Tesla Tells Germany that 98% of Drivers Don't Find the Term 'Autopilot' Misleading (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes:Tesla has responded to Germany's request to stop using the word "autopilot" in its advertising, due to safety concerns, by carrying out a survey of Tesla-owners in Germany. It says that the overwhelming majority of customers it surveyed did not find the term confusing. Last month, German transport minister Alexander Dobrindt had asked Tesla to stop using "autopilot" in its messaging, as he felt the term implied that drivers could operate their vehicles without applying their attention to the roads. Tesla responded by saying that "autopilot" had been used in aerospace for a long time to describe a system that works in conjunction with a human operator. "Just as in an airplane, when used properly, autopilot reduces driver workload and provides an added layer of safety when compared to purely manual driving," a spokesperson said at the time. Without divulging exact numbers, Tesla has now said that it has "worked with a third party" to survey owners of its cars in Germany to "better understand how they perceive Autopilot." The company found that 98 percent of those surveyed "understand that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the vehicle at all times."

Comments

There's a problem here.

[HBI]

I don't speak German and the word for "autopilot" in German - which I am not going to try to guess - probably has a subtly different meaning than in English. So I don't even know how to judge this article or the issue, and anyone not natively familiar with Deutsch lingo would be in the same state.

Re:There's a problem here.

[dunkelfalke]

Nope, the meaning is exactly the same.
I guess Tesla just interviewed their own employees and partners, hence the result.

Re:There's a problem here.

[twistnatz]

The german word for "autopilot" is actually "autopilot" and it has the same meaning than in english.

Re:There's a problem here.

[dunkelfalke]

The word, by the way, is exactly the same, only the pronunciation is different.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is the same in German. The definition is something that pilots for you, which is what the name implies.

Als Autopilot wird eine automatische, üblicherweise programmierbare Steuerungsanlage bezeichnet, welche Fortbewegungsmittel auf Wunsch automatisch lenkt, ohne dass Menschen, während der Autopilot aktiv ist, in die Steuerung eingreifen müssen. Elon Moschus genießt Mann Esel.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

... probably has a subtly different meaning than...

That just semantics!

Re:There's a problem here.

[HBI]

Well played.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Moschus genießt Mann Esel.

I'm not sure that Elon Musk translates his last name when dealing with Germans.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Kjella]

I don't speak German and the word for "autopilot" in German - which I am not going to try to guess - probably has a subtly different meaning than in English.

The word is the same and means the same. But "the car" = "das Auto" (short for automobile) so someone with a very rudimentary understanding of German and ignorant of the roots in aviation might believe it means "car pilot". I don't think that's the real problem though, the moment people see it drives "by itself" they start playing with their phone or something to relieve themselves of the boredom. If they post-hoc claim they misunderstood the word, it's mostly because that puts the blame on Tesla and not themselves. Damn hard to prove people knew they weren't following the rules though.

Re: There's a problem here.

[joh]

The German word for "autopilot" is "Autopilot". Same meaning too.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

"autopilot" = "augenschlogzeitgistenkingle!"

Re:There's a problem here.

[RandomSurfer314]

No, Autopilot in German means exactly the same as in English and also has the same connotation.

But there is just no story here. A company tells their marketing department to conduct a statistically insignificant fake survey. Nothing new. The whole story is about as meaningful as when Coca Cola comes up with a study that shows that soft drinks don't make people fat or when tobacco companies showed that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Re:There's a problem here.

[ClickOnThis]

Elon Moschus genießt Mann Esel.

I'm not sure that Elon Musk translates his last name when dealing with Germans.

The phrase genießt Mann Esel suggests he does, uh, something else when he deals with Germans.

Re:There's a problem here.

[dunkelfalke]

must be some bavarian dialect then

Re:There's a problem here.

[Skuld-Chan]

I think in English the word is supposed to mean it automatically pilots my car - which from what I understand it doesn't.

Why isn't this an issue in America? Other than the boner everyone has for Elon here.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Pahroza]

ow-toe-pee-lowt

Re:There's a problem here.

[mspohr]

I think they should call it "OttoPilot" in Germany.

Re:There's a problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, that must be it. It has nothing to do with the danger of telling people a flaky driving assistance system is an autonomous driving system.

I am not German, but I do speak the language and I have been following the car industry for a long time. German regulators are some of the least biased around. It can be dangerous if people using an immature system beyond its design capabilities and it is good that Tesla owners are reminded what the system can and cannot do. There is very little to be gained by German companies from such a warning. It is just a public safety measure.

Re:There's a problem here.

[haruchai]

Sure, that must be it. It has nothing to do with the danger of telling people a flaky driving assistance system is an autonomous driving system.

Tesla doesn't call Autopilot autonomous & Musk stated clearly a couple years ago that the original hardware was insuffficient.
Now he thinks this updated system is but I disagree - needs at least one rear-facing radar and possibly another on the driver's left side for fast-lane merging

Re:There's a problem here.

[haruchai]

"but Elon Musk has been declared a saint by the media"

What a crock of shite. Every move, misstep, crash or fire is roundly scrutinized & criticized.

Re:There's a problem here.

[newcastlejon]

I think they should call it "OttoPilot" in Germany.

By your command.

Re:There's a problem here.

[drinkypoo]

Damn hard to prove people knew they weren't following the rules though.

It's damned easy in Tesla's case because they won't turn the feature on until the primary driver has had the wonderful safety lecture.

Alternatively

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla tells Germany that 1 in 50 drivers have no clue what the term 'autopilot' means.

Re:Alternatively

[Drethon]

Tesla tells Germany that 1 in 50 drivers have no clue what the term 'autopilot' means.

1 in 50 drivers (or even 1 in 1000) thinking their car will handle any situation without the driver's help doesn't seem scary. /sarcasm off

Yeah, but that's the problem

[tietokone-olmi]

There's the 2% who figure that "autopilot" does in fact mean that the car's built-in computer does what the owner means. They may be the same 2% who figure that "cruise control" does that very same thing, but let's forgive them for this one: autopilot does literally mean that the car controls itself, much as automobile means that it moves itself.

And 2% of all drivers is tens of thousands of cars in Germany alone. By virtue of being heavy machinery, cars can cause terrible damage when they e.g. plow into oncoming traffic, or crowds of pedestrians. Or just a single deadly accident each, for those of us whose horror meters peg out at somewhere around four to six people dead.

Changing the nomenclature to something that's not quite as marketing-sexy is fairly fucking low a price for even one person not killed by a well-moneyed idiot's misconception. Trust the American billionaire not to see it this way, of course.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[tietokone-olmi]

That's the Idiot's America alright: doubling down on teh dumb.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[pastafazou]

And 2% of all drivers is tens of thousands of cars in Germany

But 2% of all Tesla drivers in Germany is less than a hundred...https://electrek.co/2016/04/11/tesla-model-s-deliveries-germany-q1-2016/

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[fazig]

Unfortunately, in our stupid societies (Germany included) apologizing and or admitting to be wrong is easily interpreted as a sign of utter incompetence.
It doesn't matter if someone admits being wrong or starts to compromise in order to find a better solution or approximate the truth.
All that matters is winning the argument.
So what they have to do, in order to not appear weak and incompetent, is to stand by their bullshit by finding whatever excuses are possible, no matter how wrong it is. And if all fails, just keep repeating the lie until the majority accepts it as a truth.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[RandomSurfer314]

And the good thing for Tesla is: They will soon be dead anyway.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[AmiMoJo]

It's going to get worse now that Tesla has introduced Autopilot V2, which they claim will eventually be a real self-driving vehicle. How many people will be confused as to which version they have?

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[david_thornley]

A speeding driver is a lot less dangerous than one who isn't paying attention. Actually, a speeding driver can be safer than a non-speeding driver. Speed makes accidents worse, but going with the flow of traffic makes accidents less likely.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[Knuckles]

Cruise Control in German is usually called Tempomat (though it's actually a Daimler brand name). The formal name is Geschwindigkeitsregelanlage == velocity control facility. There should be no confusion about what it does.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[Knuckles]

Autopilot V2 works well in Germany!

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[haruchai]

None. Because the older cars won't be able to drive themselves.

Re: Yeah, but that's the problem

[bestweasel]

Though the autopilot inexplicably insists on driving to England.

Re:Yeah, but that's the problem

[evilbessie]

2% of people who have bought into Tesla, not 2% of people. Who would think that early adopters might be drinking the powered water enhancer?

Re: Yeah, but that's the problem

[bestweasel]

Sorry, that was a bit insensitive. I did contribute the last twice this topic came up on Slashdot but went for the easy gag this time.

Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[jfdavis668]

The pilot is required to be constantly at the controls ready to take over. This use of the word also applies to cars. Problem is people get dependent on it. See Air France 447 for an example. The autopilot disengaged, and the pilots proceeded to do everything wrong and crashed the jet. You also have to take into account that the pilots/drivers might have the same accident with or without the autopilot. There are lots of accidents each year caused by drivers. Having the car automatically avoiding most of them may cut down the overall accident rate, even if it fails in certain situations.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[0100010001010011]

The problem is most people aren't pilots. I would bet a large part of the population thinks that that is exactly how an airplane works.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes; and any pilot knows that. But, the public perception is that the pilot just turns it on and has a nap.

The overwhelming majority of people would survive one round of Russian Roulette; that fact doesn't make it a safe game.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Nidi62]

The pilot is required to be constantly at the controls ready to take over. This use of the word also applies to cars. Problem is people get dependent on it.

The problem is most people outside the aviation industry assume autopilot does pretty much everything, when in reality it just maintains speed and altitude along a preprogrammed route. They should really rename it to "Copilot", as the reality is closer to PM/PF. Autopilot is doing the flying(PF), but the driver should be paying attention(monitoring) at all times to make sure the Autopilot doesn't screw up and should be ready to take over at any time(PM). I know this isn't exactly like PM/PF, but at least it might be a little less confusing for lay people than autopilot.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[houghi]

I know Russian Roulette and can calculate the odds, but if you do not know the difference between a pistol and a revolver, your calculations might be a little bit off.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that the existence of the feature only makes sense if you can leave AutoPilot in control and stop paying attention. If I've got to be fully focussed on the road at all times, and ready to take control at a moments notice, I might as well drive the ****ing car myself. So a lot of people, while fully understanding that technically you're supposed to pay attention while AutoPilot is engaged, also probably fully intend to not always comply with that expectation.

Now whether calling it "AutoPilot" has any material impact on that, versus calling it some more descriptive name, I personally kind of doubt. If it was called "Intelligent Driver Assist" or whatever, it wouldn't change the fact that you've seen the demos and youtube videos, and read the description in the brochure, and decided to pay several thousand euros for the feature, so you're probably going to use it however you intended to use it.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[dgatwood]

The problem is most people outside the aviation industry assume autopilot does pretty much everything, when in reality it just maintains speed and altitude along a preprogrammed route.

Depends on the autopilot. Category III and later autopilots can automatically land in autoland-compliant airports. And that functionality isn't particularly uncommon these days. And ACAS-capable planes will at least attempt to avoid a mid-air collision as well, but this hardware is relatively rare, I think.

What makes autopilot on the ground so different is how much higher the risk of travel path incursion is, whether temporarily (by other vehicles, pedestrians, or potholes) or permanently (by curbs, center barriers, etc.).

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[cellocgw]

I know Russian Roulette and can calculate the odds, but if you do not know the difference between a pistol and a revolver, your calculations might be a little bit off.

Kinda depends on the model eh? I would submit that knowing which pistol (or revolver) is in use is more important than known what mechanical mechanism is used to feed fresh ammo to the chamber.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[MitchDev]

Not to mention that pilots don't share the same road with other vehicles less than 6-10 feet (2-3 meters) away from them almost constantly amd with regular complete stops needed regularly. Not to mention that planes don't really have to worry about other cars, children, animals, etc suddenly crossing the road in front of them....

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[MitchDev]

Yes, but if you are using a clip, it's not going to click on an empty chamber unless you are out of rounds.... ;)

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[MitchDev]

If you still have to be alert and ready to take over at fraction of second's notice, that sounds a hell of a lot more stressful than regular driving....

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

What kinds of pistols use clips? If you don't know the difference between clip and magazine, maybe don't try and play smartass here.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Nidi62]

The problem is most people outside the aviation industry assume autopilot does pretty much everything, when in reality it just maintains speed and altitude along a preprogrammed route.

Depends on the autopilot. Category III and later autopilots can automatically land in autoland-compliant airports. And that functionality isn't particularly uncommon these days. And ACAS-capable planes will at least attempt to avoid a mid-air collision as well, but this hardware is relatively rare, I think.

What makes autopilot on the ground so different is how much higher the risk of travel path incursion is, whether temporarily (by other vehicles, pedestrians, or potholes) or permanently (by curbs, center barriers, etc.).

The thing about CAT II/III autoland is that you are doing it at a fixed location along a known and restricted path and it can only be done under certain conditions, and you know the flight crew isn't using it as a chance to crack open some beers and pregame before they hit the layover hotel bar, they are paying attention in case they need to take over or initiate a go around. Just like Tesla's autopilot.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[fluffernutter]

It is just not human nature to pay attention to something for a long period of time that you do not have a physical connection with. If you must steer the wheel, then you are involved. If you don't steer the wheel you are not involved and attention will wander. No page in an instruction book will change human behavior. I would say someone intelligent enough to lead a business should understand people better, but usually they are sociopaths that don't understand people at all and don't see a need to understand people, or they are comfortable enough that they can let others assume the risk (by adding a page in the instruction manual). They should hire some psychologists to guide their human interfaces and not rely entirely on engineers.

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[fluffernutter]

I said this once and someone told me that Tesla does have training sessions?

Re:Autopilots in planes do not fly by themselves

[Knuckles]

The thing about CAT II/III autoland is that you are doing it at a fixed location along a known and restricted path and it can only be done under certain conditions, and you know the flight crew isn't using it as a chance to crack open some beers and pregame before they hit the layover hotel bar, they are paying attention in case they need to take over or initiate a go around. Just like Tesla's autopilot.

Yeah and I'm sure everybody knows this and can therefore correctly infer the meaning in Teslas

1 out of 50 drivers don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

98 percent of those surveyed "understand that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the vehicle at all times."

The remaining 2 percent of those surveyed replied, "My car has an autopilot? Sweet! No more designated driver bullshit!"

So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[gordguide]

The number should be 100% whom understand that you have to monitor the vehicle and be willing at any moment to (re)take control. Tesla is selling a couple hundred cars a month into Germany. Does Tesla Motors feel that there being 5 drivers every month who think you can push a button and then go on the Autobahn while watching a DVD and eating breakfast is OK?

This is a big deal. It should be zero drivers thinking that way. And I mean ZERO. This is not vindication for Tesla, it's indicative of how they are thinking about this all wrong.

Re:So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a battle you cannot win. Just look at disposable coffee cups. "Caution : Hot" is written all over them. If we can't trust humans to safely "operate" a cup, I doubt we'll succeed with cars and autopilot.

Re:So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[SvnLyrBrto]

If the lives of 10 other drivers are saved by the autopilot features then yes, it's a win even if those 5 Darwin themselves. And the data so far does indeed indicate that autopilot is a net win.

While I don't own a Tesla, I have read the owner's manual. It is made quite clear that Tesla's autopilot is the automotive equivalent of the definition that has been in use for every autopilot in existence since decades ago. There is no claim, or even implication, of Knight Rider like functionality.

Re:So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[dnaumov]

The number should be 100% whom understand that you have to monitor the vehicle and be willing at any moment to (re)take control. Tesla is selling a couple hundred cars a month into Germany. Does Tesla Motors feel that there being 5 drivers every month who think you can push a button and then go on the Autobahn while watching a DVD and eating breakfast is OK?

This is a big deal. It should be zero drivers thinking that way. And I mean ZERO. This is not vindication for Tesla, it's indicative of how they are thinking about this all wrong.

The number of people who believe that Sun orbits the Earth is above zero. Ditto for the number of people who believe the Earth is flat.
What are you going to do?

Re:So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[fluffernutter]

Unless Tesla has signed contracts from drivers as legal proof that they understand, a page in the instruction book doesn't cut it.

Re:So 2% is considered reasonable then?

[david_thornley]

While I don't own a Tesla, I have read the owner's manual.

How many drivers read the owner's manual?

Heck, how many remember it all? I got a new car a couple of weeks ago, and read the section on displays and controls. I still don't know what some of those controls do, because there's too many to remember on one reading. I could easily have missed something like "don't set the adaptive cruise control and lane following assist and plan to spend the next hour surfing porn".

For 1 good reason

[Rik Sweeney]

The German for autopilot (autopilot) literally translates back into English as "Automatic, but still requires a pilot".

Re:For 1 good reason

[gnick]

Google "autopilot definition". It'll lead you here:

automatic pilot
noun
a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot.

"Automatic, but still requires a pilot" is a more accurate definition, but where did you get it? I could see "autopilot" misleading some people, but hopefully nobody's dumb enough to actually abandon the wheel.

Re:For 1 good reason

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

but hopefully nobody's dumb enough to actually abandon the wheel.

You're more optimistic than I am. I think the part about "without the intervention of the pilot" would tend to give a lot of people exactly the wrong idea.

Re:For 1 good reason

[WindBourne]

So, does the Flight version of Autopilot. Only idiots think that it is 100% ready. More importantly, all new owners are taught about all of these issues.

Re:For 1 good reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The German for autopilot (autopilot) literally translates back into English as "Automatic, but still requires a pilot".

Wrong.

From Duden, http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Autopilot: "automatische Steuerungsanlage in Flugzeugen, Raketen o.Ä."

Translation: "automatic steering mechanism in airplanes, rockets, or similar."

Re:For 1 good reason

[sbrown7792]

Pilot 1: "Hey, that mountain is getting quite large in the window, should we do something about it?"
Pilot 2: "Nah we're on autopilot! It keeps a set course without us touching anything!"

Re:For 1 good reason

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Pilot 1: "Hey, that mountain is getting quite large in the window, should we do something about it?"
Pilot 2: "Nah we're on autopilot! It keeps a set course without us touching anything!"

1) Most commercial aircraft fly at altitudes where avoiding mountains isn't an issue. (There are no mountains at 36,000 feet that I know of.) Yes, some fly do lower but mountains aren't something that suddenly appear, disappear, or change without warning, unlike traffic conditions. You generally know about mountains in advance since they're been around for millions of years.

2) There is such a thing as TFR, or terrain-following radar that does adjust for altitude. It's rarely used by ordinary passenger planes but there is no reason it couldn't be.

Re:For 1 good reason

[ZipK]

Google "autopilot definition". It'll lead you here:

Check other dictionaries and you'll find:

"a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person" (m-w.com)
"automatic pilot" (https://ahdictionary.com)
"a device that keeps aircraft, spacecraft, and ships moving in a particular direction without human involvement" (dictionary.cambridge.org)

More importantly, many lay people assume "automatic" means "without human intervention," hence it might be more suitable to use a name that proactively implies human monitoring and intervention, such as "driver assist." Why is Tesla so committed to sticking to this term if it isn't for the incorrect aura of computer automation?

Re:For 1 good reason

[sbrown7792]

While it was a hyperbole, the point I was trying to make is that the PIC has to be ready to take the control from autopilot in case "holding a set course" is no longer a good option.

I agree that conditions change more rapidly driving than flying, however a feature set is a feature set, and shouldn't need to have a different name just because it is operating in a different environment. What needs to be changed is the minds of people who think that the feature set is completely autonomous and capable of high-level decision-making. These are probably the same type of people who thought that "Cruise Control" meant that the car was able of controlling their "cruise" (which is a common term for "drive" eg "I'm gonna go cruise around for a bit"), and promptly took their hands off the wheel after engaging cruise control when it was first released.

Re:For 1 good reason

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What needs to be changed is the minds of people who think that the feature set is completely autonomous and capable of high-level decision-making.

It'll be easier and more effective to call it something that doesn't imply that it's an actual autopilot than it will be to educate hundreds of millions of people.

Call it Driver Assist, Assisted Steering, something like that would probably help people realize that it's not an actual autopilot. The word "auto" or even "pilot" tend to imply a level of autonomy that will mislead people (even those who probably ought to know better). Part of this is all the hype in the media about "self driving" cars which tends to make people think that these things are actually self-driving. They are to some extent, but with significant limitations.

-

These are probably the same type of people who thought that "Cruise Control" meant that the car was able of controlling their "cruise"

Exactly, which is all the more reason to call it something other than an "autopilot".

Re:For 1 good reason

[Knuckles]

More importantly, many lay people assume "automatic" means "without human intervention," hence it might be more suitable to use a name that proactively implies human monitoring and intervention, such as "driver assist." Why is Tesla so committed to sticking to this term if it isn't for the incorrect aura of computer automation?

Yeah. People are not supposed to monitor the automatic gearbox at all times either, but suddenly it's so obvious that they do have to monitor the autopilot?

Re:For 1 good reason

[evilbessie]

"An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required."

Note the 'without constant hands-on'. Newer aircraft are actually good at landing and taking off (assuming favourable weather) and may be arguably safer than human controlled, although conditions are not always favourable.

Also note the 2% of customers, also known as early adopters and drinkers of Kool-Aid, not 2% of people.

Re:For 1 good reason

[sbrown7792]

These are probably the same type of people who thought that "Cruise Control" meant that the car was able of controlling their "cruise"

Exactly, which is all the more reason to call it something other than an "autopilot".

And yet the car makers haven't changed the name of cruise control, despite some initial confusion.
After a few years, "Cruise Control" became synonymous with "Maintains your speed". Is it inconceivable that in a few years the term "Autopilot" will be universally known to mean "A suite of driver assist technologies"?

Re:For 1 good reason

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

And yet the car makers haven't changed the name of cruise control, despite some initial confusion.

Yeah, but it took 40 years of car crashes for that to sink in.

The fact is that when most people hear "autopilot" they think of it as something that will literally drive the car for them with no attention required. Using that terminology is going to cause accidents.

Why not avoid another 40 years of crashes by just naming it something that isn't misleading?

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Japanese Teslas, the term they use, translated back to English, is "Divine Wind".

Break it down.

[Gravis Zero]

While a real-life airplane autopilot just flies in a straight line, doing next to nothing, the term itself being broken into it's components literally means "self steering". Combine that how the term has been used culturally and it's not surprising that people would think that "autopilot" would be a fully autonomous driving mode.

So while Tesla is technically correct in naming it, they have ignored the connotations connected to the name.

Honestly, they should just rename it to "Copilot" and be done with the lawyering bullshit.

Re:Break it down.

[hyades1]

I rarely do the "what he said" thing, but in your case, I have to make an exception. What an excellent summary of the situation!

Re:Break it down.

[WindBourne]

Hmmm. I differ with the auto pilot description. In fact, Tesla only requires hands on to avoid the legal issues. And when you are in control of the cockpit, you STILL have to pay attention to either visual or instruments even when under AP and hands are not on controls.
BUT, I do like the idea of calling this CURRENT version co-pilot. It really is not a bad way to go and does describe the sitaution better. Of course, in under another year, that will not matter.

Re:Break it down.

[fluffernutter]

o they should keep the name and we should all expect people to be less idiotic when buying or using products

You can expect it all you want but it won't happen. You should be smart enough to realize that it won't. Furthermore, if you are profiting from a 4500 lb machine that depends on people understanding, then yes it is your problem that people won't understand it.

Re:Break it down.

[WindBourne]

if you are paying attention, like you would have to do in a plane auto-pilot, then you simply take hold of the wheel again and avoid the truck. The problem with the Florida guy was that he was NOT paying attention. Auto-pilot in plane, ships, boats, and car means that you STILL HAVE TO WATCH.

Isn't that exactly what it means?

[ionymous]

"as he felt the term implied that drivers could operate their vehicles without applying their attention to the roads."
The only reason I'd want a car with autopilot is so I don't have to apply attention to the roads.
I've seen videos of people with autopilot and their hands are hovering around the steering wheel and they look nervous.
If that's how we're expected to use autopilot then that sucks. I wanted to be able to read a book, watch TV, surf the net, or work on my laptap.

On the other hand...

[kimvette]

Doesn't a flight certificate still require quite a bit of ground school and then 40 hours of flight time with an instructor before you fly solo to qualify JUST for VFR, and then a whole bunch more to gain IFR certs, which is when you would be qualified to engage an autopilot? Pilots are slightly more clueful than the average yokel who barely passes the written test for their license and then their practical test consists of literally a drive around the block and then "parallel parking" where there are no other vehicles on the road. Drivers' Ed is not required... at least here in America.

I know in Germany that it's a bit more rigorous, but not nearly as intensive as training to earn a flight certificate so it doesn't surprise me that the people who do the bare minimum to qualify for a drivers' license might think that a vehicles "autopilot" (or even cruise control) means that you can watch a movie or take a nap.

People are stupid. See: Brexit, Trump, etc.

2% failure rate

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

So out of one million people driving cars on the road, only 20,000 of them will think they can drink booze, read a book, or doze off while in the car?

What could go wrong, it's only 2%.

Re:2% failure rate

[cellocgw]

So out of one million people driving cars on the road, only 20,000 of them will think they can drink booze, read a book, or doze off while in the car?

I know you're being sarcastic here, but this is a prime example of the Prosecutor's Fallacy .
Right now, I'd bet that more than 2% of USAian drivers think they can do all that in their non-auto-anything car. You have to balance failure rates against rates of existence in the entire dataset.

Re:2% failure rate

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Right now, I'd bet that more than 2% of USAian drivers think they can do all that in their non-auto-anything car.

Yes, and all of those things are illegal, falling under "negligent driving" or other similar statutes. Just because you think you can do it doesn't mean you can (or should).

-

You have to balance failure rates against rates of existence in the entire dataset.

Be sure to explain that to the doctors in the Emergency Room while they're trying to save your life or the life of your wife, children, etc. after the result of an "autopilot-related" accident.

Re:2% failure rate

[fluffernutter]

When you are talking about someone living or not living, you don't need to 'balance' you need to be 100% sure.

Re:2% failure rate

[fluffernutter]

It's not realistic because Autopilot is not consistent with human nature. That should be the giant red flag right there. It doesn't mean that we should lower our standards of safety, it means that the onus should be on Tesla to change their system so that it is consistent with human nature and they can say 100%.

Go audit yourself

[mi]

Are we supposed to trust Tesla's own results of testing Tesla's product? Seriously? 98% is entirely too low in such circumstances, Saddam Hussein got 100%...

Medicare administrators too, for example, would've liked us to think, the program loses only about 1% of its budget to "fraud, waste, and abuse" (better to claim the government being more efficient than KKKorporations) while the independent audits show figures of at least 6% (or even 10%).

Re:Go audit yourself

[dywolf]

Medicare IS more efficient that private insurers.
that's an established fact agreed upon by both sides of the aisle.
the most efficient sector of the US health care system is Medicare, a single payer system, even at the 10% value.

whatever point you're trying to make here, it's not working.

give me a break; it is 100%

[WindBourne]

The fact is, that all of the sold cars come with training. In that, they spend 1-2 hours teaching you about the car as well as going for drives and teaching the autopilot and how to use it.
When we took our 2013 tesla in for servicing, they gave us a new MS loaner. We had a 2-4 minute training on the autopilot and we were good to go. And it was just fine.
My gut says that the 2% are simply ppl trying to skew things and feigning stupidity.

Re:give me a break; it is 100%

[avandesande]

Do they do this training when you sell used?

Re: give me a break; it is 100%

[WindBourne]

Nope. I'm American, but talk to other Tesla owners from Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Germany, france, and Spain. They all describe the same training. Basically, they drop the car off at your house and then give u 1-3 hours of training.

Re: give me a break; it is 100%

[WindBourne]

Btw, Tesla is only sold online.

Re: give me a break; it is 100%

[WindBourne]

We bought used from a Porsche dealer. We did NOT get the training, but I heard that we can go to service station and they will do so. When u buy from Tesla used, they treat it like new car with exception that you can pick up right away rather than having it delivered to house.

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[Joce640k]

We're assuming Tesla's survey is accurate.

More likely that the questions asked were misleading and worded in a way that gave Tesla the result they wanted.

Either that or they went to pilot schools all over the country to find interview subjects.

That's terrible

[Solandri]

Let's assume Tesla is modestly successful and ends up with 1% of car market share. That's 430,000 of Germany's 43 million cars. 2% of 430,000 = 8600 Teslas out there being driven on autopilot with the driver reading a newspaper or watching a movie or napping because s/he is not among the 98% who realize they need to be watching the road and ready to take control of the car when using the feature.

If anything, this supports the German government's argument that Tesla should stop using the term "autopilot".

Useless number if we don't know the exact question

[DavidMZ]

It is very easy to manipulate polls in order to get results with the desired bias, so the results are meaningless if we don't know exactly the details of the survey.

For instance, the question: "Do you understand that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the vehicle at all times?" will wield much different results than the question: "When using Autopilot, how often do you remove your hands from the driving wheel?"

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[the_Bionic_lemming]

What does this have to do with my flatulence?

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[ClickOnThis]

In Japanese Teslas, the term they use, translated back to English, is "Divine Wind".

Unicorn farts?

[*ducks*]

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[ClickOnThis]

What does this have to do with my flatulence?

Nothing. You're not divine.

Running on autopilot

[wired_parrot]

When people use the expression "he's on autopilot" they tend to mean someone who's just going through the motions without being mentally engaged. In a popular sense, autopilot is used for any task that is running without active engagement. E.g. a business running on autopilot, to mean a business functioning without active engagement. What matters is how the term is popularly used, not how it is used in a particular technical context.

I suspect the real reason Tesla wants to hang on to "Autopilot" term, is that it allows them to subtly market this function as a self-driving vehicle without explicitly saying so by playing on the misunderstanding of the term by laypeople. This allows them to have it regulated as a cruise control device, instead of the more stringent safety and reliability standards that a self-driving car would have to meet.

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Ahh, but the smell is...

Push Poll

[mentil]

Pollster: "Sir, you own a Tesla car according to our records. You are aware, of course, that the Autopilot feature requires a human to be fully alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at all times, aren't you, sir?"

Consumer: "Umm.... why YES... yes, of course. I knew that. Yeah, that's the ticket..."

Pollster: "Ok, just confirming that." *ticks off 'consumer was properly-informed' checkbox*

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[ShanghaiBill]

I have a Tesla. Tesla makes it very, very clear what the capabilities and limitations are. Anyone Tesla owner that thinks Autopilot is a "hands off" system is irredeemably stupid, and no amount of explaining or renaming is going to help them. The people that have died in Autopilot crashes were not ignorant, they were stupid and reckless. Since the human gene pool was obviously improved by their deaths, I really don't see the problem here.

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[HuguesT]

In other words, Kamikaze.

Re:It's that other 2% that is the problem...

[hambone142]

Funny.

Autopilot for an airplane means the plane is flown by a computer navigation system without the pilot being involved.

Autopilot on a boat or ship means the vessel is piloted by a computer navigation system without operator being at the wheel.

Autopilot for Tesla cars means something different.

Mislead

[cwsumner]

That's because they were all mislead by the name, and don't know yet.