• @elrik
    link
    English
    -1310 months ago

    Ah so it’s marketing BS then, got it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3510 months ago

      No… it means they’re confident enough to assume the risk, Tesla is not. They’ve been using their tech in europe for a while now without issue, Teslas meanwhile still love to hit a variety of new and exciting objects.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2510 months ago

        And that’s a huge difference for consumers. I would never use a self drive feature where I am still responsible, that’s pointless and would just create more anxiety for me.

        • @elrik
          link
          English
          010 months ago

          They’re assuming liability but that doesn’t mean it’s safe or more capable than other systems.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

        They’re not confident enough to assume the risk if you look at the requirements you have to meet to use it. Under 40MPH on approved freeways in heavy traffic during daylight hours with clear skies and clear markers painted on the ground. This is essentially useless for a majority of people as it’s just going to inch ahead for you in gridlock traffic provided the road meets all the other requirements.

        • @elrik
          link
          English
          110 months ago

          Yeah I don’t really understand either. Under those conditions any comparable level 2 system would operate without ever requiring the driver to take over.

        • @candybrie
          link
          English
          110 months ago

          In California, that actually sounds extremely useful.