Third Tesla Crashes Amid Report of SEC Investigation (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities. In addition, The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether Tesla violated securities law by failing to disclose more quickly a fatal accident in Florida in May involving a Tesla Model S that was in self-driving mode. The SEC didn't comment on the report, and Tesla issued a statement saying it has "not received any communication from the SEC regarding this issue." As for the Autopilot crash that was reported today, the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip. Tesla is looking into the crash and has yet to confirm whether or not Autopilot was a factor. Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased a "Top Secret Tesla Masterplan, Part 2" via Twitter that he is "Hoping to publish later this week."

Comments

Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Here come the lawsuits and the bankruptcy. Get out while you can.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

I've made so much money on this stock. I hope it drops and all the suckers bail so I will be buying with both fists. Be greedy when others are fearful.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, buy up the stock once it plummets! Better yet, short it and spew some BS comments to create panic.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[magarity]

I've made so much money on this stock. I hope it drops and all the suckers bail so I will be buying with both fists. Be greedy when others are fearful.

TSLA has yet to ever pay a dividend so if you are referring to your unrealized gains, that's not actually money you've made just equity. And if it drops, you will lose said equity.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Paradise Pete]

Be greedy when others are fearful.

That strategy works right up until it doesn't. Because sometimes the fearful ones are right.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

...or maybe a company values it's shareholders and views them as partners entitled to profit sharing?

Re: Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

...It works until it doesn't. Thanks for your sage advice!

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the company went bankrupt due to litigation from injured parties and heavy regulations from the government, how long would you be fed for then?

Haha! captcha: Careen. Sometimes it's like the captcha is sentient.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Kiuas]

can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.

Also known as 'making a profit for its stockholders' which is the primary purpose of any for-profit corporation.

There are different types of companies and different types of investors for sure, and many don't seem to mind holding stock that pays no dividends but saying that paying dividends is the same as 'running out of ideas' is just frankly silly; it's entirely possible to come up with new ideas and start developing them and still have enough money to pay dividends. Tesla is obviously a company with rather heavy R & D and manufacturing costs so it's understandable that at this stage of their existence they're not doing it.

But the point the shareholders ARE the company. so if they want the corporation to pay them a share of its profits then that's what the company will do and it doesn't automatically equate to 'we're out of ideas'; any new idea carries a risk, so it's a decision between 'pay out X now' or 'Invest Y in this idea at a risk to possibly pay out more later, or lose the money'.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[ultranova]

can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.

Also known as 'making a profit for its stockholders' which is the primary purpose of any for-profit corporation.

Saying a corporation's purpose is profit is a bit like saying a living being's primary purpose is to eat. Profit is simply the form resource intake takes for corporations. Making a profit is a typical stockholder's primary purpose for buying stock, but for a corporation it simply represents a necessary evil for rising capital to see to its actual purpose, which is making electric cars in Tesla's case. A corporation is a separate entity from its founder, stockholders, and in fact any human being, and has its own purposes and interests separate from theirs.

But the point the shareholders ARE the company.

No they aren't, in the eyes of either law or reality. If anything, the shareholders are the one group of stakeholders the company could lose without any kind of disturbance to its activities.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[tehcyder]

A corporation is a separate entity from its founder, stockholders, and in fact any human being, and has its own purposes and interests separate from theirs.

You shouldn't anthropomorphise corporations - it really annoys them.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Toyotas crashed this week? What about Hondas? Fords?

This is a non-story. Cars crash, whether they're under semi-autonomous controls or not, because *not every* car is under autonomous control. The media is the problem.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty creepy when you anthropomorphise corporations like that. They don't have any "purposes and interests" whatever - there are only people with the power to direct the course of a corporation, and these are precisely the founder, executives, stockholders, etc. The balance of power between them will determine on where the primary motive lies, but in general as a public corporation matures the balance will tilt in favour of the shareholders - depending on their identities (pension funds on the one extreme vs asset strippers on the other), the aim will be short or long term profit. Nobody gives a fuck what the company does as long as it either pays dividends or persuades the secondary market to keep its shares in demand.

Your last paragraph is saying,"The only thing property could lose without any kind of disturbance is its owner," and it's so embarrassingly stupid I don't know whether you're trolling.

Re: Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

You CAN sell the stock and make money. But until you have done that, you have not earned anything.

Re: Tesla is a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually says on my for profit company's charter that its aim is to earn profit...

Re: Tesla is a sinking ship

[Paradise Pete]

There is a point implied in the statement. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla marketing department needs a better term -- "Autopilot" implies something that the car is incapable of. Just call it "cruise control" and shield themselves from liability.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[h33t l4x0r]

That would work if cars didn't already have a thing called cruise control and if it wasn't a completely different thing.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[baker_tony]

Agreed! Surely they know how stupid people can be.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[AK Marc]

Others have a substantially similar thing. They call it cruise control. Subaru calls theirs "Eyesight" but Toyota calls theirs "cruise control with lane keeping assist". Honda called theirs "lane keeping assist" as well.

In general, they are adding modifiers to cruise control, and Subaru was the only other one I saw in a quick search that used a completely new name.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

'Eyesight' is the name of the system, which includes automated braking if you're going to hit an obstacle in front. Everything I've seen refers to the cruise control integration as 'Adaptive Cruise Control', and it only controls speed. You still have to steer.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Hognoxious]

It's good to have "assist" in the name. Makes it clear that it doesn't do it for you.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no. The real problem with autopilot is there are too few trained pilots in the car. ;)

Normally you have at least one pilot ready to takeover if the autopilot disengages on its own or tries to do something it shouldn't.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maintainer?

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot does exactly what I at least personally think of it. The term "autopilot", as the majority has come acquainted with it, originates from the areoplane industry. It's engaged when the plane is at cruising altitude and it keeps the preprogrammed trajectory and maintains a steady speed and altitude. I don't think anybody sane today thinks planes can (or would be allowed to) land themselves with an autopilot. A plane that could do such would not have an autopilot, but rather a self-flying feature and be a self-flying plane.

A car that can drive without the hands-on requirement is a self-driving car, not a car with an autopilot or "enhanced cruise control". Many are, in fact, comparing autopilots to cruise controls and demand they be called such, but that's not entirely true either. A cruise control, as defined, does not usullay do nothing more than keep the speed constant by self-adjusting the amount of power the engine produces. An autopilot does that *and* keeps the trajectory. So the levels of automated control progress from cruise control to autopilot and the most advanced form is self-driving.

The point of an autopilot is to let the driver observe their surroundings and intervene if they spot danger, not let the autopilot spot danger and act on it. Having an autopilot on on an extended drive helps the driver by putting less stress on them and by keeping them observant. If you drive tired and fall a sleep with your autopilot on, that's a human error, but even then the autopilot might save your or someone else's life. If you drive recklessly using autopilot, that's a human error too.

People are using it wrong intentionally and they, and some in the media, are trying to blame the company for it. If you need car analogies to explain stupid people how a feature in a car works, the problem is not in the car.

Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

musk is using it wrong intentionally. and fyi musk intends to keep calling it autopilot after it can drive itself.

nobody else in car business is stupid enough to not call it just assist. musk calls it autopilot because it sounds like it drives by itself AND parades at the same time thought experiments about it being able to drive you to work fully by itself in a few years - and intends to call that version autopilot as well.

i wouldnt be surprised if the way they marketed it would cost them the company.

really its not just his marketing(tweets are marketing) but the fact that they did nothing to prevent drivers from taking the eyes off the road. teslas autopilot is 0% a safety feature ... and evidently doesnt work even as brake assist...

Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

musk is using it wrong intentionally.

Eh... Autopilot means what I said it means and that's exactly what Musk says it means, too.

and fyi musk intends to keep calling it autopilot after it can drive itself.

This is one of those moments where you provide a link to the source. Otherwise I'm going to call bullshit on that. And no, the media calling Tesla's next-gen self-driving cars "autopilot" does not suffice; it has to be an official statement to be true.

i wouldnt be surprised if the way they marketed it would cost them the company.

You mean like this?

Some quotes from the video:

- "... keeping your hands on the wheel ..."
- "... if you wish to change lanes, check for space ..."
- "... remember that these features are meant only for highway use ..."

they did nothing to prevent drivers from taking the eyes off the road.

Should they sell a pack of glue with the car and an assistant to glue your eyes to the road?

teslas autopilot is 0% a safety feature

This is again one of those times where you provide a source. Musk has said their Autopilot is approximately twice safer than human drivers. Feel free to disprove it here.

and evidently doesnt work even as brake assist...

Obviously you don't understand even what you wrote yourself: it's brake assist.

Could their technology be better? Of course. Is it to blame for these crashes? No. Ever since the Autopilot feature was launched, Tesla has been mentioning everywhere that it's *not* a self-driving car and it's a support function for the driver to improve safety.

People have read so much about Google's self-driving cars that they think autopilot === self-driving, but obviously you can't fix stupid. And there are plenty of stupid to go around, free for everyone to parrticipate.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymice]

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance. And they've been able to do so for a long time. In fact, the first fully automatic flight was performed in the 50s!
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup. The manual take-offs and landings they do are a condition of their licence, to keep them in practice.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fairly sure a traditional autopilot in a plane or ship doesn't do much more, if not less then Tesla's does for those vehicles. Not sure why people started thinking autopilot = autonomous drone. I think autopilot is a pretty spot on name.

Autopilots have been operating in other non-consumer craft for a long time yet no one expects a pilot to be watching harry potter while he flies.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Call it Skynet. It's a safety net. It's like some benevolent being in the sky controlling your car. ... and it wants to wipe out humanity.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance.

No, not really. Or, to quote Yes Minister, yes and no. That feature is called autoland and it requires active instrumental help from the runway, too. The final decision (as in taking manual control) on most assisted autopilot landings are still made by the pilots after the plane has brought itself to a certain altitude.

I hope I didn't use too much cursive there.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance. And they've been able to do so for a long time. In fact, the first fully automatic flight was performed in the 50s!
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup. The manual take-offs and landings they do are a condition of their licence, to keep them in practice.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Comparing Tesla Autopilot to an aircraft autopilot is like comparing an Apple IIe and an iPhone; sure they're both made by Apple and they're both computers but the similarity ends there.

An airplane autopilot is an enormously simpler system. There is a pilot in the cockpit and they aren't completely disengaged from the plane; they're just free to do other things such as navigate; and having flown my own planes I assure you no one who values their life is watching a DVD player while their plane is on autopilot. The traffic around them from other aircraft is several orders of magnitude less than on a road and at much greater distance, adn in heavy trafficked areas autopilots are not engaged, pilots take the controls. Even when the autopilot is on, the aircraft is in constant radar (except long overseas flights) and radio communication with numerous watchers, some automated sensors and some are human Air Traffic Controllers. Human eyeballs never leave an aircraft.

A car autopilot, even when fully autonomous, is hugely complex. The system has to do everything because the average driver will disengage completely from control as seen already by these crashes. The system has to deal with the geography, changes in roads, traffic around it that even if it was 100% automated is still hugely complicated to calculate and predict in real time, and human drivers because quite frankly you'll never get 100% automated as you will never get everyone to give up driving.

You simply can't compare the two, because an aircraft's autopilot system is not 100% automated either; there are always human eyeballs on it even if it's from a ground controller monitoring a radio.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just give you this linkdump to StackExchange on the subject so you can stop spreading incorrect information.

Which commercial aircraft are capable of computer-only landings, without human assistance?

Why don't pilots always use autoland?

Autoland is typically only used when it absolute has to, which means when the weather dictates or when it needs to be used for currency requirements.

Why do we still use pilots to fly airplanes?

On modern commercial airliners, how much of the flight could be fully taken care of by the auto pilot? (Note the word 'could', not 'is')

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[itsdapead]

The term "autopilot", as the majority has come acquainted with it, originates from the areoplane industry.

No, the term "autopilot", as the majority understand it means a device that pilots a plane automatically so the pilot can take their hands off the controls. They've seen it in films - documentaries even (I saw an A380 pilot filling in a checklist while his plane flew itself across the atlantic on TV just the other day). If you're lucky, they don't think it involves a humorous inflatable pilot dummy. Whether or not the pedantically correct aviation industry definition of "autopilot" matches this is irrelevant.

Like it or not, idiots who ignore disclaimers on systems called "autopilot" put other people in danger. Auto-drive shouldn't be publicly available till its ready to be used autonomously. (Also, we've been well-trained to ignore disclaimers & warnings - there are pages of them with every product we buy).

Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think subaru does not actually steer. It beeps if you go off the line. Honda LKAS steers.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[mrprogrammerman]

For Honda adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist are two separate features that are independently enabled.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

how is it stupid for a person to believe a name isnt a lie? Calling it AUTO means its automatic/autonomous! If its not "auto", don't call it "auto". Has nothing to do with stupid, this is more deliberate misinformation to sell more cars.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[AK Marc]

For Toyota, lane keeping is a subset of cruise. Lane departure warning is independent. Sounds like Honda may be calling lane departure warning lane keeping assist. For all the ones I read the details on, lane keeping assist is what it says, it helps keep you in your lane. And that feature can only be enabled while on cruise control. Lane departure warning is separate. Honda looks to combine assist with warning, and turn it on all the time so you get lane assist while under manual control, as well as cruise control.

That's another reason to invent a new name. Because nobody does it the same, probably hoping to not be sued.

Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sounds like Honda may be calling lane departure warning lane keeping assist.

No. As i said, Honda LKAS actually steers. It turns the acual wheel to keep the car between the lines on a curvy road. At least on my 2014 CRV.

I said that subaru's eyesight sustem just beeps and doesnt steer the car - i.e. is a lane departure warning only.

Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[AK Marc]

Honda LKAS will alarm if it leaves the lane as well. Subaru Eyesight includes Lane Keep Assist (under the same Eyesight name) on some models.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymice]

FWIW, I fully agree with you and commented as such in the original Tesla crash post...

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymice]

WTF, those all confirm exactly what I said! I didn't say it was standard procedure to use autopilot on all take-offs & landings, however it's still a regular procedure.

Let's take a look at the top replies for each of your links...

Why don't pilots always use autoland?

To name the two most important [reasons pilots don't always rely on computer landings]:
* Pilots need to practise their flying technique.
* Auto land requires very accurate ILS guidance [which is negatively impacted by the interference from other nearby planes flying in close formation, but easily resolved by adding a bit more spacing between aircraft]

Why do we still use pilots to fly airplanes?

Technology has improved to the point where airplanes can pretty much fly and even land themselves. They are even getting pretty good at handling "normal" emergencies like engine failures and depressurizations. ...
Where pilots really shine though are the type of abnormal and emergency situations that aren't "in the book". ...
However, the biggest reason that we don't have fully automated passenger airplanes is because the general public feels comforted by a person being up front who can take over and carry them to safety if needed.

On modern commercial airliners, how much of the flight could be fully taken care of by the auto pilot?

In the lowest visibility conditions, the plane is capable of the approach and touchdown on the runway all by itself. The pilot will then apply reverse thrust and brakes as needed to slow down.

Now that the plane is back on the ground, it is once again the pilot's job to exit the runway and taxi to the gate. Shutting down the engines and then the electronics will also be up to the pilot.

This guy contradicts himself a couple of times, but his conclusion for not classifying it as fully automated landing is because the computer doesn't taxi itself to its terminal...?!
Given that it's technically driving at that point, and it's possibly the most minor part of the entire journey, I'll forgive them for not focusing on what would probably be an even more complicated task, that'd require a whole new logic and bank of sensors.

Which commercial aircraft are capable of computer-only landings, without human assistance? ...doesn't go into any details, refer to above comment.

If these systems were so incapable of landings, we wouldn't be relying on them to save us in poor vision, Cat I. conditions.
US military policy in the Middle-East is based around the whole concept of automated take-offs and landings. Or did you think all those drones were piloted by lots of tiny patriotic elves?

Now let's be clear, nowhere did I suggest that all flights are fully automatic, I was simply rebutting the patently bullshit claim from the parent post:

I don't think anybody sane today thinks planes can (or would be allowed to) land themselves with an autopilot. A plane that could do such would not have an autopilot, but rather a self-flying feature and be a self-flying plane.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now let's be clear, nowhere did I suggest that all flights are fully automatic,

Oh, hm, what is this then?

Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair the Tesla Autopilot is actually much more sophisticated than the Autopilots found on actual planes.

Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software lev

[Joe_Dragon]

Autodrive car's may have to be at the FAA level of software testing / code review.

Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Once is an isolated incident, twice is a trend, three times is a pattern. What are the morons driving these cars doing? And how did they miss the news of the first crash, which was reported almost worldwide?

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently one guy was watching Harry Potter on a portable DVD player.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

3000 people per day who die in car accidents just in the USA alone

So your claim is over one million car deaths per year in the USA? I have to call [citation needed] on that.

Because in 2014, USA deaths in cars, motor cycles, bicycles, and pedestrians all together were 32675.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[OzPeter]

yep screwed .. that should have been 3000 per month

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds right :)

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother with facts. Electric car advocates are too stupid to understand facts. Like for instance they ignore the fact that all teslas are lemons.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[gweihir]

My guess is some people in the media have either bought put-options or want to buy Tesla stock cheap. There is no rationality to their reporting.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, that's twelve 9/11s every year! Where are the billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted to fight a War on Car Accidents? Why don't we have TSA agents riding shotgun, making sure no one's using their phone while they drive? Certainly the government should be tracking every mile driven by every car, just for safety purposes?

Re: Three crashes in a month

[tysonedwards]

When life gives you melons, you may have dyslexia.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[TemporalBeing]

My guess is some people in the media have either bought put-options or want to buy Tesla stock cheap. There is no rationality to their reporting.

Plenty of rationale - it's called sensationalism and sensational journalism - aka anything to get headlines.

Re: Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Rational = click bait headlines.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Hognoxious]

I thought twice was a coincidence and three times was enemy action?

Re: Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why would they have hyped Tesla for years and continue to be extremely optimistic and mild when Tesla's arrogance is starting to hit them in the face? I would argue the opposite: several media outlets seem to have an interest in postponing the burst of the Tesla bubble. However, the media loves an underdog and Musk has been spectacularly successful at framing Tesla as one, with a reality distortion field of a power not seen since Steve Jobs, so it may be just that.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[michelcolman]

First of all, only one of the accidents resulted in fatalities. Not two.

The first accident was really caused by the truck crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic. It was a high trailer with lots of space underneath, so the Tesla's radar went underneath and did not see it. Neither did the camera which had trouble with the light truck on a light sky background and possibly confused it with an overhead sign. The driver was distracted and never even applied the brakes, not even at the very last moment before impact. That probably confirms that the truck really was hard to see. Also, Tesla owner's manual says the system should only be used on well marked highways without intersections.

The second accident probably did not even have autopilot on. Media reports everywhere were claiming that the police report said it was on, but it turns out the police report did not even mention autopilot at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe AP was on.

The third one appears to indeed be "caused" by autopilot while it was being used on a badly marked country road it was not designed for. The driver ignored just about every Tesla recommendation about the autopilot (it's still experimental, you should remain vigilant and be ready to take over at any time, and only use it on well marked highways without intersections). Dark country roads at 5 mph above the speed limit should be a definite no-no for anyone with common sense.

Once again, the first accident was the only one where someone got killed. Tesla's passive safety systems are outstanding. Not long ago there was a crash in the Netherlands where a truck agressively changed lanes without noticing the Tesla to his left, the collision was so violent that the Tesla rolled over two and a half times (which is quite extraordinary given its low center of gravity). Both occupants survived with only minor injuries. The driver had glass in his leg which came from a glass bottle in the cabin. His son has a cut on his leg that turned out to have come from his iPad flying around. They were extremely pleased with how safe the car was.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[michelcolman]

Even lies, for example claims that the second accident was related in any way to autopilot ("according to police reports", while the actual police reports did not mention autopilot and there's no reason to believe it was on)

Re: Three crashes in a month

[Anonymous Coward]

the system detects intersections. but doesnt switch itself off.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[tehcyder]

yep screwed .. that should have been 3000 per month

Oh well, only out by a factor of thirty...I really hope you're a politician and not an engineer at Tesla.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[tehcyder]

I thought twice was a coincidence and three times was enemy action?

So ISIS are sabotaging electric cars in order to keep the price of oil and hence their funding high?

A truly excellent conspiracy theory.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Cederic]

Of course, their car would be even safer it didn't fucking crash itself.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[nukenerd]

The first accident was really caused by the truck crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic ......... The driver was distracted and never even applied the brakes ...... That probably confirms that the truck really was hard to see.

Yes, it's so hard to see 18-wheeler trucks stood across your path, I never notice them either. Good job my car is low, I pass clean underneath.

Re:Three crashes in a month

[Hognoxious]

ISIS schmisis. I was thinking of Skynet.

The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities.

The article about the most recent crash contradicts the summary poster's statement that two of the crashes resulted in fatalities. Only one of the crashes has resulted in fatalities.

Re:The summary is false.

[Rei]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I can't find any evidence that there has been a second fatality.

And really, have only three Tesla vehicles period crashed, period, while on autopilot in 130m miles? If so, that's bloody impressive. More impressive than just a statistic of 1 fatality in 130m miles.

Re:The summary is false.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In fact, in the submission about the second crash, someone questioned the involvement of the autopilot as being a result of someone's rectal extraction.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

Considering Autopilot only activates on the safest sections of road, three crashes in a month is pretty damn bad.

Re:The summary is false.

[TemporalBeing]

Considering Autopilot only activates on the safest sections of road, three crashes in a month is pretty damn bad.

Considering that last I checked, at least one of those was confirmed that Autopilot was not engaged, and the third is still in question. Now the one where it was engaged was confirmed to have a fatality - it's still under investigation but preliminary data suggests the involvement of the Autopilot feature didn't really make any difference over a human - no better, no worse (e.g the human driver likely would have had the same issue due to the nature of the problem it was faced with).

There has only been 1 crash where Autopilot was confirmed to have been engaged. That could change, but that's been the record thus far, despite what the sensational journalists want you to believe.

Re: The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your time of the month?

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

Doesn't matter. Someone died here. Autopilot needs to drive safely. If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it? Half of all humans are going to be more skilled drivers. Tesla will be causing fatalities for them.

Re:The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it?

Uhhh... so that I don't have to drive for 4 hours down boring interstate or handle stop and go freeway traffic?

Re:The summary is false.

[F.Ultra]

So those "half of the humans" with extraordinary driving skills would simply either not buy Teslas or engage the Autopilot (it's not forced on you know), so what's the problem now again?

Re:The summary is false.

[SuperDre]

And let's not forget, the second incident actually wasn't confirmed the autopilot was on, according to data at tesla it wasn't, but the driver hadn't responded to calls from tesla for more information.. Also in this case we don't know if autopilot was actually on, the driver says so, but it doesn't mean it was.. But then again, looking at the crashphoto's of the third report, it seems to be a road which is on the tesla 'problem list' (no road divider etc), but then again, the car should notify the driver that it has problems with finding markings it needs for proper autopilot.

Re:The summary is false.

[tehcyder]

If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it?

Uhhh... so that I don't have to drive for 4 hours down boring interstate or handle stop and go freeway traffic?

Yes, but the point is that you obviously DO need to still concentrate on your boring journey, so it seems like a pointless feature.

"It works perfectly well until it doesn't and you die" isn't good enough.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

The problem is that Tesla is pacifying people into using a dangerous product.

Re:The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... preliminary data suggests the involvement of the Autopilot feature didn't really make any difference over a human - no better, no worse (e.g the human driver likely would have had the same issue due to the nature of the problem it was faced with)."

Except that this isn't actually the case. The accident happened because the car's radar was unable to detect the truck in front of it because the truck was higher than the radar could detect. Had the human driver been paying attention, he would have seen the truck and stopped.

Re:The summary is false.

[TemporalBeing]

"... preliminary data suggests the involvement of the Autopilot feature didn't really make any difference over a human - no better, no worse (e.g the human driver likely would have had the same issue due to the nature of the problem it was faced with)."

Except that this isn't actually the case. The accident happened because the car's radar was unable to detect the truck in front of it because the truck was higher than the radar could detect. Had the human driver been paying attention, he would have seen the truck and stopped.

May be...may be not. I'll wait for the NHTSA report for that kind of determination.

Re:The summary is false.

[TemporalBeing]

"... preliminary data suggests the involvement of the Autopilot feature didn't really make any difference over a human - no better, no worse (e.g the human driver likely would have had the same issue due to the nature of the problem it was faced with)."

Except that this isn't actually the case. The accident happened because the car's radar was unable to detect the truck in front of it because the truck was higher than the radar could detect. Had the human driver been paying attention, he would have seen the truck and stopped.

Oh - and from the preliminary report it could not distinguish the truck from a sun-spot. IOW, it saw the truck but couldn't determine whether it was a truck or sunlight on the sensor. A human would have had similar issues.

Re:The summary is false.

[TemporalBeing]

Doesn't matter. Someone died here. Autopilot needs to drive safely. If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it? Half of all humans are going to be more skilled drivers. Tesla will be causing fatalities for them.

For the majority of people, it would be better - most drivers are not very good - whether due to overconfidence or ineptitude.

Should Tesla aim to make it as safe as possible? Sure, and I'm sure that's their goal. But all technology of this kind goes through a development curve and sometimes the early adopts (as was this case) put too much faith in it and may not pay sufficient attention themselves. They're taking a risk they've been warned against doing.

So yes, the technology will get better and eventually be better than nearly any human driver. Until then, it's an assistant feature that helps but should not be totally relied upon - and that's EXACTLY what Tesla says about it.

Re:The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that impressive...

in 2014 there were 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles so this number is not that much better... like you only get .77 deaths per million... so yea it's not that great...

So if we were to have people drive on Telsa Autopilot would that mean that we could reduce the number of fatalities by 23%?

NUMBERS

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Re:The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don'tcare. Stillwon'tbuyone.

kthxbye.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

The whole point is, people should not be subjected to development curves when it is a life and death situation. There is no way to prove in any given accident whether it would have happened if that human was driving. Vague and dubious statistics are not good enough. People are not able to make the proper decisions for themselves, obviously.

It is a well known fact about human psychology that you *can not* maintain attention on driving if you are not driving yourself. Many automakers have done the studies and come to that conclusion and Google as well. Therefore, everyone who uses Autopilot is entering into a dangerous situation and if they do so, have not been properly informed of the risks.

Re:The summary is false.

[Mike_EE_U_of_I]

Yep, I very much agree with you.

US auto accident rate (serious enough to be reported to the police and involving any injury, death, or property damage) is roughly one every 350,000 miles. If Tesla autopilot had the same record as humans, we would be up to about 400 accidents now.

Re:The summary is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2015 there were traffic fatalities in the US 32,675. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/2014-traffic-deaths-drop-but-2015-trending-higher)
In 2015 US drivers totaled ~3 trillion miles driven (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10315)

If existing systems resulted in 1 fatality per 130 million miles driven, that would contribute ~23,000 additional fatalities each year...

It's pretty bad, especially for a feature that's supposed to "save lives"

Re:The summary is false.

[cyn1c77]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I can't find any evidence that there has been a second fatality.

Well, the second fatality hasn't happened yet, but someone is sure going to get slaughtered in the courts over this!

Re:The summary is false.

[TemporalBeing]

The whole point is, people should not be subjected to development curves when it is a life and death situation.

If that was the case, you'd never have automobiles to start with, you also wouldn't have airplanes, ships, computers, and more. Much of technology is due to such development curves. The one with Tesla has had far fewer deaths than any prior similar technology.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

Except in the immediate sense Autopilot represents nothing more than a frivolous fancy. Sure 100 years from now IF everyone can obtain it, it may save a significant amount of lives, but I see no evidence in my life that capitalism will ever allow this amount of adoption by making it affordable. On the other hand, planes and automobiles brought a significant amount of freedom and economical advantage and people like Henry Ford did bring it to the masses. I might be more inclined to agree once my government announces a 30% subsidy for everyone to purchase one of these but until then there is no benefit other than maybe convenience if they can make these almost perfect. While there is a steering wheel there isn't even much convenience.

Re:The summary is false.

[F.Ultra]

The car industry have put dangerous products in the hands of idiots for close to 100 years now. Only time will tell if the Teslas are better or worse, at the moment they do look better considering their current track record, one fatality and three crashes is not much when compare with the fully human drivers.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

It's impossible to know without knowing how clean the driving records were of the Tesla owners before owning a Tesla. If a driver has gone 30 years without being in an accident and then they buy a Tesla and Autopilot gets them in an accident then it has caused an accident for that driver. It is pointless to talk about statistical generalities while the general population doesn't own a Tesla.

Re:The summary is false.

[F.Ultra]

Exactly which is also why we cannot yet claim that it have caused more accidents. I have a hard time however to see how it would cause more crashes if you use it properly, i.e as a driver assist. If you do that then the number of accidents should be vastly reduced since the machine is able to see and react to things that we as humans do not.

Re:The summary is false.

[fluffernutter]

It's easy to see how it can cause accidents. If it didn't cause accidents, then in the third incident where the car went off the road the driver should have easily been able to take manual control and steer out of it. The problem is AI can't predict when it will be in trouble, only that it IS in trouble and by then it is too late for the driver.

Slippery slope?

[Pezbian]

When one attempts to make something idiot-proof, nature builds a better idiot. Not necessarily true, but we live in world where innovators are hampered by the chance of being sued by idiots who just-don't-listen.

"Fire is hot", "peanuts may contain peanuts", "online play not rated", "cruise control is not auto-pilot", "autopilot is experimental", etc.

Beta-testing is work.

What I wonder is whether the automated steering fights the driver if said driver takes over to correct a computational error.

Re:Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

experimental? The FAA has a special certification for that.
The DMV does not.

Re:Slippery slope?

[Pezbian]

experimental? The FAA has a special certification for that.
The DMV does not.

Cars are on the ground. They have zero chance of flying over or into buildings unless something has gone _very_ wrong.

Re:Slippery slope?

[TemporalBeing]

experimental? The FAA has a special certification for that. The DMV does not.

Cars are on the ground. They have zero chance of flying over or into buildings unless something has gone _very_ wrong.

But in the event they do, you want to be in a Telsa - see the crash in Germany by the teenage girls.

Re:Slippery slope?

[larryjoe]

When one attempts to make something idiot-proof, nature builds a better idiot. Not necessarily true, but we live in world where innovators are hampered by the chance of being sued by idiots who just-don't-listen.

"Fire is hot", "peanuts may contain peanuts", "online play not rated", "cruise control is not auto-pilot", "autopilot is experimental", etc.

I don't drive a Tesla, but the only message I heard about Tesla's Autopilot was the name. Yes, there are safety warnings in the manual and when you start up the car, but who actually pays attention that that? The same people who read EULAs? There's a reason the product is called Autopilot and not assist or level-2, and the reason is that they want to implicitly convey the idea that they are better than the competitors with mere assist or level-2. The name is not accidental.

Re: Slippery slope?

[Luthair]

Cars have an awful lot of opportunity to drive into buildings.

Re: Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never, under any circumstances would want to be in a Tesla. Someone might think it's mine. Moreover, the passengers in the crash in Germany would have also escaped unscathed in most other cars, just with a little less structural damage to the car.

Re:Slippery slope?

[houghi]

Where it gets a bit confusing is "natural does contain chemicals not found in nature" and "auto-pilot is not an auto-pilot".
So the issue is using marketing words to make the people believe it is something and then say that it isn't.
"We are not a taxi service" is another nice one.

And "autopilot is experimental" means to me that it is unfit for normal operation and should not be out in the open for the general public.

Re:Slippery slope?

[olau]

I don't drive a Tesla either.

According to this review, they are far better than the competition.

As far as I understand, you cannot miss the warning. It's not like an EULA with walls and walls of text.

Re:Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing, Autopilot is what this is.

You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise. The autopilot on a plane absolutely will fly straight into another plane even, the human pilot is expected to take care of that sort of thing.

Re:Slippery slope?

[larryjoe]

I don't drive a Tesla either.

According to this review, they are far better than the competition.

As far as I understand, you cannot miss the warning. It's not like an EULA with walls and walls of text.

I imagine it's like the warning on all dedicated GPS systems. At the start, you have to hit a button and maybe also wait a few seconds to ostensibly read the text. I ignore it every time and occasionally violate the warning by hitting a button while driving. My guess is that the Tesla warning has the same efficacy.

Re:Slippery slope?

[larryjoe]

Funny thing, Autopilot is what this is.

You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise. The autopilot on a plane absolutely will fly straight into another plane even, the human pilot is expected to take care of that sort of thing.

Technically autopilot implementations on airplanes do exactly what you said and require a measure of continued vigilance on the part of the pilots. However, that is not what the term means in common language. The English idiom of putting something on autopilot means that something will work without any continued vigilance. In a way, this is a brilliant marketing strategy. The term connotes self-driving while denoting strictly not self-driving. A perfect marketing term.

Re:Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are safety warnings in the manual and when you start up the car, but who actually pays attention that that?

People who don't want to die? I've read the manual for every vehicle I've owned. Takes about 15 minutes. Driving a vehicle is the most dangerous thing the average person will do. If someone is too stupid to read the manual on their $70k death machine then they deserve what they get. We shield people WAY too much from their own idiocy and look at what's happened.

Re:Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do drive a Tesla Model S (S90D) with autopilot - EVERY time you engage it, it displays a warning on the dash display to keep your hands on the wheel, plus if there is ever an issue/ambiguity (it works by actually seeing the lines on both sides of the car....so if one of those lines is faded or missing, the car with either get confused/drift or completely disengage autopilot with an audible warning) ANOTHER display will pop up telling you to keep your hands on the wheel.

WAY to many people talking out of their asses not having first-hand knowledge of what the system even is or how it behaves. As others have said, it's probably a poor name choice as this is not autonomous driving like the Google cars (it cannot, for example, tell if you are blowing through a stop sign or stop light....). Frankly, it's more of a gimmick than anything else IMHO and I rarely use it personally (I do, however, use cruise control ALL THE TIME as it absolutely PEGS your speed no matter what incline the car is on).

Re:Slippery slope?

[larryjoe]

I do drive a Tesla Model S (S90D) with autopilot - EVERY time you engage it, it displays a warning on the dash display to keep your hands on the wheel, plus if there is ever an issue/ambiguity (it works by actually seeing the lines on both sides of the car....so if one of those lines is faded or missing, the car with either get confused/drift or completely disengage autopilot with an audible warning) ANOTHER display will pop up telling you to keep your hands on the wheel.

It's entirely possible that the average Tesla driver pays greater attention to warnings compared to the general population. However, from looking my own personal experience as well as those people that I have driven with, start-up warnings are basically useless and exist mainly to attempt to protect manufacturers from lawsuits. Real-time pop-up warnings are probably more effective but must be very conservative to avoid false positives. This looks like the case with these Tesla accidents. Was there a pop-up warning for the Harry Potter guy?

If safe autopilot operation really requires keeping one's hands on the steering wheel, there there should be an active system to enforce that requirement.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

don' t know how you can "by" a tesla.

I know you can "buy" them.

if you can't get that right - why pay attention to the rest of your dribble?

Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[WillAffleckUW]

Oh wait, no, those are hundreds, not small numbers like Tesla, so it's "not news".

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.

Are you doing anything about that?

More people die when cars murder them while they're walking or biking. Every day.

Are you doing anything about that? ...

I see.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome Rationalization.
We are killing so few people you can ignore it.

It will be a great closing argument.

Can we use this for the defective Air Bag inflators?
We save more than we kill?

If it is Not ready it is NOT READY.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

It's news because this is new technology that most people are hoping will be a success. Everyone knows that these early steps are crucial to the success of autonomous driving. I guarantee the first deaths involving cars and airplanes were widely reported upon because they too were new technologies. Think of all the blowback we're going to get against autonomous driving. Millions of truck drivers out of work, police forces dramatically reduced as ticket revenue inevitably falls, the reduction in arrests from people being searched after a standard traffic stop (potentially reducing the prison industry's customer base), etc. I think almost all of us are eagerly awaiting the safety and convenience this will provide so every fatality is a potential setback. It's not necessarily news because we're horrified by the deaths as much as we are saddened by potential setbacks.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[fluffernutter]

So do we really need Tesla adding to these numbers?

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[fluffernutter]

To be honest, autonomous vehicles really won't change my life much.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes electric car owners deserve death.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[WillAffleckUW]

I was far more concerned about an autonomous robot that kills citizens silently.

Like in Dallas, but nationwide.

That said, let's put this in perspective, shall we?

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Bing Tsher E]

The citizen killer in Dallas was a human, not a robot. He was discharged panty raider, who was thrown out of the military for stealing a woman's underpants. But not small enough to consider a gnome.

Re: Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Remote control isn't autonomous you baiter. And bombs aren't silent. WTF is wrong with you?

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

The robot in Dallas didn't kill silently, it killed with a big boom.

I'm not concerned about that at all.

I'm also less concerned with that Tesla in the next lane over in Auto Pilot mode than I am with all the other vehicles being driven by distracted and impaired humans. Or semi-drivers that can't see oncoming traffic before they turn left, an experience most motorcycle riders can relate to.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[PopeRatzo]

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.

Are you doing anything about that?

I use my first drink to wash down my car key. This way I'm guaranteed not to try to drive drunk.

It causes little discomfort later, but it's better than becoming a statistic.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[PopeRatzo]

The citizen killer in Dallas was a human, not a robot. He was discharged panty raider, who was thrown out of the military for stealing a woman's underpants.

He was also a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, a Second Amendment activist and a gun enthusiast.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Jeremi]

Are you doing anything about that? ...

Who are you talking to?

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[Anonymous Coward]

The pokemon go crash was a false story created by a click-bait page. But to be fair, some people have been getting into trouble playing it.

The issue here is Tesla gives incomplete autopilot feature to the masses and is rightfully getting shit because of it.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[tehcyder]

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.

Are you doing anything about that?

I use my first drink to wash down my car key. This way I'm guaranteed not to try to drive drunk.

It causes little discomfort later, but it's better than becoming a statistic.

The only real way to guarantee you don't drink and drive is not to drive to the restaurant/bar/pub in the first place.

I'm pretty sure I'd work out a way of retrieving that car key after a dozen pints or so.

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide

[PopeRatzo]

I'm pretty sure I'd work out a way of retrieving that car key after a dozen pints or so.

"Help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here!"

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[Anonymous Coward]

what, you mean no publishing beta software with "some" functionality, that "you're not supposed to use anyways" while babbling about what version 9 will do in 10 years, maybe?

and also, I'm sure someone will correct you that autopilot isn't autodrive. but musk sells it as "auto"drive, that's the bottom line. and had the gall to ship beta.

furthermore - what kind of a secret plan is something you publish on the same week?

Re:Lemons

[amRadioHed]

The drivers are the problem, not the cars. The autopilot is intended as backup in case the drivers make a mistake, but the driver is still primarily responsible for their inattention

Just Don't Click The Suicide Package

[zenlessyank]

in the options. Plus it is cheaper. Win. Win.

Tesla Musk following Theranos Elizabeth Holmes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems Eion Musk decided he wants to follow in the footsteps of Elizabeth Holmes.

Perhaps he wanted be a trans woman, and rope in SJWs to be his fans, not just the usual gay fanbois who suck up to him always?

since "autopilot" really isn't one..

[Anonymous Coward]

the driver is at fault for believing that it is. tesla themselves say drivers must remain attentive and hands on wheel while using the feature.

tesla is also at fault, but only for naming it "autopilot" instead of something like "driver assist". i guess they wanted to get in on the trademark for "autopilot" with regards to motor vehicles early.. well, fuck them. rename your damn feature. you WILL lose any lawsuit where it can be demonstrated that your company or your sales agents in any way hinted that it was even remotely an autonomous driving mode.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one..

[fluffernutter]

Here in Canada they are considering forcing Tesla to hold training for new owners, with yearly follow ups.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one..

[WindBourne]

all new tesla owners GET a couple of hours of training.
And how exactly would training down the road help?

You got it wrong when you kept claiming that city roads are much more dangerous than highways when it came to fatalities.
Now, you are claiming that Canada is going to impose on Tesla what they already do, as well as force them to offer up yearly training when nothing has changed?>

So, who do you work for?

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one..

[fluffernutter]

So when people go to these training sessions, how many times does Tesla indicate in direct language that they may die if they don't pay attention? Obviously that message hasn't gotten across, and so Canada is correct in looking into better or somehow different training.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one..

[WindBourne]

LOL.
Are you talking about this?
Even here, it was 1 person that suggested that and apparently shot down.
Probably the best line in this is to move as quickly as possible to level 4 autonomy, which is what Telsa is doing.
And the fact that with some 50,000 ppl driving this daily, and only having 1 fatality in 7 months of testing this shows that it is already safer than average and that obviously their training is doing the job.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

The autopilot is intended as backup in case the drivers make a mistake, but the driver is still primarily responsible for their inattention

Which is in direct contradiction to how Tesla has been marketing it.

Getting nervous about tech stocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is trying to climb through the storm clouds. People are starting to get a clue and see how shit-stained Facebook really is. The tiny nugglets of poo that are known as Groupon and Zynga flamed out but still cling around the anus.

VC has been having trouble finding any hipsterific ideas that have the staying power to make it to the cash-out phase.

Now Tesla's march upwards may finally falter.

If we start seeing slippage in Google's ad revenue then it's time to batten down the hatches.

Re:Getting nervous about tech stocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda late to just start getting nervous. Pretty much every tech company is laying people off. Job postings are down 40%. Zuck and Nadella and Pichai are constantly lobbying for more H-1Bs. Google is maintaining momentum mostly through natural monopoly. The worker bees are finally realizing they can't afford to live anywhere near their employers. Those employers refuse to allow remote American workers, while happily outsourcing jobs to remote Indian workers. We're in for a shit sandwich alright. Time to make some popcorn.

Why would autopilot veer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would autopilot veer off the road? That doesn't sound like something it even does. It sounds more like the individual let go of the wheel and accidentally disengaged lane-keeping somehow.

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[Rei]

The way the news cycle goes:

1) Person gets in an accident
2) Person blames autopilot
3) News widely reports that autopilot caused a crash
4) Evidence of whether autopilot was actually involved is returned.

Autopilot has been involved in crashes. But most of the "autopilot did it!" stories have turned out to be false. It seems to be a pretty easy thing to blame to try to get out of liability if you wreck your car.

That's not saying that any of the cases above specifically did not involve autopilot (we know for example that the fatal one did, that's been confirmed). But until it's confirmed, it's best to take these with a grain of salt. Tesla vehicles log bloody everything. If autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it'll be there.

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[AK Marc]

Or it was never on, and anyone who crashes blames the reason they heard in the news yesterday. That's how the craze on unintended acceleration happened, with Audiin the '80s, and Toyota more recently. At least with Tesla, the black box will be able to confirm or deny the driver's reports better than the onboard sensors in Audi and Toyota.

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[Anonymous Coward]

You never read the independent analysis of Toyota's ECU software, did you?

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[AK Marc]

So you are saying that nobody improperly blamed their error on Toyota?

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[Hognoxious]

Tesla vehicles log bloody everything. If autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it'll be there.

Even if it wasn't, the log might say that it was. [touches side of nose]

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[WindBourne]

wow. The fact that you were modded as troll pretty much means that we have koch bros astroturfing this site.
You had a posting that was SPOT ON. It is obvious that there is a full on assault on all of Musk's businesses.
Thankfully, customers are ignoring the BS that is going on and focusing instead on where the value is.

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[merky1]

Separate the conspiracy from the facts... There are issues with Tesla cars, and that has nothing to do with Koch / big oil / aliens / illuminati. It may not be as sensational as the headlines, but Tesla needs to learn their lessons in the car arena and spend more QA time on their features. Look at the Model X, it is so chock full of "features" that simple things like doors are issues.

I looked into the Model X when my Allroad decided to eat oil, and I was really turned off by the amount of shiny tech on every aspect of the car. This combined with the lack of attention on the simple things really turned me off of the purchase. Maybe in 5 years when they realize that certain things just need a simple analog component, and not some wizz bang ipad driven button.

Re:Why would autopilot veer?

[Cederic]

. It is obvious that there is a full on assault on all of Musk's businesses.

Is it? I don't see that.

I do see someone making ambitious and overly optimistic claims about their product's self-crashing feature.

Had Musk called it lane assist adaptive cruise control and sold it purely as a driving aid the comments would be lambasting idiots that trusted it.

Since he's marketed it as autopilot and makes grandiose statements about his products customers are misinterpreting its capabilities and it's causing accidents.

That's the only story I see here. Where's the full on fucking assault?

Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

Because I like you guys, I'm gonna do you a solid and save you all kinds of tsuris later on. There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes. Yes, we will have something like super cruise control and driver assist, but no, you will never be able to call for your robot Uber to pick you up and drive you to your part-time job. It's just not going to happen. And finally, the people who know most about "driverless" cars are starting to come clean:

The most realistic industry projection about the arrival of autonomous driving comes from the company that’s done the most to make it possible. Google, while never explicitly saying so, has long intimated that self-driving cars would be available by the end of the decade.

In February, though, a Google car caused its first accident; a bus collision with no injuries. A few weeks later, Google made a significant, if little-noted, schedule adjustment. Chris Urmson, the project director, said in a presentation that the fully featured, truly go-anywhere self-driving car that Google has promised might not be available for 30 years, though other much less capable models might arrive sooner.

Historians of technology know that “in 30 years” often ends up being “never.” Even if that’s not the case here, if you’re expecting a self-driving car, you should also expect a wait. And so you might want to do something to pass the time. Maybe go for a nice drive?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Yes, you read that right. The project director for "self-driving cars" at Google just added 25 more years to his projection on when you're going to see them. And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.

Now I don't have a particular interest one way or the other regarding self-driving cars, except this: I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable, the way it was early to middle last century before Standard Oil and GM conspired to destroy public transportation in the United States (and yes, they were even convicted of doing so in court). So go ahead, Google and Elon and Tim Cook and all the visionaries. Make your self-driving golf carts all you want. Just don't ask for a dollar of taxpayer money, especially not until you start paying your taxes.

http://www.whale.to/b/street_c...

http://www.baycrossings.com/Ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[OzPeter]

There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes.

You nay sayer you. It's only going to take near human level AI small enough to fit in a car before we can all sit back and take a ride. That's closer than fusion power and flying cars isn't it?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.

Yeah, where's my garbage-for-fuel flying car?!

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we also won't see reliable auto-italicizing anytime soon, either...

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

The cars will be DUMB, the road will be smart. Basically your car wont even function on public roads after pulling out of your garage until it registers itself to the road control computer. The 'roadmaster' computer will give your car its operational operating parameters and be sent on its way. You wont be able to speed, or do any illegal maneuvers.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

The cars will be DUMB, the road will be smart. Basically your car wont even function on public roads after pulling out of your garage until it registers itself to the road control computer.

See, that's my biggest fear about "self-driving cars". That instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable, they're going to put it into making "smart roads".

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

I guess we also won't see reliable auto-italicizing anytime soon, either...

Don't blame me, I was posting while driving my Tesla.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Jeremi]

instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable

Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?

See the links in my post a few levels up. Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off. This is one of those wacky-sounding conspiracy theories that turns out to be absolutely true. They were even convicted in court over this, but a friendly (bribed) judge fined them $1.

Seriously, friend, if you don't know about this chapter in US history, it's really worth a look. Just scroll to my post a few layers up. There are three links at the bottom that lay out the entire story.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Miamicanes]

Maybe, but there's a HUGE amount of functionality that lies between "no autonomous driving capability at all" and "able to drive your kids to school, then bring the car home and park it in the garage for you".

The fact is, we had the technology to make semi-autonomous cars capable of lanekeeping and collision-avoidance more than TWENTY YEARS AGO. The catch is, it would have:

* doubled or tripled the cost of an average car

* required the construction of thousands of miles of new freeway lanes for the exclusive use of cars with autonomous driving capabilities... at staggering cost, for the benefit of what would have then been a very, very small subset of drivers. And we're talking about adding 4 new lanes to roads that probably had only 4 or 6 lanes to begin with circa 1990. Those lanes would have needed embedded signal wires for steering guidance, sensors to maintain distance, telemetry to identify cars and handshake with the centralized control system, etc.

In other words, do-able, and in fact actively DEMONSTRATED by GM at EPCOT... but totally impractical given the cost of the road improvements it would have required to work with 1990s technology.

What changed? Cars can now deal with driving autonomously on "normal" roads (under specific constraints), and deal with random acts of stupidity by other drivers. THAT would have been within the realm of science fiction 20 years ago.

10 years from now, when you say your new car has "advanced cruise control", it'll go without saying that it can stay in the lane and avoid collisions when driving on a limited-access highway in good weather conditions, and can follow the car in front of you as it crawls through urban gridlock (probably leaving it up to YOU to obey things like traffic lights, stop signs, etc).

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[tipo159]

How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?

How does public transportation work when it takes 2-3 times as long to use public transportation than to drive your own vehicle?

How does public transportation work when you need to bring large items home from the store?

How does public transportation work when you want to hiking in a national park?

There are a lot of situations where public transportation works well, but a lot of places where it doesn't work for any realistic amount of money you put into it.

There are also driving conditions that self-driving cars will not be able to figure out.

And Tesla is kinda asking for problems calling their driver assist package 'Autopilot'.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Jeremi]

Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off.

Yes, I'm aware of all that -- but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles, and were therefore willing to pay for non-subsidized public transportation because the only alternative was staying home.

How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation? The only scenario I can imagine is one where private cars are largely banned or made unaffordable or impractical, but I don't think that sort of thing would be politically possible (outside of major cities), since the car-loving public wouldn't stand for it.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles

Automobiles were plenty cheap and easy in 1950. In fact, compared to income, it was cheaper to own a car then than it is today.

How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation?

Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?

Most people live in cities.

How does public transportation work when it takes 2-3 times as long to use public transportation than to drive your own vehicle?

It doesn't need to take longer. In fact, it can be faster.

How does public transportation work when you need to bring large items home from the store?

You mean a "brick and mortar" store? The kind that are disappearing?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[AmiMoJo]

It really depends what you mean by "self-driving car". I think it's realistic to expect Google's cars to be better than humans on paved roads by the end of the decade. Okay, you can't tell it to drive you literally anywhere, like off-road or perhaps onto a ferry/train, but in terms of being able to take a nap on the way to work I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

What will probably slow it down is the pace of legal and insurance reforms require to support it.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Ogive17]

Here's my thought on why I agree that it will be a long time to never; autonomous vehicles will not be completely effective until 100% of vehicles on the road are autonomous and they communicate with each other using an agreed upon standard.

So now the question is do eventually roll out cars with this capability and require everyone on the road to have one.. or do we not allow people to use the function until all non-conforming cars are retired.. or do we have a separate road system just for these cars.. I don't think it's the technology of the car that will be the difficult part.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[merky1]

The problem is the changeover period that would be needed between self-driving and current meat-sack driven. If we could instantly retool and prepare roads properly, then this could be delivered tomorrow. The problem is standards, and dealing with the unknown.

We have the technology today to accomplish a completely driver free society, but we don't have the economic factors drive this innovation into the common place. And it would not scale well across every road in every location. Driverless cars in the hills of Tennessee? Farm Truck in downtown Metropolis?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

It really depends what you mean by "self-driving car". I think it's realistic to expect Google's cars to be better than humans on paved roads by the end of the decade.

Did you miss the quote from the guy who's the project director on Google's car? He said they've adjusted their timeline expectations from the end of the decade to 30 years out.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most people live in cities"

False. It may seem that way because cities are dense, but they don't make up the bulk of the population. Hell, I'm surprised you'd believe this with the recent Brexit vote where city dwellers overwhelmingly voted to stay but the rural folk overwhelmingly voted to leave. Could you remind me which way that vote went?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

False.

I'm sorry, but of course it's true. Most people in the US, in the UK and in the world live in cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

http://www.un.org/en/developme...

http://www.census.gov/newsroom...

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

So a worse form of IPv6 then - 300 years to autonomous cars. Yay!!

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

And Tesla is kinda asking for problems calling their driver assist package 'Autopilot'.

Perhaps the problem is that your personal definition of Autopilot leads you to believe that it can do more than it can, so here's an actual definition:

"a device for automatically steering ships, aircraft, and spacecraft" source

In an airplane, the autopilot feature keeps the plane on the specified path (analogous to in the same lane), and maintains the set speed.
 
It does NOT handle the situation of when another plane is approaching on a collision course, or if the pilot needs to change course. It also doesn't help the pilot when the airplane is taxiing (analogous to driving a car off of a highway on main roads).

Autopilot is actually a very apt description of what Tesla's driver assist package is capable of.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people live in cities.

Since that doesn't answer the GP's question, let me repeat it for him: How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?

You mean a "brick and mortar" store? The kind that are disappearing?

If you really think that literally everyone, literally everywhere, is going to start getting literally everything they buy delivered, then you're an idiot. Otherwise, kindly answer the question: How does public transportation work when you need to bring large items home from the store?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think grocery stores are going anywhere anytime soon (it's easier for me to pick up a couple things on the way home from work, than it is to schedule myself to be at home when Pea Pod is going to arrive). And the home improvement stores are doing pretty good -- just try ordering 5 bags of cement mix from Amazon. Oh, and I was going to order a $150 desk from Ikea, but ended up driving to the store when I saw that shipping started at $200.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

Since that doesn't answer the GP's question, let me repeat it for him: How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?

You might also ask, "How do self-driving cars work on dirt roads?"

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[tehcyder]

There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes.

You nay sayer you. It's only going to take near human level AI small enough to fit in a car before we can all sit back and take a ride. That's closer than fusion power and flying cars isn't it?

Slashdot translation: it's not actually impossible, therefore it's just an engineering problem.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[nukenerd]

"Most people live in cities"

False .... I'm surprised you'd believe this with the recent Brexit vote where city dwellers overwhelmingly voted to stay but the rural folk overwhelmingly voted to leave.

That is an incredibly roundabout way to "prove" that most people don't live in cities. Run that again ..... the UK voted Brexit therefore most people live in rural areas ???

Here is a clue : only a smallish minority of people in the UK live in "rural areas". Large areas that you might think are rural, like East Kent, South Devon, South Essex, West Sussex, East Dorset, are really sprawling conurbations. By definition, if many people live in an area it ceases to be rural.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Tom]

I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable,

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable? The two main criticisms of it are that it doesn't go door-to-door and that you have to share it with other people, not all of whom you want to share it with.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.

Remember, the project director for Google cars has now changed the outlook for the "go-anywhere" driverless vehicle from the "end of the decade" to 30 years down the road. And nobody, but nobody can predict technology 30 years down the road. It always ends in disappointment. So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy. You might as well be hoping for a flying driverless car with a jetpack and particle beam weapons.

And if your self-driving car can't take you anywhere, then how is it superior to getting on at train (or trolly) station A and getting off at train station X?

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Jeremi]

Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?

You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.

But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead, so it's largely a moot point. In the farther future, when self-driving taxis have made the streets less congested and reduced taxi prices, there will be even less incentive to build out an expensive parallel infrastructure.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.

But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead

Uber is a lot more expensive for people to use than public transportation.

In Chicago, getting to the airport on the L train is a couple of dollars. In a Uber, it's a little over 15 times more expensive.

Also, public transportation was already plenty attractive, before GM and Standard Oil conspired to have cities rip out trolley tracks and wiring and convert to gasoline powered buses, and then further conspired to have those bus lines discontinued.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[danaris]

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.

That's not what he said, though. The clear implication was not "the personal vehicles everyone owns should be replaced with self-driving ones", but "people should use a system of public self-driving vehicles to get around."

I certainly don't need a car for 90% of most days. It would be much more efficient for me to be able to use one for the trip to and from work, and let it go drive other people around, to work, errands, or whatever else, the rest of the time.

Dan Aris

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Tom]

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.

You heard the opposite of what I said. I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy.

If you think of self-driving cars as a replacement for public transport instead of a replacement for your personal car, initial limitations are absolutely fine. People are used to busses going fixed route, automated taxis driving only a subset of the streets in the city would still be an improvement. The challenge with the Google approach is that it needs to work under ALL circumstances. By reducing "all" to "a defined subset", you make the challenge one or two orders of magnitude easier.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

1000 self-driving cars will cost more to buy, more to maintain, and more to operate than 100 buses.

You'll have 4000 tires, instead of 400. You'll have 1000 motors instead of 100. 1000 computers instead of 100.

Also, your ratios depend on cars vs buses. If you have cars vs light rail, the ratio goes up to at least 100:1

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[danaris]

I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

1000 self-driving cars will cost more to buy, more to maintain, and more to operate than 100 buses.

You'll have 4000 tires, instead of 400. You'll have 1000 motors instead of 100. 1000 computers instead of 100.

Also, your ratios depend on cars vs buses. If you have cars vs light rail, the ratio goes up to at least 100:1

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.

Dan Aris

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.

OK, I see. You're counting all the people who now own personal cars and will give them up to use the futuristic self-driving cars instead.

I'll have to think about that. I'm doubtful, given Americans' love affair with their road machines, but maybe the culture could change. I'm afraid it would require creating "autonomous-only" roads though.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[danaris]

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.

OK, I see. You're counting all the people who now own personal cars and will give them up to use the futuristic self-driving cars instead.

I'll have to think about that. I'm doubtful, given Americans' love affair with their road machines, but maybe the culture could change. I'm afraid it would require creating "autonomous-only" roads though.

a) I'm all for that.

b) America != World

Dan Aris

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[PopeRatzo]

b) America != World

Yeah, I got you, but the rest of the world has already figured out public transportation. And given that the US is the country where every man, woman and child has a god-given right to their own vehicle (and gun), I'd say that if ubiquitous self-driving cars can't make it here, they can't make it anywhere.

It's up to you, New York, New York!

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young

[Tom]

If we go into more depth on this, I would say that I see self-driving cars more in replacing taxis than busses, but the mental model would need to shift because taxis are considered a bit of a luxury and not public transport.

The point is that a lot of people would consider taking such a system that do not currently consider taking the bus. Especially in cities, where you spend half your driving time searching for a parking space.

Back Seat Driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe co-pilot to make clear the driver is the captain of the car?

Such a great parallel

[ArchieBunker]

Tesla's autopilot is what systemd is to Linux. Beta tested by the users and still not ready for anything serious. Does it compile? Great, upload to the mirrors!

Re: Such a great parallel

[Type44Q]

So in other words, you haven't seen a single line of their code.

Lost focus

[Trogre]

Seriously, can't we just have a nice electric car without all this self-driving crap screwing it up?

Re:Lost focus

[AK Marc]

Yeah, if you don't like it, don't turn it on. And certainly don't turn it on, then hop in the back seat for a nap.

Re:Lost focus

[S48D31F68E4S2]

Agreed, people aren't buying Teslas because they're "self driving", they're buying them because they're electric, have a charging network (that's free), and are range competitive with gas. They have great handling, performance, and look great.

Tesla, please stop wasting your capital on this over hyped, "self driving" CRAP!

How much more affordable would a Tesla be just the way it is right now, if instead those dollars were invested in simply making the already great Tesla that much more affordable, or the model 3 that much closer to market, and not had been blown on the "self driving" gimmick that now threatens Tesla with lawsuits?

Please, Elon, don't tank Tesla with this garbage before I can expect to actually buy one of your vehicles, all on account this type of B.S.

Re:Lost focus

[fnj]

How much more affordable would a Tesla be just the way it is right now, if instead those dollars were invested in simply making the already great Tesla that much more affordable

Hardly any at all. The Model S would probably only be 9.997 times as much as the median wage earner can afford, rather than 10 times.

Re:Lost focus

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous driving is hard, and Tesla is a small company. While the cost in production for the auto-pilot is probably negligible, it takes development focus away from making the electric drive chain better and improving driving range, not to speak of other little details that make a good car. And with all the press they are getting right now, it's also taking management attention away from the things that really matter. So quite definitely, with Tesla getting trapped in the autonomous driving hype, it makes the long-term viability of the company, and the desirability of their cars, less certain.

Re:Lost focus

[WindBourne]

actually, you are wrong. Ppl ARE buying them for their AP. Lots of other Owners are very excited about this. My wife, who owns a 2013, now wants to trade it for a new one that has AP. I am having her wait for another year or so and then get an X. But, I have talked to 3 ppl that have traded up SPECIFICALLY to get the AP.

Re:Lost focus

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yup. Unfortunately Melon Usk lost it when Ford registered focus as its trademark.

Re:Lost focus

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure- you can have that now. You can choose not to activate auto-pilot.

Re:Lost focus

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, you are wrong. Ppl ARE buying them for their AP. Lots of other Owners are very excited about this. My wife, who owns a 2013, now wants to trade it for a new one that has AP. I am having her wait for another year or so and then get an X. But, I have talked to 3 ppl that have traded up SPECIFICALLY to get the AP.

#RichPeopleProblems

Re: Lost focus

[Type44Q]

How about standing on the roof while texting? :)

Re:Lost focus

[AmiMoJo]

It's actually an optional extra on the base models.

Re:Lost focus

[Trogre]

You seem to know a lot of very wealthy people. Are you sure they *actually* want the AP functionality or are they just trading up because it's the latest fad?

As another person has commented here, self driving is hard and Tesla is small. That means every R&D dollar put into these useless features is another dollar that doesn't get spent on making the car actually better.

Meh. Simple typo

[pem]

They meant to say "non-fatal."

That's a problem because anybody who engages the autopilot shouldn't be breeding.

Re:Lemons

[zieroh]

Your statement lacks any meaningful content. Why are they lemons? Got any evidence of that? Data or citations, perhaps? And why would someone be a moron for buying one? By what objective standard?

saved lives

[fluffernutter]

How many lives has Tesla saved now? Is anyone keeping count??

Re:saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

How many lives has Tesla saved now?

-1

They haven't saved anymore lives than any other car has saved.

Re:saved lives

[baker_tony]

Um wrong:
"We learned yesterday evening that NHTSA is opening a preliminary evaluation into the performance of Autopilot during a recent fatal crash that occurred in a Model S. This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles."
But now there's been two fatal crashes, that kinda screws that up! Perhaps Autopilot has now caused more fatalities per million miles traveled....
Either way, I'd still trust it over a normal driver.

Re:saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, I'd still trust it over a normal driver.

That's because you're a moron.

Re:saved lives

[WindBourne]

there has been only 1 fatality. As such, I am sure that they are around 150 million miles of some of the most dangerous roads. So, yeah, very safe.

Re:saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

So you know the entirety of human history right? Billions upon billions dead, so they can't say we're murders just for killing a few million. - Goering

Re: saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero. Or are killed people counted negative? Then it is -2, not accounting for fatal crashes they haven't made public yet.

Re: saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot only works on the safest types of roads.

Re:saved lives

[tehcyder]

How many lives has Tesla saved now? Is anyone keeping count??

I would have thought that Tesla were using all the data the vehicles supposedly collect. So either Elon Musk is shy of the vast wave of good publicity this would produce and unwilling to accept the additional tens of billions of public funding/subsidies that politicians would give him, or else there's no evidence that they have saved anyone's life.

Occam's Razor suggests the latter.

Re:saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

" I am sure that they are around 150 million miles of some of the most dangerous roads."

Isn't it designed exclusively for freeway use? Those are the SAFEST roads we have. They might seem more dangerous because of the speed, but in terms of actual accidents and fatalities, they are the safest because of all of the things that make them freeways - a separate roadbed for each direction, limited access, high levels of maintenance, limited curvature/grade, and limited signage all contribute to that safety. Rural, two lane highways are the most dangerous because hey have none of those things.

Re:saved lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares, it is pruning off the weak. If you turn it on then don't pay attention to the road then you shouldn't have a license.

Re: saved lives

[WindBourne]

No, it does not. The most dangerous are highways, and it works there. In addition, I have taken it on side roads to the highways and it runs fine there. Likewise, I took it up a mountain side up to 14,000 ' and it worked on parts of that. It MIGHT have worked on all of it, but I was not willing to fully test it.

Re:saved lives

[WindBourne]

Highways of ALL TYPES are the most DANGEROUS roads. Why? Because cars are doing 60-100 MPH. This is where a small mistake leads to lost lives.
NHTSA has shown the stats on this and the real dangerous roads, is highways, not cities.
And yes, rural highways have the highest number of fatalities. BUT, even city based highways, freeways, whatever you wish to call them, still have high fatalities.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/07/14/tesla-megna-lemon-law/12642475/
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/tesla-reportedly-settles-model-x-california-lemon-lawsuit.html
http://mytesla.ca
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/consumer-reports-stops-recommending-the-tesla.html?_r=0&referer=https://duckduckgo.com/
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-is-the-third-drive-unit-the-charm.html
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098389_tesla-model-s-door-handle-failures-still-plague-electric-car-as-consumer-reports-learns

Mod Parent Up

[Razed By TV]

There has been only one fatality according to the linked articles. Mod parent up.

Re:Lemons

[AK Marc]

https://www.teslamotors.com/pr...

In their marketing, I've only seen it described as an intelligent cruise control. What have you seen that contradicts? Unrelated blogs talking about it?

Just one fatality

[wildsurf]

two of which resulted in fatalities.

Sigh. One of the crashes resulted in one fatality. The other two crashes, no fatalities. (And it is not yet known whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of those two incidents.)

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags. You may be able to occasionally get away with it, but it's still an incredibly dumb thing to do. (And the former endangers other drivers, not just yourself.) The silver lining of these incidents is that maybe more drivers will start paying more attention while using AP, though it should have been up to Tesla to properly instill this sense of caution to begin with.

And side skirts/guards should really be mandated for trailers nationwide. (They're already mandated in California.) It may not physically prevent an underride at high speed, but it doesn't have to; the radar is much more likely to detect them and trigger collision-avoidance braking. It's only a small patch for a small part of the problem, but better than not patching it at all.

Re:Just one fatality

[kencurry]

two of which resulted in fatalities.

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags. .

Why call it autopilot? just call it cruise control, and don't let the driver out of the loop. I have lane change assist in my Porsche. If it does not detect input from the driver after some number of minutes, it will automatically disengage and beep out a warning. Point is, the system doesn't even pretend to be engaged if you're not.

Re:Just one fatality

[WindBourne]

because Tesla's AP is nothing like Porsche's cruise control.
In fact, Tesla is so far ahead of Porsche, it would be like comparing Porsche's lane assist, safety features and cruise control, vs. an old style cruise control.

Re:Just one fatality

[WindBourne]

good points, but with 1 issue. AP works pretty decently once a car has gone over the lane. I was impressed when I tried it on a side road 3x. In the first case, my hands was about 1/2" away and to be honest, I was pretty nervous. It was moving from side to side, which included a curve and just minor fall off the edge (it was only 20-30''). During the curve, other cars were coming and I took back control for a bit and then reverted back to AP. This went on for a couple of miles before hitting the next real intersection, at which point, I took over.
The second time, I allowed it to go through the curve fully. What I noticed is that on the regular road section in which the AP had control in drive 1, it had improved IMMENSELY. The curve still bugged me.
The 3rd time was a charm. From 1 road to the next, it followed the lane and was not moving back-forth. It was obviously trained for this road.

Since this was a Tesla loaner (ours was in service and is a 2013), this was pretty exciting to see and try. The only other place that I tried it was on the way up to mount evans. I was obviously the first on that road to run AP, and do not recommend getting the least bit comfortable until multiple runs have been done it all the way (I was not brave enough to do this since I had my family with me; only in a small amount of that road is it covered, though it took the hairpins nicely). There are places where you go down 500-700'. IOW, even in a tesla, you will die on that.

Re:Just one fatality

[F.Ultra]

Why are people so upset about the name? There is no evidence that points to that these three accidents would not have happened if the AP held another name. The main problem is not the name but that the AP is so capable that people have ignored the instructions and warnings and have begun to upload fun videos to Youtube where they drive from the back seat.

Re:Just one fatality

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's 'AutoPilot' is exactly like a cruise control in other luxury cars, just executed poorly and hyped by its vendor.

Re:Just one fatality

[cyn1c77]

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags.

I would argue that getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is a virtual certainty.

Unlike cruise control, the system completely takes control of the car from the driver. The driver is left with nothing to do but look at the scenery.

I think it would be incredibly difficult to remain completely alert, yet relaxed in this situation. I, personally, would either:
1. not trust the system and would be constantly stressed out that it was trying to kill me, or
2. would get overly comfortable, distract myself for increasing amounts of time, and then accidentally fall asleep or completely focus on a different task, like reading.

Realistically, neither of these options work for me. So I would not use autopilot unless it was functional at a level where it could actually fully drive the car and I was willing to cede it complete responsibility for my life.

Now I acknowledge that people are different and that some will be able to continuously stare at the road with complete attention while not driving. My wife for example is really good at this...

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/news/tesla-elon-musk-autopilot/index.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/20/tesla_autopilot_musk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMiIP6_YFbM

*Two* of which?

[Theaetetus]

Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities

The first one was the guy watching the DVD who went under the truck. Or at least, all of him below the neck did. Fatality!
The second one was in Michigan, and the driver "survived a rollover crash."
This is the third one, and "the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip."

That's one fatality, Subby. These are your own links and summary. We expect you to read them, even if none of the posters or editors here do.

Re:Lemons

[Rei]

He posts almost the exact same thing in every article about Tesla. I'm not sure what's wrong with him, but he's got a bit of an obsession going.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

The name.

Stop calling it Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure whether they trademarked that word or not, and if it's a trademark they are technically allowed to use it for their product if it's not a description of the said product, which is true as their autopilot is nothing more than an slightly better version of cruise control.

Just like the FDA forbids the use of certain potentially misleading words on food (specially for supposedly "diet" or "health" products), the FTC should forbid the use of misleading buzzwords that can put people's lives at risk, such as autopilot when it's clearly something different.

Tesla is clearly trying to cash on the hype of automatic cars, even though we're still years from a complete product. But they want to be the "first". Too bad there are tons of irresponsible people that will believe those lies and put many lives at risk.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

The other ACs post adequately sums it up, but if you look at them from an investors standpoint, the biggest threat to Teslas long term viability is they spend a ridiculous amount on recalls. And people like you probably want to claim "but that's just because they're so high quality that they recall every little problem", but I don't consider cars with doors that won't remain closed to be "high quality". https://www.wired.com/2016/04/teslas-model-x-bigger-problems-faulty-falcon-doors/

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[Anonymous Coward]

And drones are?

Autopilot on these cars are being sold as much as "smart" drones flying themselves. Sure it works, The youtube videos look great, but it's a false promise--they still (cars and drones) have along way to go.

And both end up with significant crashes (guaranteed) when they don't work--that's the main problem.

1909

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news today, another model T, the worlds first assembly line manufactured car, broke out into flames today, being the 5th such incident this year many predict the ford motor company will not survive the winter as any reasonable investor would bail from the company, undoubtedly the use of mass manufacturing will be the end of ford.

Re:1909

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrible analogy. Are you saying other cars with lane assist, adaptive cruise control and break assist are equivalent to horse & buddy, and Tesla is the Ford Model T?

In other news a Toyota with Lane assist nearly veered out of its lane but since the driver was paying attention knowing it's to assist in driving no accident occurred.

Auto Pilot = Automatic Pilot. n: a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot.

Re:1909

[tehcyder]

In other news today, another model T, the worlds first assembly line manufactured car, broke out into flames today, being the 5th such incident this year many predict the ford motor company will not survive the winter as any reasonable investor would bail from the company, undoubtedly the use of mass manufacturing will be the end of ford.

You forgot to mention buggy whip makers anywhere in your useful analogy.

Re: 1909

[Type44Q]

horse & buddy

Now that's funny.

Re:1909

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto Pilot = Automatic Pilot. n: a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot.

Question, are you saying that Tesla's system is misnamed? Because if so, I have a second question.

Can a plane on auto pilot detect and avoid if another plane is on a direct head-on collision course? Or is a plane's auto pilot just for keeping the plane generally pointed in the correct direction?

Re:1909

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on whether or not the plane is equipped with collision avoidance systems, and whether they're engaged. TCAS, GPWS, and TAWS are all systems built and designed to do just this - detecting and recommending maneuvers to avoid aircraft and terrain that the aircraft's course put it in danger of colliding with.

Some of these integrate with a plane's autopilot, allowing the plane to take CAS-recommended evasive steps automatically.

And in either case, a pilot of thus-equipped aircraft requires hundreds of hours of training and education in the practical use of their system and safe operation of their craft, as opposed to a Tesla, which seems to just require 50 grand of disposable income and a death wish.

Re:1909

[Guillermito]

What a plane auto pilot system actually is or can do is totally irrelevant. In judging whether Tesla's system is misnamed all that matters is what a layperson *thinks* an auto pilot system does, and I have no doubts a layperson thinks an "autopilot" system does much more than other systems with less sexy names like the "lane assist" other car manufacturers use.

Re:1909

[is as us Infinite]

It doesn't really matter what you call it. The system forces you through a confirmation process to inform you of the limits and allow you to assume liability for them.

I would just point out.....

[Anonymous Coward]

.This guy's other company is a *SUCCESSFUL* rocket design, manufacturing and launching firm. So assuming the programmers he has on his automotive company are sub-par is a bit of a stretch until proven otherwise. While elon musk may be many things, a GM quality CEO he is not. (In case that wasn't clear, I was insulting GM, not Musk.)

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't particularly like the guy. He so far has proven worthy of respect. He may be cavalier, but he gets shit done, and often both cheaper and relatively safer than his predecessors have, despite up to a 50 year lead on him.

Re:I would just point out.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah bullshit. I was part of the SpaceX certification process. SpaceX got certified because paid off congresscritters told the Air Force that they would be certified. They pencilwhipped most of their documentation, and we deliberately signed off on missing, incomplete, and blatantly fraudulent documentation because we were told to. I would not take a free ride to space with them, and unless Tesla has very different corporate ethics, don't want to be on the highway near their "autopilot". But then, I speak from experience, not press releases.

Re:I would just point out.....

[Dog-Cow]

Let's take it at face value that you are telling the truth. You are admitting to breaking the law just because you were told to. How does it feel to be a Nazi?

Re:I would just point out.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I was also part of the SpaceX certification process. I remember you, you were the guy named Chester. I was sitting next to you in meetings and I had a bag of Cheetos, and for some reason you were always really trying hard to get my bag of Cheetos and I wouldn't let you. Neither would anyone else. You did this for like 3 weeks. I don't know why a guy dressed like a cheetah wanted Cheetos so bad and didn't just go get his own out of the vending machine, but when I said "It ain't easy bein' cheesy" you got super pissed and stormed out of the room and said "Fuck you and fuck your dangerously cheesy snacks too."

I always knew that would come back to haunt us, and here it is. Damn.

Re:I would just point out.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww, you committed fraud because you "were told to"? And you are complaining about some companies ethics? Something about a pot and a kettle.

So who says all other certifications by you and your colleagues are not corrupt? Because you sound exactly like the corrupt people in banana republics with your "It's not our fault! The other guys made us do it! We had no choice but to comply"

Re: I would just point out.....

[Anonymous Coward]

the programmers might be good.
but.
how many rocket crashes has he had?

and the good developers were instructed to not make it annoying if you dont hold the wheel or look the road.

Can we use the NRA argument?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Tesla can just defend this with a simple statement:
Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Re:Lemons

[AK Marc]

""Because the software is still at an early stage, it's important people exercise caution," Musk said."

The wording used around it is talking about what it "will" do. The talk about what it "does" do is generally quite accurate.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMiIP6_YFbM

That's being real cautious there.

Re:Lemons

[AK Marc]

OK, and is that an official company PR? No? Then irrelevant.

Go the Tesla bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

But, lest we forget:

• Ford recalled the Explorer due to problems with cruise control not disengaging.
• Ford recalled the Expedition, Mustang and Lincoln Navigator vehicles due to improper transmission down-shifting causing loss of vehicle control.
• Ford recalled the Explorer and Police Interceptor vehicles due to suspension fractures that could cause loss of vehicle control.
• Ford recalled some F-Series vehicles due to tyres that were damaged on their production line conveyors.
• Ford recalled Flex, Taurus, Lincoln MKS and Mercury Sable vehicles due to faulty airbags.
• Ford recalled Fusion vehicles due to faulty welds on their seat trucks.
• Fiat/Chrysler/Jeep recalled the Grand Cherokee because of its emminently hackable Uconnect system.
• Fiat/Chrysler/Jeep recalled the Grand Cherokee because of its dodgy e-shifter causing roll aways.

Need we go on?

Re: Go the Tesla bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

We get it, Ford is as shitty as Tesla.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's filmed and shared by the CEO of the company, you better believe it's official marketing.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

IDK, Tesla's website makes it pretty clear if you ask me the feature is in beta. Look for yourself:

https://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/presskit/autopilot

It's described as 'Autosteer (BETA)' and has the following blurb:

"Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel."

Who knows when the page was last updated though.

Why isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

/From someone in the DO-178B FAA software testing business.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMiIP6_YFbM

The companies CEO makes it pretty clear that you don't need to worry about paying attention.

Re:Lemons

[Barny]

I bet he is an apple user...

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[SumDog]

Software this important to peoples' lives can't be written like Windows95. I'd say for Tesla, it isn't.

The trouble is, the auto-pilot feature isn't an auto-pilot. It's not autonomous. It's supose to be used as a safety device. It's being misadvertised, misrepresneted, and even if it was correctly portrayed as a beta safety feature - crashes like this show it reduces the awareness of the driver when they trust the features of the car and reduce their attention.

My Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to move forward, with liability wavers, and make self driving cars common place. #MuftiSays
This will achieve more than Uber, or Car Rentals on their own. Imagine loaning your girlfriend a drive, but not giving her free use of the car.

Plus in terms of insurance, fuel economy, trip route planning, this with GPS is officially the most awesome, life on the road, possible.

#MuftiSays not anonymous coward. Just too lazy to scroll and log in, the web ought to automatically sign in and post for me.

Fortunately...

[hcs_$reboot]

there was only 3 crashes

not one, not two, but a total of three...

and not 100!

not one, not two, not three ... not fifty-two...

Re:Fortunately...

[Bristol_92]

It’s only a beginning. So your prognosis will come true. How many incidents must happen? And why we paid by blood?

Disinformation, no thanks

[Framboise]

Anyone knowing how autopilot works should find the report sounding fishy. One doesn't "activate the car's Autopilot driver assist system at the beginning of the trip", so at zero speed, but when the road is appropriate, like being on a highway, at positive speed. Activating autopilot at zero speed doesn't work.
Further this incident, which remains to be confirmed on several points, didn't caused any fatality. Slashdot doen't improve its declining aura in participating to what looks like a disinformation campaign about Tesla.

Re:Disinformation, no thanks

[WindBourne]

I think by start of trip, they mean that when they got on highway. However, lets wait and see.
As it is, I am more concerned about /. and the constant lies that we see here about Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City (which is what your last sentence also says).
Off hand, I would say that Koch bros money is hard at work creating FUD.

One fatality

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one of the three accidents resulted in fatalities. At the same time we have had around 2000 fatalities in other car brands..

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't get drivel right why should we pay attention to your lack of paying attention?

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the driver AND the cars are the problem. The former is inattentive and the latter is clearly broken given they can't detect trucks right in front of them.

only 1 fatality and so far, only 1 crash with AP

[WindBourne]

First and foremost, On the Florida crash had a fatality.
However, it is still thought that Pennsylvania's crash did NOT involve AP, and Montana is still un-verified (though, I would expect this one to have AP since it had been running for some time). IOW, at this time, it is 1 crash using AP, and only 1 fatality.

So, this brings up the question of why did an AC submit this story which has multiple false statements, and why is /. not checking validity? In addition, why has the header NOT been updated with correct information?
Shades of the Koch bros here.

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[geekmux]

Autodrive car's may have to be at the FAA level of software testing / code review.

While you bring a valid point here, the average automobile these days doesn't get a new coat of paint every few years in order to rack up half a million miles before being retired. Would be nice if they did, but the distribution chain of today would never stand for it.

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're how old and yet still you insist on putting apostrophes before the 's' on plural nouns, because presumably you don't bother reading printed material? (Like books...) Idiot.

Not a self driving car...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Tesla took the worst possible name for this. It doesn't drive itself 100%, thus, not a true "auto-pilot". It's just a more advance cruise control and you should be ready to take control at any moment

Re:Not a self driving car...

[green1]

Autopilots on planes don't fly the planes by themselves. Autopilot on boats don't drive the boats by themselves. Why would any moron believe that autopilot on a car would be so completely different from autopilot on any other vehicle?

Re:Not a self driving car...

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way does a plane's autopilot using equipment readings to maintain a heading and speed differ from a car using equipment readings to stay between two lines and a particular speed? Unless you have some grand insight, don't talk shit about stuff you don't understand. Kids these days!

Re:Not a self driving car...

[Cro Magnon]

Most morons don't fly planes or drive boats. They only see them in crappy movies. It's not a question of what autopilot actually does. It's a question of what Joe Sixpack, who isn't a pilot, and perhaps isn't really very smart, thinks it does.

Re:Not a self driving car...

[green1]

Exactly, it keeps a heading, that's all. A plane on autopilot will happily fly in to a mountain if you don't stop it, all it does is follow the set trajectory. The car does more because it follows lane markings instead of just a straight line, but neither one drives itself. And only the car does any collision avoidance whatsoever.
Autopilot is a great name for this product. It implies a system that assists the driver, while the driver maintains full control at all times. Just like a pilot does on an aircraft.

Re:Not a self driving car...

[green1]

Someone named it the automobile, and we all know what auto means. So your average person will assume that all cars drive themselves.
Someone named it cruise control, and if it can control the cruising of the vehicle the average person will think it can drive itself.

Morons will be morons, they've been killing themselves and others for centuries, renaming a feature so that it does a worse job of describing what it actually does will not stop morons from killing people.

Dividends

[sjbe]

A dividend means a company has run out of ideas, and can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.

That's one interpretation but in reality it's more nuanced than that. Companies have basically 4 things they can do with excess free cash flow. They can reinvest in the company, they can buy another company or asset, they can repurchase stock or they can pay a dividend. Paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company lacks ideas. It can mean that the shareholders simply prefer to use the excess cash that way. Repurchasing stock for example reduces the supply of stock an in theory can push the stock price up but since stock prices are decoupled from actual earnings it's a bit of a gamble. So is buying another company. Some companies are in slow growth industries and nobody would buy the stock if it didn't pay a dividend. Utilities are a good example of this. Dividends also can be used as a management tool. There is a ton of evidence showing that management teams with too much cash available to them tend to get lazy and sloppy. They make dumb acquisitions, engage in empire building, buy unnecessary assets, etc. Companies tend to perform better when cash is tighter (up to a point).

So no, paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company has run out of ideas.

I can sell the stock, take the money to the store and use it to buy groceries. That is real enough for me.

You can do that but you are familiar with the parable of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? There is an opportunity cost to selling a stock. You forego any future benefits of an ownership stake in the company. That's not necessarily a bad thing but with a dividend you get cash out of the company without the opportunity cost of losing your ownership stake in the company.

Summary is loaded with misinformation

[bareman]

There has been one reported death while AP was engaged. There have been other Tesla accidents in which the owners have allegedly reported AP is in use, but as of yet these owners have refused to allow Tesla to examine the logs to confirm or deny this allegation. As of yet only one of the accidents reported in the recent media has occurred where it is confirmed that AP was engaged at the time of the crash. Rumours make could clickbait, but once upon a time slashdot was concerned with facts.

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software

[tinkerton]

I think most car safety devices are smartphone assists: they allow you to spend more time phoning, browsing and texting. For those who want to remain in control it does what it advertises , but many people will use it for its convenience value. That's how it's going to be with self driving cars too. Some people will be all too eager to let the car drive itself, whatever the risk.

Too many things

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Wish Elon Musk would concentrate on a few important difficult things than to go for every fancy thought that crosses its mind. Self driving cars are Google's obsession. Leave that to google. Concentrate on getting an affordable middle class, ok, ok, upper middle class electric car. The rocket is good. The power wall is good. The giga factory is good. Hyperloop is a stretch even for Elon.

Focus, man, Focus.

Re:Too many things

[tehcyder]

Focus, man, Focus.

Sorry, I think Ford have first dibs on that.

Re:Lemons

[Anonymous Coward]

$1 has been deposited in your account.
Keep up the good work!

Sequel

[ThatsNotPudding]

I see they've started filming the sequel to Tucker.

Re:Lemons

[tehcyder]

Dribble and drivel are etymologically connected to Old English. And Miriam Webster's first definition of drivel is: to let saliva dribble from the mouth.

Admittedly, this was probably just a piece of luck, but there you go.

Some Perspective Please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the human-controlled Ford, Nissan, GM, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc vehicles had hundreds of thousands of crashes with thousands of fatalities during that time. Not saying each death doesn't matter but come on, is this kind of outrage over new technology that was *possibly* involved with these Tesla crashes reasonable? Just like fantastic buildings have some unfortunate construction accidents, some early-adopters of this technology are experiencing failed beta tests to further a future not too far away when we use Uber to get somewhere and a driverless car arrives.

Self-driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving is not something you can do half-way. You have to go all in or not at all.

those days, monsters walked the land

[Thud457]

Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific says that corporations love a good tummy rub. Your silly non sequitur is at odds with the law of the land.

Only one fatal crash

[daenris]

The summary is incorrect. Only one of the 3 crashes had any fatalities. And so far as I'm aware is the only one yet to have confirmed that autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident. The second two accidents the drivers indicated they were using autopilot, but Tesla has not been able to confirm that yet (or at least has not publicly confirmed it).

None of the links in the summary even support the claim that there have been two fatalities.

Try searching for "BMW fatal crash"

[Anonymous Coward]

Countless results, over a hundred dead? And those were cars being driven without auto-pilot. Tesla record is far superior than any other vehicle. Time for the douche that can't afford one to stop submitting FUD articles.

Autopilot is dangerous

[Elentar]

One of the first things you learn as a new driver is not to watch the car immediately in front of you, but rather to watch several cars ahead (and behind). This gives you more time to react to traffic changes, and you still see the actions of the nearest vehicle anyway.

Sure, Tesla's Autopilot will have a much faster reaction time. That will help, but it's not good enough - it only allows Autopilot to react to conditions that the nearest vehicle also reacts to. A deer running toward the road, looking to jump in front of you? A kid chasing a ball toward the street? The vehicle in front of you swerving out of the way of an object in the road? Autopilot doesn't handle any of them, and can't as long as it lacks the ability to see more of the environment around it.

Autopilot is dangerous to Tesla drivers and others because it removes the attention of the driver from the road. It's basically like asking a nearly blind friend with fast reflexes to take the wheel while you read a book or play games on your phone. If it's not legal for a nearly blind driver to take the wheel, Autopilot shouldn't be legal either.

Tesla and Musk oversold what it can do

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in general both Tesla marketing and some Tesla drivers are to blame. Tesla for over selling what AutoPilot can do and second for drivers who put too much faith in a new technology. What Tesla needs to do is back off on the automation and inform drivers the reality is that this technology is not 100% perfect. It may still require a human reaction if something doesn't work right. Sadly, some of these problems go with a person too eager to use a automated technology, for whatever reason some seem so impressed they choose to do dumb things just to prove how good it is. Like watching a movie while the car drives itself, or purposely attempt to fool the technology. What may prove to kill this technology is not the technology itself, but the dumb humans who cannot handle it.

Taking refuge in formal usage.

[westlake]

You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise.

In a narrow technical sense you are right.

But in common use, the word "autopilot" has come to mean all the automated systems that work together to fly an aircraft with little or no involvement of the pilot.

"Autopilot" has taken on another meaning which makes it even more dangerous in this situation:

Noun 1. autopilot - a cognitive state in which you act without self-awareness; ''she went about her chores on automatic pilot''; "she talked and he dozed and my mind went on autopilot"

a state lacking normal awareness of the self or environment

autopilot

Humans are still the pilots

[sjbe]

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance.

Automated systems in modern jets very rarely land the plane and never do takeoffs. A modern jetliner flys itself about as much as a modern operating room operates by itself.

Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup.

Not true at all. Pilots fly the airplane - the automation facilitates the work of doing this but a cockpit is actually a very busy place for a pilot. While it's true that we have the technology to automate, in nearly all cases a human pilot is still the one in change of the plane.

Trying Hard for the Darwin Award

[theshowmecanuck]

Anyone who totally trusts this very new technology is looking to be taken out of the gene pool. The guy probably turned it on and then started playing some game on his cell phone.