Really, your first instinct is: "The journalists are engaging in a baseless smear campaign."
The video evidence clearly demonstrates it engaging in a clearly signed illegal maneuver that it should never have even begun. Furthermore, your mischaracterization of the video is significant. The car straightens out having crossed the pedestrian walkway clearly indicated on the dash screen. The dash screen clearly indicates the vehicle intending to continue to travel on the bike-only road.
In addition, this is Tesla's own official curated video [1]. Tesla is the one who decided that failure to obey clearly indicated signs and engaging in a illegal maneuver is the best representation of their product they could muster.
The text explains turning right at all in that intersection (as shown in the video) is illegal. Edit to add: the car ignored two different signposts, bicycle symbol painted in the lane and yellow centre-marker (indicates everything left of the cycle lane is traffic going towards you). It’s also a promotional video (not approval video), which could explain the sudden cut?
I stand corrected. It doesn't get very far but it turns into it. I didn't notice it's the same lane because after the cut back to approval vid signs were conveniently obscured and because it's bike-only road not just an extra lane. They better pull the permit after this if they are serious about bicyclists in that country.
I was curious how people working on self driving cars handle the large variation in local and region traffic laws and did a bit of searching.
For example in some places a car making a turn that will cross a bike lane is required to merge into the bike lane before the turn (California and Washington for example). On others (Oregon for example) the car must not do so.
School buses are another good example. On a road with lanes in both directions when do you stop for a school bus heading the opposite way that is stopped with its red lights flashing and stop sign extended?
In some place the answer is "always". In others it depends on how many lanes there and whether or not there is a barrier like a median strip between the two directions.
One approach is to not let your self driving system operate in places where you have not explicitly added all the local and regional rules to your system.
Another approach is to try to learn the area with AI. It sees lots of humans making turns from the bike lane, it makes its turns from the bike lane too.
An issue with that approach is that a lot of humans violate traffic laws, so you have the danger that your self driving system learns to violate traffic laws.
> An issue with that approach is that a lot of humans violate traffic laws, so you have the danger that your self driving system learns to violate traffic laws.
Phrased another way, a benefit of that approach is that if the local conditions necessitate or advise breaking certain traffic rules, your system learns to do so while retaining plausible deniability that it isn't intentional.
So now I am in a beta test as a vehicle dummy without a chance to opt out. My model Y can’t keep lanes what my entry level Škoda does perfectly fine. My model Y slams on the brakes occasionally when I try cruise control feature on empty highway. I reported this defect as a case for warranty, but according Tesla this is fine functionality.
Do you mean FSD or Autosteer (or Autopilot or whatever it's called now). I think Tesla left Autosteer purposefully crappy. FSD is excellent at keeping the lane, way better than what your Škoda can do.
I agree it is intentional. They haven't updated autosteer, as far as I can tell, since the Model 3 was released. Certainly my 2023 (sold a couple weeks ago) was no better than my 2019 was, and notably worse than my Ford Lightning. Outside of FSD, most everyone else makes superior TACC & lane centering now.
A driver might get a ticket. The navigation data will be updated. The next version might be better at interpreting signs (or a better balance between the navigation data and visual perception). The end.
Depending on what the car does, the driver might lose a point on their drivers license.
Once you’ve lost three points within three years, you lose your drivers license and will have to retake it. Depending on circumstances you might have a ban for some amount of time(finite or indefinite).
I don’t understand it, either, except to guess that the companies behind self-driven taxis have enough money to buy off the politicians who normally insist that everyone else follow the laws.
Self driving without lidar just inherently feels very unsafe. There are like a million things we can’t see, especially at night and in bad weather. I just wish they would suck up their pride and put in solid state lidars in their new models (which are very cheap now) so we can actually have good self driving that is actually available directly to the consumer.
Having watched a lot of the Tesla self driving videos. It seems to be getting pretty good but it’s still only at like 98 or 99% reliability what that means is I can’t go to sleep in the car and it needs to get to the point like a waymo where you can just go to sleep in the car.
Skynet has indeed begun. There was a post recently about the very first time completely independent non-humans chose to kill humans (Russians) in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Might make sense, in California's driver handbook you're required to pull into the bike lane to make a turn if the bike lane is there. Part of that programming should have already existed given where Teslas were made.
No, as can be clearly seen from the video, it is doing a right turn onto a road where the only lane is a full-size lane with a sign indicating that cars are not allowed to use that road in that direction.
That's wild. In Oregon you will get a ticket for driving in the bike lane at all, turn or not. The only exception are bike lanes that go straight and briefly share a turning lane, but those are clearly marked for that purpose.
Good reminder that you should always be aware of local traffic laws when you travel, most places in the US are similar but not identical.
If there is a sign which explicitly bans cars from entering it is still illegal (I assume; I never took the drivers license in California). In the video you can clearly see the street has a sign that says no cars and no motorcycles. The Tesla presumably saw that sign and either doesn’t recognize it (unlikely) or has a software telling the car to ignore it (more likely).
It most likely does not recognize the sign. Last I saw, after years of furious development they were still unable to recognize standard "Do Not Enter", "Road Closed", and "One Way" signs in the US. Here is a video [1] from a week ago where it fails to recognize a clearly visible "Do Not Enter" sign with "One Way" road indications.
You should have shown the original video and not the one from Dan O'Dowd. He is not interested in pedestrian safety in any way, he is doing this only to promote his own company, Green Hills Software. He didn't have any issues with Tesla until it stopped using his software.
Ah yes, consistently, correctly, and truthfully highlighting serious safety defects and unacceptable design oversights for years in the products of a trillion dollar company with a rabid fanbase well known for running smear campaigns is "not interested in pedestrian safety".
I imagine everybody relishes the opportunity to get smeared by entirely false accusations by Tesla promoters with a conflict of interest. You can tell the Tesla promoters running the smear campaigns are worth listening to because their smears keep getting disproved by video evidence.
Please point at any clearly visible video evidence that their whistleblowing is inaccurate. No "shaky cam" "Bigfoot" evidence where you point at something blurry and falsify a claim to fit your desired narrative.
Your job would have been a lot easier if any of those Tesla Promoters accepted the Dawn Project's offer to attempt the tests themselves with their own Tesla's and their own cameras giving them the perfect platform to debunk the Dawn Project's claims. Weird how they all chickened out on that slam dunk.
In this case, the whistleblowing was done by DirtyTesla (as credited by Dan). Respect to him for that. Dan has created proven fake videos where Tesla is allegedly unsafe, but got caught. So he has lost his credibility.
It's very important to call out these issues AND to do it honestly.
Nope. Those accusations were proven false and the people who made them have lost all their credibility. It was just a smear campaign by Tesla promoters so effective that here you are parroting it against reality to protect a trillion dollar company that actively lies and promotes illegal and dangerous behavior. They really outdid themselves with that smear campaign.
If you disagree, I presented the criteria for evidence needed to support your case. Remember, no shaky cam.
I think that is worse. There are only a few hundred traffic signs in use in Europe and even I could write a supervised learning model in an afternoon that could recognize all of them with very low uncertainty. And if I had Tesla budget I could easily have a tiny portion of my workers label enough data in another afternoon.
If this is true, and Tesla does not do this, that means that somewhere up in Tesla’s chain of command somebody told their workers not to do this. That is, somebody at Tesla made the decision that Tesla cars should not be able to recognize all the traffic signs. If that is the case, this person should be held criminally liable and Tesla cars should be pulled off the market (and the roads) by regulators who are (or should be) concerned about consumer (and road) safety.
This is a lane only for bikes, with no car lane going the same direction. It's like turning onto train tracks (and if you keep going down it, you might well be stuck).
I don't speak the language but I wonder why the video doesn't show it actually entering the lane...
Really, your first instinct is: "The journalists are engaging in a baseless smear campaign."
The video evidence clearly demonstrates it engaging in a clearly signed illegal maneuver that it should never have even begun. Furthermore, your mischaracterization of the video is significant. The car straightens out having crossed the pedestrian walkway clearly indicated on the dash screen. The dash screen clearly indicates the vehicle intending to continue to travel on the bike-only road.
In addition, this is Tesla's own official curated video [1]. Tesla is the one who decided that failure to obey clearly indicated signs and engaging in a illegal maneuver is the best representation of their product they could muster.
[1] https://x.com/teslaeurope/status/2064350518907167166
No, it was not my instinct.
Unfortunately journalists do engage in baseless smear campaigns? This seems like a legitimate concern
And companies engage in far more shady things than they get "smeared" for in the press.
Jeez, AI auto response agents are going to bury the world in astroturf
The text explains turning right at all in that intersection (as shown in the video) is illegal. Edit to add: the car ignored two different signposts, bicycle symbol painted in the lane and yellow centre-marker (indicates everything left of the cycle lane is traffic going towards you). It’s also a promotional video (not approval video), which could explain the sudden cut?
It does in the last 2 to 3 seconds. You can see the Tesla driving into it as the video ends. It is a weird spot to end the video.
I stand corrected. It doesn't get very far but it turns into it. I didn't notice it's the same lane because after the cut back to approval vid signs were conveniently obscured and because it's bike-only road not just an extra lane. They better pull the permit after this if they are serious about bicyclists in that country.
I was curious how people working on self driving cars handle the large variation in local and region traffic laws and did a bit of searching.
For example in some places a car making a turn that will cross a bike lane is required to merge into the bike lane before the turn (California and Washington for example). On others (Oregon for example) the car must not do so.
School buses are another good example. On a road with lanes in both directions when do you stop for a school bus heading the opposite way that is stopped with its red lights flashing and stop sign extended?
In some place the answer is "always". In others it depends on how many lanes there and whether or not there is a barrier like a median strip between the two directions.
One approach is to not let your self driving system operate in places where you have not explicitly added all the local and regional rules to your system.
Another approach is to try to learn the area with AI. It sees lots of humans making turns from the bike lane, it makes its turns from the bike lane too.
An issue with that approach is that a lot of humans violate traffic laws, so you have the danger that your self driving system learns to violate traffic laws.
> An issue with that approach is that a lot of humans violate traffic laws, so you have the danger that your self driving system learns to violate traffic laws.
Phrased another way, a benefit of that approach is that if the local conditions necessitate or advise breaking certain traffic rules, your system learns to do so while retaining plausible deniability that it isn't intentional.
It's not that plausible, unless the idea is that differing traffic laws is some obscure concept.
Five EU countries have now approved, including Belgium, which is interesting considering Brussels (ECC "capital").
So now I am in a beta test as a vehicle dummy without a chance to opt out. My model Y can’t keep lanes what my entry level Škoda does perfectly fine. My model Y slams on the brakes occasionally when I try cruise control feature on empty highway. I reported this defect as a case for warranty, but according Tesla this is fine functionality.
Do you mean FSD or Autosteer (or Autopilot or whatever it's called now). I think Tesla left Autosteer purposefully crappy. FSD is excellent at keeping the lane, way better than what your Škoda can do.
I agree it is intentional. They haven't updated autosteer, as far as I can tell, since the Model 3 was released. Certainly my 2023 (sold a couple weeks ago) was no better than my 2019 was, and notably worse than my Ford Lightning. Outside of FSD, most everyone else makes superior TACC & lane centering now.
It’s old free Autopilot. It doesn’t convince me to buy FSD, hardware is the same at the end.
I am used that demo shows best features of the product…
Autosteer is disabled on all new vehicles too, part of forcing people to buy FSD.
I feel like many won’t consider FSD if their autopilot doesn’t work well.
Maybe they did some market analysis. I find the idea that a shitty autopilot will trigger FSD conversions to be very optimistic.
You can opt out by selling it. I suppose if you think it's enough of an issue you could do us all a favor and just have it crushed.
As a pedestrian, can you sell your neighbor's dangerous car?
How does that help everyone else on the streets? Everyone becomes a victim of poorly working automated driving.
A driver might get a ticket. The navigation data will be updated. The next version might be better at interpreting signs (or a better balance between the navigation data and visual perception). The end.
If a driver would get a ticket, shouldn't Tesla also get a ticket?
In the US, drivers kill pedestrians all the time and are barely punished.
Is this the same standard that should be adopted everywhere?
How did we get from turning into a bike lane to killing pedestrians?
Depending on what the car does, the driver might lose a point on their drivers license.
Once you’ve lost three points within three years, you lose your drivers license and will have to retake it. Depending on circumstances you might have a ban for some amount of time(finite or indefinite).
The driver will be more attentive next time, while Tesla is working on improvements.
Might be better, might be worse, or the company simply does not care enough.
I don’t understand it, either, except to guess that the companies behind self-driven taxis have enough money to buy off the politicians who normally insist that everyone else follow the laws.
Enough money and any law becomes a suggestion.
Self driving without lidar just inherently feels very unsafe. There are like a million things we can’t see, especially at night and in bad weather. I just wish they would suck up their pride and put in solid state lidars in their new models (which are very cheap now) so we can actually have good self driving that is actually available directly to the consumer.
Having watched a lot of the Tesla self driving videos. It seems to be getting pretty good but it’s still only at like 98 or 99% reliability what that means is I can’t go to sleep in the car and it needs to get to the point like a waymo where you can just go to sleep in the car.
Bike Street
because thats what elon would do
Reality Distortion Field in full effect.
At first I thought Tesla AI is stupid, trying to kill humans here.
Then I realised: skynet has begun ... it does not care about humans.
Skynet has indeed begun. There was a post recently about the very first time completely independent non-humans chose to kill humans (Russians) in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
I’m pretty sure non-human tigers have been killing humans for ages.
Tigers can initiate global thermal nuclear war?
What a comment
Drones can’t either.
Might make sense, in California's driver handbook you're required to pull into the bike lane to make a turn if the bike lane is there. Part of that programming should have already existed given where Teslas were made.
No, as can be clearly seen from the video, it is doing a right turn onto a road where the only lane is a full-size lane with a sign indicating that cars are not allowed to use that road in that direction.
Makes sense to use software modeled on California laws in software made for Denmark's laws for sure.
That's wild. In Oregon you will get a ticket for driving in the bike lane at all, turn or not. The only exception are bike lanes that go straight and briefly share a turning lane, but those are clearly marked for that purpose.
Good reminder that you should always be aware of local traffic laws when you travel, most places in the US are similar but not identical.
If there is a sign which explicitly bans cars from entering it is still illegal (I assume; I never took the drivers license in California). In the video you can clearly see the street has a sign that says no cars and no motorcycles. The Tesla presumably saw that sign and either doesn’t recognize it (unlikely) or has a software telling the car to ignore it (more likely).
It most likely does not recognize the sign. Last I saw, after years of furious development they were still unable to recognize standard "Do Not Enter", "Road Closed", and "One Way" signs in the US. Here is a video [1] from a week ago where it fails to recognize a clearly visible "Do Not Enter" sign with "One Way" road indications.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/realdanodowd.bsky.social/post/3mnhw...
You should have shown the original video and not the one from Dan O'Dowd. He is not interested in pedestrian safety in any way, he is doing this only to promote his own company, Green Hills Software. He didn't have any issues with Tesla until it stopped using his software.
The original: https://x.com/DirtyTesLa/status/2062260954709049840 or https://xcancel.com/DirtyTesLa/status/2062260954709049840.
Ah yes, consistently, correctly, and truthfully highlighting serious safety defects and unacceptable design oversights for years in the products of a trillion dollar company with a rabid fanbase well known for running smear campaigns is "not interested in pedestrian safety".
I imagine everybody relishes the opportunity to get smeared by entirely false accusations by Tesla promoters with a conflict of interest. You can tell the Tesla promoters running the smear campaigns are worth listening to because their smears keep getting disproved by video evidence.
Please point at any clearly visible video evidence that their whistleblowing is inaccurate. No "shaky cam" "Bigfoot" evidence where you point at something blurry and falsify a claim to fit your desired narrative.
Your job would have been a lot easier if any of those Tesla Promoters accepted the Dawn Project's offer to attempt the tests themselves with their own Tesla's and their own cameras giving them the perfect platform to debunk the Dawn Project's claims. Weird how they all chickened out on that slam dunk.
In this case, the whistleblowing was done by DirtyTesla (as credited by Dan). Respect to him for that. Dan has created proven fake videos where Tesla is allegedly unsafe, but got caught. So he has lost his credibility.
It's very important to call out these issues AND to do it honestly.
Nope. Those accusations were proven false and the people who made them have lost all their credibility. It was just a smear campaign by Tesla promoters so effective that here you are parroting it against reality to protect a trillion dollar company that actively lies and promotes illegal and dangerous behavior. They really outdid themselves with that smear campaign.
If you disagree, I presented the criteria for evidence needed to support your case. Remember, no shaky cam.
I think that is worse. There are only a few hundred traffic signs in use in Europe and even I could write a supervised learning model in an afternoon that could recognize all of them with very low uncertainty. And if I had Tesla budget I could easily have a tiny portion of my workers label enough data in another afternoon.
If this is true, and Tesla does not do this, that means that somewhere up in Tesla’s chain of command somebody told their workers not to do this. That is, somebody at Tesla made the decision that Tesla cars should not be able to recognize all the traffic signs. If that is the case, this person should be held criminally liable and Tesla cars should be pulled off the market (and the roads) by regulators who are (or should be) concerned about consumer (and road) safety.
This is a lane only for bikes, with no car lane going the same direction. It's like turning onto train tracks (and if you keep going down it, you might well be stuck).
Dude, there is a sign saying it's not a road for cars. Its driving into a road its banned from entering. It means Tesla can't even read road signs.