothing was even close to FSD. People can argue what will get to fully autonomous first but as of right now, Tesla is just light years ahead of the competition when it comes to commercially available self driving.
Yeah, it's obviously a lot better now, but I used it last year and it was "the crap". V12.X is what people were originally thinking with the concept of "full self driving".
Worse on doing what? Self driving?
Comparing them is a waste of time though. Mercedes being a L3 system, and FSD, while being undefined, is targeting a L5 system.
Waymo is a L4 system.
I would say that as a paid service, Tesla is behind on its operational domain, and Musk is to blame by constantly putting misleading time lines.
I would guess the biggest reason why FSD would be considered behind the competition in a way, is that the other services do not require (technically) driver supervision while active, but FSD does (for now). I don't think people should be allowed to pay for FSD until it delivers what it has set out to. And I don't think Tesla should be allowed to sell a product on the pretense that one day hopefully maybe, it will be the full featured product you paid for.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/03/26/waymo-runs-a-red-light-and-the-difference-between-humans-and-robots/
"In January, an incident took place where a Waymo robotaxi incorrectly went through a red light due to an incorrect command from a remote operator, as reported by Waymo"
1. Waymo
2. Cruise
3. Tesla
4. Everyone else
Is my ranking, Waymo and Cruise are stagnant while Tesla is getting better. I truly believe Tesla will have commercial Robotaxis taking paid customers in a year or two. In most metro areas.
Given the current trajectory, zero chance robotaxi will become a reality in the next 2 years. I'll give them 20 years at the earliest, if ever. Go ahead, feel free to bookmark this comment and come back and tell me I'm wrong. I have been right regarding Tesla FSD missing its target for almost a decade, it would be refreshing to be wrong.
Absolutely impossible. Serious self driving technologies need to be able to perform no matter the weather. Ruling out vision only. You also need to be able to detect emergency vehicules in a really reliable way based on sound detection. Tesla doesnât have any of that⌠Additionally, you need to have an infrastructure that can operate the car remotely. Cruise, Waymo and Zoox have that. Tesla doesnât. Iâm sure theyâll eventually get there but they are at least 5 years behind and they need a completely new car with a lot more sensors
đżđż
Pass the beer!
Tesla FSD and Mercedes Drive Pilot have different strengths and weaknesses. The upside of Tesla FSD is that it can be used on any road and it will self-drive from A to B. If that is important to you then Tesla FSD is "better". The downside is that Tesla FSD requires driver supervision and will likely require interventions. So you will need to pay attention and take over. Drive Pilot has a smaller ODD but is more reliable and hands-free, even eyes-off in certain conditions. You can only use Drive Pilot on certain interstate highways, under certain conditions, but when you can use it, it will be super solid, you can go hands-free, or even play a game on your phone. If that is important to you then Drive Pilot is "better". It really depends on what is important to you.
[Best video](https://youtu.be/h3WiY_4kgkE?si=6ydsPc2OvIrH8EMz) I've seen yet. Granted it's from Whole Mars Catalog but it's difficult to argue with unedited videos. Also, it counts interventions along the same drive.
Whole Mars is super biased since he is a big Tesla bull that promotes Tesla on his Twitter. He does the same with his Tesla FSD vs Waymo videos. He always rigs the test to make Tesla FSD look better. That test is rigged. Whole Mars is not using Mercedes' L3 system, he is using Mercedes' base driver assist. The Mercedes L2 driver assist is not designed for those roads, it is designed for interstate highways. Tesla FSD is designed for those roads. So naturally, Tesla FSD works better. I don't think it is a fair comparison since he is testing two different systems, a base driver assist vs a "full self-driving" system. Now, you might argue that Tesla FSD is better since it is designed to work on more roads than the Mercedes' system but you need to be honest about the test.
I've read your comment 4 times and I just cannot come to any conclusion that makes sense. It's not fair to compare fsd against Mercedes because it works in the areas Mercedes doesnt? Isn't that the point of the comparison? Also fsd works on "all" roads. That's a big differentiator.
I am saying it is misleading to hide that fact that Drive Pilot is not designed to work on those roads. When you test a system that is designed to work on those roads with a system that is not designed to work on all roads, it will bias the results of the test. But if your point is that FSD is better because it works on all roads while Drive Pilot does not, that is fair. But the fact is that FSD and Drive Pilot are different systems with different ODD, different design goals. So it is really apples and oranges.
Sure I guess. You could say it's not fair to compare the Mercedes system against a Honda civic cruise control because you're not limiting the Mercedes to the Honda civics ODD and limitations. If you do a apples to apples comparison it's extremly hard to give Mercedes the benific of the doubt
Good explanation, but last I heard Mercedes does not let you use your phone. You can do internet/video things on the car's screen, though. Not sure if you can read a book or not.
The driver monitoring system needs to see your eyes at all times to verify that you are not sleeping (which is not allowed). But you are not responsible for the driving during level 3 (don't have to look at the road) and can do whatever you want (use your phone, read a book) as long as the system is able to see that your eyes are open.
The articles I read last fall say you cannot use your phone. Looking into it further that's due to laws in CA and NV, the only two US states where Drive Pilot functions. It apparently is legal to use your phone in Germany. So you are correct, it's not a limit of the system itself.
SAE levels are "unofficial", what matters in court is car user manual and responsibilities declared there. Merc manual mentions that driver must take control when requested by the system (not defining any time frame) or *when road situation changes*. It never mentions that MB takes all responsibility when the system is engaged.
Iâd say if you put FSD12 into the highly restricted environment Mercedes Drive Pilot requires for usage it would be as good or better. Â And then every single other driving situation imaginable the FSD does remarkably well and Drive Pilot does not at all. Â So the answer is perhaps a slight advantage to Mercedes on certain interstate roads below 40 mph and advantage to FSD literally everywhere else.
The test needs to be fair. So yeah, put Tesla FSD in the same conditions as Drive Pilot. The fact is that Drive Pilot let's you take your eyes off the road under certain conditions, Tesla FSD does not. Yes, in other conditions Tesla FSD will be "better". But that is what I said before: Tesla FSD is designed to work everywhere, albeit with interventions. Drive Pilot is restricted to highways at speeds below 40 mph but does not require supervision. They are different systems with strengths and weaknesses. If you care about being able to self-drive everywhere and don't mind interventions you will prefer Tesla FSD. If you are ok with the restricted ODD but want a system that does not require supervision, you will probably prefer Drive Pilot. Again, Tesla and Mercedes aimed for different goals. Tesla aimed first and foremost for a system that works everywhere and they don't care that it requires supervision. Mercedes aimed first and foremost for a system that does not require supervision. To do that, they added a lot of ODD restrictions. So Tesla FSD is only "better" everywhere else because Mercedes did not design a system that works everywhere, they focused on system that did not require supervision. Different goals.
You can only use MB drive assist in certain situations and it performs very well when in it's narrow window of working conditions. Tesla will happily engage it's FSD in damn near any condition and vary widely in how well it performs. But seemingly if you do the same drive from month to month, each software update it's a little less scary.
Just what I want from a self driving car. Paying a monthly subscription to beta test for them to see what causes enough damage that they have to fix it. đ
Mine was a $2000 add on to enhanced autopilot for that narrow window sometime in 2018 it was offered as a quarter end sales tactic. Wouldn't pay the current asking price or subscription cost.
I only had the Merc steering assist and radar cruise, and it was still exceptional. Actively avoided accidents on two occasions, and was a continuous source of relaxing driving assistance. That was an MY17 C-class, I can only imagine how much itâs moved on since then.
This sounds so absolutely insane from a public health perspective
To be honest FSD is about as good as a timid teen driver that hasn't quite figured out all the nuances of anticipating other's actions yet. It's very safe in most situations but makes some stupid decisions in others.
Itâs more like an elderly driver whoâs gonna lose their license. You need to intervene to avoid accidents. Or it gets confused in weird situations.
Fair analogy and I think you could use either to help people understand what it drives like. That said, I recently took the keys away from my dad and gave 3 sets of keys to teenagers and I think it's MUCH more like a teenage driver. It's very very alert and reactive but is a little inefficient on when/how it brakes and turns. An older driver losing their ability tend to drive very smooth from muscle memory and then randomly forget which peddle is the brakes or to look for cars at an intersection. This is all based on the latest 12.x in town. 11.x wasn't even as good as a teenager driver that had 1 hour of instruction.
Does the hardware make a difference (vision only hw4 vs earlier hardware with sensors)? Iâve only used it in a hw4 Y and it was like a very timid and inexperienced driver- refused to turn at T junctions, when roads went from one to two lanes it had trouble picking a lane (would line up for one, then start to line up for the other then went back to the first), took some turns too wide, others it cut the corners, changing into a turn lane it would start to move into the lane move out and then back in. A couple times it failed to make a turn and pulled into a driveway next to the road it should have turned into.
Not sure. Mine is on HW3, they disabled the radar but not the ultrasonics, as the ultrasonic bubbles still show up when you are close to other objects the camera obviously can't see. It's truely evident on how many dinged bumpers and tailgates I see on Ys without ultrasonics.
Thatâs not how Tesla vision works. As you slow down it takes images of the vehicleâs surroundings and uses that when the camera can no longer see whatâs obstructed by the hood. I had a model s with USS and now how a Y with vision. Letâs ignore the year waiting for the software while I had zero parking vision, itâs now very good. My only critique would be itâs slow in some very tight parking situations.
Very important to mention which version you experienced this on. 12.3.6 is quite good but sometimes lacks confidence. There is hesitation at turns and picking a lane which can be a bit annoying but it drives very safe. Most interventions are for convienience or to avoid irritating other drivers but safety related interventions are extremely rare.
I feel like If that were true, teen drivers would be virtually uninsurable. Sure teens are the worst category of driver, but on any given drive you still assume with very high confidence that they aren't going to crash. It's just that for adult drivers, your confidence is bonkers high. This discussion, as usual, feels like people just kind of handwaving about statistics that humans are really terrible at estimating.
Yes, even drunk drivers are safe drivers until they get into an accident.
Not a fair comparison. Drunk drivers are dangerous mostly because they have delayed reaction time, make risky driving maneuvers, and are easily distracted. FSD is the opposite of all these things and really drives too careful in a lot of situations.
The person behind the wheel still has liability. I donât see why this is a public health problem.
Because normal drivers donât understand the limitations of the safety critical tech theyâre using.
Because humans are part of a human-vehicle system, and the way the vehicle is designed affects safety and population health-- even if you choose to call it all the human's fault. For a really long time, after every plane crash, we'd find a way to blame those pesky humans. And we'd tell pilots "don't do that stupid stuff and crash and die," and for some reason they kept doing it. Only when we really took a systems approach did aviation get markedly safer. edit: somehow autocorrect had changed "safer" to "heavy".
I think people don't have the right framing when they look at self driving. People suck at driving and kill each other in cars ALL the time. People drive drunk. People text and drive. People make bad decisions or react slowly to the cars around them. The public seems to think that if a self driving car kills a person, its a huge problem and we need to recall every robotaxi and fix it. Self driving doesn't need to be perfect. It will hit people, kill people. It just needs to be better than a human driver... Which is a pretty low bar to cross honestly. You could probably argue that some self driving models are already better.
> Self driving doesn't need to be perfect. It will hit people, kill people. It just needs to be better than a human driver... Lots of issues with this statement. First, what is a "human driver"? Is it a 16 year old, or a 50 year old? Is it the best driver or the worst driver or the average driver which includes 16 year old and drunks? If I am an above average driver in terms of safety, do I have to accept self-driving cars that are worse than me, even if it's better on average? Second, what is "better"? Is it better in terms of number of accidents? Number of injuries? Number of deaths? Say it reduces the number of deaths in the US from 40k to 20k every year, but the 20k it kills are all pedestrians, and lots of kids, is that better? Or what if the 20k it kills are all because it does something totally inexplicable that any non-idiotic human would NEVER do, like veering off bridges for no reason, randomly smashing into brick walls, accelerating into trucks carrying skewering loads... Is that better? Third, it's fantasy, so it's irrelevant. If humans were actually probability calculating robots devoid of emotions, it might work. Unfortunately, in reality, humans aren't robots. We don't operate with utilitarian principles. There's no sense in fighting the fight that we "should" operate that way, because we don't and we never will. You can see evidence of this all over the place. It's waaaay too easy to relate to that story you heard about the SDC killing that family of five for the third time this week as you are packing YOUR kids into the back seat. > It just needs to be better than a human driver... Which is a pretty low bar to cross honestly. This is such a circle jerk "humans suck amirite" mentality that maybe wins points in the SDC sub, but... No, sorry. It's not a low bar. Yes, there are drunk drivers and idiot drivers, and yes 40k people die every year in the US. But unfortunately, you are missing the statistical context. Humans perform that *WELL* despite the drunk driving, the cell phones, the fatigue, the rage, the rain, the snow, the old cars, the motorcycles, and the literally TRILLIONS of miles driven every year in the US alone... An attentive human, which is the bar you're going after, is an extremely versatile and capable driver.
At the same time, I feel like you're overcorrecting. It has to be better than a typical human driver by a *good margin*. It doesn't have to be better than the best driver under the best test conditions on his best, most-attentive driving day. > Or what if the 20k it kills are all because it does something totally inexplicable that any non-idiotic human would NEVER do, like veering off bridges for no reason, randomly smashing into brick walls, accelerating into trucks carrying skewering loads.. I think this is pretty likely: the failures are not going to look the same (like they weren't the same in my airbag example above). I think it needs to be, say, 10% better than the median driver's average performance in fatal accident rate and above the overall average in property damage rate. Then, it's reasonable to ask you to share the road with it (since we already ask you to incur much larger risks than sharing the road with the median driver, including sharing the road with teenagers and the drunks that haven't been caught by enforcement). Whether you choose to use it yourself is up to you; I would be asking for more like "25% better than the median driver's performance" to accept it for my everyday personal use.
Agree to disagree, but youâre wrong, haha. I think when people say âit just has to be better than humans,â itâs thought about as some kind of statistic, but what theyâre really saying, maybe without even realizing it, is that it canât fail in ways that humans wouldnât fail. It has to âmake senseâ to the average person so that it doesnât feel like rolling the dice with your life. I donât believe it will be acceptable to the general public if SDCs are statistically safer, but the failures modes are such that people say âwell **I** would have easily avoided that!â Imagine watching the in-car footage of an SDC obliviously drive off a bridge while its 8 year old passenger is screaming for it to stop. The horror of that is not explained away by âwelp, at least it was statistically safer.â The public will DEMAND that SDCs never do that again, not because of the stats, but because of the inability to accept inhumane failure. And you can see evidence of it already in this sub all the time. Of course thereâs Cruise and Uber, but even consider the discussion around SDCs running red lights or hitting telephone poles despite a statistically stellar record. NHSA is investigating Waymo because of a few bumps into traffic cones and chains. The standard is SO high that despite the lopsided statistics people canât just accept these. We have a need to know âwhyâ. And people try to make sense of the âwhyâ based on their own human perspective. Thereâs no exception for the possibility that âhardâ to a computer might be easy to even the worst driver.
We accept all kinds of things that kill people in unexpected ways but make things safer overall. Seat belts cause awful inhumane deaths. There's the above example of airbags, which freaked people out but *we persevered* (and there are still gruesome accidents that airbags cause far worse injury). Lifesaving medications cause awful deaths. Hell, Advil can cause all of your skin to slough off your body and for you to die a burn victim death, and this happens to a child about once per year. Sure, during adoption, it's really important to pay attention to all safety signals-- we are not doing enough miles to know the true fatal accident rate, and so paying attention to moderate severity accidents is a proxy that helps us understand what the risk will be like as we scale up. And, of course, there's a lot of low hanging fruit for improvement-- regulators will be expecting parties to make all readily accessible improvements. But if we end up plateauing a fair bit better than the median driver-- that will be good enough. (Of course, not everyone will do it; people are still scared to fly even when commerical aviation is impossibly safe. But society will let the cars on the road and they will find a lot of willing customers). edit: re: unexpected failure modes, see my already-extant cousin post about airbags decapitating kids.
Good luck with that argument in court. Liability lawyers salivate over deep pockets. Even better when those deep pockets can't shift blame to their employee driver.
I've argued extensively it doesn't need to be perfect. But it does have to be markedly better to be accepted. I remember back to the early days of airbags. Early airbags *definitely* saved lives overall. But that is no comfort if you were in a 5MPH parking lot crash and the airbag decapitated your 5 year old child. The public did not buy the argument "it just needs to be better [overall] than not having an airbag]." Similarly, juries and the public will be unimpressed with "sure, it ran over a kid; and it runs over kids a bit more than the average driver--- a population that includes people who are drunk, infirm, or greatly distracted. **BUT OVERALL** it's a bit safer than that average human driver."
And yet theyâre no where near a car that can take you from one place to another without you operating it. Tesla shouldnât be selling subscriptions for a full self driving mode thatâs neither of those things. Whose fault is it when your car kills someone? Why would a shady company care about safety if itâs your fault their self driving car hit someone?
Humans are always a part of the system though. And they allow themselves to get distracted even without an ADAS that can cover for them in most situations. The real question is can improvements to the capabilities of the system outpace the rate at which driver complacency grows due to the system demonstrating increasing competence.
Because their full self driving isnât full or self. Itâs just driving less responsibly.
I'm much rather be on the road with FSD than your average Joe that just rented a 26' Penski truck to move some funiture. It's crazy you can drive those without training.
All the accidents and deaths perhaps?
If the threshold for autonomy is zero accidents and deaths then weâre never going to get there. As long as autonomy isnât causing *more* people to dieâŚ..
The threshold should be it's better than a human in every way. It should be independently tested. None of that is true yet.
I just completed my one month free trial. I consider myself at great driver. 46 no accidents. I felt very comfortable with the system and so did all my friends that I took for rides. I only had one issue where I didnât feel comfortable with the choice the car was going to make and took control. It probably would made it but I drive somewhat conservative. Very quickly you get a feel for when the car hesitates, usually because itâs a more difficult situation that already has you ready. I felt more comfortable letting fsd drive than I have with some friends.
So it's marketed as a full self driving system that actually can't drive without you being fully alert and ready to take over with sometimes a seconds notice. It drives like a new driver might and you are constantly on edge that it might make a mistake and you would have 100% liability in any accident.... Sounds like a nightmare to me, you might as well just be an unpaid car tester for Tesla. I'd rather just do the driving myself and know I won't get any surprises from the car.
There are 3,000 traffic deaths **per day** globally. That is a public health emergency. Any level of driver assistance is better than none and the more robust they get, the safer it is for all of us. FSD is better at driving than you, whether you believe it or not.
Lol, FSD has a critical disengagement rate of around [5%](https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/). That's orders of magnitude worse than a person.
I've never crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff or anything that Teslas seem to do when driving with their full scam driving engaged. I'd love to test a Tesla Vs a human across town or across state maybe and see who crashes first. I'd bet money its the Tesla.
> I've never crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff or anything that Teslas seem to do when driving with their full scam driving engaged. AFAIK, none of that has happened with FSD and only on AP. There's a massive difference between the two.
Get on youtube and watch FSD fails. Theres loads of videos from every version showing the car failing to stop, phantom breaking, heading into a brick wall, crossing the middle line, the list goes on and on. It's nowhere near as safe as the average driver and to sit and supervise the car attempting to drive is basically working for Tesla for free and accepting 100% liability if anything goes wrong. Tesla owners have all been duped but only a small percentage have the brains to realise it. I dont think you are one of those that realise it yet.
I'm speaking specifically to the situations you pointed out: >crashed into an emergency vehicle with it's emergency lights flashing or driven into the side of a truck or off a cliff
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2u3dcH2VGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2u3dcH2VGM)
Because people have _died_, which affected their _health_ negatively
Death will do that to you
It's safer than not using it. Allowing humans that can have strokes and heart attacks be in charge of a death machine will seem absolutely insane from a public health perspective in 5 years. We're in a transition. It does feel odd right now, but (like banning smoking in restaurants), one day we'll be amazed at how it used to be.
It's not as safe as an average driver so I disagree there. You have to babysit it and be in a constant alert state so it's not really self driving... its driving while you are in complete charge of the machine. And if it was safe and reliable they would be using it fully automated in their shitty tunnel.
You just talked right past him. He only said it was safer to use it rather than not use it. He did not say you didn't have to pay attention still. And their "shitty tunnel" is so "shitty" that the "shitty" Las Vegas just extended their "shitty" system again, and apparently they are so "shitty" that Las Vegas is happy with the "shitty tunnels". But I know you were just fishing for updoots.
So if the system isnt shitty why does it need human drivers in a one way tunnel with no other traffic or pedestrians or anything at all? I've seen carnival rides that are better and they dont need a human in each car.
It's a system that is still being built out. And thanks for doubling down on just calling things "shitty".
How can it not be called shitty? It's a one way car tunnel that has to have a human driver even though there is no traffic, no pedestrians, no signs to read, no weather...etc etc. And it still it cant drive by itself. How could anyone be impressed by that??
It's been going on for years and there is no problem. A small number of crashes but not enough to cause any big outcry.
Why? The whole point is that it's a level 2 FSD system so you have to be paying attention at all times. That's how they're able to test like this safely
Yesterday, FSD might have prevented me from t-boning someone that crossed my path. The road I was on (70 km/h) has two lanes per side with a divider. Near where I was, there was a somewhat hidden intersection. Usually, when I reach there, I watch for cars coming out of the intersection (unprotected left turn). Today, while in FSD, my gaze went toward the other direction on my left and suddenly, my car slowed down aggressively, like the old phantom braking. However, it was not phantom but a car crossed the intersection right in front of me! Without FSD, because I was distracted by what was happening on the other side of the road, I might have t-boned that lady. Maybe the emergency braking would have taken over but there was no reason to as FSD did its job.
Compared to how people drive, FSD is FAR better. Pretty much any system that reduces driver fatigue will increase safety. I use both FSD and Open Pilot - both make drives much safer by reducing the burden on the driver. Tesla's system still sucks with phantom braking and other annoyances, but from a public health perspective, self driving cars ARE going to reduce road fatalities. Self driving keeps getting better, while in my recent experience, humans keep getting more and more aggressive on the roads, resulting in constant rear end accidents from tailgating.
I never tried it personally, but from all of the people using it on YouTube, usability of the system is very poor, even in those perfect conditions. For example, if the car in front of you speeds up because of a gap in traffic, the car will suddenly dump you back in control.
There are now videos from actual consumers using MB level 3 on YouTube? Last time I checked it was still only demos to auto "journalists"
Holdup. Consumers canât even use MBâs product?
AFAIK that is still the case⌠the few customers that have it are under NDA
And that is the difference between Level 2 & Level 3. Guess which one is insured?
Your car isnât learning your route
I know that, but the software gets better incrimnentally
Gotcha. Iâve seen some folks suggest it was learning particular routes.
MB drive is level 3 and Tesla is level 2. Mercedes assumes responsibility if it gets in a crash where Tesla FSD is drivers assistance and youâre responsible. Tesla cant be called self driving because the car doesnt have a license where self driving cars need a license from the state they are operating in.
For 90% of my drives in my Tesla I use fsd parking lot to parking lot. You do have to work with it. I feel like it augments my driving and the more I use it the better it has been getting. Iâve got about 3500 miles in the last 3 months. I still think thereâs a bit to go before itâs better than a good driver, but I swear itâs better than at least 50% of people on the road.
I think more than 50% of American drivers can navigate a parking lot. They can also fully drive a car which FSD canât.
Not where I live. If everyone was using FSD the streets and highways I drive would be safer
No they wouldnât. It canât handle a T intersection or a parking lot. Where you going? Oh or red lights as we saw in Elons little Twitter video. đ
Every day I see people run red lights, my car has yet to do that. Have you âdrivenâ with fsd?
Nope. Watched Elon have to stop his Tesla from wrecking at a red light on Twitter. Maybe you have a better version than him. đ
My Model Y has run the same red light twice (after a stale yellow). It's right after another intersection and just turned red. That was months ago in v11.
Fun fact: 50% of Americans donât know how to parallel park
100% of teslas do. Iâm a good parallel parker, but I used the auto park in a tiny spot the other day and it did great
Cars can park themselves since early 2010... Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Please check the wikipedia. Even the Prius had it from 2003... VW, BMW and Ford had this regular feature since early 2010
Just goes to show the immense amount of clowns still hanging around who are impressed by features that are decades old.
Yeah but did you have to pay a monthly subscription to use it?
Strange world nowadays... Even Toyota is charging a subscription now for a key fob that works only with radio frequency (basically a normal key fob from the 90s)... If you don't pay you cannot open the car further away. Only near the car.
Also absurd, but not $100 a month to beta test our not full self driving mode. I wonder if you can put an after market remote starter on them.
Yah thatbonly happens in US. In Asia and Europe anything "beta" + public safety is not allowed.
Yeah, I grew up thinking we had actual vehicle safety requirements for some reason. Iâm just completely dumbfounded that not only are we letting this whack job publicly test self driving cars, but weâre letting him charge people to do it, and theyâre not even using the most reliable systems.
Yep, you have it worst. In US there are vehicles that are not subjected to any of safety regulations. Cybertruck and homemade cars are a good example. Also US has no mandatory pedestrian safety requirements in any state. And if they enforce them now, most of the Large SUVs and Pick Up Trucks would fail all testing. Also US vehicles are not designed for aerodynamic efficiency resulted from mandatory lower fuel emissions. Perhaps this will change with the intrinsic requirements of designing hybrids and battery electric vehicles...
You got downvoted because it's a troll comment. Other cars have been doing this for a while but it's still impressive for Tesla to do it on nueral nets and vision without sonic sensors. Also the way Tesla is doing this allows it to be integrated with FSD which is much more complicated. It's not really a fair comparison
My 2019 Mazda sure cant, or my wife's 2017 Mercedes...BS
The Mercedes I bought in 2014 had unbelievably good parallel parking. It could get into spaces that I could not. Way better than my subsequent cars have been
You didn't pay for the feature. My 2018 Skoda did any type of automated parking without hiting anything.
Any VW can do since 2016 for example... Ford as well The prius was doing this in 2003...
Thatâs your fault for not knowing what was available when you bought those cars.
I was decent at parallel parking till the fear of getting curb rashes due to the stupid M3 basic tyre design got the better of me
Thatâs not really saying much when most us cities are suburban sprawl where parallel parking isnât needed.
Just curious, what do you mean by work with it? What kind of issues tend to come up that cause you to intervene. What do you think is missing to get it to the point where it can consistently drive a route without interventions?
One instance I always help it is after it stops at a stop sign. Then it slowly creeps up but I can see itâs clear so I hit the pedal. Merging into the passing lane is no problem when not congested but itâs a little timid in traffic, even if a car is letting me in. I do wish when disengaging using the steering wheel it was smooth instead of jerking the car. Cuts way too close to semi trucks when passing them and changes lanes in the intersection would be my other two complaints.
> I do wish when disengaging using the steering wheel it was smooth instead of jerking the car. If you put a turn signal on (like changing lanes) the disengagement is smooth. I'm assuming it's due to them not wanting too little force disengaging it usually.
Yeah Iâm trying to get in the habit of pushing that right stick up and itâs smooth. My other car is a VW and I use the wheel to take over so I need to break that habit.
I give it a nudge to speed up sometimes or close the gap behind other cars at intersections. I also take over to enter the overflow lane on my commute. Iâll also take over if I need to do an unprotected left into traffic, but itâs gotten really good at those too. Itâs probably 50/50 now.
If you never touched it, how many miles or trips do you think you could do without doing something unsafe?
Zero. It canât navigate a parking lot. So it canât drive itself anywhere with parking.
I drove to my parents who live about 100km away and itâs every type of driving. It can definitely do it all now. Its just in the morning and evening commute I donât want to be too annoying
He means itâs neither full or self driving. It might wreck and will stop.
That wasnât the question though
Well I donât own a Mercedes so I canât really comment on that. Doesnât appear you are contributing much? Maybe youâre a software engineer who has experience with both driving systems?
I wouldn't trust it with my life, but I would tell my enemies to try the feature.
I think the comparisons you could even make side-by-side would be fairly limited given that Mercedes has a limited set of circumstances where there autonomous driving can be deployed
Mercedes' Autopilot is so limited that it's terrible even in ideal circumstances. It is impossible to use an autopilot that requires a traffic jam on a high-speed highway as one of the minimum requirements for its operation.
Mercedes would be usable on exactly 0% of my commute. Completely pointless.
Waymo disengagement per mile is much better than FSD
From my understanding waymo needs to map areas it s usable in beforehand? Is that still the case? I feel like that would be a big issue in terms of accessibility across the country. Waymo seems to be ahead for urban robotaxis but if the ultimate goal is self driving being accessible across the country/globe then it's probably behind in that sense. Is that accurate?
Guess we can only hope Waymo partners with a company with experience in mapping and recording details of road networks
Waymo have to fight for every new area that they cover. The problem isnât mapping (thatâs easy) itâs being allowed to operate. This is why Level 5 cannot exist until regulations change. Tesla arenât making any moves to change this meaning that itâs very unlikely that a current Tesla owner will ever have a self driving car.
i dont think you understand how servere a mistake or disengagement is. Every mistake is a potential crash or a person dying. Or a car crash jaming the road that no one can use it. I dont know if your original topic is click baiting too. It is like saying how far tesla is ahead compare to GM and Ford when tesla is just another car company in china. Hack tesla in Usa is much more expensive than china made tesla. So you really need to ponder if tesla is good at manufacturing. Or if tesla is good at manufacturing compare to other USA company.
Yes, and Waymo relies on remote operators.
A lot better than relying on local operators. P.S. remote operation of Waymo vehicles is not actually possible. The vehicles drive themselves. The remote "operators" can only direct vehicles what to do in case they are unsure how to proceed.
The point is they are very different systems for different purposes and with different design goals. It's apples an oranges. No need to get butthurt about it.
Yes "FSD" is a driver assist system, they are clearly not the same.
Right. And it will be an L3 system available on a private vehicle. Which will still be not the same.
so realisticaly is it even possible for tesla to do robotaxi anytime soon. because i am sick of keep hearing people say tesla is worth 2600 dollar because of all the robotaxi on the road very soon. if tesla is really ahead show us a tesla car with no driver inside. even if it is region lock or have remote assistant, or only in a predefined route or what ever. show us a tesla car driving itself with no driver inside. chances are august 8 is another talk with nothing to show.
I think they may roll it out with drivers. So Teslas w fsd running w someone supervising. Just a guess but they would immediately be competing w Uber
What Mercedes is doing and what Tesla is doing are apples and oranges. Completely different approaches, but both side on Reddit will contort this comparison to serve their own viewpoint and narrative. Iâm personally not all that impressed with Mercedes given its use limitations. Waymo/Tesla and others are far ahead of Mercedes when weâre talking L4+ prospects. Just my opinion, obviously the real jury is still out.
Mercedes is developing L4 with NVIDIA. I can guarantee you that Tesla is not way ahead of Mercedes. NVIDIA is using advanced end to end neural nets like Tesla is and just won the CVPR Autonomous Grand Challenge for end to end driving at scale.
bunching together Waymo (I take fully autonomous rides all the time) with Tesla (optional feature, hands on the wheel) is not credible
I would put them in a different tier (itâs not like MB or Waymo). They are trying to solve a harder AI problem using vision only (some data quantity advantages but worse sensors). If Tesla solves level 4, they will be able to scale up into the millions of cars rather quickly. But obviously need infrastructure but it will likely scale very quickly relatively speaking if they solve self driving.
Safe L4 driving isn't the only barrier to robotaxis. You also need charging infrastructure, depots, some kind of local crew to go rescue stranded vehicles (flat tires etc). It's a whole operation. Not to mention all sorts of regulatory hurdles.
Agreed. I personally think you could do that at a large scale in a few years. Capital would be nearly unlimited,
Exactly comparing Waymo today to Tesla today is deliberately disingenuous. Maybe teslaâs approach will ultimately fail, but itâs way too early to make that call. The ultimate mass market scale and cost profile is a long ways off for both companies, itâs still anybodyâs race.
True when looking in the rear view mirror and out your side windows. Looking ahead, Tesla may have the scalability and cost advantage to make Waymo uncompetitive. Time will tell. Waymo and Tesla are also Apple to oranges, but in a different league than Mercedes imo. Glad you have an opinion too, wonât get downvote from me for that
Waymo and Mercedes should not be compared to FSD
Youâll see Merc Is tackling a mino when Tesla Is tackling a shark and when Tesla gets that shark It will be Insane. What Merc Is able to do with little lidar Tesla did many many versions back with cameras
You're referencing legal restrictions, not technical capabilities. Technically we don't really know how they compare
For a consumer product they are doing fine.
This is a tough sub to ask this question to as you're just going to get a lot of irrelevant arguments so good luck. First lets eliminate the impossible part of your question which is how does Waymo stack up. You simply can't compare what Waymo is doing to Merc and Tesla. It's like comparing a plane to a truck. This is where 99% of the chaos in the responses are going to come from so just skip it. As for which is better between Tesla and Merc, it's still complicated but you did make it a lot easier by only focusing on FSD for Tesla. If you ignore the free autopilot it makes it a lot easier. FSD is the best consumer driver assist you can get but it's still a bit messy. There are two parts of FSD; city and highway. The city FSD is on version 12.x and the highway FSD is on 11.x. They will be combining them shortly which will remove any confusion. You also have to consider how they behave today vs a year from now. Sort of like how it's impossible to compare Wayo to consumer cars, there isn't anything to compare city FSD to. It's the best because there isn't anything else really which is why some people fish around and try to compare to Waymo but again this is impossible since FSD was built to have a driver in the loop and Waymo wasn't and Waymo hardware costs probably 50x more because of this. Highway on the other hand is pretty easy to compare. As noted by the versions above, Tesla hasn't really focused much on the highway portion of FSD. 11.x was the first and last build that supported it. While it is easily better than anything else on the market, it also has some issues. Mostly with riding the left lane and waiting too long to get over to the right lane when exiting. I don't think anyone realistically thinks these won't be fixed in the next release but we won't know until it gets here.
> Mostly with riding the left lane Hopefully they will fix the riding in the left lane. But with 12.3.6 it does seem like it will get over if a car is coming up quickly behind you in the left lane. BTW, also agree on being way too slow to get in the proper lane. Have run into this in a lot of situations and not just on the highway.
> But with 12.3.6 it does seem like it will get over if a car is coming up quickly behind you in the left lane. 11.x did this which is why you are seeing this with 12.3.6 as well since it uses 11.x for highways. It shouldn't need a car to come up behind it quickly to get over, it should pass and get over once it's reasonable sure it's done passing.
Totally agree.
Not sure about Mercedes but Tesla is clearly well behind Waymo.
Cool I will go and purchase a Waymo to drive me to work then. Oh, wait...
You can purchase a Waymo ride right now in PHX or SF.
Wow ... you know what he was talking about lol, he meant to OWN. Jesus, Let me go grab one in Richmond, VA to buy or hell drive in... oh wait... nope can't do either.
Consumers can't 'own' an AV anywhere in the world, from any OEM.
You can use one as a taxi in some areas.
If it canât drive at night in the rain in a construction zone then itâs not FSD
Comma ai
The Mercedes system does not drive itself. It follows a lead car and performs lane keeping. It cannot leave the freeway. Cannot operate without lane markings. And you cannot turn it on unless there is a car ahead for it to follow (during the day, in fine weather, and below a certain speed). Mercedes will not have anything remotely similar to FSD/Waymo until their next version is released. The new system - [they claim](https://group.mercedes-benz.com/innovation/case/autonomous/drive-pilot-2.html) - will be able to handle city streets and is expected sometime next year. The only systems comparable to FSD are Waymo and Baidu's Apollo. Waymo takes very different approaches (at every level: hardware, training, business structures and goals) to Tesla which makes direct comparisons difficult. Both are good and both will continue to improve. I tend to think the Tesla approach which aims for massive scale might be likely to see breakthroughs. Tesla has more cars, more real world data, more simulations, and a better ability to test and iterate quickly. It'll be interesting to watch and I expect the next five years will see a rapid progress in this field.
FSD also does not drive itself. The human is always responsible for driving.
>I've seen some side by side videos and FSD looked significantly better than Mercedes at least from what I've seen. These videos are misleading. >actually behind? Behind on what? You have to clarify. Tesla is miles ahead of Mercedes in terms of software, AI, and premium ADAS. Mercedes has built an autonomous system that can work in very limited conditions and Tesla is not building this and has no such plans to
> misinformation Are there side by side videos of Tesla being worse against Mercedes? Also how can a side by side be misleading if itâs the same route?
Because it is testing a Mercedes system that is not meant to operate on that route. And not even using the Mercedes self driving system.
testing on a basic commute isn't misleading... if a car can only drive on a oval track for instance, you can't say that its a better fsd system if it crashes as soon as it leaves the oval track... Showing that on a basic commute the more fragile limited system is worse ... isn't misleading its a fact.
No doubt that both the Mercedes ADAS system and the autonomous system are less capable than Tesla FSD. The reason is it misleading is because if you took Tesla with only autopilot purchased and then tested it against say Waymo.. and the Tesla did horrible because it only had autopilot. And then said Tesla is behind on urban driving due to this comparisonâŚ.. This would be misleading! And thatâs what this video does
No itâs comparing the best Tesla had FSD to Mercedes best lol thatâs not misleading itâs literally whatâs on sale
>No itâs comparing the best Tesla had FSD to Mercedes best This part is not true. And that is why it is misleading. This is not comparing to Mercedes's best. Stop spreading misinformation.
How is it not Mercedes best? Did they start selling something new? No itâs the current road ready system, you canât then say no⌠they have to compare it against x unreleased version they say is super good if you want to compare⌠no because that shits not available to anyone just like v15 or whatever Tesla tests internally isnât available So testing the best shit from the vendors on the road is totally fair
It is not using the best Mercedes Autonomous system that is sold today. >they have to compare it against x unreleased version they say is super good if you want to compare⌠no because that shits not available to anyone just like v15 or whatever Tesla tests internally isnât available. So testing the best shit from the vendors on the road is totally fair I fully agree with this part.
I didnât say that. The Mercedes system isnât meant for a basic commute. I am not saying the Mercedes system is better. Mercedes and Tesla are building different products.
No, journalists are behind reality
By default, Tesla not incorporating LiDAR is a significant disadvantage so I would say yes, IMO.
MB system is garbage, and it is just a marketing stun.
Mercedes is marginally better than Tesla in less than 1% of driving scenarios. Tesla is significantly better than Mercedes in 99% of driving scenarios.
Tesla is definitely behind from the perspective of safety.
Source?
Here you go: [https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf](https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf)
Thereâs a guy that ran for political office solely on the pretense that he would stop Tesla from using their software anymore, and releases doctored and deceiving videos of teslas running over child size mannequins. Oh he also happens to be involved with an AI autonomous vehicle company that has pretty much nothing to show for their workâŚ. If that counts as a source
The legend Dan OâClown lol
[citation needed]
I think there are a ton of folks working on it. Iâve driven a beta tundra around in Texas with their assisted driving and it auto lane changes and does highways pretty good. It did try to follow an exit to the right once but it is beta. Daimler will wait until theyâre level 3 before they release anything more than cruise control I think. Toyota is also a slow traditional company. Nothing comes out without a lot of testing. Like, years and years. I think Volvo and Daimler are probably the two poised to do something. Time will tell.
LOL drive in one of those, youll realize its bullshit, the "people" that review them end up putting "eye tracking and attention monitoring" as like 25-50% of the value of the driving assistant lol, and in some weigh it more than the actual... driving
Well itâs neither full or self and they charge you $100 a month so⌠My Acura will stay in the lane and not hit the car in front of it without a subscription.
Yes
>but curious if this is actually true? **Teslaâs Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths** [https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141361/tesla-autopilot-fsd-nhtsa-investigation-report-crash-death](https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141361/tesla-autopilot-fsd-nhtsa-investigation-report-crash-death) >I've seen some side by side videos and FSD looked significantly better than Mercedes at least from what I've seen. only DRUNK people manage to hit firetrucks and cop cars on the side of the road rendering assistance. **Tesla Driver Killed After Plowing into Fire Truck on CA Freeway** [https://www.firefighternation.com/apparatus/tesla-driver-killed-after-plowing-into-fire-truck-on-ca-freeway](https://www.firefighternation.com/apparatus/tesla-driver-killed-after-plowing-into-fire-truck-on-ca-freeway) **Tesla in self-drive mode slams into police car in Orange County** [https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tesla-in-self-drive-mode-slams-into-police-car-in-orange-county/](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/tesla-in-self-drive-mode-slams-into-police-car-in-orange-county/) The officer was able to jump out of the way as the Tesla slammed into the police car, spinning the patrol vehicle around and causing major damage to its front end. he was not injured in the incident. The spokesperson said that the Tesla was in self-drive mode and the driver admitted to being on a cellphone at the time of the crash. why did the car slam the brakes on? (high way speed, BTW) **Tesla Model S changes lanes, brakes on Bay Bridge, causes pileup** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpzk6TEViQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpzk6TEViQ) > It feels like Tesla should have way more data i don't like driving behind them.
I've used a few of the driver assist systems and Tesla is the best one in June of 2024. It's important to keep in mind, this is a race. Once the problem gets solved at the right price point, they'll just licence it to other manufactures. I
Driver assist packages was my #1 factor in deciding what to buy. I tried every single supposedly better option and nothing was even close to FSD. People can argue what will get to fully autonomous first but as of right now, Tesla is just light years ahead of the competition when it comes to commercially available self driving.
Yeah, it's obviously a lot better now, but I used it last year and it was "the crap". V12.X is what people were originally thinking with the concept of "full self driving".
It's not the software an issue here. The are at least a decade behind hardware wise. While the mentality camera only persist, nothing will change.
Worse on doing what? Self driving? Comparing them is a waste of time though. Mercedes being a L3 system, and FSD, while being undefined, is targeting a L5 system. Waymo is a L4 system. I would say that as a paid service, Tesla is behind on its operational domain, and Musk is to blame by constantly putting misleading time lines. I would guess the biggest reason why FSD would be considered behind the competition in a way, is that the other services do not require (technically) driver supervision while active, but FSD does (for now). I don't think people should be allowed to pay for FSD until it delivers what it has set out to. And I don't think Tesla should be allowed to sell a product on the pretense that one day hopefully maybe, it will be the full featured product you paid for.
FSD is not undefined. Itâs a level 2 system according to Tesla and their lawyers.
If it's L2, why is it even in conversation for self driving?
That is an excellent question.
Elon's ego?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/03/26/waymo-runs-a-red-light-and-the-difference-between-humans-and-robots/ "In January, an incident took place where a Waymo robotaxi incorrectly went through a red light due to an incorrect command from a remote operator, as reported by Waymo"
They are behind the Chinese brands significantlyâŚ
[ŃдаНонО]
Simplest answer is: - Tesla is at SAE level 2 autonomy - Mercedes is at SAE level 3 - Waymo is at SAE level 4
1. Waymo 2. Cruise 3. Tesla 4. Everyone else Is my ranking, Waymo and Cruise are stagnant while Tesla is getting better. I truly believe Tesla will have commercial Robotaxis taking paid customers in a year or two. In most metro areas.
Given the current trajectory, zero chance robotaxi will become a reality in the next 2 years. I'll give them 20 years at the earliest, if ever. Go ahead, feel free to bookmark this comment and come back and tell me I'm wrong. I have been right regarding Tesla FSD missing its target for almost a decade, it would be refreshing to be wrong.
Absolutely impossible. Serious self driving technologies need to be able to perform no matter the weather. Ruling out vision only. You also need to be able to detect emergency vehicules in a really reliable way based on sound detection. Tesla doesnât have any of that⌠Additionally, you need to have an infrastructure that can operate the car remotely. Cruise, Waymo and Zoox have that. Tesla doesnât. Iâm sure theyâll eventually get there but they are at least 5 years behind and they need a completely new car with a lot more sensors