The U.S. government’s road safety agency is investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

  • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    163·
    29 days ago

    I thought it was illegal to call it full self driving? So I thought Tesla had something new.
    Apprently it’s the moronic ASSISTED full self driving the article is about. So nothing new.
    Tesla does not have a legal full self driving system, so why do articles keep pushing the false narrative, even after it’s deemed illegal?

      • notfromhere@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        28 days ago

        100% agree. Who sells assisted full self driving anyway? Tesla’s is supervised which means it drives and the person behind the wheel is liable for its fuckups.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        28 days ago

        Absolutely, but that’s what Tesla decided, that or supervised, because it’s illegal to call it actually full self driving.
        But an oxymoron is also fitting for Musk. You can even skip the oxy part. 😋

    • notfromhere@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      28 days ago

      Did they change it again? It was FSD Beta, then Supervised, now you’re telling me it’s ASSISTED? Since that’s not in TFA…

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        28 days ago

        IDK I heard assisted, maybe they decided on supervised? The central point is that it’s illegal in some states to call it full self driving, because it’s false advertising.

    • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      52·
      29 days ago

      so why do articles keep pushing the false narrative, even after it’s deemed illegal?

      The same reason that simple quadcopters have been deemed by the press to be called “drones”. You can’t manufacture panic and outrage with a innocuous name.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        28 days ago

        Calling it a drone has nothing to do with how many propellers it has, some drones are Jet driven. some are boats and some are vehicles.
        A Drone is simply an unmanned craft, controlled remotely or by automation.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone

        an uncrewed aircraft or vessel guided by remote control or onboard computers:

        • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          11·
          28 days ago

          It sure doesn’t say when that was updated, but for a long period of time the use of drone when discussing unmanned aircraft was reserved for military craft that were usually armed and used to kill people. In the attempt to demonize hobby rc use, the press started calling simple quadcopters (and other propeller configurations if we are being pedantic) drones and not what they were normally called by the people using and making them in the hobby. My point still stands, the press likes to change the wording of things, and will perpetuate their narrative in order to garner views. Manufacturing fear is part of their tactic, and is why I replied what I replied to the question of why the press continues to push the false narrative of these cars being “self driving”.