Irrespective it was in FSD mode and drove into a pole. That's a catastrophic failure of FSD. If it disengaged FSD it would come to a halt according to the info above.
Or lawmakers could put an end to the ever "evolving" issue. Negligence on the governments part for allowing flawed; early access technology to roam the streets( aren't bad drivers themselves enough?), and negligence on the vehicle owner for not doing his due diligence as a driver. I saved everyone some time, here is the definition of negligence: "failure to take proper care in doing something.". Sorry to poke at you, but don't defend negligence, it won't bode well long term. Fact: This technology is far from perfect. The dirtier and more aged the sensors get, the less accurate and more prone to error they will become, no matter how many software updates they get. How many bus drivers, truck drivers, and drivers of large vehicles go past this same pole everyday for the last say 25 years, and have avoided such event? Again negligence, don't defend it. This dude essentially said "I'm an *****, and awful driver, but thanks Elon! your car saved my life! It nailed that pole, and airbags deployed" There is much to be said about the Tesla cult followers.
How do we know that "the vehicle knew it needed the driver to take over"? The article says the driver blames themselves for not paying attention, and it also discusses the owner's manual's description of how FSD will alert the driver, but it doesn't say in this article that the car actually alerted the driver. Did I miss something, or is that stated in an article somewhere else?
Failsafe, eh. The last failsafe, as informed and written in the article is for the vehicle to stop completely. It didn't and before you defend the marketing team any further imagine it was not a pole but your mother crossing the road.
It seems like the drive acknowledged it was user error. I'm not "defending" the marketing department. I'm a big proponent of "just ignore what the marketing department has to as altogether, they're all a bunch of liars"
This article didn't say anything about it in this article, but I read and article on Jalopnik about how the driver said he ignored the warnings. To be fair, this article is being spun so many ways for so many reasons right now that I don't know what to believe and what not to. I do, however, know that Tesla autopilots often ask the driver to take over more often than necessary and making devices to 'trick' the car into thinking you have the wheel is common place.
People who ignore the saftey warnings in crashes involving self driving features often get charged with wreckless driving. This person should 100% be charged with wreckless driving. However, I believe this falls under a "drive assistance feature" since the DOT hasn't approve autopilot for FSD. But nearly all vehicles these days have some sort of "driver assistance" whether it be keeping you in your lane, auto breaking, speed warnings.
I find this to be true with every single make and model of car.
A safe vehicle is *supposed to* do that.
In my daily observations, the proportion of distracted Tesla users is higher than in other brands. I see most Tesla drivers paying attention more to their phones than to the road. This used to be true for people driving larger SUVs/ Pickup Trucks/ Vans, especially commercial ones and it still is, but to a significantly lesser degree than Tesla drivers. In my experience only 1 in 3 or 4 Tesla drivers pay close attention to the road.
fully self driving = only the vehicle is in control. the vehicle driving into the pole without human interaction = fully self driving. no clue how that's hard to understand.
I do understand what you're saying and you're right, the driver should pay attention to the road at all times. The vehicle's automation however also failed to detect an obstacle and stop as it is supposed to do.
Mate you are ignoring the documentation on the feature. FSD was NOT disabled as confirmed by the car not warning and coming to a stop. That's a fact. FSD catastrophically did not see a massive solid object in its path. That they ACKNOWLEDGED was a flaw with vision only sensor methodology. There's nothing remarkable about any of this meaning any attempt to make such a system "FSD" fraudulent, unsafe and unfit for purpose.
If it never failed, there would be no requirement for the driver to pay attention. The system works well if the driver is attentive. It is not currently designed to operate any other way. An inattentive driver is equivalent to having a disabled camera. It is a necessary part of the system at present.
The cameras, of course, *did* see the object (if the driver can see it, of course the camera can see it). The software, not the cameras, did not recognize the object. This has exactly zero to do with "vision only" limitations.
www.carscoops.com
