I don’t rent a car unless it has CarPlay. I am ready with my USB cable and all waypoints set as favorites in my Maps app.
The only way to go in a new city with least amount of errors and screwups.
I won't rent a car unless it's a Tesla.
CarPlay brings navigation and music to cars that support it. Tesla has those native, including Apple Music. On trips, when combined with FSD, Tesla's navigation doesn't just tell you where to charge, it drives you from charger to charger. We took a 3400 mile road trip recently, I drove 100 miles, the car drove the rest. I wouldn't even think of taking that same road trip in any other car.
Did the car change lanes automatically, or do yo have to use the blinker?
does all of it automatically. Changes lanes, taking exits, turning, stop lights, stop signs, traffic circles. Most people really have no idea how advanced FSD Beta is because Tesla doesn't advertise.
Thanks for this. I tried FSD this morning (in London) and have to say that it did not work well. It did not recognise speed limits, kept too much distance to the front car so others constantly got in front of me, did not recognise a red light at a pedestrian crossing, waited ages before changing lanes on the motorway, and on the exit it took the inside instead of the outside lane. It was scary. Maybe it works in the US but definitely not in the UK.
(And of course in the UK you need to hang your arm on the steering wheel so it thinks you are in control).
The version of FSD being used outside the US and Canada is years behind the version being used inside the US and Canada. They did a from the ground up rewrite that is massively better (the 360 view from the 8 cameras are stitched together into a 360 degree representation and AI is trained on that instead of trained on static views from 8 individual cameras). The rewrite should start expanding to other countries later this year. In addition, Europe has some laws on the books that limit what cars can do. I'm not quite sure what the status is on that, but do know Tesla had to disable things in Europe that work because of them.
There are many people who want CarPlay in their Tesla, myself included and several people have developed hacks to make it work via the car’s browser.
Tesla’s infotainment system is probably the best in the industry, but it still lacks in a few areas. Their mapping software is equal to or better than Apple Maps in virtually all areas and if you are using Full Self Driving then you must use it.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
To be honest not many people (at least the people i know) use any form of carplay. Only recent cars have came around to it and it will probably take another 5 years for it to go mainstream when people finally upgrade their cars
I think you and your friend group are behind the times. CarPlay is by now offered in 800+ car models. It's been a feature offered in many cars long before I bought my 2019 Nissan Leaf with it. I.e. it's been 'mainstream' for at least that long.
I mean we are college students so we get hand-me-downs even then it's so much easier to connect via Bluetooth especially since older vehicles have glitchy software. Also, newer/used cars are still pretty pricey in my area.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I love Apple CarPlay and I’m in the process of buying a Tesla. I’ve been researching Waze to see how I install it into my Tesla. I really love Waze over any other map program.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
I'm definitely not an expert on autonomous driving. I don't even drive myself! I don't own a car. That said, I have never aspired to be an 'expert'.
I tried to give an answer to a question even if my very first words were "I don't know the full answer". I said that, er, because I don't! LOL!
Maybe that went straight over your head!
Try to analyse your chart and see where the word intervention fits in. I mentioned it twice.
Then try to fit my answer into the chart. Especially the part on the chart which refers to steering, braking and acceleration.
Better still, why not take a crack at actually answering the question because your chart fails horrendously at that.
SAE levels 0, 1, and 2
"You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering" "You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
The chart is definitive; "These are driver support features"; If you want automated driving features, then you need to be in Level 3 or above. You stated earlier that: "Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads."
I'm not aware of any public roads that aren't open, so for all practical purposes, the Driver is always in the loop for level 2, and most systems track the driver for alertness, and hands on wheel. If you wait for an intervention to occur in the traffic scenario that you noted, the driver will likely not be able to respond in time, hence, why the driver must be in command.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
I'm definitely not an expert on autonomous driving. I don't even drive myself! I don't own a car. That said, I have never aspired to be an 'expert'.
I tried to give an answer to a question even if my very first words were "I don't know the full answer". I said that, er, because I don't! LOL!
Maybe that went straight over your head!
Try to analyse your chart and see where the word intervention fits in. I mentioned it twice.
Then try to fit my answer into the chart. Especially the part on the chart which refers to steering, braking and acceleration.
Better still, why not take a crack at actually answering the question because your chart fails horrendously at that.
SAE levels 0, 1, and 2
"You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering" "You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
The chart is definitive; "These are driver support features"; If you want automated driving features, then you need to be in Level 3 or above. You stated earlier that: "Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads."
I'm not aware of any public roads that aren't open, so for all practical purposes, the Driver is always in the loop for level 2, and most systems track the driver for alertness, and hands on wheel.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open (public) roads because there are autonomous driving scenarios for closed circuits!
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
I'm definitely not an expert on autonomous driving. I don't even drive myself! I don't own a car. That said, I have never aspired to be an 'expert'.
I tried to give an answer to a question even if my very first words were "I don't know the full answer". I said that, er, because I don't! LOL!
Maybe that went straight over your head!
Try to analyse your chart and see where the word intervention fits in. I mentioned it twice.
Then try to fit my answer into the chart. Especially the part on the chart which refers to steering, braking and acceleration.
Better still, why not take a crack at actually answering the question because your chart fails horrendously at that.
SAE levels 0, 1, and 2
"You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering" "You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
The chart is definitive; "These are driver support features"; If you want automated driving features, then you need to be in Level 3 or above. You stated earlier that: "Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads."
I'm not aware of any public roads that aren't open, so for all practical purposes, the Driver is always in the loop for level 2, and most systems track the driver for alertness, and hands on wheel.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open (public) roads because there are autonomous driving scenarios for closed circuits!
Look! No driver!
So, your reply was totally out of context too!
Great!
Gee, who could possibly imagine that the conversation that began with Tesla, was actually about non-consumer vehicles on closed circuits. I imagine that was necessary so you could bring Huawei into the conversation.
So you agree that for consumer vehicles on public roads, Level 2 requires the driver to be alert and in command of the vehicle.
In theory GM might be able to get away with this. The keys are to: 1. build a good UI 2. support all the relevant content streaming services (there's no reason that Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, etc couldn't be offered in a GM car) and, not absolutely necessarily but ideally 3. offer something special/unique that is better than CarPlay through a phone.
#2 is drop dead easy. #1 is where I suspect GM will struggle, though *in theory* they could get it right by hiring the right people and letting them do their job
For #3, Tesla offers seamless integration with their charging network and... uh... I guess "full" self driving (ahem).
GM's super cruise is arguably already better than Tesla "full" self driving, so that's something. I doubt GM will be able to address the seamless charging integration, but I suppose it's not crazy bananas impossible that they might.
So bottom line.... Yeah, it's theoretically possible that GM could make this work. But software is hard and I'm skeptical GM can pull it off.
Absolutely isn't better than FSD. My car can drive from my street to any destination anywhere in the country, highway or city. No other car comes close to doing that.
To say that no other car comes close is perhaps a bit over the top.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
Tesla's FSD is considered Level 2. Huawei's is considered Level 2+.
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
That Huawei may be more advanced than Tesla is certainly possible, but it really is meaningless except in China's market. Tesla is not the leader in autonomous driving in the U.S.
Yes, Level 2+ is a way off Level 5 but each generation is better (and cheaper) than the previous.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
Could Level 2 avoid T-bone accident and rear ended accident?
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
For example, in a traffic light, if the light is green, does Level 2 cars just proceed as usual passing through the intersection? And when you stopped in a stop sign, but a car behind you does not slow down and stop behind you. Last January, I stopped in a stop sign trying to make a left turn into a busy street. When traffic is a little light, I moved the car. Then I see a car several hundred feet away to the right is moving toward the intersection. I stopped. There was a car behind me. The car was very close. When my car moved, that driver immediately moved to follow me. The driver was not able to stop and rear ended my car. This low speed accident caused several thousand dollars repair to the bumper.
I don't know the full answer on the mechanics of movement but from videos I've seen, if the car passes a green light and comes across something in its path, it will move out of the way or slow down or stop or maybe require driver intervention. The video above shows the car dealing with pedestrians, motorcyclists and other cars, swerving slightly even with oncoming traffic.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
FFS, you aren't an authority on autonomous driving, but these guys are;
I'm definitely not an expert on autonomous driving. I don't even drive myself! I don't own a car. That said, I have never aspired to be an 'expert'.
I tried to give an answer to a question even if my very first words were "I don't know the full answer". I said that, er, because I don't! LOL!
Maybe that went straight over your head!
Try to analyse your chart and see where the word intervention fits in. I mentioned it twice.
Then try to fit my answer into the chart. Especially the part on the chart which refers to steering, braking and acceleration.
Better still, why not take a crack at actually answering the question because your chart fails horrendously at that.
SAE levels 0, 1, and 2
"You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering" "You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
The chart is definitive; "These are driver support features"; If you want automated driving features, then you need to be in Level 3 or above. You stated earlier that: "Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads."
I'm not aware of any public roads that aren't open, so for all practical purposes, the Driver is always in the loop for level 2, and most systems track the driver for alertness, and hands on wheel.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open (public) roads because there are autonomous driving scenarios for closed circuits!
Look! No driver!
So, your reply was totally out of context too!
Great!
Gee, who could possibly imagine that the conversation that began with Tesla, was actually about non-consumer vehicles on closed circuits. I imagine that was necessary so you could bring Huawei into the conversation.
So you agree that for consumer vehicles on public roads, Level 2 requires the driver to be alert and in command of the vehicle.
Has that ever been in question?
Did you read every post?
I'm still trying to fathom why you thought your 'expert' chart had any relevance to what you where replying to. And the 'FFS' too.
Ah! Of course you were simply being pedantic.
Try to get this into your head. The question was how the car would react to a specific kind of impact scenario. It doesn't really matter if it was under L2 or L2,000. Get it?
It doesn't matter that a driver had to be present to supervise the situation because it was L2. It doesn't matter that the driver was 'driving' even if the feet weren't on the pedals and the hands weren't on the wheel and wasn't controlling acceleration or braking.
That's why I brought up the 'reactions' of the car from the video (zero interventions) and the notion of driver intervention itself!!! Yes, the driver!
The question was about the L2 response in a specific scenario. The chart doesn't tackle the question that was being asked.
As for the video, I deliberately avoided posting it when the 'in the loop' comment popped up. Then your boneheadedness left me with no alternative.
Comments
Tesla’s infotainment system is probably the best in the industry, but it still lacks in a few areas. Their mapping software is equal to or better than Apple Maps in virtually all areas and if you are using Full Self Driving then you must use it.
This demonstration from a few years ago makes that clear:
That was ADS 1.0 and in the demo was using HD maps.
ADS 2.0 doesn't need HD maps and is tied to some impressive sensing/imaging hardware (deeper intelligence on object recognition, improved performance in adverse weather conditions, 4D imaging...)
https://shifting-gears.com/huawei-reveals-high-resolution-imaging-radar-for-advanced-autonomous-driving/
That exceeeds Tesla in some areas.
It extends beyond the car too with high power fast charging solutions, software ecosystems and Huawei is also involved in V2X and intelligent, ICT road infrastructure.
https://carnewschina.com/2023/03/22/huaweis-600-kw-supercharger-leaks-as-a-competitor-to-tesla-v4-100-kwh-in-10-minutes/#
https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html
That is partly why I mentioned it was a little OTT to say no other car comes close to the Tesla implementation.
Level 5 is attainable but not right now.
Level 2+ still requires the driver in the loop.
That would be Mobileye
https://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/2023/03/09/top-autonomous-vehicle-companies/#:~:text=Mobileye,world%2Dclass%20autonomous%20vehicle%20platform.
Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads.
Level 4 is already being used on closed circuits (ports for example) which have the necessary roadside ICT infrastructure in place.
Not really relevant here as I simply pointing out the Tesla comment.
There will be situations (congested stationary traffic) where the impacted car has no room for maneuvre so those accidents would be unavoidable under those circumstances.
There are other circumstances where one or both cars lose traction (icy or waterlogged roads) so, again impact may be unavoidable.
If both cars are L2 and have traction/maneuverability then those kinds of accidents may be avoidable.
Object recognition and sensing capacity would play a big role here but sensing of other cars is a given in this case.
You'd have to flesh your question out a bit more for a better answer.
Being rear-ended or T-boned is really the fault of the vehicle that causes the impact so a human or autonomous vehicle would be hard pushed to avoid colliding.
At L2 though, I suppose driver intervention would be called upon.
https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
I'm definitely not an expert on autonomous driving. I don't even drive myself! I don't own a car. That said, I have never aspired to be an 'expert'.
I tried to give an answer to a question even if my very first words were "I don't know the full answer". I said that, er, because I don't! LOL!
Maybe that went straight over your head!
Try to analyse your chart and see where the word intervention fits in. I mentioned it twice.
Then try to fit my answer into the chart. Especially the part on the chart which refers to steering, braking and acceleration.
Better still, why not take a crack at actually answering the question because your chart fails horrendously at that.
"You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering"
"You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
The chart is definitive; "These are driver support features"; If you want automated driving features, then you need to be in Level 3 or above.
You stated earlier that: "Drivers are only required in the loop on open roads."
I'm not aware of any public roads that aren't open, so for all practical purposes, the Driver is always in the loop for level 2, and most systems track the driver for alertness, and hands on wheel. If you wait for an intervention to occur in the traffic scenario that you noted, the driver will likely not be able to respond in time, hence, why the driver must be in command.
Look! No driver!
So, your reply was totally out of context too!
Great!
So you agree that for consumer vehicles on public roads, Level 2 requires the driver to be alert and in command of the vehicle.
Did you read every post?
I'm still trying to fathom why you thought your 'expert' chart had any relevance to what you where replying to. And the 'FFS' too.
Ah! Of course you were simply being pedantic.
Try to get this into your head. The question was how the car would react to a specific kind of impact scenario. It doesn't really matter if it was under L2 or L2,000. Get it?
It doesn't matter that a driver had to be present to supervise the situation because it was L2. It doesn't matter that the driver was 'driving' even if the feet weren't on the pedals and the hands weren't on the wheel and wasn't controlling acceleration or braking.
That's why I brought up the 'reactions' of the car from the video (zero interventions) and the notion of driver intervention itself!!! Yes, the driver!
The question was about the L2 response in a specific scenario. The chart doesn't tackle the question that was being asked.
As for the video, I deliberately avoided posting it when the 'in the loop' comment popped up. Then your boneheadedness left me with no alternative.