Tesla Autopilot, Full-Self Driving Often Gets Bashed But Try Driving In Los Angeles - Forbes

Tesla’s driver assistance software has been facing withering criticism over the last several weeks but the alternative may be worse.

I live in Los Angeles and spend a lot of time on Interstate 405, one of the most dangerous roads in Los Angeles and, dare I say, one of the most dangerous roads in America. At night, there is little, if any, police presence (aka CHP or California Highway Patrol) on 405 and drivers are free to race at speeds over 90 mph and drive while texting or while under the influence. I have personally witnessed all of the above many times. It feels completely lawless and a modern day version of the Wild West.

While the reckless high-speed driving problem is a policing problem, I do believe that many of those distracted and/or impaired drivers would benefit from driver assistance technology because, at the very least, it achieves driving alertness — albeit computer based — where otherwise there would be little or none.

But first a quick review of some of the most recent criticism of Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self Driving software or FSD. The Dawn Project ran a Super Bowl ad calling for the boycott of Tesla (see this YouTube video) and its self-driving software, citing the dangers and a recent incident involving a child. And the Washington Post reported this past week about a 2022 incident in Evergreen, Colorado when a driver was killed behind the wheel of a Tesla Model 3. The article alleges that the driver may be the first fatality resulting from the use of FSD, Tesla’s most sophisticated ADAS or advanced driver-assistance system. Tesla CEO Elon Musk later refuted this saying the driver “was not on FSD” adding that “the software had unfortunately never been downloaded. I say ‘unfortunately’, because the accident probably would not have happened if FSD had been engaged.” There are also hundreds of YouTube videos showing instances where FSD betas (though many of them are now quite dated) fail to react the way a human driver would, causing the driver to intervene to avoid danger or harm.

So, my question is: Would 405 be a safer place if more distracted and impaired drivers were using some kind of driver assistance technology? My answer is: probably yes. And I have had plenty of opportunities to put driver assist technology to the test. I have used General Motors Super Cruise, Rivian’s Highway Assist (also called Driver+), and Tesla’s Autopilot. All three technologies for at least two weeks each. Let’s state the obvious up front: all hands-free or driver assist technologies have the potential to be dangerous. Tesla is no exception. Tesla just happens to be pushing the envelope further than General Motors or Rivian. That said, I have found all three driver assist technologies essential. They have made me a better, safer driver. I use it as soon as I feel it’s safe and keep it on for as long as possible. Driver assist technologies are most useful when you encounter routine, monotonous driving conditions such as long stretches of ruler-edge straight highways (lots of these east of Los Angeles) and LA bumper-to-bumper traffic, as anyone with adaptive cruise control knows. In those situations it’s easy to lose focus (and even nod off). That said, I never use it locally (GM’s and Rivian’s software doesn’t allow use on local roads anyway). And in rare highway situations the technology can get dicey. For example, both Rivian’s Highway Assist and GM’s Super Cruise can behave unpredictably near construction zones or tight driving conditions (when lanes narrow). They can suddenly disengage. And it’s often not elegant and can cause the car to swerve — albeit slightly — when it disengages. Tesla’s Autopilot can also unpredictably disengage. Lane changes can also be less than smooth sometimes.

What’s the alternative? LA’s 405 on a Saturday night is the alternative. Hordes of impaired, distracted, speeding drivers doing the highway equivalent of street takeovers. At its worst, it feels like a driving free-fire zone where you’re the target. At the very least, most drivers would likely benefit from one of these technologies. Let’s take distracted drivers. Because these drivers are already spending most of their time looking at their device, a driver assist technology would serve, more or less, as the brain with a properly-utilized prefrontal cortex, which is necessary for paying attention. Distracted drivers devote parts of the brain, essential for paying attention, to their smartphone instead of driving. Needless to say, that’s dangerous.

I asked Edmunds' editor-in-chief Alistair Weaver about his take on driver assist (aka hands free driving) technologies since Edmunds has done extensive testing. “The road ahead for hands-free driving systems seems promising, and the tech is evolving in the right direction. That said, even the strongest of today's Level 2.5 systems are less than perfect,” Weaver said, referring to the most advanced systems you can buy today. He continued: “As it stands today, hands-free driving technology is more of a nice-to-have than essential. But as the tech improves, we'll likely get to a point where it will feel invaluable as a convenience factor as well as a safety feature.” (As I said above, it is essential for me but I’m just one person with one opinion.)

Hands-free driving is best when used in limited situations, according to Weaver. “Today's hands-free driving technology allows for operation only within carefully defined parameters, essentially long stretches of highways, along with some street driving in the case of Tesla,” he said. And what about Tesla’s FSD? “While most of the systems, such as Ford’s BlueCruise, are ring-fenced, Tesla's Full Self-Driving system allows the consumer to decide when it’s safe to use the technology. And as always, it's important to call out that Tesla's Full Self-Driving system is not truly full self-driving technology. You have to keep your hands on the steering wheel to utilize Tesla's FSD tech,” he said.

I would add that Autopilot and FSD are not a human substitute if you’re impaired or distracted but if used properly and responsibly they can serve as a fail-safe system that can make you a better driver. And for people who are addicted to their device and can’t resist being distracted while driving, it’s probably better to have a hands-free driving system than not.

And who came out on top of Edmunds testing of hands-free driving systems? GM’s Super Cruise on the Cadillac CT5V. "When you're giving up control to the car, you want to feel calm and relaxed and like everything is taken care of. Everything about Super Cruise keeps you calm as a driver. That's why it's our favorite,” Edmunds said in its write-up of the results. I would concur with Edmunds based on my more limited testing of a Tesla Model Y, a Rivian R1S and R1T, and the Chevy Bolt EUV Premier. (Note that I only used Autopilot, not FSD, on the Model Y.) The Bolt strikes the best balance between helpful hands-free driving and prudence.

Adblock test (Why?)

Read Again https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiigFodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL2Jyb29rZWNyb3RoZXJzLzIwMjQvMDIvMTgvdGVzbGEtYXV0b3BpbG90LWZ1bGwtc2VsZi1kcml2aW5nLW9mdGVuLWdldHMtYmFzaGVkLWJ1dC10cnktZHJpdmluZy1pbi1sb3MtYW5nZWxlcy_SAQA?oc=5

Bagikan Berita Ini