Is this in response to the article PastTense posted? I want to make sure before I respond, in case you were referring to something upthread.
Uh oh. To the most recent article.
OK, so the author starts out with the premise:
automakers must report crashes where a Level 2 driver-assist system was engaged within 30 seconds of impact. Tesla filed a report on this one.
So we know that some level 2 system was engaged because Tesla filed the report.
Because Tesla redacted the software version, we can’t say for certain whether this was basic Autopilot or “Full Self-Driving.” But the intersection points to FSD.
Right off the bat, they acknowledge that they’re not sure if it was AP or FSD, but they explain their reasoning for “pointing” to FSD:
a driver-assist car verified engaged as it ran a stop sign was, most likely, running FSD.
Because Autopilot is designed for highways, and is usually not engaged around stop signs. But…
That’s not a certainty. We’ve documented Teslas on basic Autopilot reaching intersections it was never meant to handle and blowing straight through them, because the driver engaged it on a road it doesn’t belong on
Of course, the article pivots and makes clear that it’s not about FSD, but about Tesla’s shady redactions:
What’s now confirmed here is narrow and important: Autopilot or “Full Self-Driving” was active in a crash that killed a man. Everything that would explain how, regardless of the blame, Tesla blacked out.
Note here that they’re still saying either system.
And they close out with the most reasonable disclaimer I can imagine:
As usual, and to be fair, probably more than Tesla deserves at this point, we’re careful about what we’re claiming. We don’t know that the system caused this, whether it was FSD or Autopilot, or what that 4 mph really represents. That’s the point.
Now, the headline is weird (“Full Self-Driving/Autopilot” instead of something less…clunky), and the whole article reeks of AI slop and is horribly written (is that just the style now?). But I don’t feel like anything here is misleading, they went out of their way to explain their rationale and keep the option that it wasn’t FSD on the table.
Ok so we’re actually largely in agreement and that’s a great post. I thought you were going to hand me my ass. The headline says “confirmed” which is where I take exception and it’s not objective journalism.
It’s the slash. It’s “confirmed Full Self Driving/Autopilot” which is true but a dumb way to use punctuation. I know I was taught not to blame journalists for the headlines because they didn’t have any control, i don’t know if that’s still true.
Here is some encouraging information on self-driving technology and safety.
This month FSD (Supervised) has been approved in Slovenia and Czechia. It’s now approved in seven EU countries. Getting the entire EU at once is effectively impossible so they are taking it one country at a time using “national exemptions”.