Slashdot Mirror
NTSB Boots Tesla From Investigation Into Fatal Autopilot Crash (theverge.com)
The National Transportation Safety Board has removed Tesla from the investigation into a fatal Autopilot accident that occurred in March. The NTSB says it took the action because Tesla had released "investigative information before it was vetted and confirmed by" the agency. "Such releases of incomplete information often lead to speculation and incorrect assumptions about the probable cause of a crash, which does a disservice to the investigative process and the traveling public," the agency writes. The Verge reports: The NTSB's account contradicts Tesla's version of the story. In a statement, the automaker says it decided to remove itself from the investigation on Tuesday because of the NTSB was restricting it from sharing information before the probe ends. The company also accuses the NTSB of being duplicitous, arguing that the agency has released statements about the crash at the same time that it told Tesla not to. "It's been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they're more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety," a spokesperson for the company says. "Among other things, they repeatedly released partial bits of incomplete information to the media in violation of their own rules, at the same time that they were trying to prevent us from telling all the facts. We don't believe this is right and we will be making an official complaint to Congress." The company also said it will issue "a Freedom Of Information Act request to understand the reasoning behind their focus on the safest cars in America while they ignore the cars that are the least safe." The full letter send to Musk from the NTSB can be seen here.
The company also accuses the NTSB of being duplicitous, arguing that the agency has released statements about the crash at the same time that it told Tesla not to
That's how the NTSB operates - it releases preliminary information as it sees fits, but waits until their investigation is complete before making a final determination. It's their investigation - Tesla is only an invited guest, used as a technical resource, the same as Boeing for airplane crashes. You never hear Boeing releasing important accident details before the NTSB does.
" to understand the reasoning behind their focus on the safest cars in America while they ignore the cars that are the least safe. " Calling Autopilot cars the "safest cars" is absolutely horseshit, for the record.
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric. Break assist and lane wander warnings would accomplish the same safety features autopilot does, without crashing into firetrucks and lane dividers. If they actually get forced to make autopilot work that way, they will lose a ton of customers though. Not something they could survive, currently.
This is why Tesla is running scared.
...are rusting in garages and barns, from which they have not moved in decades
You also don't see consumers purchasing Boeing airplanes...
Boeing can and does get important details out through the grapevine to the pilots before the general public. Tesla has a similar need here to reiterate to its drivers to pay attention and get their hands on the wheel. Otherwise, we could all lose this privilege. But their pilots don't exactly have the same grapevine or professional sense.
"It's been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they're more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety," a spokesperson for the company says.
Tesla has a lot more at risk depending on what those headlines say. I'm not surprised that they wanted to be the first to put out favorable information. I'm a fan of Tesla but when I read things like this I lose respect for them.
They do it the old way
They don't release anything until a conclusion has been reached
I prefer realtime, incremental data
You also don't see consumers purchasing Boeing airplanes...
Yet hundreds of people can die in a single plane crash so I don't see what your point is. In both instances the purpose of the investigation is to find the cause and determine what can be done to prevent it from happening again, which can include recalls.
Musk tried to spin it in his favor, like he always does, but this time he got called on it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No IT DOESN'T. It doesn't release any crash information without approval, formally or informally. If something may be beneficial or need immediate checking by pilots then they get approval first.
..or a decision that the technology isn't mature enough to use on public roads yet.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I thought the headline meant they booted up the actual car from the crash to go through the computer.
Trolling is a art,
His point is that "autopilot" isn't really, and training people to drive properly in the first place - or not giving them a fucking license - should be the default starting point, not an either/or with a prototype AI tacked on halfway.
If this crapware becomes widespread before proper vetting for safety under all possible circumstances, more than hundreds will die, mark my fucking words. -hmm
They just send out questions and advice without saying why. Very simple and not giving out "crash information" though everyone involved is really smart and figures it out. If they actually held back on anything that could help because the NTSB said to, they would not be absolved of responsibility in resultant civil suits.
Admittedly, what Tesla should have done in this case is make some very strong public statements along the lines of "due to recent events we're not able to disclose, we want to strongly reiterate to all of our drivers that ... blah blah blah". But it's just a technical difference.
I would also note that the autopilots in planes have very similar features to demand the pilot retake controls and they are still called autopilots. That is after all where the term comes from.
That's how the NTSB operates - it releases preliminary information as it sees fits
... and that is ok, because unlike Tesla, NTSB has no incentive to twist the facts to fit their corporate PR agenda.
I am a Tesla owner, and normally a Tesla fanboi, but they have recently been acting like jerks. One of their customers was killed. They should be focused on fixing the issues rather than shifting blame.
... safety under all possible circumstances
That is a totally unrealistic standard. SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs.
... more than hundreds will die, mark my fucking words. -hmm
Worldwide, 3500 people are killed everyday by HDCs.
They killed all the small private aircraft companies that made small planes with the active help of NTSB. Boeing liked small pesky competitors being killed off.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's not exactly open. The NTSB has to change that. If we don't demand transparency, we will always get the runaround. It's a law of nature.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...the technology isn't mature enough to use on public roads yet.
You mean cars? Those things are more dangerous than guns.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Heaven forbid we actually hold drivers accountable for their actions behind the wheel. If the driver isn't paying attention when they're supposed to be, it is the driver's fault.
"The Tesla Autopilot! Keep your hands on the wheel, steer and watch the road. It does the rest!"
" SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs." No, that's ridiculous averages-law thinking. They need to AVERAGE BETTER than the BEST HUMAN. Not just compare favorably to the AVERAGE human.
AI is going to take over, so why not have high fucking standards? Are you high? There's no need to rush this. If anything, DENY BAD HUMANS LICENSES and save lives that way until the AI gets good enough.
Rushing AI security will lead to problems greater than bad human drivers, which will exist anyway also for the medium future. It's not either/or. Mandate good AI, and mandate good human drivers. Period.
Yes, we can have nice things. When they're ready, regulated, mature non-killing-machines that can't be trivially hacked for mass carnage.
So an IQ test before allowing a sale? If the problem is idiots, then they really can't fix it and not sorting the blame quickly leads to people decrying their product's safety.
Uh. A lot of people buy Boeing aircraft. Just because you can't buy one doesn't mean other peolple can't. They have a whol class of aircraft (business) meant just for that.
If Tesla is going to be listed by the NTSB in every accident involving their cars, they probably didn't charge enough for their cars to account for all the legal fees.
Once upon a time Tesla used to brag about how great their relationship was with the NTSB. That was when they were getting their "highest safety rating ever" awards. They used to claim they sent data to the NTSB before it was even asked for.
I guess those times have changed.
If Musk is correct in that the NTSB is releasing data in violation of their own rules then he has a right to bitch about it. Does anyone here know if he is correct?
At the same time I am sure that Musk/Tesla has caused the NTSB concern with their amped up PR efforts. Telsa has to respect that the NTSB can and should control the flow of information.
My guess is Musk is very sensitive to this due to the rampant bias the media has shown against Tesla at every opportunity. Sure they have fanbois but there is no question there is a significant demographic of keyboard warriors panting and slavering to get the goods on Tesla. You can see a number of them right here in this thread.
I wouldn't say it is the level of Hillary Clinton hatred but it is there. You still find people thinking Telsa's wheels are falling off all the time and fires every week. Just like you have people convinced Hillary is running a child sex slave ring. It is the nature of the beast.
AI is going to take over, so why not have high fucking standards?
Because Self Driving Vehicles are already safer than the AVERAGE human. That means the every day you delay replacing human drivers with SDCs, is a day in which somewhere between zero and 3500 extra people die that didn't have to.
I'm not sure if its basic math, or basic safety engineering you don't understand, but either way, I would personally appreciate it if you would keep your opinion to yourself until you are qualified to have one.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Tesla should continue releasing information publicly and smear the shit out of NTSB.
This is an old story now. Tesla repeatedly creates shit storms with regulators and critics. Tesla expects to be the special, exempted exception to every rule and requires every outcome and finding to be in Tesla's favor, lest the offender be subjected to the mud slinging we see here. This scene in particular smacks of desperation; Tesla is finding it difficult to maintain the reality distortion field where it's ok for their "autopilot" operating in broad daylight to bury its passengers into a highway divider and erupt into a toxic lithium battery fire that takes most of a day to fully contain.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
They need to AVERAGE BETTER than the BEST HUMAN.
Says who?
AI is going to take over, so why not have high fucking standards?
Because delay means deaths. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There's no need to rush this.
Go tell that to the 3500 families that lost a son, daughter, spouse, or parent, just TODAY.
SDCs should be on the road as soon as they are "good enough". Then they can get better with OTA software upgrades. And they will get better. How many HDC fatalities are investigated by the NTSB? Nearly zero, because we already know that a human caused almost all of them, and there is no way to "fix" humans.
So an IQ test before allowing a sale? .
Do you have a citation that IQ correlated with safe driving?
I have a high IQ, and I tend to daydream a lot. My hands may be on the wheel, and my eyes on the road, but my mind is busy elsewhere.
When SDCs are finally available, I will be first in line.
If I understand correctly, many recent cars come with automatic braking (Collision Avoidance) and lane keeping. They just don't call their systems "Autopilot" and don't encourage drivers to count on them working 100% of the time.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
People drive 3.22 trillion miles a year. People wouldn't use cars if they weren't extremely safe on average. Having the freedom to learn about and drive with defensive techniques, and owning a car with modern safety features tip the odds even more in your favor. I can't find any stats on how many miles Autopilot drives per year but I'm betting it is a great vast amount less than 3.22 trillion miles a year. Couple that with the fact that Autopilot *chooses* where it functions, and the car is physically safe in the first place, Tesla should have a great deal less than 2 deaths under their belt to be on par with human safety levels.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Do you have a blood alcohol level of 1.8 and text while you are daydreaming?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
> Because Self Driving Vehicles are already safer than the AVERAGE human.
I am not sure how true that is, if you compare to cars with safety features like Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane assist, and similar features. IE Tesla claims their cars are safer in that mode, but only compared to the average person, in the average dumb car. Then compare only paved roads in a new car to all roads and cars.
I doubt the Tesla system is smart enough to take the lead from several other automakers systems. The Uber screw up also points out that more enforced standards are needed for some.
So an IQ test before allowing a sale?
Wouldn’t work only a retard would want to buy a piece of shit tesla in the first place.
It is unreasonable to expect innocent people be unwittingly participating in Tesla's beta testing of their technology. Their Autopilot should be banned from public roads.
Two identical cars from the NUMI plant in Fremont that Tesla took over, the Toyota Corolla and the Chevy Nova (later Geo Prizm). The Corolla had a noticeably lower driver death rate per miles driven.
This indeed that "the nut behind the wheel" is perhaps a more critical safety component than seatbelts or stopping distance or crumple zones.
Do you suppose high IQ people were purchasing the Corolla and driving safer? Or do you suppose high IQ people were in the Nova because it was hundreds of dollars cheaper and it is not smart to pay more money for the same car apart from the badge on the trunk lid, and high IQ people daydream and get in more accidents?
Or do wealthier people purchase the Corolla because they have the money and a Toyota has better social status than a Chevy, and wealthier people engage in less high-risk behavior because they feel better off? And is wealth correlated with higher IQ, so even a high IQ person does a stupid thing like pay hundreds more for the same car so as to not being seen in a Chevy?
One of the deceased driver's family members has stated publicly that he complained multiple times about the autopilot failure at that exact location. He knew it had a high failure rate at that fork in the road, yet he did not pay attention enough to save his life. At the end of the day, everyone is responsible for themselves. Don't want to die? Then don't ignore known dangers.
I found a fork in the freeway in Fort Lauderdale at which my Model S autopilot would usually do the wrong thing and drive straight down the center of the fork. I still use autopilot at every opportunity because it is a nice feature. How am I still alive? Every time I came to that location, I made sure to have hands on the wheel and eyes on the road -- every time, no exceptions. It's not magic. I took responsibility for myself and corrected the car at that location every time it went astray.
We don't even need a black box to know the guy was not paying attention. His death is the irrefutable proof. He already knew in advance that there was a dangerous section of road for autopilot control, yet he did not give the attention required while driving to save himself. I don't want to die on the road, so I pay attention. Tesla has never claimed that drivers can ignore the road and use their hands for unimportant tasks while driving. They have always stressed the opposite, and they have increased autopilot nanny features many times to prevent drivers from ignoring the road. That autopilot was involved is basically irrelevant. If, on my daily drive to work, I were driving my car with my knee as I reached into the back to juggle stuff back there, all while approaching a 90 degree curve that turns just before a 100 foot cliff, who should my family blame when I plunge off that cliff and die at the bottom?
Tesla is only a sensational media target because people seek to manipulate its stock and profit.
Tesla should have a great deal less than 2 deaths under their belt to be on par with human safety levels.
That is a strong assertion from someone who says "I can't find any stats".
Human drivers kill about 15 people per billion miles.
Tesla Autopilot has driven more than 1.3 billion miles, and has killed two people. So the fatality rate is roughly a tenth that of humans. That is a lot better than "on par" with humans.
sorry but that is wrong, they actually go through the an approval for what they can say, what is being sent out has been vetted by NTSB, you are niave for thinking otherwise. They don't prevent them from being cautious, checking systems or gathering information, but they do demand information is controlled.
> and training people to drive properly in the first place - or not giving them a fucking license - should be the default starting point
ahahhahhahhahahha. yeah right.
Except that human drivers have to take responsibility at all times whereas the Tesla can just go "this is too hard, i'm out". Also the Tesla being a new vehicle not a 1990 shitbox deathtrap also skews the fatality stats in its favor.
Shouldn't be the first and foremost use case of an 'autopilot' not to crash into any unmoving object on the road in front of the vehicle?
If an 'autopilot' cannot do that, it is useless.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Boeing is not in a fast moving market with lots of competition that is very sensitive to public perception.
If NTSB gives companies the choice between ignoring their rules or serious brand damage and short-term losses, the rules will be ignored.
It might well be a sign that the NTSB will have to get used to new times or they might end up with serious issues investigating future crashes.
That might be true for Waymo's self-driving tech (I don't know, because I've never been in one), but it sure as heck isn't true for Tesla's. It's a nice convenience to relieve us of some of the tedium of having to pay continuous attention to traffic when it is moving bumper-to-bumper at 10 MPH. It is halfway decent at most straight or nearly straight roadways. BUT:
In short, there are plenty of spots where it drives significantly worse than someone who has never been behind the wheel of a car before. The only way that's better than an average driver is if you're limiting the discussion to people who are out driving after 11:00 P.M. on New Year's Eve.
It is, however, usually better than a driver who is drunk or asleep or not paying attention to the road, which means it is better than the average driver at his or her worst times. That makes it useful, but only as a backup.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Tesla set themselves way back by ditching their partnership with MobileEye and trying to use a much cheaper sensor suite. Most SDCs use lidar and more expensive sensors, with the goal of reducing the cost. Tesla decided to start with cheap sensors (cameras and front facing radar) and build up the software.
Tesla's idea kinda makes sense, in that a human driver only has cameras (eyes). But humans have stereoscopic vision and a highly advanced image processing subsystem that uses the data to build a 3D model of the world, which it turns out is pretty difficult to replicate with current AI.
Meanwhile cheap, compact lidar systems are becoming available for mass production.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh I'm pretty sure they know how they work. They're just playing the victim to their fans and investors. If you look at their press releases they seem to have a siege mentality with everyone out to get them, and everything is someone else's fault.
You see, it's not their fault they released a product of questionable safety. It's the fault of the driver for actually using the expensive optional feature. Or failing that, there's a government conspiracy to make them look bad.
Nice comparison there between apples and sausages.
What's the human driven death rate per billion miles driven on highways in 0-4 year old $70k cars? I'm guessing it's significantly lower than 15/billion.
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
This is a somewhat of a misconception, especially when we are talking about fatalities, not merely accidents.
Most fatalities occur on A-roads and motorways (I think the equivalents are interstates & freeways in the US) because of vehicle velocity, and these are exactly the times that 'autopilot' (as in cruise control / automatic braking and lane assist) is engaged and useful. Crashes on minor roads (barring the occasional car wrapped around a tree on windy, back country, lanes), i.e. those at lower speeds, do not generally result in fatalities these days; just bumps, bruises, repair bills and lawsuits.
Ever driven one? I didn't think so.
consumers = companies, who buy planes. What is even the point of mentioning that? Unlike cars, planes are better prepared to use AI(which they do already to some level, but still require human assistance), AND they don't need to avoid people running across the landing strip or even cars, because it is impossible to brake or go to another lane - it is instant crash situation. Completely different from cars on roads.
Drivers in cars has to avoid pedestrians and other cars. They are not planes and clearly:
1) AI designed by Tesla was nowhere near alpha testing stage, and not even beta, but it still has to be developed, which means - Tesla can't use AI to drive cars and it is still experimental and only under guidance of driver.
2)Test driving in AI guided car is boring job, but still - driver can't check her phone, even if assured, that AI will take care of driving, as it is her - or in this case - responsibility of Tesla, who works on AI capabilities of cars.
F$ck Tesla and Elon Musk. Some things Elon Musk must learn from his own mistakes and you and millions of brainless customers should not be nannies for a grown man, who can be responsible for his own actions and make his own decisions.
You know that driving a car is, generally and on average, the most dangerous activity you do?
"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent U.S. government investigative agency responsible for civil transportation accident investigation."
And Tesla is a company. That sells cars. Which have crashed.
One of those is qualified, able, permitted, the people who helped form the legislation, and trusted to give out limited early information that won't be contradicted by later findings and has no political, financial or other interest in anything other than the truth of how the accidents occur.
The other isn't. It's a company selling cars.
STFU and keep your head down, Tesla, or it might hurt badly when it's discovered that it WAS the fault of the car, and that you've just been trying to cover it up.
Be open but be co-operative. "We believe..." not "well, obviously, it can't have been us" before anyone's even had a chance to look.
Because if there's one organisation that can take every vehicle you make off the road, and thus bankrupt you overnight for failing to comply with its own regulations, it's the NTSB.
It's like Boeing being belligerent to the FAA etc. and interfering with a plane crash investigation.
If the problem is idiots
That's the problem, we don't know that. Tesla said so.
I'm not sure I totally trust the NTSB either, so I'm happy to have two points of view.
Lawyers did not kill the private small plane industry. Less people are getting pilot certificates and there is a glut of older planes on the market---and many of those older planes will outlive their new owners.
You can't say that! When guns kill people there's blood and it's painful, and guns kill children! Think of the children!!
wait... yeah, I get it now.
I am going to assume that you are in the UK from the language used. You are flat out wrong, a motorway is the safest type of road to drive on in the UK. That is there are fewer fatalities per passenger mile than any other type of public road.
The issues is that when it goes wrong it can go horribly wrong much more so than elsewhere, which changes peoples perceptions of where the real risks are. Accidents only tend to make the news if they are multicar pile ups on a motorway these days.
Large Corporations do.
So fucking what? We've all seen that the "average driver" shouldn't even have a driver's license; that's a different problem.
Try being married with 5 kids.
-GeekPoet
This AC comment covers what I wanted to say very nicely, so I'll just quote it and say "What he/she/it said."
I'd be interested to see those stats normalized for ownership levels and time of use.
It happens
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/66...
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs.
For what? To improve crash stats? I guess. But to be a viable product in a competitive marketplace? Safer than the average human is not going to cut it. No one is going to buy one unless their perception is that the car is a better driver than themselves. And most people think they are better than the average driver, so these cars have to be perceived to be much better than average if they're going to be anything more than a niche product.
Maybe in the UK, but not in the US. Two lane rural highways are the deadliest here by far. They lack controlled access and medians between opposite directions of travel, have narrower lanes, and are typically less well maintained. Our freeways are our safest roads.
Christ, you are such a little lapdog. Pathetic.
It would have been better for me to say:
Cars are dangerous whether they have autopilot or not. The only way to guarantee safety is to keep all cars off public roads. They kill more people than guns.
Saying that cars are "more dangerous" than guns misrepresents the situation.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Tesla should have a great deal less than 2 deaths under their belt to be on par with human safety levels.
That is a strong assertion from someone who says "I can't find any stats".
Human drivers kill about 15 people per billion miles.
Tesla Autopilot has driven more than 1.3 billion miles, and has killed two people. So the fatality rate is roughly a tenth that of humans. That is a lot better than "on par" with humans.
How many of that 1.3 billion miles is on populous roads though? Are they counting test track miles or only public roads? Is this self driving in the manner of a smart cruise control or truly self driving? I don't know the numbers but I find it hard to believe they truly have 1.3 billion miles of legit fully self driving miles on populated roads.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
In fairness (and I own a Tesla myself with AP1.0), the statistics indicate that it is safer (accident per million miles driven). Now granted, any good statistician can make numbers say anything they damn well want, but in this case the appear legit.
It's not a strong assertion, it's a very simple inequality. The GP made a good bet.
All humans drive 3.22 trillion miles/year, inclusive of all cars.
Autopilot Teslas are a tiny portion of "all cars".
Even if all Teslas drove in Autopilot at all times, there would be no way for them to drive 3.22 trillion miles per year.
Doing the math...I found a reference to Tesla having produced its 300,000th car earlier this year. Okay, that works as an upper bound.
300k cars * 365 days/year * 24 hours/day * 60 mi/hour = 157 billion miles as the absolute upper bound for Tesla miles driven last year.
Even with the absurd as the upper bound, you need Tesla to build 5.7 million more cars before it's physically possible for Autopilot to drive as many miles as humans.
With the legendary Musk timelines, they'll hit that, oh, around the time we colonize Mars.
... or greater than 18 hours since you last slept?
True, but those statistics show it being safer while monitored by a human driver who takes over when it goes bonkers. If you had to rely solely on their self-driving tech (i.e. if the driver stops paying attention), it can go wrong in a hurry on some roads. It is nowhere near as good as even an average driver by itself, or at least not with AP2 and later. (I have no experience with AP1, so I can't comment on that.)
For example, until 2018.10.4, CA-17 was downright terrifying with AP2 under autosteer from about The Cats restaurant to Vine Hill Rd, and there were even a couple of curves through Scotts Valley where it did really stupid things. I pretty much had to drive that stretch by hand, because it would get dangerously close to barriers, cross the center line into the adjacent traffic lane, etc. with such regularity that it was almost like it was trying to kill me intentionally.
In the two most recent firmware updates, it can *usually* make it most of the way without me wresting control more than a couple of times, and I can usually put it right back into autosteer after a few seconds without having to take control back three seconds later, so it has gotten a lot better. That said, it still has a long way to go before I would say that it is better than an average driver when it is driving without adult supervision.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And just to be clear, I love the tech. I'm glad I have it; driving home late at night, there's no question about whether it is safer with that feature than without. If I fell asleep at the wheel, I would have a decent chance of surviving the experience with autosteer active, which is far better than the likely result without that feature. As I said, it is better than even the best drivers at their worst. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I have a high IQ, and I don't think I'm a particularly good driver. I got my latest car with all the safety features I could get, and I leave them on.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The best human drivers don't have injury or death causing accidents in their entire driving careers . I've been driving for 35 years and have never been in an accident with another car , and have bent a few panels and scratched paint when hitting stationary objects. I'm not actually a good driver, just cautious. So AVs cannot better the best human safety record.
That was a disingenuous response.
It was implied that it's a "driving IQ" test.
I have been a strong advocate for this for all vehicles.
Instead of some arbitrary set of instructions on a small vehicle when you're 16 allowing you to drive for all perpetuity, unless you're caught doing something as arbitrary as speeding, rolling at 2mph through a stop sign after checking or something else that's just a money grab . . . think about it.