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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
Well, that prediction knocked it out of the park. Not!
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
Well, that prediction knocked it out of the park. Not!
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
Oh well!
Oh, BTW, what question am I supposed to be tackling?
Yeah, I may be wrong about Tesla, but certainly in 2019, Tesla was barely generating profits, and those primarily from energy credits sold to other automotive companies. That said, the shine is certainly off Tesla, thanks so much to Elon's fucking around with twitter, demonstrating his narcissism. As automotive companies go, Tesla is still fairly young, and has yet to actually compete on quality, or actually create new models at the pace of its competitors. The future may not be as bright as the stock foretells, and you can see that it the commoditization ot Tesla Model 3, with attendant price cuts.
As for China, yeah, I've been right on that all along, and you have been backpedaling ever after. The West, including the EU, have finally been seeing China for what it really is; an autocratic government that is no longer attractive for business investment.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
Well, that prediction knocked it out of the park. Not!
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
Oh well!
Oh, BTW, what question am I supposed to be tackling?
Yeah, I may be wrong about Tesla, but certainly in 2019, Tesla was barely generating profits, and those primarily from energy credits sold to other automotive companies. That said, the shine is certainly off Tesla, thanks so much to Elon's fucking around with twitter, demonstrating his narcissism. As automotive companies go, Tesla is still fairly young, and has yet to actually compete on quality, or actually create new models at the pace of its competitors. The future may not be as bright as the stock foretells, and you can see that it the commoditization ot Tesla Model 3, with attendant price cuts.
As for China, yeah, I've been right on that all along, and you have been backpedaling ever after. The West, including the EU, have finally been seeing China for what it really is; an autocratic government that is no longer attractive for business investment.
So, with all else lost, you play the 'I lost track' card.
Here's a hint: When you went into your 'FFS' tantrum you were actually quoting and 'replying' to my attempted answer to the very question you are now asking about!
I suppose if I needed proof that you weren't actually reading things but just seeing what you want to see and jumping in feet first, that is it!
As for Tesla, who knows how things will develop. The point was, your prediction didn't play out.
As for China, well you've said so much and all of it negative so it's hard to say if you actually got something right (even accidentally!)
I hope this doesn't shock you but The West (sic), yes including the EU, has always seen China as an authoritarian government. 'Autocratic' if that is the term you wish to use (but I'm unaware of that word being used officially).
No change there.
Business as usual on many fronts as has been shown by visits to China this year by Olaf Scholz, Charles Michel, and Emmanuel Macron. What do you think those visits were all about?
So much for not being attractive for business! Remind me how many top German CEOs trailed in behind Scholz?
As for general trade and investment I think you should take a look at reality - but not only from your skewed anti-China viewpoint.
How is the US trade deficit with China? What was EU investment like YoY for 2022?
Wait. Don't answer those questions! That's irrelevant here.
For me to 'backpeddle' on China I'd have to speak about it. I don't talk about China much at all so you're confused or just making things up.
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
Well, that prediction knocked it out of the park. Not!
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
Oh well!
Oh, BTW, what question am I supposed to be tackling?
Yeah, I may be wrong about Tesla, but certainly in 2019, Tesla was barely generating profits, and those primarily from energy credits sold to other automotive companies. That said, the shine is certainly off Tesla, thanks so much to Elon's fucking around with twitter, demonstrating his narcissism. As automotive companies go, Tesla is still fairly young, and has yet to actually compete on quality, or actually create new models at the pace of its competitors. The future may not be as bright as the stock foretells, and you can see that it the commoditization ot Tesla Model 3, with attendant price cuts.
As for China, yeah, I've been right on that all along, and you have been backpedaling ever after. The West, including the EU, have finally been seeing China for what it really is; an autocratic government that is no longer attractive for business investment.
So, with all else lost, you play the 'I lost track' card.
Here's a hint: When you went into your 'FFS' tantrum you were actually quoting and 'replying' to my attempted answer to the very question you are now asking about!
I suppose if I needed proof that you weren't actually reading things but just seeing what you want to see and jumping in feet first, that is it!
As for Tesla, who knows how things will develop. The point was, your prediction didn't play out.
As for China, well you've said so much and all of it negative so it's hard to say if you actually got something right (even accidentally!)
I hope this doesn't shock you but The West (sic), yes including the EU, has always seen China as an authoritarian government. 'Autocratic' if that is the term you wish to use (but I'm unaware of that word being used officially).
No change there.
Business as usual on many fronts as has been shown by visits to China this year by Olaf Scholz, Charles Michel, and Emmanuel Macron. What do you think those visits were all about?
So much for not being attractive for business! Remind me how many top German CEOs trailed in behind Scholz?
As for general trade and investment I think you should take a look at reality - but not only from your skewed anti-China viewpoint.
How is the US trade deficit with China? What was EU investment like YoY for 2022?
Wait. Don't answer those questions! That's irrelevant here.
For me to 'backpeddle' on China I'd have to speak about it. I don't talk about China much at all so you're confused or just making things up.
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday there are concerns about the interaction between Tesla's advanced driver assistance system Autopilot and drivers that is the subject of an ongoing government investigation.
Since August 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been investigating a series of Tesla crashes involving Autopilot and with parked emergency vehicles and whether Tesla vehicles adequately ensure drivers are paying attention.
"There is a real concern that's not limited to the technology itself but the interaction between the technology and the driver," Buttigieg told reporters when asked about the Tesla Autopilot probe.
Buttigieg said advanced driver assistance systems can benefit drivers. "The question is not are they absolutely free of problems or 1000% foolproof," Buttigieg said. "The question is, how can we be sure that they will lead to a better set of safety outcomes ... This technology has a lot of promise. We just have to make sure it unfolds in a responsible fashion."
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.
Actually, it is the "expert chart", and you would know that if you understood what the SAE is;
SAE International – Advancing Mobility Knowledge and Solutions
Our Mission is to advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
SAE International is the leader in connecting and educating mobility professionals to enable safe, clean, and accessible mobility solutions.
SAE is a global association of more than 128,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Our core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development. At our core, we champion diverse collaboration across companies and borders that embodies our dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
SAE's charitable arm is the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series.
Founded in 1905, SAE strives to serve its primary constituents in a variety of ways. Through its globally-recognized magazines, Automotive Engineering International, Aerospace Engineering, and Off Highway Engineering, SAE informs the mobility community about the latest developments in the field.
SAE's broad array of technical, historical, and statistical publications are distributed to customers in more than 65 countries annually. SAE's Training and Professional Development capabilities have been expanded in the past 20 years - SAE now produces more than 450 separate professional development events every year.
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
You seem to think that doubling down on your non-answer will help out in some way.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Just FYI - He predicted that Tesla would go bankrupt and close their operations at least 3-4 years ago.
Well, that prediction knocked it out of the park. Not!
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
Oh well!
Oh, BTW, what question am I supposed to be tackling?
Yeah, I may be wrong about Tesla, but certainly in 2019, Tesla was barely generating profits, and those primarily from energy credits sold to other automotive companies. That said, the shine is certainly off Tesla, thanks so much to Elon's fucking around with twitter, demonstrating his narcissism. As automotive companies go, Tesla is still fairly young, and has yet to actually compete on quality, or actually create new models at the pace of its competitors. The future may not be as bright as the stock foretells, and you can see that it the commoditization ot Tesla Model 3, with attendant price cuts.
As for China, yeah, I've been right on that all along, and you have been backpedaling ever after. The West, including the EU, have finally been seeing China for what it really is; an autocratic government that is no longer attractive for business investment.
So, with all else lost, you play the 'I lost track' card.
Here's a hint: When you went into your 'FFS' tantrum you were actually quoting and 'replying' to my attempted answer to the very question you are now asking about!
I suppose if I needed proof that you weren't actually reading things but just seeing what you want to see and jumping in feet first, that is it!
As for Tesla, who knows how things will develop. The point was, your prediction didn't play out.
As for China, well you've said so much and all of it negative so it's hard to say if you actually got something right (even accidentally!)
I hope this doesn't shock you but The West (sic), yes including the EU, has always seen China as an authoritarian government. 'Autocratic' if that is the term you wish to use (but I'm unaware of that word being used officially).
No change there.
Business as usual on many fronts as has been shown by visits to China this year by Olaf Scholz, Charles Michel, and Emmanuel Macron. What do you think those visits were all about?
So much for not being attractive for business! Remind me how many top German CEOs trailed in behind Scholz?
As for general trade and investment I think you should take a look at reality - but not only from your skewed anti-China viewpoint.
How is the US trade deficit with China? What was EU investment like YoY for 2022?
Wait. Don't answer those questions! That's irrelevant here.
For me to 'backpeddle' on China I'd have to speak about it. I don't talk about China much at all so you're confused or just making things up.
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday there are concerns about the interaction between Tesla's advanced driver assistance system Autopilot and drivers that is the subject of an ongoing government investigation.
Since August 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been investigating a series of Tesla crashes involving Autopilot and with parked emergency vehicles and whether Tesla vehicles adequately ensure drivers are paying attention.
"There is a real concern that's not limited to the technology itself but the interaction between the technology and the driver," Buttigieg told reporters when asked about the Tesla Autopilot probe.
Buttigieg said advanced driver assistance systems can benefit drivers. "The question is not are they absolutely free of problems or 1000% foolproof," Buttigieg said. "The question is, how can we be sure that they will lead to a better set of safety outcomes ... This technology has a lot of promise. We just have to make sure it unfolds in a responsible fashion."
Tesla can get away with not offering CarPlay is because its cars are so feature-rich, new owners don't miss CarPlay
This is a crazy disconnected comment to make. Tesla's lack of CarPlay is a daily pain point for me, and the car's biggest failing. It was the main reason I almost didn't get one.
Comments
https://www.sae.org/
Being "pedantic" in a world where Tesla's "Full Self Driving" is anything but, is necessary in a world of misinformation wrt driver automation.
It won't.
Your chart is utterly irrevelant to the question and reply that you were posting to.
What are you trying to point out with regards to the question/reply?
Everybody understands the concept of autonomous self driving.
Everybody understands there are different levels.
Everybody understands that the 'full' in FSD doesn't mean full in the strictest sense. Tesla's own description calls it a suite of driver assistance features!
None of that is in question.
Conclusion. We know you have issues with China. It seems you have issues with Tesla too. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the question, which you haven't even come close to tackling.
Predictions can come back to haunt us but I can live with that, but the whole 'FFS' thing followed by a chart that has nothing to do with the question has me miffed.
Oh well!
Yeah, I may be wrong about Tesla, but certainly in 2019, Tesla was barely generating profits, and those primarily from energy credits sold to other automotive companies. That said, the shine is certainly off Tesla, thanks so much to Elon's fucking around with twitter, demonstrating his narcissism. As automotive companies go, Tesla is still fairly young, and has yet to actually compete on quality, or actually create new models at the pace of its competitors. The future may not be as bright as the stock foretells, and you can see that it the commoditization ot Tesla Model 3, with attendant price cuts.
As for China, yeah, I've been right on that all along, and you have been backpedaling ever after. The West, including the EU, have finally been seeing China for what it really is; an autocratic government that is no longer attractive for business investment.
Here's a hint: When you went into your 'FFS' tantrum you were actually quoting and 'replying' to my attempted answer to the very question you are now asking about!
I suppose if I needed proof that you weren't actually reading things but just seeing what you want to see and jumping in feet first, that is it!
As for Tesla, who knows how things will develop. The point was, your prediction didn't play out.
As for China, well you've said so much and all of it negative so it's hard to say if you actually got something right (even accidentally!)
I hope this doesn't shock you but The West (sic), yes including the EU, has always seen China as an authoritarian government. 'Autocratic' if that is the term you wish to use (but I'm unaware of that word being used officially).
No change there.
Business as usual on many fronts as has been shown by visits to China this year by Olaf Scholz, Charles Michel, and Emmanuel Macron. What do you think those visits were all about?
So much for not being attractive for business! Remind me how many top German CEOs trailed in behind Scholz?
As for general trade and investment I think you should take a look at reality - but not only from your skewed anti-China viewpoint.
How is the US trade deficit with China? What was EU investment like YoY for 2022?
Wait. Don't answer those questions! That's irrelevant here.
For me to 'backpeddle' on China I'd have to speak about it. I don't talk about China much at all so you're confused or just making things up.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-says-real-concern-about-tesla-autopilot-driver-interaction-2023-05-23/
Tesla branding drops 50 positions;
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/23/ftx-tesla-reputation-rankings-2021
Maybe its still early days for Tesla longterm success...