Tesla Talk 2

well spotted.

Jeez, the mileage makes it a terrible deal whatever way you cut it.

3600 + (300*24) =£10.8k/€12.k for 2 years and 16,000km

This technology is in test mode and it seems prudent to have a safety driver during these testing phases, to do otheriwse would be irresponsible yet it always attarcts negative comment. The specifics of this incident are unknown ..but some would argue that this is an example of action that is rehersed and deployed i.e. where some problem (we don't know what) occurs the safety driver intervenes and takes control of the car and drives (needing to get into driver seat). In all test phases of new technology it is used to identify issues, investigate, learn and improve before widespread roll out (whenever that would be)

which is safer - having the safety driver in the passenger seat, or the driver seat?

Musk said “We are being super paranoid about safety".

They’re not though - they’re paranoid about showing Tesla fans that most of the time it works all the time, using cameras alone, and that this should somehow be the safety bar with regulators.

Thankfully regulators however have absolutely tired of musks rhetoric, and are now only interested in what they deliver, not what they say - and remember the regulators also have all the waymo data too.

Totally - the regulators have all the data, so Tesla premise that somehow they’ve figured out a workable camera-only solution will never ever pass muster with the regulators as being a safer system.

It’s obvious from waymo’s own troubles that even more is needed, not less

what does ‘better than humans’ really mean though, in a purely software based scientific solution … any regulated level 3 system surely needs to be many times better than that.

These things need to be nigh on perfect - and remember the bar is very high, as manufacturers will assume insurance liability for their level 3 capable cars.

How close are Tesla to covering the liability of a HW4-capable highland (the answer is never).

Yep by definition a level 5 FSD car is the responsibility of the manufacturer. They will be the one paying for insurance. Presumably you pay them a subscription for it.

Safer than what human in what situation? A professional driver with a dose of caffeine or the average driver than demolishes your offside wing in the Tesco car park?

Am curious of the basis for concluding that Manufacturers have/will have responsibility for all Insurance liabilities for FSD enabled cars (whenever available). Given that this is a new area without precedent the basis for apportioning liability between, driver, manufacturer surely has yet to be worked out and most likely will be heavily debated between the parties (Drivers/car owners, Car manufacturers, Regulators)?

All valid comments but what I was curious about is whether there is a valid basis for concluding with certainty that hte liablity for Insurance with Level 3 and above rests with the car manufacturer. I believe this is an open issue that has yet to be resolved or formulated.

again completely agree, when not if.

It'd be nice if the self-driving chat could be split off into a separate thread, because in here it feels like anytime someone points out the flaws in it as a general technology, every Tesla fan feels the need to get defensive because it's the Tesla thread.

You dont have to be a tesla fan to believe in self driving as a concept surely? Id be defensive about it whether i owned a tesla or not, i felt the same about it 2 months ago when i was driving an audi.

No doubt it is in limited areas where it will work correctly, but Mercedes are liable if anything happens. So they have a level 3 system that you can buy today in some countries and I think it shows the manufactures will take liability for L3 and up.

95 km/h it will work up to in Germany.