Craig Doty II, a Tesla owner, narrowly avoided a collision after his vehicle, in Full Self-Driving (FSD) mode, allegedly steered towards an oncoming train.

Nighttime dashcam footage from earlier this month in Ohio captured the harrowing scene: Doty’s Tesla rapidly approaching a train with no apparent deceleration. He insisted his Tesla was in Full Self-Driving mode when it barreled towards the train crossing without slowing down.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    You’re not supposed to blindly trust any of those. Why would FSD be an exception?

    Because that’s how Elon (and by extension Tesla) market it. Full self driving. If they’re saying I can blindly trust their product, then I expect it to be safe to blindly trust it.

    And if the fine print says I can’t blindly trust it, they need to be sued or put under legal pressure to change the term, because it’s incredibly misleading.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Full Self Driving (Beta), nowdays Full Self Driving (Supervised)

      Which of those names invokes trust to put your life in it’s hands?

      It’s not in fine print. It’s told to you when you purchase FSD and the vehicle reminds you of it every single time you enable the system. If you’re looking at your phone it starts nagging at you eventually locking you out of the feature. Why would they put driver monitoring system in place if you’re supposed to put blind faith into it?

      That is such an old, beat up strawman argument. Yes, Elon has said it would be fully autonomous in a year or so which turned out to be a lie but nobody today is claiming it can be blindly trusted. That simply just is not true.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It isn’t Full Self Driving if it is supervised.

        It’s especially not Full Self Driving if it asks you to intervene.

        It is false advertisement at best, deadly at worst.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s misleading advertising for sure. At no point have I claimed otherwise.

          The meaning of what qualifies as “full self driving” is still up for debate however. There are worse human drivers on the roads than what the current version of FSD is capable of. It’s by no means flawless but it’s much better than most people even realize. It’s a vehicle capable of self driving even if not fully.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Unfortunately, companies also have to make their products safe for idiots. If the system is in beta or must be supervised, there should be inherently safe design that prevents situations like this from happening even if an idiot is at the wheel.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          ESP is not idiot proof either just to name one such feature that’s been available for decades. It assists the driver but doesn’t replace them.

          Hell, cars themselves are not idiot proof.

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah and cars should have a system to stop idiots doing dumb things, best we have is a license so if it’s good enough for cars without added safety features is good enough for them with