On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 3:17:32 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 08:08, David Brown wrote:
> > On 01/04/2022 02:19, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
> >>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Someone still has to be watching
> >>>> for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the
> >>>> pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
> >>>> autopilot.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones
> >>> are more
> >>> sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as
> >>> well as
> >>> being able to land automatically. And more important than what plane
> >>> autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and
> >>> remember we
> >>> are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will
> >>> drive their
> >>> car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
> >>
> >> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
> >> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
> >>
> >> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept
> >> into the heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does
> >> it for me".
> >
> > You don't. Twats will always be twats. You fix the cars.
> >
> > You start by changing the name. "Driver assistance" rather than
> > "autopilot".
> That's one of the things I was thinking of.
> > You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
> > releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
> > beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
> > pay attention.
> I've wondered why they don't implement that, then realised
> it would directly contradict their advertising.

Please tell us what the Tesla advertising says that would be contradicted?

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 4/1/2022 5:13 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 12:32, Don Y wrote:
>> On 4/1/2022 3:44 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

>>>>>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the plane. It
>>>>>>> simply maintains a heading and altitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years.
>>>>> Cat 3b landings were in operation when I was a kid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone still has to be watching
>>>>>>> for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the
>>>>>>> pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the autopilot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones are
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as well as
>>>>>> being able to land automatically. And more important than what plane
>>>>>> autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and remember we
>>>>>> are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
>>>>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept
>>>>> into the heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does
>>>>> it for me".
>>>>
>>>> "Pilots" and "drivers" approach their efforts entirely differently
>>>> and with different mindsets.
>>>
>>> They should do in one sense (differing machine/automation)
>>> and shouldn't in another (both are lethal instruments).
>>>
>>> Problem starts with the marketing.
>>
>> Cars are far more ubiquitous. And, navigation is a 2-dimensional activity.
>>
>> An "average joe" isn't likely to think hes gonna "hop in a piper cub" and
>> be off on a jaunt to run errands. And, navigation is a 3-dimensional
>> undertaking (you don't worry about vehicles "above" or "below", when driving!)
>
> True, but it doesn't change any of my points.

If access to a technology -- or ability to make use of that technology -- is
limited, then it diminishes as a source of problems.

I don't worry about someone (young/old/qualified/not) climbing into the cockpit
of an A-10 at the military base down the street and strafing my neighborhood
with it's 30mm Gatling gun -- despite the fact that there are many dozens of
them sitting on the tarmac. And, nothing prevents an airman from getting
unhinged and taking out his frustrations with his "vehicle of choice".
Access is constrained as well as the know-how required to put it into use.

OTOH, a 14 year old climbing in a (stolen?) vehicle presents a very real danger
to me on my local roadways (note the articles cited in previous post). There
are hundreds of such vehicles within a stone's throw -- regardless of where you
happen to be throwing the stone!

Even "heavy equipment" is operated (driven) in virtually the same way as cars
(as we've had cases of joyriders in dump trucks, back hoes, graders, etc.)

Can't recall any "average joe" taking an aircraft for a joyride, though!
(they wouldn't know HOW)

>>>> ANYONE can drive a car. By contrast, a fair bit more understanding,
>>>> reasoning and skill is required to pilot an aircraft.
>>>
>>> Not entirely sure about that. 14yo can be solo, and a
>>> very few are even aerobatic pilots.
>>
>> And a "youngster" can drive a car (or other sort of motorized vehicle, e.g., on
>> a farm or other private property). The 16yo (15.5) restriction only applies to
>> the use on public roadways.
>
> 12yo fly across the country with an instructor behind.
> 14yo can do it on their own.
>
> Daughter was driving my car and a double decker bus at 15yo,
> on the runway and peritrack :)

It doesn't matter what LEGALLY can be done. What matters is what can be
TECHNICALLY performed. The 14 yo's in the articles I cited were each
breaking the law. But, were still ABLE to access and operate the vehicles
in question. Invite them to take your aircraft for a joyride and you'll
find them sitting on the tarmac, hours later, still trying to figure out how
to take off!

I was driving (on private property) at 10. As were most of the (males!) in
my extended family. Grandpa owned a large car business so all of the cousins
would "work" at the shop. It was not uncommon to be handed a set of keys and
told to bring the "white chevy" into bay #6 for new tires. And, once the
new rubber was mounted, told to drive the car with the ass-end raised so they
could be spin-balanced (<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NJd-AnU71nQ/maxresdefault.jpg>
in lieu of dynamic balancers). Then, around to the alignment pit. Finally,
gassed up and parked waiting for the customer to pick it up.

[Grandpa had a rather loose interpretation of what was "legal" -- and spent
a fair bit of time behind bars for other "misinterpretations" :> ]

>> Cars are "simple" to operate; can-your-feet-reach-the-pedals being the only
>> practical criteria. I'd wager *I* would have a hard time walking up to
>> an aircraft, "cold", and trying to sort out how to get it off the ground...
>
> Same is true of a glider. There are only 4 controls: rudder,
> stick, airbrake, cable release. Two instruments, airspeed
> and barometer (i.e. height differential).

And a piper cub? Lear jet? Not all aircraft are gliders. And, a glider
requires a "co-conspirator" to get it airborn! A car just requires
"opportunity".

> You are taught to do without them, because they all lie to
> you.
>
>>> The main difference is that you can't stop and catch
>>> your breath, or stop and have a pee.
>>>
>>> Overall learning to fly a glider is pretty much similar
>>> to learning to drive - in cost, time and skill.
>>
>> But not opportunity. I'd have to spend a fair bit of effort researching
>> where to gain access to any sort of aircraft. OTOH, I can readily "borrow"
>> (with consent) any of my neighbors' vehicles and operate all of them in
>> a fairly consistent manner: sports cars, trucks, commercial trucks, even
>> motorcycles (though never having driven one, before!).
>
> True, but it doesn't change any of my points.

The number of "flying" accidents vs. the number of "auto" accidents makes
the point very well.

>>> The training
>>> is more rigorous, though, and isn't a one-off event.
>>
>> It's likely more technical, too. Most auto-driving instruction deals
>> with laws, not the technical "piloting" of the vehicle. The driving test
>> is similarly focused on whether or not you put that law knowledge into
>> effect (did you stop *at* the proper point? did you observe the speed
>> limit and other posted requirements?)
>
> Not much is required to go solo.
>
> Does the glider's responsiveness indicate you are flying
> fast enough; are you at a reasonable height in the circuit;
> what to do when you find you aren't and when the cable snaps.

Piper cub? Lear jet?

>> [When taking the test for my *first* DL, the DMV was notorious for
>> having a stop sign *in* the (tiny) parking lot -- in an unexpected
>> place. Folks who weren't observant -- or tipped off to this ahead
>> of time -- were "failed" before ever getting out on the roadway!]
>
> Pre-solo tests include the instructor putting you in a
> stupid position, and saying "now get us back safely".

Automobiles just try to catch you breaking a law. Damn near anyone who
has driven a vehicle prior to being tested can get it from point A to
point B.

Commercial vehicles focus more on safety (and any ADDITIONAL laws that
may apply -- e.g., a commercial vehicle must clearly be labeled and there
are special enforcement units that will ticket for such violations) because
they assume you already understand the basics of the legal requirements
for a motor vehicle.

I can't recall ANY "legal" issues in my forklift certification. But, lots
of technical issues regarding how to safely operate the vehicle, transport
loads, derate lifting capacity based on lift height, etc. And, a strong
emphasis on how NOT to suffer a "crush injury"!

On 4/1/2022 1:46 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
>> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
>> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
>> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
>> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
>> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
>
> All these 'assistants' with their multiple 'modes' only make things
> more complicated and therefor unsafe. Simple is better.

"Assistance" should be intuitive. You don't even NOTICE the power
steering, brakes, autotranny, etc. "assistants" in a vehicle.
Because, for the most part, the way they operate is largely invariant
of driver, driving conditions, etc. (how often do folks use anything
other than "D(rive)" and "R(everse)"? Is there a way to *disable*
the power steering? Or brakes? Should there be?

> I recently got a car that came standard with 'lane assist'. I
> hate it. It's like having a passenger tugging on the steering wheel,
> absolutely intolerable. It also can't be switched off permanently.
> For the first week or two, I just blindfolded the camera it uses to
> watch the road, until I found out how to switch it off with a single
> button press. (There are far too many buttons, for that matter, and
> all with multiple functions, too. Bad!)

When shopping for SWMBO's vehicle, we were waiting for the salesman for
a test drive. Vehicle running, me behind the wheel.

One by one, error indicators came on -- all pertaining to the forward
looking "assistants" (too close to vehicle in front of you, maintain
your lane, etc.). Each error indicated the associated system was
offline due to a fault.

When I questioned the salesman (did *I* do something to cause that?),
he dismissed it as a consequence of the high temperatures (40+C is
common, here -- at least 1 out of 6 days). So, tell me why I should
pay extra for this feature? And, how much faith I should have in it
performing as advertised?? <frown>

> That said, some automatic functions /are/ good. Climate control with
> a real thermostat, auto-darkening rear view mirrors, mostly functions
> that have nothing to do with driving per se. The only /good/ automatic
> functions are those you don't notice until they /stop/ working.

These are all functions that aren't interactive -- like my brakes/tranny
examples. You don't expect to have to make changes to the mechanism,
especially while driving.

I do like certain steering wheel mounted controls (e.g., radio/music)
as it helps me keep my eyes on the road (instead of reaching over
to adjust volume, select different source material, etc.) But, have
yet to find a use for the paddle shifters -- and the stalk-mounted
controls are too numerous on too few stalks!

> I also like the GPS with head-up display.

My favorite is the side mirrors tilting downwards (to afford a view
of the ground) when backing up. The backup camera is a win as we back into
our garage and it helps avoid backing INTO something. These would be less
necessary with a "lower profile" vehicle, though.

[I also like the trip computer automatically reseting at each trip
and "fill up"]

On 01/04/2022 14:44, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 3:08:25 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/04/2022 02:19, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Someone still has to be watching
>>>>> for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the
>>>>> pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
>>>>> autopilot.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones
>>>> are more
>>>> sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as
>>>> well as
>>>> being able to land automatically. And more important than what plane
>>>> autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and
>>>> remember we
>>>> are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will
>>>> drive their
>>>> car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>>>
>>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
>>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
>>>
>>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept
>>> into the heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does
>>> it for me".
>> You don't. Twats will always be twats. You fix the cars.
>>
>> You start by changing the name. "Driver assistance" rather than
>> "autopilot".
>>
>> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
>> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
>> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
>> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
>> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
>> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
>
> Do you know anything about how the Tesla autopilot actually works? Anything at all?
>

A little - but not a lot, and no personal experience.

So fill in the details here.

You've already told us that it is designed for things like motorway
driving (or "highway" driving). Presumably you stick by that, and
therefore agree that any restrictions on the autopilot should be lower
for motorway driving than for more "challenging" driving such as town
roads or small, twisty country roads.

People already manage to read newspapers or eat their breakfast in
traffic queues, in purely manual cars. Do you think autopilot can
handle that kind of traffic?

My suggestion is that a way to ensure people have more focus on driving
is to require contact with the steering wheel. I am happy to hear your
objections to that idea, or to alternative thoughts.

Improper use of autopilot (and other automation in all kinds of cars)
leads to a higher risk of accidents. I expect that proper use can lower
risk. Do you disagree with these two claims?

Do you think Tesla's autopilot is perfect as it is, or is there room for
improvement?

Do you actually want to contribute something to this thread, or do you
just want to attack any post that isn't Tesla fanboy support? (Your
answers to the previous questions will cover this one too.)

On 01/04/2022 14:42, Ricky wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:19:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the
>>>> plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude.
>> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years. Cat 3b
>> landings were in operation when I was a kid.
>>>> Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and
>>>> otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is
>>>> responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
>>>> autopilot.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern
>>> ones are more sophisticated and handle course changes along the
>>> planned route, as well as being able to land automatically. And
>>> more important than what plane autopilots actually /do/, is what
>>> people /think/ they do - and remember we are talking about
>>> drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive their car
>>> while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
>>
>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept into the
>> heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does it for me".
>
> That's Tom Gardner level misinformation. Comments about what people
> think are spurious and unsubstantiated. A class of "twats" can be
> invented that think anything. Nothing matters other than what Tesla
> owners think. They are the ones driving the cars.
>

Are you suggesting that none of the people who drive Teslas are twats?
(Maybe that term is too British for you.)

And are you suggesting that only Tesla drivers are affected by Tesla
crashes? Obviously they will be disproportionally affected, but motor
accidents often involve other people and other cars. And while Tesla
may be leading the way in car "autopiloting", others are following - the
strengths and weaknesses of Tesla's systems are relevant to other car
manufacturers.

On 2022-04-01 15:38, Don Y wrote:
> On 4/1/2022 1:46 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
>>> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
>>> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
>>> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
>>> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
>>> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
>>
>> All these 'assistants' with their multiple 'modes' only make things
>> more complicated and therefor unsafe. Simple is better.
>
> "Assistance" should be intuitive. You don't even NOTICE the power
> steering, brakes, autotranny, etc. "assistants" in a vehicle.
> Because, for the most part, the way they operate is largely invariant
> of driver, driving conditions, etc. (how often do folks use anything
> other than "D(rive)" and "R(everse)"? Is there a way to *disable*
> the power steering? Or brakes? Should there be?

I much prefer a simple stick shift. I can tell what state it's in
by touch, and there in not the slightest doubt about it. That isn't
true for an automatic. You need to /look/ what state it's in. They're
too temperamental to my taste, refusing to change state under certain
conditions. Same for the electric parking brake. It took me a while to
figure out it refuses to disengage when I'm not wearing seat belts.
Sheesh! Talk about weird interactions!

Power steering and brakes are in the set of assists that normally
go unnoticed until they fail. (Provided they are essentially linear,
smooth, without discontinuity or other surprise behaviour.)

[...]
>
> My favorite is the side mirrors tilting downwards (to afford a view
> of the ground) when backing up. The backup camera is a win as we back into
> our garage and it helps avoid backing INTO something. These would be less
> necessary with a "lower profile" vehicle, though.
>
> [I also like the trip computer automatically reseting at each trip
> and "fill up"]

Yes, got that too, and I agree those are good features.

Jeroen Belleman

On 01/04/2022 14:38, Ricky wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:48:18 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2022 22:44, Ricky wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2022 00:54, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/03/22 20:18, David Brown wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> No, it is not "too strong". It is basic statistics. Bayes' theorem,
>>>>>> and all that. If a large proportion of people use autopilot, but
>>>>>> only a small fraction of the deaths had the autopilot on, then
>>>>>> clearly the autopilot reduces risks and saves lives (of those that
>>>>>> drive Teslas - we still know nothing of other car drivers).
>>>>>
>>>>> A simple comparison of numbers is not sufficient. Most Tesla
>>>>> autopilot usage is on highways which are much safer per mile driven
>>>>> than other roads. That's an inherent bias because while
>>>>> non-autopilot driving must include all situations, autopilot simply
>>>>> doesn't work in most environments.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. An apples-to-apples comparison is the aim, or at least as close as
>>>> one can get.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect - without statistical justification -
>>>
>>> Yes, without justification, at all.
>> Which do /you/ think is most likely? Autopilot crashes on the motorway,
>> or autopilot crashes on smaller roads?
>
> Because autopilot doesn't work off the highway (it can't make turns, for example) more often autopilot involved crashes are on the highways.
>

I was not aware of that limitation. Thanks for providing some relevant
information.

> I recall a news article that said experimenters were able to fool autopilot into making a left turn at an intersection by putting two or three small squares on the roadway. In city driving the limitations are at a level that no one would try to use it.
>
>
>>>> that the accidents
>>>> involving autopilot use are precisely cases where you don't have a good,
>>>> clear highway, and autopilot was used in a situation where it was not
>>>> suitable. Getting good statistics and comparisons here could be helpful
>>>> in making it safer - perhaps adding a feature that has the autopilot say
>>>> "This is not a good road for me - you have to drive yourself" and switch
>>>> itself off. (It would be more controversial, but probably statistically
>>>> safer, if it also sometimes said "I'm better at driving on this kind of
>>>> road than you are" and switching itself on!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An issue is, of course, that any single experience can be
>>>>>>> dismissed as an unrepresentative aberration. Collation of
>>>>>>> experiences is necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the dashcam "Tesla's making mistakes" videos on yootoob
>>>>>>> aren't confidence inspiring. Based on one I saw, I certainly
>>>>>>> wouldn't dare let a Tesla drive itself in an urban environment,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect there isn't sufficient experience to assess relative
>>>>>>> dangers between "artificial intelligence" and "natural
>>>>>>> stupidity".
>>>>>> I don't doubt at all that the Tesla autopilot makes mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which depends on how you define "mistakes".
>>>> Of course.
>>>>> It's a bit like asking
>>>>> if your rear view mirror makes mistakes by not showing cars in the
>>>>> blind spot. The autopilot is not designed to drive the car. It is a
>>>>> tool to assist the driver. The driver is required to be responsible
>>>>> for the safe operation of the car at all times. I can point out to
>>>>> you the many, many times the car acts like a spaz and requires me to
>>>>> manage the situation. Early on, there was a left turn like on a 50
>>>>> mph road, the car would want to turn into when intending to drive
>>>>> straight. Fortunately they have ironed out that level of issue. But
>>>>> it was always my responsibility to prevent it from causing an
>>>>> accident. So how would you say anything was the fault of the
>>>>> autopilot?
>>>>>
>>>> There are a few possibilities here (though I am not trying to claim that
>>>> any of them are "right" in some objective sense). You might say they
>>>> had believed that the "autopilot" was like a plane autopilot -
>>>
>>> It is exactly like an airplane autopilot.
>>>
>>>
>>>> you can
>>>> turn it on and leave it to safely drive itself for most of the journey
>>>> except perhaps the very beginning and very end of the trip. As you say,
>>>> the Tesla autopilot is /not/ designed for that - that might be a mistake
>>>> from the salesmen, advertisers, user-interface designers, or just the
>>>> driver's mistake.
>>>
>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude. Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the autopilot.
>>>
>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones are
>> more sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as
>> well as being able to land automatically. And more important than what
>> plane autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and
>> remember we are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot"
>> will drive their car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>
> Great! But the autopilot is not watching for other aircraft, not monitoring communications and not able to deal with any unusual events. You keep coming back to a defective idea that autopilot means the airplane is flying itself. It's not! Just like in the car, there is a pilot who's job is to fly/drive and assure safety.
>

I am fully aware that plane autopilots are limited. I am also aware
that they are good enough (in planes equipped with modern systems) to
allow pilots to let the system handle most of the flight itself, even
including landing. The pilot is, of course, expected to be paying
attention, watching for other aircraft, communicating with air traffic
controllers and all the rest of it. But there have been cases of pilots
falling asleep, or missing their destination because they were playing
around on their laptops. What people /should/ be doing, and what they
are /actually/ doing, is not always the same.

> As to the movie idea, no, people don't think that. People might "pretend" that, but there's no level of "thinking" that says you can climb in the back seat while driving. Please don't say silly things.
>

You can google for "backseat Tesla drivers" as well as I can. I am
confident that some of these are staged, and equally confident that some
are not. There is no minimum level of "thinking" - no matter how daft
something might be, there is always a dafter person who will think it's
a good idea.

>
>>>> And sometimes the autopilot does something daft - it is no longer
>>>> assisting the driver, but working against him or her. That, I think,
>>>> should be counted as a mistake by the autopilot.
>>>
>>> The Tesla autopilot can barely manage to go 10 miles without some sort of glitch. "Daft" is not a very useful term, as it means what you want it to mean. "I know it when I see it." Hard to design to that sort of specification.
>>>
>> Well, "does something daft" is no worse than "acts like a spaz", and
>> it's a good deal more politically correct!
>
> Bzzzz. Sorry, you failed.
>

Really? You think describing the autopilot's actions as "acts like a
spaz" is useful and specific, while "does something daft" is not? As
for the political correctness - find a real spastic and ask them what
they think of your phrase.

On 4/1/2022 7:17 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-04-01 15:38, Don Y wrote:
>> On 4/1/2022 1:46 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
>>>> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
>>>> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
>>>> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
>>>> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
>>>> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
>>>
>>> All these 'assistants' with their multiple 'modes' only make things
>>> more complicated and therefor unsafe. Simple is better.
>>
>> "Assistance" should be intuitive. You don't even NOTICE the power
>> steering, brakes, autotranny, etc. "assistants" in a vehicle.
>> Because, for the most part, the way they operate is largely invariant
>> of driver, driving conditions, etc. (how often do folks use anything
>> other than "D(rive)" and "R(everse)"? Is there a way to *disable*
>> the power steering? Or brakes? Should there be?
>
> I much prefer a simple stick shift. I can tell what state it's in
> by touch, and there in not the slightest doubt about it. That isn't
> true for an automatic. You need to /look/ what state it's in.

Why do you care? You can tell if it is in R/N/D simply by the feel of
where the control is presently positioned. If I care what "gear"
the transmission is currently operating in, I can look at the display
located between the speedo and tach (a place that your eyes will
always consult).

In most of the places I've lived, there is little need to be able
to "force" the transmission into a particular gear -- that it wouldn't
have already assumed, on its own. And, in difficult driving conditions
(e.g., coming out of the mountains, here), you'd likely want the vehicle
to manage most of those decisions (e.g., overheating the transmission
on a long downgrade).

SWMBO used to prefer a stick. I convinced her to move to an automatic
as it would be one less control to deal with as she aged. And, migrated
her to a larger displacement engine -- for similar reasons. She now often
relies on these two changes to extricate herself from dangerous
situations (e.g., when oncoming traffic isn't yielding as it should).
(this isn't always a pleasant experience when I'm a passenger! :< )

> They're
> too temperamental to my taste, refusing to change state under certain
> conditions. Same for the electric parking brake. It took me a while to
> figure out it refuses to disengage when I'm not wearing seat belts.
> Sheesh! Talk about weird interactions!

Hmmm... that's a new one, for me. I'm more bothered by all of the "alarms"
or warnings. "You haven't put the vehicle in PARK but turned off the
ignition" "The headlights are still on" and my personal peeve "You have
exited the vehicle -- WITH the keyfob -- while it is still running"
(what the hell are they trying to tell me that I don't already know?
That I left the car *running*?? I can understand an alert if I've left
the key *in* the running car...

The most annoying aspect of all this is that there is not a unified means of
presenting this information! Sometimes it appears as text on a display
(I don't recall where I told the car that I prefer ENGLISH!), sometimes
a cryptic idiot light on the dash, sometimes a coded audio annunciator
(what the hell does THAT noise mean???), etc.

(There are three full graphic displays in the car. Can't you sort out how
to use them to TELL me what you think I've done wrong?)

> Power steering and brakes are in the set of assists that normally
> go unnoticed until they fail. (Provided they are essentially linear,
> smooth, without discontinuity or other surprise behaviour.)

Exactly. You wouldn't want to have a switch to turn them on or off.
I'm not convinced of the utility of having the headlights come on
automatically. Or, the windshield wipers. But, those can be disabled.
Likewise for the tilt-down mirrors (SWMBO took a long time to warm to
that idea)

> [...]
>>
>> My favorite is the side mirrors tilting downwards (to afford a view
>> of the ground) when backing up. The backup camera is a win as we back into
>> our garage and it helps avoid backing INTO something. These would be less
>> necessary with a "lower profile" vehicle, though.
>>
>> [I also like the trip computer automatically reseting at each trip
>> and "fill up"]
>
> Yes, got that too, and I agree those are good features.

An EV driver wouldn't see the need for that sort of trip computer.
But, might reason the need for one that shows battery consumption
since last recharge -- or, "on this trip".

It's also annoying when the car plays nanny and won't let THE PASSENGER
use certain controls while the vehicle is in motion.

And, these restrictions (intended on the *driver*) are inconsistent.
So, a driver is "distracted" by a control that may -- or may not -- be
operable in a certain driving condition (why can I twiddle with the
radio presets while driving but not specify a new GPS destination?).

And, the quality of the implementations is really piss poor (in every
vehicle that we auditioned!). I recall typing in the name of a store
to which I wanted to drive. I apparently misspelled it as the destination
it selected was 1500 miles away (whereas the actual store was just a few
miles away -- but I couldn't recall on which of several parallel roads it
was located!). C'mon, do you REALLY think I want to lay in a course to
a destination that far from here? And, that I would do so often enough
that you should blindly assume that to be the case?? E.g., maybe a
prompt saying "We found a location by that name 1500 miles from here.
Is that what you intended (in case you haven't NOTICED that to be the
case)? Or would you like to look for similar names, *locally*?"

Or, the system being completely unresponsive to "events" (button presses)
for 15-30 seconds? Or, the backup camera taking a few seconds to come
online (so you have to WAIT before taking your foot off the brake).

Or, displays being limited to N digits (e.g., total miles traveled on this
trip) so you never know if you are seeing the results of saturated math
or some other USEFUL presentation?

[You would think a car manufacturer with all the re$ource$ at its disposal
would come up with a better implementation! Likely the folks making the
technical decisions aren't skilled in the art...]

On 01/04/22 14:07, Don Y wrote:

<snipped many points where we are talking about
different classes of aircraft and air traffic>

>>>>> I.e., a pilot is a lot more likely to understand the function
>>>>> AND LIMITATIONS of an (aircraft) autopilot than a driver is to
>>>>> have similar appreciation for an (automobile) "autopilot".
>>
>> That's true for the aircraft, but nobody has developed
>> an autopilot. You have to stay awake feel (literally,
>> by the seat of your pants) what's happening. The nearest
>> to an autopilot is a moving map airspace display.
>
> Commercial aircraft rely on autopilots.  In a sense, it is
> an easier (navigation) problem to solve -- there's no real "traffic"
> or other obstacles beyond the airports (assuming you maintain your
> assigned flight corridor/speed).  The same is true of railways
> and waterways (more or less).

Er, no.

You are considering a small part of air traffic, that
in controlled airspace.

Many flights, powered and unpowered, happen outside
controlled airspace, where the rule is to look out
of the cockpit for converging traffic.

One one occasion I watched a commercial airliner
taking off a thousand feet below me. Hercules buzz
around too. Then there are balloons, hang gliders
and the like.

There are even rules as to which side of roads and
railways you should fly on, so that there aren't
head-on collisions between aircraft following the
same ground feature in opposite directions

Gliders frequently operate very near each other,
especially in thermals and when landing. They
also have to spot other gliders coming straight
at them when ridge flying; not trivial to spot
a white blob the size of a motorbike's front
converging at 120mph.

To help cope with that, some gliders are equipped
with FLARMs - short range radio transmitters to
indicate the direction of other gliders and whether
you are likely to hit them.

> Cars operate in a much more challenging environment.  Even "on the open
> road", a condition can arise that needs immediate driver attention
> (witness these 50-car pileups).
>
> Note how poorly "seasoned" drivers adapt to the first snowfall of
> the season.  (Really?  Did you FORGET what this stuff was like??)
> Do they do any special (mental?) prep prior to getting behind the
> wheel, in those cases?  Or, just "wing it", assuming "it will
> come back to them"?
>
>>>> Pilots often don't understand what's going on; just
>>>> listen to the accident reports on the news :(
>>>
>>> I think those events are caused by cognitive overload, not ignorance.
>>
>> Not always, e.g. the recent 737 crashes.
>
> So, a defect in an autopilot implementation can be similarly excused?

Que? Strawman.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:08:31 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 14:44, Ricky wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 3:08:25 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2022 02:19, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >>> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
> >>>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Someone still has to be watching
> >>>>> for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the
> >>>>> pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
> >>>>> autopilot.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones
> >>>> are more
> >>>> sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as
> >>>> well as
> >>>> being able to land automatically. And more important than what plane
> >>>> autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and
> >>>> remember we
> >>>> are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will
> >>>> drive their
> >>>> car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
> >>>
> >>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
> >>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
> >>>
> >>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept
> >>> into the heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does
> >>> it for me".
> >> You don't. Twats will always be twats. You fix the cars.
> >>
> >> You start by changing the name. "Driver assistance" rather than
> >> "autopilot".
> >>
> >> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
> >> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
> >> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
> >> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
> >> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
> >> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
> >
> > Do you know anything about how the Tesla autopilot actually works? Anything at all?
> >
> A little - but not a lot, and no personal experience.
>
> So fill in the details here.
>
> You've already told us that it is designed for things like motorway
> driving (or "highway" driving). Presumably you stick by that, and
> therefore agree that any restrictions on the autopilot should be lower
> for motorway driving than for more "challenging" driving such as town
> roads or small, twisty country roads.

I don't really understand what you mean about "restrictions". Again, I think your image of how it works is not how it works. I don't know enough of your image to know how to explain to you what you have wrong.

Autopilot will try to keep the car in a lane, recognize lights, stop signs, exit ramps and vehicles. When on appropriate highways, it will work in navigate on autopilot where it can change lanes (pass slow vehicles, get out of passing lane, etc.) and take exits. It will stop for traffic lights, but can not navigate turns at intersections or even twisty roads. When it sees somthing that upsets it, it will sound the alarm (that should be ALARM) and insist you take over. One such situation is blinking yellow lights at an intersection with light traffic. The autopilot never understands this light can be driven through.

> People already manage to read newspapers or eat their breakfast in
> traffic queues, in purely manual cars. Do you think autopilot can
> handle that kind of traffic?

No, the autopilot won't read the newspaper. Otherwise I have no idea what you are asking. What is "that kind of traffic"? You mean stop and go? Yes, it does that very well. That's one situation I would not worry much about taking a nap.

> My suggestion is that a way to ensure people have more focus on driving
> is to require contact with the steering wheel. I am happy to hear your
> objections to that idea, or to alternative thoughts.

Teslas already do that. Please, go to a Tesla forum and read about the cars a bit. It would save me a lot of typing.

> Improper use of autopilot (and other automation in all kinds of cars)
> leads to a higher risk of accidents. I expect that proper use can lower
> risk. Do you disagree with these two claims?

"Higher" and "lower" than what???

> Do you think Tesla's autopilot is perfect as it is, or is there room for
> improvement?

Of course there is room for improvement. When I first got my car it wouldn't take an exit ramp. Then it would take the exit, but would enter it at full speed! Now it is better, but you still need to watch it. It's also poor at slowing before traffic lights. Often the lights are around a bend and until it sees the light is red, it's barreling along. Then has to hit the brakes, not just the regenerative engine brake. This is how most people drive and it wastes a lot of fuel.

> Do you actually want to contribute something to this thread, or do you
> just want to attack any post that isn't Tesla fanboy support? (Your
> answers to the previous questions will cover this one too.)

This is your BS. I'm not criticizing and criticism of Tesla. You don't pay attention enough to understand that. I'm criticizing your remarks based on ignorance of Teslas, ignorance that doesn't stop you and Tom from forming opinions based on your ignorance rather than knowledge.

Please just go read a bit about them. There is tons of info. Even weighing just the electrons to read it all, it's still tons! How many electrons in a ton, anyway?

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 14:42, Ricky wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:19:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
> >>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the
> >>>> plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude.
> >> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years. Cat 3b
> >> landings were in operation when I was a kid.
> >>>> Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and
> >>>> otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is
> >>>> responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
> >>>> autopilot.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern
> >>> ones are more sophisticated and handle course changes along the
> >>> planned route, as well as being able to land automatically. And
> >>> more important than what plane autopilots actually /do/, is what
> >>> people /think/ they do - and remember we are talking about
> >>> drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive their car
> >>> while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
> >> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
> >> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
> >>
> >> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept into the
> >> heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does it for me".
> >
> > That's Tom Gardner level misinformation. Comments about what people
> > think are spurious and unsubstantiated. A class of "twats" can be
> > invented that think anything. Nothing matters other than what Tesla
> > owners think. They are the ones driving the cars.
> >
> Are you suggesting that none of the people who drive Teslas are twats?
> (Maybe that term is too British for you.)

The term is too BS for me. A twat is whoever you want them to be. For all I know, you think everyone who drives a Tesla is a twat. How about if we discuss facts rather than BS?

> And are you suggesting that only Tesla drivers are affected by Tesla
> crashes? Obviously they will be disproportionally affected, but motor
> accidents often involve other people and other cars. And while Tesla
> may be leading the way in car "autopiloting", others are following - the
> strengths and weaknesses of Tesla's systems are relevant to other car
> manufacturers.

Now I have no idea why you have brought this up from left field. Is "left field" too American for you? That's from a sport called "baseball", not to be confused with "blernsball".

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:17:55 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-04-01 15:38, Don Y wrote:
> > On 4/1/2022 1:46 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> >>> You turn the steering wheel into a dead-man's handle - if the driver
> >>> releases it for more than, say, 2 seconds, the autopilot should first
> >>> beep violently, then pull over and stop the car if the driver does not
> >>> pay attention. (Maybe you have "motorway mode" that allows a longer
> >>> delay time, since autopilot works better there, and perhaps also a
> >>> "traffic queue" mode with even longer delays.)
> >>
> >> All these 'assistants' with their multiple 'modes' only make things
> >> more complicated and therefor unsafe. Simple is better.
> >
> > "Assistance" should be intuitive. You don't even NOTICE the power
> > steering, brakes, autotranny, etc. "assistants" in a vehicle.
> > Because, for the most part, the way they operate is largely invariant
> > of driver, driving conditions, etc. (how often do folks use anything
> > other than "D(rive)" and "R(everse)"? Is there a way to *disable*
> > the power steering? Or brakes? Should there be?
> I much prefer a simple stick shift. I can tell what state it's in
> by touch, and there in not the slightest doubt about it.

My Tesla is a manual. The transmission never controls the gear it is in. I also know exactly what gear it is in without looking or even feeling. It only has one speed. Well, I guess it has two actually, + and -.

> That isn't
> true for an automatic. You need to /look/ what state it's in. They're
> too temperamental to my taste, refusing to change state under certain
> conditions. Same for the electric parking brake. It took me a while to
> figure out it refuses to disengage when I'm not wearing seat belts.
> Sheesh! Talk about weird interactions!

The Tesla is also pretty good about that. I never have to worry with the parking break as it is automatically set when in park and also when at a stop light. Stepping on the brake until you are stopped sets the brake and stepping on the gas... accelerator releases it.

> Power steering and brakes are in the set of assists that normally
> go unnoticed until they fail. (Provided they are essentially linear,
> smooth, without discontinuity or other surprise behaviour.)

I hit the starter a bit too briefly in my Kia and put it in reverse, only to find the engine had not actually started and I'm rolling backwards with no break or steering. lol

> > My favorite is the side mirrors tilting downwards (to afford a view
> > of the ground) when backing up. The backup camera is a win as we back into
> > our garage and it helps avoid backing INTO something. These would be less
> > necessary with a "lower profile" vehicle, though.
> >
> > [I also like the trip computer automatically reseting at each trip
> > and "fill up"]
> Yes, got that too, and I agree those are good features.

Both the Kia and Tesla start a trip odometer on fueling. Any charging on the Tesla restarts it. I don't know about the Kia, once I've driven to a gas station I'm not leaving until the tank is full.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:29:58 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 14:38, Ricky wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:48:18 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >>>> On 31/03/2022 22:44, Ricky wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>>> On 30/03/2022 00:54, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 29/03/22 20:18, David Brown wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> No, it is not "too strong". It is basic statistics. Bayes' theorem,
> >>>>>> and all that. If a large proportion of people use autopilot, but
> >>>>>> only a small fraction of the deaths had the autopilot on, then
> >>>>>> clearly the autopilot reduces risks and saves lives (of those that
> >>>>>> drive Teslas - we still know nothing of other car drivers).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A simple comparison of numbers is not sufficient. Most Tesla
> >>>>> autopilot usage is on highways which are much safer per mile driven
> >>>>> than other roads. That's an inherent bias because while
> >>>>> non-autopilot driving must include all situations, autopilot simply
> >>>>> doesn't work in most environments.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes. An apples-to-apples comparison is the aim, or at least as close as
> >>>> one can get.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect - without statistical justification -
> >>>
> >>> Yes, without justification, at all.
> >> Which do /you/ think is most likely? Autopilot crashes on the motorway,
> >> or autopilot crashes on smaller roads?
> >
> > Because autopilot doesn't work off the highway (it can't make turns, for example) more often autopilot involved crashes are on the highways.
> >
> I was not aware of that limitation. Thanks for providing some relevant
> information.
> > I recall a news article that said experimenters were able to fool autopilot into making a left turn at an intersection by putting two or three small squares on the roadway. In city driving the limitations are at a level that no one would try to use it.
> >
> >
> >>>> that the accidents
> >>>> involving autopilot use are precisely cases where you don't have a good,
> >>>> clear highway, and autopilot was used in a situation where it was not
> >>>> suitable. Getting good statistics and comparisons here could be helpful
> >>>> in making it safer - perhaps adding a feature that has the autopilot say
> >>>> "This is not a good road for me - you have to drive yourself" and switch
> >>>> itself off. (It would be more controversial, but probably statistically
> >>>> safer, if it also sometimes said "I'm better at driving on this kind of
> >>>> road than you are" and switching itself on!)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An issue is, of course, that any single experience can be
> >>>>>>> dismissed as an unrepresentative aberration. Collation of
> >>>>>>> experiences is necessary.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some of the dashcam "Tesla's making mistakes" videos on yootoob
> >>>>>>> aren't confidence inspiring. Based on one I saw, I certainly
> >>>>>>> wouldn't dare let a Tesla drive itself in an urban environment,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suspect there isn't sufficient experience to assess relative
> >>>>>>> dangers between "artificial intelligence" and "natural
> >>>>>>> stupidity".
> >>>>>> I don't doubt at all that the Tesla autopilot makes mistakes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which depends on how you define "mistakes".
> >>>> Of course.
> >>>>> It's a bit like asking
> >>>>> if your rear view mirror makes mistakes by not showing cars in the
> >>>>> blind spot. The autopilot is not designed to drive the car. It is a
> >>>>> tool to assist the driver. The driver is required to be responsible
> >>>>> for the safe operation of the car at all times. I can point out to
> >>>>> you the many, many times the car acts like a spaz and requires me to
> >>>>> manage the situation. Early on, there was a left turn like on a 50
> >>>>> mph road, the car would want to turn into when intending to drive
> >>>>> straight. Fortunately they have ironed out that level of issue. But
> >>>>> it was always my responsibility to prevent it from causing an
> >>>>> accident. So how would you say anything was the fault of the
> >>>>> autopilot?
> >>>>>
> >>>> There are a few possibilities here (though I am not trying to claim that
> >>>> any of them are "right" in some objective sense). You might say they
> >>>> had believed that the "autopilot" was like a plane autopilot -
> >>>
> >>> It is exactly like an airplane autopilot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> you can
> >>>> turn it on and leave it to safely drive itself for most of the journey
> >>>> except perhaps the very beginning and very end of the trip. As you say,
> >>>> the Tesla autopilot is /not/ designed for that - that might be a mistake
> >>>> from the salesmen, advertisers, user-interface designers, or just the
> >>>> driver's mistake.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude. Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the autopilot.
> >>>
> >> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones are
> >> more sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as
> >> well as being able to land automatically. And more important than what
> >> plane autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and
> >> remember we are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot"
> >> will drive their car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
> >
> > Great! But the autopilot is not watching for other aircraft, not monitoring communications and not able to deal with any unusual events. You keep coming back to a defective idea that autopilot means the airplane is flying itself. It's not! Just like in the car, there is a pilot who's job is to fly/drive and assure safety.
> >
> I am fully aware that plane autopilots are limited. I am also aware
> that they are good enough (in planes equipped with modern systems) to
> allow pilots to let the system handle most of the flight itself, even
> including landing. The pilot is, of course, expected to be paying
> attention, watching for other aircraft, communicating with air traffic
> controllers and all the rest of it. But there have been cases of pilots
> falling asleep, or missing their destination because they were playing
> around on their laptops. What people /should/ be doing, and what they
> are /actually/ doing, is not always the same.

Exactly like the Tesla autopilot. The pilot is still in charge and responsible.

> > As to the movie idea, no, people don't think that. People might "pretend" that, but there's no level of "thinking" that says you can climb in the back seat while driving. Please don't say silly things.
> >
> You can google for "backseat Tesla drivers" as well as I can. I am
> confident that some of these are staged, and equally confident that some
> are not. There is no minimum level of "thinking" - no matter how daft
> something might be, there is always a dafter person who will think it's
> a good idea.

The fact that someone pulled a stunt doesn't mean they thought that was an ok thing to do. You know that. So why are we discussing this?

> >>>> And sometimes the autopilot does something daft - it is no longer
> >>>> assisting the driver, but working against him or her. That, I think,
> >>>> should be counted as a mistake by the autopilot.
> >>>
> >>> The Tesla autopilot can barely manage to go 10 miles without some sort of glitch. "Daft" is not a very useful term, as it means what you want it to mean. "I know it when I see it." Hard to design to that sort of specification.
> >>>
> >> Well, "does something daft" is no worse than "acts like a spaz", and
> >> it's a good deal more politically correct!
> >
> > Bzzzz. Sorry, you failed.
> >
> Really? You think describing the autopilot's actions as "acts like a
> spaz" is useful and specific, while "does something daft" is not? As
> for the political correctness - find a real spastic and ask them what
> they think of your phrase.

On 01/04/2022 18:39, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/04/2022 14:42, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:19:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the
>>>>>> plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude.
>>>> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years. Cat 3b
>>>> landings were in operation when I was a kid.
>>>>>> Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and
>>>>>> otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is
>>>>>> responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
>>>>>> autopilot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern
>>>>> ones are more sophisticated and handle course changes along the
>>>>> planned route, as well as being able to land automatically. And
>>>>> more important than what plane autopilots actually /do/, is what
>>>>> people /think/ they do - and remember we are talking about
>>>>> drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive their car
>>>>> while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>>>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
>>>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept into the
>>>> heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does it for me".
>>>
>>> That's Tom Gardner level misinformation. Comments about what people
>>> think are spurious and unsubstantiated. A class of "twats" can be
>>> invented that think anything. Nothing matters other than what Tesla
>>> owners think. They are the ones driving the cars.
>>>
>> Are you suggesting that none of the people who drive Teslas are twats?
>> (Maybe that term is too British for you.)
>
> The term is too BS for me. A twat is whoever you want them to be. For all I know, you think everyone who drives a Tesla is a twat. How about if we discuss facts rather than BS?
>

It means "a stupid person" or "someone who does stupid things". No, not
everyone who drives a Tesla is a twat - but /some/ are, such as those
that think their autopilot will drive the car without them paying attention.

>
>> And are you suggesting that only Tesla drivers are affected by Tesla
>> crashes? Obviously they will be disproportionally affected, but motor
>> accidents often involve other people and other cars. And while Tesla
>> may be leading the way in car "autopiloting", others are following - the
>> strengths and weaknesses of Tesla's systems are relevant to other car
>> manufacturers.
>
> Now I have no idea why you have brought this up from left field. Is "left field" too American for you? That's from a sport called "baseball", not to be confused with "blernsball".
>

You said that Tesla autopilots are only relevant to Tesla drivers.
That's wrong. I usually prefer to give a bit of explanation as to why I
think someone is wrong.

On 01/04/2022 18:53, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:29:58 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/04/2022 14:38, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-4, David Brown
>>> wrote:

>>>> Well, "does something daft" is no worse than "acts like a
>>>> spaz", and it's a good deal more politically correct!
>>>
>>> Bzzzz. Sorry, you failed.
>>>
>> Really? You think describing the autopilot's actions as "acts like
>> a spaz" is useful and specific, while "does something daft" is not?
>> As for the political correctness - find a real spastic and ask them
>> what they think of your phrase.
>
> How do you know what is meant by "spaz"? That's my point. Words
> like that are not well defined. I intended the word to be colorful,
> with no particular meaning. Your use of daft was in a statement that
> needed much more detail to be meaningful. Besides, if I jump off a
> cliff, are you going to jump as well?
>

I know what the word "spaz" means. I know what /you/ meant by it in the
context - just as I know that you know what "does something daft" meant
(including the implied vagueness of the phrase). I have no idea why you
are pretending you don't, nor why you are getting your knickers in a
twist about me writing "daft" after you wrote "spaz".

(And I hope you know what that last colourful British phrase means, and
don't think it is meant literally :-) )

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:59:41 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 18:39, Ricky wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:12:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2022 14:42, Ricky wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:19:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >>>> On 31/03/22 23:39, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/04/2022 00:29, Ricky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the
> >>>>>> plane. It simply maintains a heading and altitude.
> >>>> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years. Cat 3b
> >>>> landings were in operation when I was a kid.
> >>>>>> Someone still has to be watching for other aircraft and
> >>>>>> otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is
> >>>>>> responsible for flying the plane, with or without the
> >>>>>> autopilot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern
> >>>>> ones are more sophisticated and handle course changes along the
> >>>>> planned route, as well as being able to land automatically. And
> >>>>> more important than what plane autopilots actually /do/, is what
> >>>>> people /think/ they do - and remember we are talking about
> >>>>> drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive their car
> >>>>> while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
> >>>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
> >>>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept into the
> >>>> heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does it for me".
> >>>
> >>> That's Tom Gardner level misinformation. Comments about what people
> >>> think are spurious and unsubstantiated. A class of "twats" can be
> >>> invented that think anything. Nothing matters other than what Tesla
> >>> owners think. They are the ones driving the cars.
> >>>
> >> Are you suggesting that none of the people who drive Teslas are twats?
> >> (Maybe that term is too British for you.)
> >
> > The term is too BS for me. A twat is whoever you want them to be. For all I know, you think everyone who drives a Tesla is a twat. How about if we discuss facts rather than BS?
> >
> It means "a stupid person" or "someone who does stupid things". No, not
> everyone who drives a Tesla is a twat - but /some/ are, such as those
> that think their autopilot will drive the car without them paying attention.
> >
> >> And are you suggesting that only Tesla drivers are affected by Tesla
> >> crashes? Obviously they will be disproportionally affected, but motor
> >> accidents often involve other people and other cars. And while Tesla
> >> may be leading the way in car "autopiloting", others are following - the
> >> strengths and weaknesses of Tesla's systems are relevant to other car
> >> manufacturers.
> >
> > Now I have no idea why you have brought this up from left field. Is "left field" too American for you? That's from a sport called "baseball", not to be confused with "blernsball".
> >
> You said that Tesla autopilots are only relevant to Tesla drivers.
> That's wrong. I usually prefer to give a bit of explanation as to why I
> think someone is wrong.

Please reread my post. I said nothing of the sort. Please read carefully. Quotes are also helpful.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 01/04/2022 18:25, Ricky wrote:

> Please, go to a Tesla forum and read about the cars a bit. It would save me a lot of typing.
>
No, thanks.

As so often seems to happen in this group, this thread is going nowhere.
I'm not interested enough in Teslas to start reading forums, brochures,
or other information. You are not interested in sharing more than the
occasional titbit of information, and it must be dragged out of you
through frustrated and somewhat unfriendly comments on both sides - you
prefer to tell people they are wrong than offer corrections or your own
opinion. I think sometimes this group brings out the worst in people,
even when the worst members of the group are not involved in the thread
- we develop some bad habits here. It is frustrating.

I leave the thread /marginally/ better informed than I started.

On 01/04/22 17:25, Ricky wrote:
> I don't really understand what you mean about "restrictions". Again, I think
> your image of how it works is not how it works. I don't know enough of your
> image to know how to explain to you what you have wrong.
>
> Autopilot will try to keep the car in a lane, recognize lights, stop signs,
> exit ramps and vehicles. When on appropriate highways, it will work in
> navigate on autopilot where it can change lanes (pass slow vehicles, get out
> of passing lane, etc.) and take exits. It will stop for traffic lights, but
> can not navigate turns at intersections or even twisty roads. When it sees
> somthing that upsets it, it will sound the alarm (that should be ALARM) and
> insist you take over. One such situation is blinking yellow lights at an
> intersection with light traffic. The autopilot never understands this light
> can be driven through.

You need to datestamp your description of the autopilot's
capabilities and foibles - Tesla keeps updating it. IMHO that's
a problem, since the car's behaviour today might be significantly
different to when you last drove it. And the driver probably won't
even know the difference exists; would you read the overnight
"change notes" when all you want to do is drive to the shops?

Example:
https://www.pluscars.net/tesla-autopilot-automatically-stopped-at-red-light-for-the-first-time-105-news

It sounds like your Tesla doesn't have the autopilot mentioned,
viz "$7,000 full autonomous driving package recognizes traffic
lights and stop signs. It provides autonomous driving in the city."

Sounds like a lot more than "highway only".

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:36:52 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 18:25, Ricky wrote:
>
> > Please, go to a Tesla forum and read about the cars a bit. It would save me a lot of typing.
> >
> No, thanks.
>
> As so often seems to happen in this group, this thread is going nowhere.
> I'm not interested enough in Teslas to start reading forums, brochures,
> or other information. You are not interested in sharing more than the
> occasional titbit of information, and it must be dragged out of you
> through frustrated and somewhat unfriendly comments on both sides - you
> prefer to tell people they are wrong than offer corrections or your own
> opinion. I think sometimes this group brings out the worst in people,
> even when the worst members of the group are not involved in the thread
> - we develop some bad habits here. It is frustrating.
>
> I leave the thread /marginally/ better informed than I started.

If you want to ask direct questions, fine. I'm not going to create a tutorial for you.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:39:47 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 17:25, Ricky wrote:
> > I don't really understand what you mean about "restrictions". Again, I think
> > your image of how it works is not how it works. I don't know enough of your
> > image to know how to explain to you what you have wrong.
> >
> > Autopilot will try to keep the car in a lane, recognize lights, stop signs,
> > exit ramps and vehicles. When on appropriate highways, it will work in
> > navigate on autopilot where it can change lanes (pass slow vehicles, get out
> > of passing lane, etc.) and take exits. It will stop for traffic lights, but
> > can not navigate turns at intersections or even twisty roads. When it sees
> > somthing that upsets it, it will sound the alarm (that should be ALARM) and
> > insist you take over. One such situation is blinking yellow lights at an
> > intersection with light traffic. The autopilot never understands this light
> > can be driven through.
> You need to datestamp your description of the autopilot's
> capabilities and foibles - Tesla keeps updating it. IMHO that's
> a problem, since the car's behaviour today might be significantly
> different to when you last drove it. And the driver probably won't
> even know the difference exists; would you read the overnight
> "change notes" when all you want to do is drive to the shops?
>
> Example:
> https://www.pluscars.net/tesla-autopilot-automatically-stopped-at-red-light-for-the-first-time-105-news

Yes, I said it will stop for lights and stop signs. What's your point?

> It sounds like your Tesla doesn't have the autopilot mentioned,
> viz "$7,000 full autonomous driving package recognizes traffic
> lights and stop signs. It provides autonomous driving in the city."

Autopilot is not "autonomous driving", period. That's the point. You don't say where you read this, but the price puts it sometime in the 2020 timeframe or older. But then, when I bought mine, there were multiple choices available. "Full self driving" was the highest level, which was paying for something that is not on the road. They are now beta testing, but not "autonomous" driving.

> Sounds like a lot more than "highway only".

Hard to tell. This is very unlikely to have come from Tesla as they never refer to it as "autonomous" driving. They use brand names.

I will ask again that you read my posts and read them thoroughly. You clearly are not doing that.

If you aren't going to read the posts, then don't reply. Ok?

BTW, I did a Google search on your quote and it didn't turn up a match. So it would see you got that from a phone call or something that Google doesn't yet crawl. It did turn up this which is very interesting.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/31/court-orders-tesla-to-buy-back-model-3-in-autopilot-case/

'Tesla says FSD and its attendant features require “active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”'

So take it straight from the horse's mouth! Also, please stop the BS, ok?

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 01/04/22 21:12, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:39:47 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 01/04/22 17:25, Ricky wrote:
>>> I don't really understand what you mean about "restrictions". Again, I think
>>> your image of how it works is not how it works. I don't know enough of your
>>> image to know how to explain to you what you have wrong.
>>>
>>> Autopilot will try to keep the car in a lane, recognize lights, stop signs,
>>> exit ramps and vehicles. When on appropriate highways, it will work in
>>> navigate on autopilot where it can change lanes (pass slow vehicles, get out
>>> of passing lane, etc.) and take exits. It will stop for traffic lights, but
>>> can not navigate turns at intersections or even twisty roads. When it sees
>>> somthing that upsets it, it will sound the alarm (that should be ALARM) and
>>> insist you take over. One such situation is blinking yellow lights at an
>>> intersection with light traffic. The autopilot never understands this light
>>> can be driven through.
>> You need to datestamp your description of the autopilot's
>> capabilities and foibles - Tesla keeps updating it. IMHO that's
>> a problem, since the car's behaviour today might be significantly
>> different to when you last drove it. And the driver probably won't
>> even know the difference exists; would you read the overnight
>> "change notes" when all you want to do is drive to the shops?
>>
>> Example:
>> https://www.pluscars.net/tesla-autopilot-automatically-stopped-at-red-light-for-the-first-time-105-news
>
> Yes, I said it will stop for lights and stop signs. What's your point?

Read the paragraph above the word "Example:"

>> It sounds like your Tesla doesn't have the autopilot mentioned,
>> viz "$7,000 full autonomous driving package recognizes traffic
>> lights and stop signs. It provides autonomous driving in the city."
>
> Autopilot is not "autonomous driving", period. That's the point. You don't say where you read this, but the price puts it sometime in the 2020 timeframe or older. But then, when I bought mine, there were multiple choices available. "Full self driving" was the highest level, which was paying for something that is not on the road. They are now beta testing, but not "autonomous" driving.
>
>
>> Sounds like a lot more than "highway only".
>
> Hard to tell. This is very unlikely to have come from Tesla as they never refer to it as "autonomous" driving. They use brand names.
>
> I will ask again that you read my posts and read them thoroughly. You clearly are not doing that.
>
> If you aren't going to read the posts, then don't reply. Ok?

Mirror.

> BTW, I did a Google search on your quote and it didn't turn up a match. So it would see you got that from a phone call or something that Google doesn't yet crawl.

It is in the pluscars article referenced!

What was that you were saying about reading posts thoroughly?

> It did turn up this which is very interesting.
>
> https://nypost.com/2022/03/31/court-orders-tesla-to-buy-back-model-3-in-autopilot-case/
>
> 'Tesla says FSD and its attendant features require “active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”'

Yes. Musk is backtracking from some of his earlier outrageous claims.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 21:12, Ricky wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:39:47 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> On 01/04/22 17:25, Ricky wrote:
> >>> I don't really understand what you mean about "restrictions". Again, I think
> >>> your image of how it works is not how it works. I don't know enough of your
> >>> image to know how to explain to you what you have wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Autopilot will try to keep the car in a lane, recognize lights, stop signs,
> >>> exit ramps and vehicles. When on appropriate highways, it will work in
> >>> navigate on autopilot where it can change lanes (pass slow vehicles, get out
> >>> of passing lane, etc.) and take exits. It will stop for traffic lights, but
> >>> can not navigate turns at intersections or even twisty roads. When it sees
> >>> somthing that upsets it, it will sound the alarm (that should be ALARM) and
> >>> insist you take over. One such situation is blinking yellow lights at an
> >>> intersection with light traffic. The autopilot never understands this light
> >>> can be driven through.
> >> You need to datestamp your description of the autopilot's
> >> capabilities and foibles - Tesla keeps updating it. IMHO that's
> >> a problem, since the car's behaviour today might be significantly
> >> different to when you last drove it. And the driver probably won't
> >> even know the difference exists; would you read the overnight
> >> "change notes" when all you want to do is drive to the shops?
> >>
> >> Example:
> >> https://www.pluscars.net/tesla-autopilot-automatically-stopped-at-red-light-for-the-first-time-105-news
> >
> > Yes, I said it will stop for lights and stop signs. What's your point?
> Read the paragraph above the word "Example:"

Read this: What's YOUR point?

> >> It sounds like your Tesla doesn't have the autopilot mentioned,
> >> viz "$7,000 full autonomous driving package recognizes traffic
> >> lights and stop signs. It provides autonomous driving in the city."
> >
> > Autopilot is not "autonomous driving", period. That's the point. You don't say where you read this, but the price puts it sometime in the 2020 timeframe or older. But then, when I bought mine, there were multiple choices available. "Full self driving" was the highest level, which was paying for something that is not on the road. They are now beta testing, but not "autonomous" driving.
> >
> >
> >> Sounds like a lot more than "highway only".
> >
> > Hard to tell. This is very unlikely to have come from Tesla as they never refer to it as "autonomous" driving. They use brand names.
> >
> > I will ask again that you read my posts and read them thoroughly. You clearly are not doing that.
> >
> > If you aren't going to read the posts, then don't reply. Ok?
> Mirror.
> > BTW, I did a Google search on your quote and it didn't turn up a match. So it would see you got that from a phone call or something that Google doesn't yet crawl.
> It is in the pluscars article referenced!
>
> What was that you were saying about reading posts thoroughly?

I did a google search on the quote. It also doesn't show up in a text search on that web page because you munged the quote.

Even so, you are quoting a reporter writing an article, not an authoritative source. If you are going to pull BS like this, there's no reason to try to have a discussion. Please look up what TESLA says about their products. Not what a reporter said two years ago. This is why it is so hard to have a conversation with you. You don't really try to understand anything.

> > It did turn up this which is very interesting.
> >
> > https://nypost.com/2022/03/31/court-orders-tesla-to-buy-back-model-3-in-autopilot-case/
> >
> > 'Tesla says FSD and its attendant features require “active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”'
> Yes. Musk is backtracking from some of his earlier outrageous claims.

Please provide those claims. I suspect you are thinking of things he has predicted rather than what he says the cars can do. Yes, he says all sorts of things about the future. He said there would be robo-taxis in 2020. So what?

The point is you need to read what Tesla says, not Musk, not reporters. Stop with all the BS, please.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 4/1/2022 8:12 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 14:07, Don Y wrote:
>
> <snipped many points where we are talking about
> different classes of aircraft and air traffic>
>
>>>>>> I.e., a pilot is a lot more likely to understand the function
>>>>>> AND LIMITATIONS of an (aircraft) autopilot than a driver is to
>>>>>> have similar appreciation for an (automobile) "autopilot".
>>>
>>> That's true for the aircraft, but nobody has developed
>>> an autopilot. You have to stay awake feel (literally,
>>> by the seat of your pants) what's happening. The nearest
>>> to an autopilot is a moving map airspace display.
>>
>> Commercial aircraft rely on autopilots. In a sense, it is
>> an easier (navigation) problem to solve -- there's no real "traffic"
>> or other obstacles beyond the airports (assuming you maintain your
>> assigned flight corridor/speed). The same is true of railways
>> and waterways (more or less).
>
> Er, no.
>
> You are considering a small part of air traffic, that
> in controlled airspace.

And GLIDERS are a LARGE part of air traffic? Really?
How are we measuring this -- passenger miles, flights,
miles travelled, etc.?

> Many flights, powered and unpowered, happen outside
> controlled airspace, where the rule is to look out
> of the cockpit for converging traffic.

And? How does that affect my claim as to the TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
PILOTS vs. DRIVERS?

> One one occasion I watched a commercial airliner
> taking off a thousand feet below me. Hercules buzz
> around too. Then there are balloons, hang gliders
> and the like.
>
> There are even rules as to which side of roads and
> railways you should fly on, so that there aren't
> head-on collisions between aircraft following the
> same ground feature in opposite directions
>
> Gliders frequently operate very near each other,
> especially in thermals and when landing. They
> also have to spot other gliders coming straight
> at them when ridge flying; not trivial to spot
> a white blob the size of a motorbike's front
> converging at 120mph.

So, you're claiming that glider pilots are the types of people who
will climb into the back seat and take a nap? Or, play a video game
while flying?

Or, are tehy A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERSON than the drivers you
allege do these things?

> To help cope with that, some gliders are equipped
> with FLARMs - short range radio transmitters to
> indicate the direction of other gliders and whether
> you are likely to hit them.
>
>> Cars operate in a much more challenging environment. Even "on the open
>> road", a condition can arise that needs immediate driver attention
>> (witness these 50-car pileups).
>>
>> Note how poorly "seasoned" drivers adapt to the first snowfall of
>> the season. (Really? Did you FORGET what this stuff was like??)
>> Do they do any special (mental?) prep prior to getting behind the
>> wheel, in those cases? Or, just "wing it", assuming "it will
>> come back to them"?
>>
>>>>> Pilots often don't understand what's going on; just
>>>>> listen to the accident reports on the news :(
>>>>
>>>> I think those events are caused by cognitive overload, not ignorance.
>>>
>>> Not always, e.g. the recent 737 crashes.
>>
>> So, a defect in an autopilot implementation can be similarly excused?
>
> Que? Strawman.

I made the point regarding the types of people being compared.
Thus, you have to exclude the effects of "other issues" that
may contribute to the "bad outcomes" being claimed.

If the equipment/system has a defect, then you can't blame it on
the type of person operating that equipment! (or, are you claiming
all the 737 pilots were slack-offs?)

On 2022-04-01 18:25, Ricky wrote:
[...]
> Please just go read a bit about them. There is tons of info. Even
> weighing just the electrons to read it all, it's still tons! How
> many electrons in a ton, anyway?
>

About 1e33.

Jeroen Belleman

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:16:56 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 29/03/2022 15:00, Rickster wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:12:23 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> From comp.risks https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/33/11/#subj1.1
>>>
>>> The website referred to appears to be collating information in
>>> a reasonable and unemotional way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every Tesla Accident Resulting in Death (Tesla Deaths)
>>> Gabe Goldberg <ga...@gabegold.com>
>>> Thu, 24 Mar 2022 01:53:39 -0400
>>>
>>> We provide an updated record of Tesla fatalities and Tesla accident deaths
>>> that have been reported and as much related crash data as possible
>>> (e.g. location of crash, names of deceased, etc.). This sheet also tallies
>>> claimed and confirmed Tesla autopilot crashes, i.e. instances when
>>> Autopilot was activated during a Tesla crash that resulted in death. Read
>>> our other sheets for additional data and analysis on vehicle miles traveled,
>>> links and analysis comparing Musk's safety claims, and more.
>>>
>>> Tesla Deaths Total as of 3/23/2022: 246
>>> Tesla Autopilot Deaths Count: 12
>>>
>>> https://www.tesladeaths.com/
>>
>> Yeah, it's raw data. Did you have a point?
>>
>
>Without comparisons to other types of car, and correlations with other
>factors, such raw data is useless. You'd need to compare to other
>high-end electric cars, other petrol cars in similar price ranges and
>styles. You'd want to look at statistics for "typical Tesla drivers"
>(who are significantly richer than the average driver, but I don't know
>what other characteristics might be relevant - age, gender, driving
>experience, etc.) You'd have to compare statistics for the countries
>and parts of countries where Teslas are common.
>
>And you would /definitely/ want to anonymise the data. If I had a
>family member who was killed in a car crash, I would not be happy about
>their name and details of their death being used for some sort of absurd
>Tesla hate-site.
>
>I'm no fan of Teslas myself. I like a car to be controlled like a car,
>not a giant iPhone (and I don't like iPhones either). I don't like the
>heavy tax breaks given by Norway to a luxury car, and I don't like the
>environmental costs of making them (though I am glad to see improvements
>on that front). I don't like some of the silly claims people make about
>them - like Apple gadgets, they seem to bring out the fanboy in some of
>their owners. But that's all just me and my personal preferences and
>opinions - if someone else likes them, that's fine. Many Tesla owners
>are very happy with their cars (and some are unhappy - just as for any
>other car manufacturer). I can't see any reason for trying to paint
>them as evil death-traps - you'd need very strong statistical basis for
>that, not just a list of accidents.

Yeahbut the problem is conventional cars don't tend to lock all the
doors trapping everyone inside and then burst into flames like Teslas
do. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I don't see that as being a
great selling point.