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

Autonomous Car Progress

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I love it how you tried to put PAVE in the same category of authority as NHTSA.

Good try.
PAVE is a steaming garbage pile with Ed Niedermeyer as the mouthpiece!

I quoted PAVE because the article I quoted mentions PAVE.

PAVE is a trustworthy authority interested in promoting safe autonomous driving and increasing public awareness for autonomous driving.

Just shows your ignorant bias that you think PAVE is garbage.
 
I wonder how much the stance of the car makes a difference.
Just today, there was a post (see quote below) where using the mounting plate of the tri-cam from Model S on a Model X would not allow the cameras to get calibrated properly.

If the pitch of the cameras affected it that much to fail calibration, I wonder if there is a bigger perception difference with the low-slung Model 3 (re phantom braking) when compared to the tallish Model X.
Conflicting report on FSD. One person says phantom braking is solved. The other says the car drives like a drunk driver.

qV8ZZvk.png

Wanted to come back to these two posts (above)
Watching the car drive mountain roads and passing bicyclists gracefully (giving enough room and all)
and then watching Brandon spazz out over the car wanting to turn the signal on to show that the car would like to pass on the left in the near future.
I am going to go with "way different styles of driving and perception the supervisor driver here."


Waymo will not do FSD without HD maps. Because doing FSD without HD maps would not meet Waymo's high standard of safety and reliability! How many times do I need to explain this to you?
No, it is because they can't!
They do not have the capability built within their organization.
It is not lack of engineering talent.
It is lack of a lot more than that!
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: diplomat33
From now on, @diplomat33 I will just reply to your lies with screenshots directly from Waymo or the "Communications Director" of PAVE .
This way you can disagree directly with the source! (and I support that)

I am not lying. Please stop that. We have a difference of interpretation. Don't just call people liars because you don't agree with their opinion.

You keep quoting Waymo but I don't disagree with what Waymo says. Yes, Waymo requires HD maps. Waymo will not do FSD without HD maps.

We are disagreeing on why they use HD maps. You think it is because they can't do FSD without HD maps because in your mind, they would not keep using HD maps, if they could do FSD without them.

I think they could do FSD without HD maps but they choose to require HD maps because it makes their FSD safer and more reliable.

You cannot grasp the concept that someone might be able to do FSD without HD maps and still choose to use HD maps.

But you will just disagree again and again. There is no point in debating this with you because you are convinced that you are right.

PAVE is garbage.
When you have people that are garbage, the only thing you can output is garbage.
View attachment 602037

You just can't accept that PAVE points out some uncomfortable truths about Tesla's AP and FSD. Yes, some Teslas have crashed. You are so super pro-Tesla that you don't want to hear that maybe Tesla is not perfect.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: mikes_fsd
lol this Waymo got stuck at a simple 3-way stop for ~30 seconds (starting at 1:25). The remote safety driver probably pressed the "Ok to Go" button. Not a big deal, it just shows Waymo is still a work in progress:


It looked like a 4 way stop to me. And I would not say it was stuck per se. There was a car with the left blinker on, indicating it was planning to turn in front of the Waymo and there was also some cross traffic. I think the Waymo was yielding to the car with the blinker on but the other car did not turn because of cross traffic. So the Waymo waited a bit to make sure the path was clear. The Waymo probably waited longer than an experienced human would have, but once the path was clear, the Waymo proceeding straight.

Like you said, not a big deal. The Waymo still handled the situation in a safe and smooth way, especially considering that there was no driver. That was entirely the car's software analyzing the scene and deciding when it would be safe to proceed.

But I agree that Waymo is a work in progress. And, I know we can get very passionate on this forum over who we think has the best approach but the fact is that nobody has perfect FSD yet.

There are many city driving scenarios that can be tricky to solve for an autonomous car. This example is a good illustration of the challenges of planning and driving policy because even with perfect perception, the car still needs good logic to decide when to proceed in these types of situations.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: mikes_fsd
You just can't accept that PAVE points out some uncomfortable truths about Tesla's AP and FSD. Yes, some Teslas have crashed. You are so super pro-Tesla that you don't want to hear that maybe Tesla is not perfect.
The guy is a decade long Tesla FUDster
He participated in the Tesla Death Watch in 2008!!! Before a Model S even was announced.
Tesla — Dead For 10 Years -- he was the Editor-In-Chief 2010 ~ 2015

Do research, educate yourself. Just because a turd says that Lidar is good, doesn't make him less of turd!

What I can't accept is people that have hidden agenda and open contempt for everything Tesla stands for try to pontificate to Tesla how to do everything it is doing.
 
Last edited:
What I find kind of disturbing and disingenuous about what Waymo has done and/or achieved is that their premise is safety, but they really haven't deployed any of their technologies to aid in the safety of consumer vehicles. They began this whole autonomous mission more than 10 years ago and yet they haven't provided / sold their technology to OEMs or anybody else to improve the safety of production cars. If Waymo had such great vision and/or sensors, they can't even sell one to OEMs to improve everyone's safety?

Meanwhile, Tesla's autonomy tech has been saving lives and preventing death / injury for years. Tesla's impact continues to grow, exponentially.

One of the main goals of autonomy is safety, and Tesla is well ahead on that front.
 
What I find kind of disturbing and disingenuous about what Waymo has done and/or achieved is that their premise is safety, but they really haven't deployed any of their technologies to aid in the safety of consumer vehicles. They began this whole autonomous mission more than 10 years ago and yet they haven't provided / sold their technology to OEMs or anybody else to improve the safety of production cars. If Waymo had such great vision and/or sensors, they can't even sell one to OEMs to improve everyone's safety?

Short answer:

They were going to do just that. They had a hands-free L2 highway system called "autopilot" in 2010 that they were going to sell to consumer cars but then they determined it would not be the safest way to go. They believe L4 driverless FSD is the best way to make roads safer in the long term. Thus, they are now focused on L4 as the best path to making roads safer in the long term. Once the L4 is safe enough, they plan to lease robotaxis to consumers as well as continue to offer driverless ride-hailing.

Long answer:

The Google Self-Driving Project completed 1000 miles of autonomous driving with no interventions in 2010. At that time, they were going to commercialize the product as a hands-free highway L2 system. They even called it "Autopilot". However, when they tested the system, they found that the drivers got complacent, trusted the system too much and did not pay attention to the road like they were supposed. Google determined that a L2 system that gives the illusion of self-driving but requires driver attention is not the best way to make driving safer in the long term because it requires driver attention to be safe but can't reliably enforce that driver attention.

Google concluded that the only way to make driving truly safer in the long term is to go straight to L4. In other words, develop a system that can reliably drive itself without a human driver. That way, driver attention is irrelevant. It solves the problem of drivers getting complacent and not paying attention since the system is not dependent on them paying attention anymore. So they focused on L4, eventually spinning off their self-driving project to become Waymo. They believe that deploying reliable L4 as they are doing now with Waymo One ride-hailing does make the roads safer and will make the roads even safer, as they scale up. Of course, Waymo One is small right now, so the impact on road safety might be small but as Waymo scales to more cities, that impact on road safety will become bigger and bigger. And eventually, when the L4 is safe enough, they will lease robotaxis to consumers.

So their strategy is A) make sure the driverless FSD is safe and reliable (several times safer than human) and then B) expand it to more cities in a responsible way. They believe that is the best way to actually make roads safer in the long term because you are replacing human drivers with a system that is many times safer than humans.
 
Nobody can do reliable FSD without maps. I would remind you that Tesla cannot do reliable FSD without maps either. Tesla has a FSD disengagement rate of 1 per 15 miles. With maps, Waymo has a FSD disengagement rate of 1 per 11,000 miles. Think about that! Waymo's FSD with HD maps is roughly 733x more reliable than Tesla's FSD without HD maps!

??? How did you get that data 1 per 15miles? Source?
 
You guys are living with a bad delusion.
Tesla did not have to catch up to Wyamo because Waymo today --- by their own design -- cannot do what Tesla is able to do.
  • Random city
  • Random Tesla car
  • Random Roads
<...snip...>

I am starting the timer to measure how long it takes Waymo/Cruise at al to catch up to what Tesla has in 2020!
and mark!

It really makes no sense to argue which is "ahead" because they do very different things: Waymo can drive in a city with nobody at the driver's controls, but they can only do it in a very narrow area with perfect weather.

Tesla can drive over a virtually unlimited area, but there must be an alert driver in the driver's seat, ready to take over without any prior notification from the car.

Waymo: Level 4, very narrow geographical area. No driver.
Tesla: Level 2, pretty much anywhere. Driver is fully responsible for any mistakes the car makes.

You cannot compare those, and it's impossible to predict which of them will get to consumer-available wide-area Level 4 first. It is disingenuous to say that one or the other is "ahead" because it can do X and the other can't. I'm happy that a bunch of companies are all working on it independently. I'm rooting for Tesla to get there first because I like my Tesla and I liked the one I had before it. But whoever gets there first, the first consumer-available true-driverless car will be a great thing.

Personally, I'm happy with Level 2 on the highway, but I don't think I'd be comfortable with Level 2 in the city. For city driving, I think I'd want Level 3 at least, and of course Level 4 would be better.
 
Those are advantages that will help Tesla make fast progress. Tesla may catch up to where Waymo is today in 2.5 years. But Waymo is not standing still. Waymo is a moving target. Waymo will continue to make progress with their FSD too. In 2.5 years, Waymo will have much better FSD. So I think it is harder to say if Tesla can catch up to Waymo in 2.5 years.

Also, as we see in the FSD Beta videos, Tesla's hardware is clearly good enough for the FSD that Tesla is doing now. Tesla's FSD is still very early. We don't know if it will be good enough in the future. For example, Tesla might hit a wall where they can't get over 5,000 miles per disengagement on the current hardware and they need better sensors or more sensors. This could slow down Tesla in the future.

Waymo disengagement rate improvement flatlined last year.

Yeah Waymo is a moving target :

giphy.gif