Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Washington Post reviews autopilot

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Once again reviewer unaware of what autopilot can do. Complained that it wasn't good in heavy snow. Should never have tried it if they read the instructions
autocorrect strikes again. Title should read Washington post if moderator could help correct
 
I read your initial post either three or four times before I figured out the problem. I'll try to have someone correct it.....in the meantime, it's pretty funny!
 
Once again reviewer unaware of what autopilot can do. Complained that it wasn't good in heavy snow. Should never have tried it if they read the instructions
autocorrect strikes again. Title should read Washington post if moderator could help correct

Oh no. Snow is obviously stated as a can't do with assistance package. This isn't some murky area like "intended to be used on highways", where most highways are far inferior roads to freeways, and obviously was worded completely wrong and we have to guess what the hell they meant.
 
Not perfect (just like autopilot) but still a positive review.

I especially liked this very true part:

"Autopilot also highlighted just how stubbornly rules-based driverless cars will be. They don’t pass pokey drivers. They don’t speed up to make a traffic light. They allow anyone to merge into your lane, no matter how infuriating. They are calm. They are perfectly rational. They follow the rules. They are not like human drivers at all.

That can be a good thing."
 
I thought the article was pretty positive actually. And I've obviously read the 'signature' thing differently to some here. Companies have things that set them apart and the MC Red is (one of) Tesla's IMO. "the signature red Tesla Model S P90D sedan". Unfortunate coincidence between signature and Signature.:tongue:
 
Something like 'Asking ton posts reviews autopilot'.

Very close, Bonnie.



Yes, that's what it was.

Not exactly.


I had written to one of the mods last night, since the OP had requested the change and it had been a couple of days. I just checked the URL in my sent messages. The exact thread title had been:

"Asking a ton posts many reviews of autopilot"

Excerpt from my private message below, if I can figure out how to make sure it doesn't get reformatted into an actual link.

"<a href="http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/62213-Asking-a-ton-posts-many-reviews-of-autopilot" target="_blank">Washington Post reviews autopilot</a>"
 
Not perfect (just like autopilot) but still a positive review.

I especially liked this very true part:

"Autopilot also highlighted just how stubbornly rules-based driverless cars will be. They don’t pass pokey drivers. They don’t speed up to make a traffic light. They allow anyone to merge into your lane, no matter how infuriating. They are calm. They are perfectly rational. They follow the rules. They are not like human drivers at all.

That can be a good thing."

I agree that it was a rather positive story. My one quibble is that the writer described using it on busy city streets, which is also not part of the intended usage. But I know many people have tried doing that, and it is a natural thing to try, perhaps especially if a person has not read the caution statements in the manual. So I would rather that the author mentioned it was not a recommended practice when he described that.

The article was reprinted in the Boston Globe last Saturday. It was printed with a large Model S photo and occupied nearly a full page, and was in the regular section of the paper, not the Automotive section (which is basically an advertising section and is labelled as such) -- good exposure, I thought.