Tesla Updates Autopilot To Make It Follow the Speed Limit On Roads (electrek.co)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Before a recent update that is being gradually pushed to Tesla owners, the automaker allowed its Autopilot to be set at a higher speed than the speed limit on all roads where the driver assist system could be enabled, but now Tesla is pushing a new update to make Autopilot follow the rules of the road more closely. Owners of Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot have, up until now, been able to set the speed of the Autopilot's 'Traffic-Aware Cruise Control' feature to up to 5 mph over the speed limit on roads and non-divided highways. Now they are restricted to following the speed limit exactly, without the 5 mph leeway. On highways, the speed limit doesn't have a direct effect on the Autopilot's speed. The speed is still limited by the Autopilot's overall 90 mph speed limit. Every time Tesla introduces new restrictions to its Autopilot system, it gets a mixed response from owners. While the new restrictions are often coming from the aspiration of making the system safer, some owners always see them as taking away capabilities that they already had and had paid for. With the introduction of the software update v8.0 in September, Tesla introduced a more aggressive "Autopilot nag," which prompts more 'Hold Steering Wheel' alerts.

Comments

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

and dangerous. If you ain't goin 20 over you are a moving violation around here.

Re:Stupid

[beanpoppa]

If you are going 20+ mph over the limit on a non-divided highway, you are dangerous. This doesn't apply to 'freeways'.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not always. Two lane roads/highways out here through flat farm country. A cross road every 2 miles or so as there isn't a road on every section boundary. You can see 2+ miles in all directions and there is often nobody in sight. There is a 65 limit and I would not consider someone going 85 a danger to anyone except maybe themselves and the antelope.

Now an autodrive system I would want to know how far ahead it really looks and what it looks for before I let it go that fast. Someone on a crossroad a half mile up is sign to be ready to slow down. A parked car off the road, a herd of lopes off to one side, same thing. It'll be a long time before autopilots know that means look out.

Re:Stupid

[jellomizer]

20mph over the limit is dangerous speeding unless the speed limit was set for political reasons. Next to a school or because some jerk protested to the mayors office or something.
But to the point. Autopilot isn't meant for a self driving car. It is setup to keep you safe while distracted from those odd human needs. Where our eyes are off the road for the split second.
If you want to speed go ahead. It isn't stopping you. But you can't blame the autopilot if you get pulled over.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

A speed limit next to a school is not a 'political' reason. In Lincoln NE we've had 2 kids this year get seriously injured, and one that died, from crossing the street with the light next to their school and some asshole driver not paying attention hit them.

Re:Stupid

[Baloo Uriza]

I'd rather trust the highway engineers who actually know what they're doing when setting these limits and dropping down if conditions necessitate. So, yeah, still applies to freeways.

Re:Stupid

[KozmoStevnNaut]

The speed limit is the speed *limit*. It really isn't a very hard concept to understand.

I'd be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was a Tesla owner and they keep remotely mucking with car.

Remember, they've already used this feature to remotely disable a Tesla of an owner that posted a negative tweet about Elon Musk.

Re:I'd be pissed

[ZipK]

Remember, they've already used this feature to remotely disable a Tesla of an owner that posted a negative tweet about Elon Musk.

I don't remember that. I remember Elon Musk canceling a blogger's order. Was there a separate incident in which an owner's car was disabled?

Re:I'd be pissed

[tempo36]

Citation please. I don't think you're going to find one though...pretty sure Musk never disabled someone's car.

Road Hazard

[nwaack]

If everyone else on the road is going 5-10 over the speed limit, then the Tesla is essentially a road hazard that other people need to avoid. This seems like a dumb move.

Re:Road Hazard

[networkBoy]

only applies to autopilot.
Assuming that soon this will be the norm, then all cars will be going the same speed, until then if there is enough traffic that is at a dissimilar speed, just drive instead of autopilot and you're golden.

Re:Road Hazard

[vtcodger]

I personally think this is a great idea. But I think many of the non-Tesla drivers on the road are going to HATE it when they are forced to drive sensibly until they can find a place to pass. Especially if other automakers take it up.

Re:Road Hazard

[sl3xd]

If everyone else on the road is going 5-10 over the speed limit

What heavenly part of the world are you driving in?

My local observation is that there are always a significant minority drivers who insiste on driving 5-10 MPH below the speed limit, and get road-ragey at anybody passing them.

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

So what you're saying is that a lot of people aren't following the rules and breaking the law, but the one vehicle actually being operated under the conditions of the permit is the hazard?

Also I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. If you're unable to travel the speed limit and insist on needing to overtake you can do it safely and patiently. The only time it's unsafe is if you're an impatient douchebag. In the mean time over on the other side of the pond we have no problem sharing our roads doing 200+ km/h with trucks and other vehicles with a 90km/h speedlimit. And the USA has roughly double the road fatality rate of Germany in every metric be it per capita, per vehicle or per distance.

Re:Road Hazard

[Brett Buck]

It not going to "soon be the norm"! Good lLord. get out of the basement and speak to real people - none of whom want this crap/

Re:Road Hazard

[Gussington]

only applies to autopilot. Assuming that soon this will be the norm,

That seems to be a rather brash assumption. Unless your definition of 'soon' is the next 100 years or so...

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone is going over the speed limit, everyone is a road hazard and everyone should be fuckin arrested.

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

My local observation is that there are always a significant minority drivers who insiste on driving 5-10 MPH below the speed limit, and get road-ragey at anybody passing them.

That's the righteous indignation of those who do the right thing when they see irresponsible people doing the wrong thing.

Re:Road Hazard

[taustin]

Especially the cities that rely on traffic tickets to pay for the city budget. Auto-driving cars that never violate traffic laws will be doom for many small towns.

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct but more than you know. In many areas it is actually the law. You are to 'drive as prudent'. Which in some cases does mean yes speed up to match traffic.

HOWEVER, if a cop pulls you then you would still be on the hook for the ticket. So the law in that case contradicts itself.

Basically if the speed limit is 55 and everyone around you is doing 70. You should get your speed up to 70. This works in reverse too (hehe see what I did).

Re:Road Hazard

[St.Creed]

That reminds me of the time I drove through Germany and someone insisted on driving 90 km/h on the 2nd lane of a 5-lane freeway. I overtook with 140 and got into an argument with a driver behind me, who was on the leftmost lane doing 200, but invisible to me because of hills. There was no restriction in that area, so 90 was extremely dangerous given that most people were driving at 140 and didn't expect that speed to appear in lane 2.

We already have the shitty example of trucks overtaking on a 2-lane road with 1 km/h, blocking the road for ages. Now we also get this from Tesla? Dear Elon, either it's no autopilot but an assistant and *I* determine the speed of the car, *OR* it's an autopilot, you decide where and how fast, and I take a nap. It's not "whatever suits me today" when I pay this much for a car. And it really makes me rethink my desire to purchase a model 3.

Re:Road Hazard

[caseih]

How do you figure? The strict limits are enforced on roads that are not highways. In other words, city streets, residential roads, and other non-highway situations. In those cases speed limits are already 25-35 mph in many cases, and 10 mph over is most likely a ticket-able offense and 5 mph over isn't likely to find it a hazard.

Re:Road Hazard

[gurps_npc]

You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'. In fact, driving slower than the existing traffic is what causes many of the crashes on the Autobahn. They have places where it is illegal to stop

Germany pretty solidly proves the opposing argument - that obeying a posted speed limit set not by road conditions, but instead set for political reasons is EXACTLY the cause of car accidents.

You can look at a theoretical world or the real world. In the real world. shmucks driving slower than the prevailing traffic cause accidents - whether they are all driving the speed limit or all driving 10 miles less than the speed limit for a practical joke/ due to a traffic jam/ or any other reasons.

Driving on public roads is a swarm activity. The driving laws are a partial but incomplete set of rules used to help that swarm activity. overlaid on top of natural psychological swarm rules. While following the rules of man is a good idea, following the rules of nature is practically essential.

Re:Road Hazard

[CanadianMacFan]

In cosmological terms it's soon.

Re: Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

The speed limit has little or nothing to do with a safe speed for the road.
You know those little yellow speed signs which aren't a legal limit? THOSE are speeds based on safety.

Re:Road Hazard

[gumbi west]

I remember hearing a story about cops who pull people over only if they don't break any laws. They figured those were the ones who were up to something. hugely illegal, but apparently they got away with it.

Re:Road Hazard

[maz2331]

Indeed. In PA, for example, the law specifies a 10 MPH over the limit buffer, so the lowest ticketable speed is 11 over (5 over when the posted limit is 65 or higher). So, in this state, a 35 zone is actually a 45, and a 70 is actually a 75.

Re:Road Hazard

[u801e]

So what you're saying is that a lot of people aren't following the rules and breaking the law, but the one vehicle actually being operated under the conditions of the permit is the hazard?

And what good does it do to post speed limits well below actual traffic speeds? Studies have shown and the safest speed to drive is the speed of traffic, not signficantly below it or above it (search for the Solomon Curve). If traffic is already going between 65 to 75 mph and the posted speed limit is 55 mph, it's far more realistic to expect the one vehicle driving 55 mph to speed up to a speed within the 10 mph pace as opposed to expecting that the rest of traffic will slow down to the speed limit. On a related note, have you ever seen the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It pretty much shows that slowing down traffic to a speed that it normally doesn't flow at just leads to a tailgating platoon of vehicles that will have a much more difficult time avoiding any hazards on the roadway compared to when they're more spread out.

Re:Road Hazard

[Chrontius]

Yes, you are a hazard. See page 15 of this study:

http://www.michigan.gov/docume...

Though, it looks like statistically, you're more a hazard to yourself than any other single driver.

Re:Road Hazard

[segwonk]

honest question because I don't know:

Is Autopilot different from normal cruise control?

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

Eloncito has no other choice, as this is done to prevent lawsuits more than anything else. The drivers are going to hate this in many states (and desolated routes) where it's a consensus arrived by drivers that the max speed should be a little different. Especially in states that allow passing on the right with precaution like Florida and several other states. Driving at exactly JUST the max speed in Florida not only guarantees that about 80% of cars with push-from-behind (stay unreasonably close), use the flashlights on you, pass you thinly and generally make you miserable but also result in very unsafe travel. Also, it would make any Tesla user a joke. Part of the problem is that in Florida (for eg.) everything is very far apart, there is traffic and in general people don't drive very safely.

Elon should allow drivers a +9.5 miles per hour on one way speedways. It will cause less accidents than the strict limit, which will also catch many drivers of guard as some places have abrupt swings in max speed that nobody knows about.

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

>So what you're saying is that a lot of people aren't following the rules and breaking the law, but the one vehicle actually being operated under the conditions of the permit is the hazard?

Yes, and this is based on reality of the state, not your imagined world where everybody is a saint. If you drive at exactly the max speed in most of Florida, people will pass you dangerously on your right and left, and harass you every until you give up autopilot.

I came from New Jersey where I loved going at the indicated max speed, only to find myself in danger for following it all the time. You need to be hyper digital and go with the flow (what the majority does). Just preventing being take over by 5 cars per minute (doesn't matter if 1st, 2nd or 3rd lane) will be extremely more safe than going at the exact max.

Also, I think most states, and even in NJ and NY, most people drive +8 mph on highways if using the left lane, which is kind of what most do and generally acceptable. +10 mph though was always considered wrong and only 1 in 1000 cars maybe doing that. In Florida, it's about 1/3.

Re: Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

well the driver of tesla could.. you know, DRIVE the car.

if he drives it, he can go any speed he wants.

Re:Road Hazard

[vtcodger]

"Is Autopilot different from normal cruise control?"

My understanding ... Yes. In addition to managing velocity, "Autopilot" keeps the car in its lane and tries to prevent it from running into things. At least things in front of the vehicle. AFAICS it's just an overhyped version of the Adaptive Cruise Control systems that many car manufacturers have been playing with for a decade or two.

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'. In fact, driving slower than the existing traffic is what causes many of the crashes on the Autobahn. They have places where it is illegal to stop

So I do, now re-read my post. There are unrestricted speed limits on the autobahns but none the less trucks, busses, small lorries are still 90km/h speed limited. Small cars can't get to the same speed as Audi A8s. Most highways have places where it's illegal stop, the only thing different in Germany is that not only do you not get a concession if there's a problem with a car, you end up with an additional fine for not maintaining the vehicle, which also includes running out of fuel.

None the less the vast majority of crashes are not due to overtaking speed, and if 5mph makes such a difference to you Americans then maybe its time for a flat out re-training of every driver on your road.

Re:Road Hazard

[rxmd]

You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'. In fact, driving slower than the existing traffic is what causes many of the crashes on the Autobahn. They have places where it is illegal to stop

You are about 30 years behind the times. While Germany has no universal speed limit and stopping is illegal everywhere on the Autobahn, they have speed restrictions on a growing number of sections. Currently about 35% of the Autobahn system has speed limits, which in practice means that you have unregulated sections interrupted by short stretches limited to 100 or 120 kph. If you care about speed limits, the times when you could dial in cruise control at 170 kph are mostly over. In many places where the highway is damaged, instead of repairing it, they stick an 80 or 100 kph sign on it and call it a day.

In fact accident rates in Germany are now higher than in the neighbouring countries which have universal speed limits, precisely because speed limits in Germany come in short stretches and you end up accelerating and decelerating a lot. A universal speed limit at 130 kph would probably lead to better traffic flow.

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

Thanks that's a great study. It re-enforces that everyone should do a common speed. We could regulate this quite easily, maybe make the speeds standard and write them on signs on the side of the highway.

What a concept!

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

And what good does it do to post speed limits well below actual traffic speeds

Sorry I didn't get past this statement. What the fuck kind of logic is it? The conditions of you getting your driving license was to operate the vehicle according the road rules, not to drive in mass however the hell you want and then complain that the rules which permitted your license are wrong.

What good does it do to post speed limits that are below traffic speed? To slow down the fucking traffic in specific areas. I mean I get it school is hard, but you can ask a 5 year old and still get the right answer.

Re:Road Hazard

[Carewolf]

If everyone else on the road is going 5-10 over the speed limit, then the Tesla is essentially a road hazard that other people need to avoid. This seems like a dumb move.

They generally are. People not paying attention to traffic are always hazards you need to keep a wide margin to, be it people on a phone or people "not driving" a Tesla.

Re:Road Hazard

[AvderTheTerrible]

A big issue to that is that in order to be safe, you need to be going with the flow of traffic. In certain parts of the country that speed is usually well above the listed limit. I remember driving through Atlanta one time doing 85 just to keep up with traffic and avoid getting run off the road. A cop passed me in the lane to my left and didn't give a crap. That's just how people drive there.

Further there was a famous incident where a group of students in Georgia showed what happens if every lane had someone doing exactly the limit in them, namely a traffic jam. Go find it, it's worth a watch just for laughs.

Re:Road Hazard

[No Longer an AC]

What cities would those be?

Sure, some cities are abusive in collecting traffic fines, but except for a few small towns which run "speed traps" few are relying on it to pay for their budget and I recall laws being put into place (at least in Texas) to curb such abuses. Famous speed trap towns were suddenly limited in the amount of revenue they could pull from traffic citations.

The fact is that nobody would get traffic citations if they didn't violate the law.

I've gotten a few and while I may have grumbled and complained, I was breaking the law when I got them - generally for speeding.

In my small town we've got two intersections with red light cameras and they haven't tweaked the timing of the yellow lights and personally I think they're far too generous because I still see people running red lights and not being ticketed.

I've also seen the accidents caused by people who ignore red lights, too often resulting in death.

I'm more concerned with running red lights than speeding though as I think it's more dangerous and if SDC's are more compliant in respecting red lights (and stop signs) than the other drivers I see every day on the roads, then I welcome them.

Re:Road Hazard

[dwillden]

Except that decades ago the speeds were set for political reasons and are far below the comfortable and safe driving speeds the roads and modern cars. The 55mph National speed limit was arbitrary and is too low. Most states have increased it, and are increasing limits more as they try to determine the safe speed. In the west that is often 75 to 80 mph, at the comfortable speed most drivers will not exceed it. But most states aren't putting their limits that high and thus the limit is still arbitrary.

Re:Road Hazard

[No Longer an AC]

Traffic habits vary widely.

I live in a smaller city now - I usually refer to it as a "town" and people often go below the speed limit. Life seems a little slower around here, but I have lived in several big cities as well where even the slow drivers were exceeding the speed limit.

I once crested a little freeway overpass only to see a cop on the shoulder with his radar gun pointed at me and everyone else. I was doing about 80 in a 60.

Not to worry, I was going with the flow of traffic - and we all jammed on our brakes and slowed down to 60 until we got past him. He was waiting for someone going much faster than that and I doubt he had to wait very long either.

I do not miss living in that city full of freeways and their millions of drivers at all.

Maybe it's partially due to being a bit older, but I'm just not in that much of a hurry anymore and neither are most of the other people who live here. All 50 of them (I kid, my town is not that small).

Re:Road Hazard

[Applehu Akbar]

It not going to "soon be the norm"! Good lLord. get out of the basement and speak to real people - none of whom want this crap/

Within twenty years, people who want to indulge in the nostalgic experience of "driving manual" will have to go special state parks in Tennessee or Georgia where they can drive a Camaro through Potemkin villages set up as pat of the experience.

Re:Road Hazard

[Applehu Akbar]

If everyone is going over the speed limit, everyone is a road hazard and everyone should be fuckin arrested.

Then you should stay out of Arizona.

Re:Road Hazard

[mjwx]

What cities would those be?

I dont disagree with your points, please allow me to say that first.

Driving in the UK is a pleasure, despite the narrow roads and heavy traffic because drivers by and large follow the traffic rules and conventions of courtesy on the roads. A far cry from driving in Oz.

But there are certainly some cities/towns/states/counties that balance their books by fine revenue. Their budget depends on a certain amount of fines being issued so they game the system to ensure that there are enough tickets issued to ensure that the target is met. I certainly dont agree with it, but they exist never the less.

The US is particularly bad for it because so many laws can be set locally. Here in the UK where councils have to abide by codes for setting speed zones its a lot better, they can only do what North Wales has done and put speed cameras everywhere (although the codes say they must be clearly marked).

I have to say though, if we want to make the roads safer, what we need are more cops on the road. Someone doing 100 MPH on an empty motorway on a clear summers day is not a big deal. Someone riding 2 CM from someone elses bumper or trying to weave through heavy traffic is a danger to himself and everyone around him. The difference between a camera and a cop is that the camera will get the 100 MPH guy but ignore the tailgater/lane weaver, the Rozzers will at the very least, get both (although here in the UK, they'll leave the 100 MPH guy go as long as he's not doing anything stupid).

Re:Road Hazard

[mjwx]

You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'.

Sounds like you need an education on Germany.

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

Speed limits are actually quite heavily enforced in Germany and suspensions are handed out for much lower infractions. The difference is that the Germans tend to focus more on urban speed limits (which tend to be low compared to the UK, Australian and especially the US) because most of the preventable deaths happen on urban roads.

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

Except that decades ago the speeds were set for political reasons

Ahhh so the reason the rules of the road that govern everyone driving at the same speed are set are grounds for disobeying the laws, but then you complain about people travelling different speeds being a hazard...

*golf clap*

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You're bound to abide by the rules set on the license. Your opinion of if the rules are right is a important as Jack's and Shit's.

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

In certain parts of the country that speed is usually well above the listed limit.

Yeah there's a way to solve this. How about we post specific speeds that people should follow to improve safety. We could do something like putting them on signs on the side of the highway.

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

I have found that, in traffic, there is no "flow" to go with. If I try to keep pace, I just end up having lots of crazy people simply drive as far as possible, box themselves in, then force their way into my lane if there is at least half a car-length between me and whoever is ahead of me in the adjacent lane (forcing me to hit the brakes without regard for whatever is tailgating me)

But if I slow down and keep the path to that space ahead of me (my lane as well as any adjacent lanes) open, then I hold quite a bit of traffic back (particularly on two-lane highways), but I do not see nearly as many crazy stunts by people desperate to tailgate the next obstruction and I can usually coast down or brake very lightly to re-establish a *safe following distance when they pull out in front of me.

That said, all those cars rushing by me do tend to pull all sorts of crazy stunts against each other to try to get into position to pass me, and endanger each other far more than they would without me. But at least I won't be the direct cause of the wreck and probably won't put much energy into it.

(*) enough distance to properly assess problem in front of me and either stop or divert without adding myself to the problem - it is a far greater distance than the vast majority of people suspect or care about.

If the government really wanted to make the roads safer, instead of soaking troublemakers for cash whenever they get caught speeding or ignoring signs & signals, they'd revoke at least 75% of all licenses or find some way to keep the aggressive drivers off the highways & main roads during rush hour.

Re:Road Hazard

[mrsquid0]

I disageee; if self-driving cars eventually work as well as some people expect them to they will become the norm very quickly. Whether or not the technology will be good enough to allow that is, as far as I can tell, still an open question. However, some of the largest and most successful companies on the planet are spending billions of dollars a year to develop self-driving cars, and these corporations are not known for having infinite cash reserves or chasing sci-fi fantasies like flying cars. Also, these car companies have a lot to lose if automobiles ever become a mere appliance. That they are investing so heavily in self-driving vehicles suggests that they see fully-autonomous cars as their best road to long-term profitability.

The potential market for self-driving vehicles is huge. Most people are not auto enthusiasts. They drive because they have no choice. In places where public transit is a realistic option the rate of vehicle ownership drops dramatically. Many of these drive-because-they-have-to drivers are going to embrace self-driving cars as soon as they are convinced the technology is mature enough to keep them safe. The various delivery sectors are going to embrace self-driving vehicles too because they eliminates one of their largest recurring costs: paying human drivers. Then there is the aging population. Most people alive today in the US and Canada have been driving all their lives and are not going to want to give up that mobility as they become unable to drive safely. Aging baby boomers are numerous and a natural market for self-driving vehicles. And these are just the markets that come to mind immediately.

Re:Road Hazard

[ventsyv]

Good LORD, what kind of people are you talking to? Everyone I know can't wait to get a vehicle with autopilot.

Re:Road Hazard

[ventsyv]

I think it's much more than that. There are videos on youtube showing teslas driving themselves, making turns, stopping at stop signs, etc., etc. Not all of those features have been enabled for the general public just yet, they are still fine tuning the system.

Re:Road Hazard

[AvderTheTerrible]

Did you even read what I said, or are you intentionally cherry picking? If you do the speed limit in places where everyone drives above it, you become a road hazard. So in order to drive safely in those areas, you need to be going about as fast as everyone else.

Re:Road Hazard

[vandamme]

Back in my day, a bunch of clowns decided to drive 4 wide down Gratiot Avenue in Detroit at the posted 40 MPH. Hilarity ensued as they tied up the entire city by the time they hit 8 mile. They all got tickets for "obstructing traffic".

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Road Hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

You looked at that $100k price tag on the car and thought it was an intelligent purchase vs anything else available on the market?

You looked at that vehicle that can only be serviced by the dealership instead of a more accessible vehicle that you could maintain yourself and save money and learn things doing it and chose instead to do the $100k price tag car?

You thought buying a car being ran by proprietary software that is at the mercy of the company you bought it from and thought you were going to have "choices" over your own vehicle?

What do you do for a living, and how do I get your job so I can make decisions like this without having to worry about money or consequences?

Re:Road Hazard

[BasilBrush]

Real people mostly don't yet know that autonomous driving is available yet. And when they do hear of it they go into Luddite mode and assume that it can't possibly be safe. When the sytems are more widely available, and people are more comfortable with the concept, for sure most of them will want it! Most people hate their daily commute.

Re:Road Hazard

[rpstrong]

You should get your speed up to 70. This works in reverse too.

I call bullshit on that - I just don't believe your car will do 70 in reverse.

Re:Road Hazard

[Agripa]

The fact is that nobody would get traffic citations if they didn't violate the law.

Having been pulled over for *wearing* a seat belt and then cited, I will respectively disagree with your assertion.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

If someone going 5mph slower than you constitutes a road hazard, you need to wake the fuck up when you're driving.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Those poor babies, being forced to actually obey the traffic laws.

My sympathy for them is so tiny, it cannot be measured by any currently available means.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

It sounds to me like you have a real problem with your driving culture.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I once crested a little freeway overpass only to see a cop on the shoulder with his radar gun pointed at me and everyone else. I was doing about 80 in a 60.

Not to worry, I was going with the flow of traffic - and we all jammed on our brakes and slowed down to 60 until we got past him.

That's not very optimal from a road safety standpoint. Changing speeds, especially by braking, disrupts the flow of traffic and causes accidents. Pick a speed and stay with it.

Will you be getting a ticket by driving at that speed past a cop? Then slow the hell down to a legal speed, all the time.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I agree with your observations and your approach to traffic. Safe speed, safe distance and a vigilant eye is extremely important.

It really amazed me that people don't realize that keeping a safe following distance actually *speeds up the traffic flow*.

I would much rather have the crazy drivers a safe distance in front of me, so I can anticipate and react to their bullshit idiotic maneuvers, than I would have them tailgating behind me where I have no idea what they're going to do.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

If you think the speed limits are set too low, petition to have them changed. Don't arbitrarily invent new speed limits that you would rather adhere to.

While newer cars can comfortably cruise at higher speeds than the cars of yesteryear, the average driver has not become anymore vigilant. Rather, they've become a lot more distracted by cellphones, coffee and everything else that goes on.

When you took your license, you agreed to adhere to the laws and limits, no matter how arbitrary they may be. "Arbitrary" speed limits to you, may actually have genuine reasons that you're just not aware of.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Sounds to me like you need to revoke ~75% of all driver's licenses, and institute proper driver training instead of the shitshow you have now.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

You have a systemic problem with your driving culture. The speed *limit* shouldn't really be a hard concept to understand, but it seems a majority of your drivers are just too damn stupid to get it.

Re:Road Hazard

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Basically if the speed limit is 55 and everyone around you is doing 70. You should get your speed up to 70. This works in reverse too (hehe see what I did).

No. Either the speed limit needs to be changed, or the police should actually enforce the current speed limit.

Re:Road Hazard

[u801e]

Road rules are supposed to be based on safety. Posting a speed limit well below actual traffic speeds does not accomplish that. All it does is increase traffic speed variance (which in turn leads to less safe conditions). The same thing applies to posting unnecessary stop signs for the express purpose of slowing traffic down instead of legitimate safety concerns at intersections with low visibility of conflicting traffic. All that leads to is a disrespect of traffic control devices because a lot of drivers will essentially think that the government is "crying wolf". I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the NMSL had nothing to do with safety when it was first implemented. Traffic deaths have been going down even though speed limits have been going up. But you continue believing that it's perfectly okay to post speed limits that are essentially irrelevant when driving in traffic (unless you want to become the victim of a rear end collision).

Re:Road Hazard

[thegarbz]

Road rules are supposed to be based on safety. Posting a speed limit well below actual traffic speeds does not accomplish that.

Still didn't read past these two sentences because you are completely wrong. The only time this isn't true is if idiots break the law by driving faster than the imposed limit or are generally impatient fuckwits who should have their licenses cancelled.

Which is all irrelevant. You got a license under the condition that you abide by a set of rules. If you want to change these rules you put yourself in a position to change them. You don't choose which ones to arbitrarily apply because you think they are wrong because ... THAT affects everyone's safety.

Re:Road Hazard

[u801e]

The only time this isn't true is if idiots break the law by driving faster than the imposed limit

The imposed limit has nothing to do with safety and there isn't a higher rate of crashes that result from people who exceed it. Again, what good does it do to post a limit below the actual speed of traffic? The speed limit is supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed of traffic rounded to the nearest 5 mph. In that case, you have less than 2 percent of traffic exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph instead of practically all of it going at least 10 mph over. Drivers aren't going to slow down no matter how much you wish and no matter how many names you call them. Just raise speed limits to actual traffic speeds and the speeding problem will go away over night.

Question

[JustNiz]

Can you stop your Tesla from applying updates or does it follow the Windows 10 model?

Re:Question

[BovineOne]

Each update must be acknowledged and scheduled for installation by the user, although theoretically there might be a backdoor way for them to remotely install updates without user consent. If you ever go a Tesla Service Center you'll need to remember to tell them not to install software updates for you (since they will commonly do that as a courtesy).

However, there will also be a point where features in the older software versions may no longer be supported and capabilities may degrade, particularly if Tesla's server-side communications specific to those older versions are discontinued, particularly around the navigation features. The Tesla Service Center may also say that they are logistically unable to fix or support some issues without upgrading to a current version.

Re:Question

[JustNiz]

IMHO it just seems like yet another reason to not buy a Tesla.

G_NAA- GAY N1GGERS FUCKING ASS AND SNOODLING AND..

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a malvertising campaign right here.

We wan to fuck n1gger ass, suck n1gger dick and felch cum from n1gger assholes. And we wan to share our n1gger dicks, assholes and lips with all of YOU!

Welcome to the world of Gay N1GGERDOM, with LORD OBAMA and our chief DOWN LOW CLOSET HOUSE N1GGER!

He fucks ass and licks up HIV and AIDS and HEPATITUS blood like it was grape soda.

Now use my watermelon jolly ranchers on a strong as anal beads and fuck my ass N1GGERS!

Makes sense

[93 Escort Wagon]

I imagine this is just Tesla deciding it didn't want the legal liability, should a speeding Model S hit a bicyclist while going over the speed limit.

Do Tesla owners have a way to prevent updates from being applied?

Re:Makes sense

[Calydor]

Pretty sure it isn't enforced the moment the driver actually, you know, DRIVES.

Re:Makes sense

[thegarbz]

Do Tesla owners have a way to prevent updates from being applied?

I hope so. I also hope we can then demerit drivers who don't apply the update for the specific purpose of breaking the law.

Re:Makes sense

[LocalH]

Not all jurisdictions consider slightly being over the speed limit to be a violation.

Re: Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas, they will pull you over for 3+ mph over the limit. Here in so-cal, if you're not doing 10+ over the speed limit (80 in 60-65 usually) you are good and cops usually don't bother you.

Re: Makes sense

[taustin]

Here in so-cal, if you're not doing 10+ over the speed limit (80 in 60-65 usually)

A comedian, eh? And a funny one, at that. Southern Californians driving over the speed limit! That is a good one.

Re: Makes sense

[jezwel]

I've only driven a few times in SoCal (I'm an Aussie), but we've passed police every time watching the freeway not giving a damn that the traffic is freely flowing at 70-75 mph.
I think that's a sensible attitude to have in regards to where their time should be spent.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Tesla owners have a way to prevent updates from being applied?

Negative, at least not by any normal means.

They have cellular data modems paid for on Telsa's dime that check in for updates to apply. Telsa can of course select which cars, as gross as an entire model line or as specific as a serial number, will get what software.

Now I'm sure there is technically some way to disable that, but it will require some pretty heavy modifications to the computer systems, and would be a true hack in the original sense of the term to pull off.

Plus I can only guess how Telsa would interpret one of their cars not checking in for a long period of time. I would assume you could at the very least expect a phone call from them asking if anything is wrong with the thing.
I have no idea how far the company would push the issue if they see your cars serial number sent to a fast charging pump out on the road or something like that. They would likely think something went horribly wrong and broke on it, and would likely take every opportunity to get their hands on it for servicing.

If they think you are trying to modify their car or defeat their data uplink on purpose, and start to suspect you are avoiding them, they probably have all sorts of contract claims to pull out on the legal front against you.

When you buy one it's made pretty clear you do not have full ownership over the car, and the maintenance contract is required to have.

Re:Makes sense

[Joe_Dragon]

Go to Canada or Mexico so that it goes into data roaming mode.

Re: Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the feeling you've never been to Texas.

Re: Makes sense

[taustin]

I've only driven a few times in SoCal (I'm an Aussie), but we've passed police every time watching the freeway not giving a damn that the traffic is freely flowing at 70-75 mph.

I've lived here 35 years, and the part I'm having a hard time not laughing out loud at is the idea of traffic moving that fast. The last time I drove from LAX to Orange County, about 40 miles or so, it took 4 1/2 hours. Granted, it was rush hour, but it's very rare that speed limits matter at all.

I think that's a sensible attitude to have in regards to where their time should be spent.

More likely, they were just too stunned at traffic moving that fast to have any idea what to do.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, don't go to the dealer and service your car yourself...

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope a tragic malware incident bricks your computer on wheels...because then we don't have to deal with your damn computer on wheels being on the road at all! Problem solved!

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The tyrants always identify themselves. I know you think that the world would be a better place if you could only control everything and everyone, but it just isn't so.

Re: Makes sense

[rpstrong]

You cops you passed were probably from the California Highway Patrol, who are tasked with patrolling the freeways. I've had numerous encounters with traffic enforcement cops in different states (hey, it's the way I drove), and I can attest to them being an agency that is far more concerned with traffic safety than with writing tickets. Much more often than not, I've been given warnings instead of tickets. As a 'sporting' driver, I do give them a great deal of respect.

The next update...

[Anonymous Coward]

The next update will make the car drive in the left hand lane with the turn signal on.

Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people should expect that self driving vehicles will obey speed limits. The liability cannot be assumed by the manufactures to do it any other way. This to me is and will be the Achilles heal of self driving vehicles.The vehicle will determine the speed not the human.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[dgatwood]

Most sensible people expect that self-driving cars will go significantly above the speed limit, because the reasons for limiting them to the speed limit (inability to look everywhere at once and see people pulling out of driveways, see kids about to run across the street unexpectedly, etc.) don't apply when you have a dozen cameras being monitored continuously by an AI, nor do most common human failings like inattentiveness, inability to properly assess speed of traction loss on curves, poor judgment of road conditions in general, etc. Anyone who would expect a self-driving car to obey a speed limit intended for humans with human reaction time (particularly on open highways) is arguably insane, or at best, a complete luddite.

Similarly, self-driving cars need not continue to obey traffic lights once they have achieved critical mass....

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[PopeRatzo]

Most sensible people expect that self-driving cars will go significantly above the speed limit, because the reasons for limiting them to the speed limit (inability to look everywhere at once and see people pulling out of driveways, see kids about to run across the street unexpectedly, etc.) don't apply when you have a dozen cameras being monitored continuously by an AI, nor do most common human failings like inattentiveness, inability to properly assess speed of traction loss on curves, poor judgment of road conditions in general, etc.

Here is a video from a few days ago of a self-driving car running a red light. So, sadly, no. The belief that a machine which has been programmed by humans is now incapable of making mistakes is one that I'm surprised to hear from a Slashdot user.

https://youtu.be/_CdJ4oae8f4

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous vehicles will always obey traffic laws to the letter. Eventually, however, the traffic laws will be written for them. By that time humans will no longer be allowed to drive, except on private property.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Harlequin80]

Watched the video and it's pretty blatant. But do we know if it was in self drive mode? Anything anywhere else on this?

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[The Grim Reefer]

Anyone who would expect a self-driving car to obey a speed limit intended for humans with human reaction time (particularly on open highways) is arguably insane, or at best, a complete luddite.

I'm guessing a "complete luddite" would be more interested in finding a way to destroy a self-driving car than having expectations as to how it should obey the posted speed limit. Especially if said luddite is a cab, truck, or Uber driver. As far as insane people, they're probably more interested in talking to spiders than worrying about the speed limit of self driving cars. Though the more intelligent ones probably would prefer it stays below the speed of light.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[dgatwood]

Here is a video from a few days ago of a self-driving car running a red light. So, sadly, no. The belief that a machine which has been programmed by humans is now incapable of making mistakes is one that I'm surprised to hear from a Slashdot user.

I never said that they would be incapable of making mistakes. Initially, they have to be at least as good as humans, or we shouldn't let them on the road, but they need not be better (though many of these systems already are, statistically).

But in the long run, as they get better at driving (machine learning, etc.), they should quickly become dramatically better than humans. After all, humans learn from their mistakes individually; computers learn from their mistakes collectively.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[fgouget]

The car in the video is not a Tesla, it's an Uber self-driving car. These seem to not be driving very well as they are also known to drive on the bicycle lane. Uber is denying the red-light issue but says they are working on the bicycle lane one, thus acknowledging there are problems with their self-driving software.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[dgatwood]

Autonomous vehicles need to avoid doing anything that would cause problems for non-autonomous vehicles and pedestrians (e.g. going the wrong way on one-way streets, ignoring lane markers, going twice the speed limit, etc.), but strict adherence to speed limits is completely pointless and unnecessary even in the short term. For that matter, most of the time, it is pointless even for human drivers, much less for reverse-panopticon AI cars.

We tolerate speed limits because of the safety benefits, but there's no reason to tolerate them in situations where they have no benefit. So I would expect most areas that do autonomous car pilot programs to fairly quickly set a separate maximum speed for autonomous vehicles based only on mechanical factors like curve tightness and traffic light timing, without all the safety padding designed for meat popsicles. I would expect the owners of those vehicles to insist on it.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[ShanghaiBill]

But do we know if it was in self drive mode?

According to Uber, the car was NOT in self-driving mode. The human driver was in full control. Also, according to Uber, the driver has been fired.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[AaronW]

That looks like one of the Uber cars. SF and California are pissed that they did not apply for a permit like everyone else for testing their vehicles and that their cars are blowing through red lights and making unsafe turns.

Tesla is fairly specific that they are currently not L5 autonomous. They really don't want people to use autopilot on undivided roads. If you want to go fast, don't use autopilot, it's as simple as that. The current autopilot is best used on divided highways and freeways since it doesn't understand things like stop signs or stop lights.

The new cars come with a much more comprehensive set of sensors so that they will be capable of fully autonomous (L5) driving in the future but the software is not ready. The new system has a lot more cameras and radar capability.

Here is a video showing Tesla's autopilot 2.0.. The neat thing with this video is it also shows what the autopilot system sees and identifies. You can see the autopilot stopping for pedestrians jogging by the side of the road, for example, as well as stopping at red lights and stop signs. Granted, this sort of driving is far less complicated than driving in San Francisco.

Driving in SF is not for the faint of heart if you are not used to it. It's easy to get lost with the one-way streets, especially if your GPS gets lost due to the tall buildings (a common occurrence). With the bicycle lanes and lots of crazy rules and having to dodge double-parked vehicles and pedestrians I've found it to be one of the most difficult places to drive. It seems that Uber's engineers are not taking things seriously when their test cars make these mistakes. In order to test an autonomous vehicle a permit is required. All of the other manufacturers who are working on this managed to go and get the proper permits so I see no reason why Uber doesn't. Uber seems to generate a lot of controversy and is frequently subject to lawsuits because they feel they can do whatever the hell they want. I have friends who drive and they much prefer driving for Lyft because they treat their drivers a lot better (like making it easy for passengers to give tips).

Here's an aricle talking about how Uber's cars illegally cut into bicycle lanes. SF tries to be a very bike friendly city. The way the bike lanes work there is that near a right turn they move left so that the car turning right is in the far-right and the bike lane is between the right-turn lane and normal traffic. That way, cars making a right are less likely to suddenly cut off bicyclists.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[PopeRatzo]

You can see the autopilot stopping for pedestrians jogging by the side of the road, for example, as well as stopping at red lights and stop signs.

I wonder about red lights. Here in Houston (Midtown) where there is light rail and all sorts of weird one-way streets and very confusing signals. There's a busy intersection near me that a separate signal light for every lane, and one lane has an odd non-standard pale skinny green arrow that seems to change color on no set schedule. And one lane has light rail on the street, but cars can drive there too. It's pretty dangerous to be a pedestrian in parts of Houston.

At least there are practically no bike lanes in Houston for autopilots to worry about.

Re: Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

why would a sensible person think that a
self driving car wouldn't obey the law? thats silly.

especially if you have any grasp on the actual state of ai research(it's shit)

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[vtcodger]

"These seem to not be driving very well as they are also known to drive on the bicycle lane."

Being picky, but reality is the opposite I think. Uber's self driving cars make right hand turns from the traffic lane whereas California law requires them to pull right into the bicycle lane (if there is such) before turning right. I believe that Uber has acknowledged that's a problem.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[thegarbz]

That video shows the Ubers which are widely regarded as the fisher price of self driving cars. Additionally Uber claims the car was being manually driven.

Say what you want, but two things are clear:

a) that's not a Telsa which doesn't seem to run lights.
b) even if it was a Tesla this is a problem that can be solved with engineering. Human inattentiveness can not.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[No Longer an AC]

Most sensible people expect that self-driving cars will go significantly above the speed limit

I guess I'm not sensible then because I expect self-driving cars to rigidly adhere to all traffic laws especially something as simple as a speed limit.

I expect this not because I don't realize that autonomous vehicles can respond quicker than humans and have better collision detection sensors than humans, but because they are mindless programmed automatons that should rigidly adhere to a set of rules that are programmed into them.

But Teslas are not fully autonomous anyway. If I want to speed while driving one, maybe I should be active in that decision and not just let the car do whatever it feels it can.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[dgatwood]

I guess I'm not sensible then because I expect self-driving cars to rigidly adhere to all traffic laws especially something as simple as a speed limit.

I expect this not because I don't realize that autonomous vehicles can respond quicker than humans and have better collision detection sensors than humans, but because they are mindless programmed automatons that should rigidly adhere to a set of rules that are programmed into them.

I expect them to be capable of doing something that simple. I'm saying that I don't think they should be required by law to do so, but rather that the law should adapt to allow vehicles to judge the maximum safe speed using some reasonable set of rules even if the result of that computation results in the vehicle exceeding the speed limit by some reasonable margin.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it will actually be possible to get speed limits completely correct. There's no guarantee that a camera will be able to see a speed sign, depending on other vehicles on the road, which means it will depend on a database of speed limits.

If you've ever driven with a Garmin that supposedly gives the speed limits, you know that even on minor highways, it is frequently off by a quarter mile. And it frequently says that the speed limit is 5–10 MPH lower or higher than it actually is. And that isn't even taking into consideration temporary speed limits, etc. I have approximately zero faith in local governments to properly report speed limit changes to the appropriate agencies to ensure that this data stays up-to-date, particularly when they can take advantage of the discrepancy to raise revenue for their communities.

So basically, there are going to be situations where self-driving cars go too fast or too slow based on the speed limit. It is pretty much inevitable. That's what makes it all the more important to make sure that there are universal standards for choosing a reasonable speed for the road that all autonomous vehicles adhere to. And if we have those standards, then it becomes largely irrelevant whether the autonomous vehicles adhere to the posted limits at that point.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhh, physics (for instance, breaking distance based upon speed, vehicle mass, and conditions), erratic pedestrians, bicycles being where they don't belong, and traffic flow are also taken into consideration for those speed limits. Also things like do you have the right tires on your car or have you done the correct maintenance for the current season come into play as well.

Speed limits aren't solely based on human reaction time...

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[AaronW]

In San Francisco from what I've seen the bike lanes are very well marked. It sounds like the thing Uber is most upset about with getting a permit is that they need to report every incident. Also, from my research it sounds like Uber has a long way to go with their system. Given the high population density and lack of parking and high cost in San Francisco, bicycles are a popular alternative.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watched it. Didn't see a problem. What is the concern? Who was injured or even imperiled?

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[BasilBrush]

But of course Uber cannot be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Re:Set speeds will follow autonomous vehicles.

[dgatwood]

Most of those other factors are supposed to be factored in by the driver when choosing whether to travel below the posted limit. For example, if a car sees children playing beside the road, it should slow down to a sub-fatal speed well ahead of time just in case the kids do something stupid, regardless of the posted limit. Bicycles being where they don't belong, traffic flow (*), etc. are typically situational awareness issues, and require drivers to drive below the speed limit when they occur. None of them can usefully be captured by a static speed limit, though the speed limit does give you some hint about the probability of those sorts of events happening on a given road. So I will concede that they do serve a useful purpose for autonomous vehicles on city streets, though I would still argue that strict adherence isn't really essential.

(*) Limiting speeds to improve traffic flow by making cars arrive shortly after the light turns green is an exception, of course, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

With that said, as soon as you get off of city streets and onto highways, speed limits are largely governed by two things: the length of entrance ramps and human reaction time. The second one is irrelevant with autonomous vehicles, and the first is much, much less important, because an autonomous car's additional cameras mean that it can much more safely perform a merge even with shorter ramps. (Technically, lots of speed limits were set to improve fuel economy during the gas crises of the 1970s, which is even less relevant, because autonomous vehicles are likely to be electric, but that's another argument for another day.)

Blame Tesla!

[BigBuckHunter]

We need to blame Tesla, and not the stupid laws (that we voted for the representatives that voted for). Please Elon, fix our collective stupidity by breaking the law., instead of having us voters fix the stupid laws we've enacted. This way, we get to blame some rich white dude when things go wrong, which is much better than taking responsibility for ourselves.

Re:Blame Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it kiddo, you show that strawman what's what!

not limited on freeway where more people speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Only applies to street and not freeway driving. Autopilot was already limited there anyway and they really recommended against using it on streets/highways but didn't stop you.

Traffic Tickets

[caferace]

Maybe a dumb question (I have no idea) but is there any data on how many and type of traffic tickets have been issued to Tesla owners running on autopilot? Curious.

Re:Traffic Tickets

[thegarbz]

I can imagine they are few. The Autopilot works best on motorways and if the autopilot can be set to a max 5mph over the speed limit a cop or speed camera won't give it a second glance. It's also better at not tailgating and does a pretty damn good job of not driving dangerously from my admittedly limited experience.

Re: Traffic Tickets

[alcmena]

Seconded. While I like the 5 over, I typically don't use it so I wouldn't miss it. Autopilot shines most in heavy traffic. It keeps a safe distance (which is configurable, I prefer to keep it at the further end). Since it is radar based, it helps reduce the catapiller effect in stop-and-go, while also avoiding the "hug the bumper and slam the brakes" trap.

Re:Traffic Tickets

[Carewolf]

I can imagine they are few. The Autopilot works best on motorways and if the autopilot can be set to a max 5mph over the speed limit a cop or speed camera won't give it a second glance. It's also better at not tailgating and does a pretty damn good job of not driving dangerously from my admittedly limited experience.

Yeah, most place has an semi-official 10% tolerance margin.

Re:Traffic Tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was an officer, I'd give everyone a hidden 10% margin (mainly because it makes financial sense to stop people speeding 10mph and 15mph over, not 5mph over), but then I'd target every Tesla and fancy car driver for going 1mph over, because they are 99% more likely to pay their speeding ticket.

My car

[Anonymous Coward]

My rules. No thanks.

Re:My car

[Anonymous Coward]

Public roads, public rules. Take a bus if you think traffic rules don't apply to your entitled ass.

Is this always the safest?

[Eloking]

My grandfather always told me that the safest drive speed is the one that follow the traffic.

I got this example in my city (and I'm sure most of you can relate) of some big, perfect straight highway with 5 lanes where the maximum speed is crazily set at 70 km/h (45 mph). And, as you can guess, everyone, even the slow lane, goes over 100.

In my opinion, this is where corporate responsibility have entered too far in personal responsibility, kinda like I don't want my GPS to start an alarm and stop working if I go over the limit. So if there's an accident related to high speed where the user have set the speed over the limit, it's the driver's fault.

Re:Is this always the safest?

[AaronW]

This is a case where Tesla is trying to discourage people from using Autopilot on undivided roads. The current autopilot system is not really designed for the way people are using it. It does not detect stop signs or red lights. It is designed mostly for divided highways. The next generation, Autopilot 2.0, is designed with undivided roads and full autonomous driving. All of the currently shipping cars ship with the hardware for this but lack the software which is still under development.

If you want to drive above the speed limit on undivided roads, don't use autopilot, it's as simple as that. Nobody is forcing anyone to use it.

Re:Is this always the safest?

[Eloking]

If you want to drive above the speed limit on undivided roads, don't use autopilot, it's as simple as that. Nobody is forcing anyone to use it.

Of course nobody is forcing me, I'm one meaningless person, nobody care if I use it or not.

My point is, if everyone deactivate the feature because they don't like driving slower than everyone else on the highway, how will Tesla accumulate autopilot date and hour to progress this tech?

And I wonder how many accident will happen because the Tesla is thinking there's a working zone at 70 km/h while it was actually finished and people are driving 120 km/h. Sure it's that guy's fault for driving fast, but nobody is expecting a "human" to drive that slow on the highway.

Re:Is this always the safest?

[AaronW]

They can accumulate data with autopilot turned off. The hardware is not designed to fully handle undivided roads which is why they're doing this. The new hardware and the next major release should fix that, but not for cars manufactured before October 2016. More data from the older cars won't help when they lack the necessary sensors.

Road kill!

[TigerPlish]

Any vehicle in Florida doing the speed limit -- even in the "slow lane" -- the far-right lane -- will become roadkill.

Tesla, the best thing you could do is adaptive cruise. Just go with the flow, man...

Re:Road kill!

[Stormwatch]

The solution is to actually ENFORCE the rules, not discard them.

Re:Road kill!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better, maybe modify the rules to actually make sense??

Re:Road kill!

[CrimsonAvenger]

The solution is to actually ENFORCE the rules, not discard them.

True enough, if the rules serve some useful purpose (other than serving as an excuse to ticket people). If, however, it's safer driving at 110 mph (175 km/hr) than at 65 mph (110 km/hr), then perhaps the rules should be discarded in favour of the safer (but higher) speeds.

And, FWIW, yes, I also live in a place where driving the speed limit will get you killed, since most traffic is going considerably over the speed limit most of the time. Actually driving the speed limit here would be dangerous as all hell....

Re:Road kill!

[wisnoskij]

This. I recently retook Ontario's driver's licence test, as I never got my full drivers license and it had run out years ago. And they have changed so much. Even the official driver's handbook states that you are supposed to go the speed of the other drivers.

What?

[Desler]

Where in the itemized bill of sale did any of these owners have it listed "Ability for autopilot to exceed speed limits"? I'm doubting that was listed anywhere on the sale contract. So, no, they did not buy that specific features. They bought an autopilot system as a whole.

Re: What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, are you a lawyer? What a fascinating legal analysis. Speaking of receipts, do you have one for what you paid your law school? Maybe you can get a refund?

Re: What?

[Desler]

Nope just not an idiot. Tesla specifically lists what their system provides as a feature set and it has never once listed "ability to exceed speed limit" as a feature.

https://www.tesla.com/autopilo...

fix the speed limit

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone thinks the speed limits are too slow, and cars should drive faster, then increase the speed limit.

Re:fix the speed limit

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunning-Kruger tells me that's unwise.

How does it know?

[Gussington]

How does it know what the official speed limit is?
What happens if this is interfered with?
I'm struggling to see how any customer could consider this a good thing.

Re:How does it know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Camera + OCR.

Re: How does it know?

[alcmena]

The camera can OCR the speed limit signs. It combines that with GPS based data. It works well most times. It actually knows not to apply the change until you pass the sign, which also happens to match the laws.

Re: How does it know?

[Gussington]

The camera can OCR the speed limit signs. It combines that with GPS based data. It works well most times. It actually knows not to apply the change until you pass the sign, which also happens to match the laws.

Yes, yes but you missed the point. How does this system combat thousands of people printing off their own speed limit signs to frustrate robot car users?
The whole value proposition of the car is personal freedom. This is exactly the opposite.

I-294 posted limits are to low make it 70

[Joe_Dragon]

I-294 posted limits are to low needs to be at least 70 all the way.

Re:I-294 posted limits are to low make it 70

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone actually drive slower than 70 on the Tri-State? It's just one more way for Coon^W Cook County bureaucrats to siphon money directly from your wallet into theirs.

Re:I-294 posted limits are to low make it 70

[Joe_Dragon]

The state cops let you get away with 70-75 on it.

I can't drive 55

[Joe_Dragon]

One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
Well, baby, black and white come and touched my groove again!
Gonna write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55! Oh No!
Uh!
So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more...
We're gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
I said Yea!, Oh yea!
Write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55!
Oh, yea!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
Uh!

Re:I can't drive 55

[No Longer an AC]

Uh!

I wonder if when Sammy Hagar was writing those lyrics he actually wrote out "Uh!" or if he just thought to add that when he sang it.

5 mph over limit?

[manu0601]

What is the point of a limit 5 mph over limit? If you want to have a limit, the legal one seems to make more sense,

Re:5 mph over limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of a computer that can download illegal content? If you want to have laws, enforce it inside each computer with encryption where the user can't modify it.

Re:5 mph over limit?

[Areyoukiddingme]

What's the point of a computer that can download illegal content? If you want to have laws, enforce it inside each computer with encryption where the user can't modify it.

Consoles. Phones. Tablets. Chromebooks. The general purpose computer is dying more rapidly than one might believe. I fully expect that within my lifetime, ownership of a general purpose computer will require registration, and ownership of an "unregistered" will be a federal criminal offense. Compilers will be treated as munitions, and explicitly watermark every binary they produce. Think this is ridiculous? There is a very clear path from here to there, and there is an enormous amount of money pushing just as hard as it can to move society along that path.

This is how liberty dies—with thunderous applause, as exemplified by the GP and his many many frightened ilk.

Re:5 mph over limit?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

You can go any speed you want in manual mode. Limiting the autopilot to the legal speed limit is perfectly sensible.

Notice to Tesla, Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Police will ticket you for driving the speed limit. Believe it or not, you cannot impede traffic. And, we know how speed limits are set - magic eight ball. Or your neighbor Fred who yells at cars on your street. Signed, a cop.

Re:Notice to Tesla, Drivers

[DirkDaring]

Fred would never do that, I know the guy.

Opensource on Github !

[DrYak]

IMHO it just seems like yet another reason to not buy a Tesla.

Oh, come on! This is Slashdot !

Fixing that for you:
it just seems like yet another reason to start our own "GNU OpenAutoFahrer" !

We should register a GitHub repository like *right now*.
And be ready to fork it as "LibreAutoFahrer" after 2 year due to creative dispute in the developer community.

Re:Opensource on Github !

[JustNiz]

Why name it in German? that seems really random.

Quit whining

[aicrules]

Once autonomous cars are commonly accepted then we will have more and more of them on the road. Once critical mass is achieved (not sure what this is) then it can become like I, Robot where autonomous mode can go way faster than manual drive mode. But until the tech is proven, solid, and accepted widely you can't have self-driven cars being at fault in any way or it will be a set back.

It's winter

[vandamme]

Let me know when they can follow ruts in the snow, between the telephone poles. And watch out for deer.

Re:It's winter

[BasilBrush]

You mean like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Now, nobody will use it

[herbierobinson]

Except maybe Jimmy Stuart...

parodying OSS names

[DrYak]

I know I shouldn't explain the joke, but....

Why name it in German? that seems really random.

Because :

• Which OSS name isn't random ? (See GIMP, Konqueror, etc.)
• There is a little bit of German which has transpired into the geek culture (the "Über" prefix, the construction of the imaginary word Blinkenlights and lots of other examples
• Linguistic pun are somewhat present in the landscape of OSS names (See "Pidgin")
• I wanted to quickly build a realistic sounding name for an Opensource alternative to Auto-pilot. Replacing one of the keyword with a synonym or a different language isn't completely unheard of. (one alternative to EDonkey is called aMule (i.e.: name of another (Hybrid) member of the Equus genus) - an alternative for online communication is called Ekiga (a name of communication between villages in Cameroune)
• Out of the few language I speak fluently, some happen to have the exact same word (a Pilot is also a Pilote in French. Useless), other aren't that much frequent on /. and would be harder to get (bulgarian has a different word - but it's written in cyrillic and Bulgarian isn't that frequent among /. geeks - though an OSS software like Jitsi does have a Bulgarian name (means 'wires')), german is the example that came to my thoughts which could stand better chance to be understood by /. geeks, while still sounding different than the english "pilot")
• Germany, and specially their Autobahn, has a strong connotation with cars and driving anyway (and also with engineering), and would be a realistic language that could be picked up by an opensource project IRL

For all of the above reasons, "Fahrer" was the thing that sprang into mind during the couple of seconds I decided to come up with this quick joke about a parody OSS alternative to Tesla's Autopilot. Sure, there would probably have been better ideas, but like I said, I only spent a few seconds coming up with the name.
Even this explanation is way to much long for just a simple joke.

let the bodies hit the floor

[Anonymous Coward]

This static figure will create the contention to herald the slaughter of many civilians yet to come.

Actually for real

[DrYak]

And, by the way, there's a real Linux Foundation project for In-Vehicle Information (IVI) linux distributions.

They provide core functionnality, which can then subsequently be customized by vendors.