Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

456

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt 4y

Auto Pilot does not work over 100 mph. I believe it is governed at 80 or below. I know for a fact it does not work at 90 so this tells me the article is not only false but an out right lie. Please note the speed was 135 mph so auto pilot was disabled.

[–] • 0 pt 4y (edited 4y)

Please note the article is pointing out that the Autopilot is indeed the problem in that it:

  • Didn't do enough to stop the car because it assumes the driver will take over
  • Doesn't have any failover in what a could easily be seen to be an overspeed/clear indicator of impact incident
  • Doesn't do enough to alert the driver
  • Doesn't go full stop immediate fail when it's apparent the driver is non-responsive or is doing something to increase the danger

You've just glossed over the article. Here's what you missed.

The article states that the FCW issued a warning at -40s delta collision, and dropped out of automatic operation. Speed then increased, most likely in response to driver input. At 0s delta collision, the speed, as reported by the computer, was 135MPH, delta 63MPH with the car in front of it. Auto-anything was NOT on at this point. (Please note the actual information as reported by the twitter post isn't exacting either.)

Now, autopilot is a generic word. The car may have had autosteer set, at which point you can still drive as fast as you like. But the article clearly does NOT say 90MPH, or even really at what speed the driver was travelling when the FCW issued it's alert. The charts are kind of eh, and not really of much use.

What we can take away from that:

  • At some point, the car was in some "auto" mode, be it full autonomous driving or simply autosteer or somesuch.
  • The car issued a warning, dropped out of auto mode
  • The car speed increased at this point
  • It hits a car, the auto systems didn't do anything in what was a very clear problem situation
↓ expand content
[–] • 1 pt 4y

Ergo, human driver was a maniac, in a bad way.

[–] • 0 pt 4y

I'm thinking probably asleep or drunk.

[–] • 0 pt 4y (edited 4y)

The car speed increased at this point

The car? You lying sack of shit. The auto pilot was disengaged. It was the driver that increased the speed. What you are doing is implying a disengaged AI is to blame for driver error. Do you work for CNN by chance? Because you sure can lie like the fucking cunts.

It hits a car, the auto systems didn't do anything in what was a very clear problem situation

Once again. deflect for driver error to blame a disengaged AI. You must be a democrat and Biden voter to play the blame game with such impunity. Fucking whore bait.

[–] • 0 pt 4y

The car? You lying sack of shit. The auto pilot was disengaged. It was the driver that increased the speed. What you are doing is implying a disengaged AI is to blame for driver error. Do you work for CNN by chance? Because you sure can lie like the fucking cunts.

No, did you read the entire comment? I previously said:

Speed then increased, most likely in response to driver input.

You keep harping on the autonomous portion even though there's nothing in the statements you pick out that says that.

Once again. deflect for driver error to blame a disengaged AI.

The AI was indeed disengaged. It was still monitoring the situation because the video shows that. The car is supposed to have an emergency braking system for just this type of situation. Why can it even BE disengaged. You're confusing the autonomous portion of the control system with what should be a base-level operation for the car's computer.

You must be a democrat and Biden voter to play the blame game with such impunity. Fucking whore bait.

More insults. That just tells me you either have some other motive or have ran out out of argument. That you just keep harping on the same thing over and over suggests that you have no argument.

[–] • 0 pt 4y (edited 4y)

What part of "auto pilot/steer is disabled" once a certain speed is reached? Not sure if it is 70 or 80, but once a programmed speed is reached instead of a governor the auto pilot can not (and should not) work. Are you really this stupid? The auto pilot part was "optional" only under 90 mph. That car was going at 120 before it passed the the first car "manually" while auto pilot was already (before the start of the video) disengaged. I am no fan of auto pilot on public roads. I hate tax subsidized Tesla. Yet lying about auto pilot only makes it harder to prove the real reason AI driving is criminal. You are no better than CNN and the vote rigging DNC.

[–] • 0 pt 4y (edited 4y)

What part of "auto pilot/steer is disabled" once a certain speed is reached?

I don't know. What part?

Not sure if it is 70 or 80, but once a programmed speed is reached instead of a governor the auto pilot can not (and should not) work.

So is it 70, 80, 85 like I've seen on other forums, 90? Pick one please. I've seen others report that autosteer (not autonomous driving) still works at higher speeds. This comes right from some user forum, but I'm not going to bother presenting the link because I know you'd not read it. I honestly doubt you've even driven one of these vehicles.

Are you really this stupid?

Well, stupidbird is my username, but you hurling it as an insult means your argument has run out and now you're just using insults because you can't think of anything else to say.

That car was going at 120 before it passed the the first car "manually" while auto pilot was already (before the start of the video) disengaged.

Yes. The auto-whatever was off. For a considerable amount of time before the video even started. And the point here is speed kept increasing for some reason, probably due to driver input. The fact that the Tesla was travelling 120MPH here just shows me that it can accelerate 15MPH in 7s on a highway. Nothing more. It's a completely not-relevant point except to show the speed was already at dangerous levels.

I am no fan of auto pilot on public roads. I hate tax subsidized Tesla.

But yet here you are shilling for them presenting me with no actual information, just saying things that we can all see aren't in the material presented.

Yet lying about auto pilot only makes it harder to prove the real reason AI driving is criminal.

What lies were presented. At no time did the article state the autopilot was "ON" at the time of the crash. My points, as presented above, are conclusions I drew from the article. They may be wrong, but they also point out failures in any autonomous system that assumes the wet controller (i.e. you) is going to react rationally. Tesla did not do that.

You are no better than CNN and the vote rigging DNC.

Oh dear. Well, I guess I'll just go retract my vote for Our President, Donald Trump then.

Let's get some common points here, since you've obviously not watched the video, read the article, or anything.

  • When the video starts, it's about -10s delta collision. Approximately. That means the auto-whatever has been off for about 30s.
  • When the first car is overtaken, it's about -7s delta collision. The auto-whatever has been off for about 33s.
  • The fact that the Tesla is travelling 120MPH is about as relevant as the discovery of sheep at this point.
  • When the Tesla impacts the Honda, the auto-whatever has been off for 40s. Supposedly alerts are blaring at this point.
  • The Tesla impacts the Honda at delta 63MPH, or 135MPH (meaning the Honda was travelling at 72MPH. Assuming this is a 70MPH road, both cars are speeding.

My points still remain. The autopilot system, or in this case the emergency braking system, should have engaged. Why it was or can be disabled for this type of situation is a point I can't answer, but it shows a lack of forethought in a vehicle that's capable of travelling at speeds in excess of what most other cars will do because of revlimits on the engine.

So, I fully expect you to not read this, and to simply tell me I'm on drugs or I'm retarded. Or, you can be rational and actually read the article and present some information to support your point instead of being the typical NPC troll that shows up here quite often.

Besides, aren't you the same person that tried to tell me the electric drives in a Tesla are cheaper than gasoline engines? (No, looking at your comment history you are not that person, but the tone of your post started out the same, very condescending. Your material actually reads just like his, including the telling how you hate tax-funded Tesla.)

↓ expand content