
German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving - camjohnson26
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN24F1T5
======
dkonofalski
I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the
beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise
Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to
"Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers
that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would
have had exactly the same reception (possibly better) than what's happening
now. As it stands, it's misleading and, frankly, disappointing to get into a
Tesla for the first time and try "Autopilot" only to realize that you have to
keep your hands on the wheel, navigate the accelerator and brakes, stop at
lights and stop signs, and basically drive the car while it keeps you in the
lane and stops you from hitting other cars. That's not "Autopilot", that's
"CoPilot".

~~~
ojnabieoot
> Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and
> "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot"

I am not accusing you specifically of using weak language, but let's call a
spade a spade: it's not a "goof," it's a dangerous and deceptive business
practice. It's one that Elon Musk is directly responsible for and directly
encouraged with misleading statements where he deliberately exaggerated the
capabilities of Autopilot. It's a disgrace and one of many many many reasons
why Tesla needs to outright fire Musk. There are too many good people at
Tesla, who don't deserve his selfish and irresponsible leadership.

To the people pointing out that airplane autopilots work similarly to Tesla
Autopilot: the problem is not the foolish Tesla owners have never flows a
plane before. The problem is that in the public mind, they "know" that
"autopilot" means "totally autonomous" and they "know" that the computer-car-
spaceship supergenius Elon Musk has been hyping his self-driving tech.

It is true that highly knowledgeable people know that Musk is an idiot conman,
that "autopilot" is a very limited set of features, and so on - and that none
of these things detract from the fact that Tesla makes a good car. But Tesla
fans shouldn't invent ridiculous exonerations. Tesla has a responsibility for
the safety of its users and they failed. Fans (along with the EU and US) need
to hold the company accountable.

~~~
typon
It's strange how much people will bend over backwards to give Musk the benefit
of doubt when he openly lies about such things

~~~
nemothekid
Tesla is one part car company, one part battery company, and 5 parts marketing
hype. The only reason people are seriously contemplating buying full electric
cars today instead of the bullshit BMW produced is because Iron Man convinced
enough people that electric cars will simultaneously fly to mars and cure
world hunger. The stock reflects this.

In other words, there is no Tesla without Elon's meme machine. The graveyard
of failed EV startups was chockful of more well meaning participants before
Tesla came along. I'd go as far as to argue that the Elon's bullshit was the
only thing that could stand up to big oil.

~~~
lazyjones
> _The only reason people are seriously contemplating buying full electric
> cars today instead of the bullshit BMW produced is because Iron Man
> convinced enough people that electric cars will simultaneously fly to mars
> and cure world hunger._

Is this supposed to be ironic or do you actually believe this drivel?

Drive a modern EV and try again. Most Tesla owners will never go back to a
noisy, smelly, crappy, slow ICE.

~~~
yumraj
I was all for it and in fact had even reserved a Model 3 when it was
announced, but later cancelled after Tesla/Musk engaged in their pricing
shenanigans.

And, then I had a conversation with a friend who has a Model X and driven from
SJ to LA, and he mentioned that it needed 3 charges each way. _Each Way_...
Yes, it can be argued that how often do people drive from SJ to LA, but
still...

On top of that Musk acting like a dude who's permanently high on coke, quality
issues with Tesla, the _pedo_ affair, his fights with SEC, the drama he did
regarding opening the Fremont plant during Covid-19 and so on and on ......

Anyway, long story short, I'm really not looking to buy a Tesla anymore..

~~~
jedberg
FWIW your friend must have a _very_ heavy foot. My brother-in-law has a Tesla
and goes from SJ to LA a few times a year. They make one stop in the middle to
supercharge, and use the time to go to the bathroom and have lunch. The car is
usually charged before they are done eating.

When we caravan, the Tesla is never holding us up.

~~~
yumraj
I really cannot comment on that. My friend I believe has the regular ~250
mile, or so, range Model X, so perhaps your brother-in-law has a longer range,
but that still won't explain 3 times vs 1. So, don't know..

Edit: Now self-doubt is creeping in and I wonder if they had gone to Palm
Springs and not just LA. The conversation was over a year ago.. Will that
result in 3 charges each way? I've never driven to Palm Springs, so not sure
if there is another mountain pass in that direction or not.

~~~
karolist
WLTP spec ranges favors city driving, in which Tesla has an edge because of
the really aggressive recuperation braking. It also factors in highway driving
at 90km/h IIRC, which no normal human being drives at. Highway it's actually
not anywhere "light-years ahead" from other serious EV attempts like Taycan
which does similar Autobahn range with wider tires than a model S.

------
SheinhardtWigCo
Good. These statements are lies. The company should face punishment in the US
for saying that full self-driving is blocked by “regulatory approval” when
they’re still an unknown number of years away from even being able to demo
something they plan to ship.

They still don’t know if full self-driving is even possible at the required
level of reliability with their current hardware suite. They could well be
wrong and sitting on a scandal that will eclipse Theranos.

~~~
gibolt
When it gets there, regulatory approval will absolutely be a bottleneck to
deployment. They don't say it is a current blocker.

And it won't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products that are class-
leading. Even if Tesla can't reach level 5, it will be damn close and make
driving 10-100x safer than just a human.

~~~
Silhouette
_And it won 't come close to Theranos. Tesla makes real products that are
class-leading._

Class-leading in what sense(s)?

 _Even if Tesla can 't reach level 5, it will be damn close_

But that's the problem with self-driving cars. _Damn close_ isn't good enough.
A miss is as good as a mile.

The problem with the self-driving/automation scale is that anything around
levels 2-4 probably shouldn't be allowed on public roads, at least not yet.

Basic driver aids, where the driver is always fully engaged but the system can
help to avoid mistakes, are proven to improve safety. This is what you get at
level 1, and such technologies are already widespread in the industry.

If we can ever make a fully autonomous vehicle that can genuinely cope with
any driving conditions, so you don't need any driver or controls in the
vehicle any more, then obviously this has the potential to beat human drivers.
This is level 5. But we don't know how to do this yet, and I have seen
absolutely no evidence so far that anyone will know how to do it any time soon
either.

In between, we have several variations where a human driver is required for
some of the monitoring and control of the vehicle but not all. This has some
horrible safety implications, particularly around the transitions between
human- and vehicle-controlled modes of operation, and around creating a false
sense of security for the human driver. The legal small print will probably
say that they must remain fully alert and able to take over immediately at any
time, but whether it is within human capability to actually do that
effectively is an entirely different question.

 _and make driving 10-100x safer than just a human._

I've been driving for more than 25 years, and racked up hundreds of thousands
of miles behind the wheel. I've never caused an accident, as far as I'm aware.
I've never had a ticket. I try to be courteous to my fellow road users and
give a comfortable ride to any passengers I have with me. What, in your
opinion, would driving 10-100x safer than mine look like?

Humans certainly aren't perfect drivers and we have plenty of variation in
ability. Things can go wrong, and I'm sure we'd all be happy to see fewer
tragedies on our roads. But given the vast amounts of travel we undertake and
how many of us do drive, autonomous vehicles will need an extremely good
record -- far better than they have so far -- to justify the sort of claim
you're making here.

~~~
perl4ever
>But that's the problem with self-driving cars. Damn close isn't good enough.
A miss is as good as a mile

Maybe close _is_ good enough. The problem as I see it that people usually
don't seem to be focused on is that it's impossible for humans to monitor the
situation while doing other stuff. You can only do that when you're far away
from other things like in a plane or on a boat.

How can we simultaneously believe it's possible to instantly engage with
driving _and_ that people can't be trusted to text or make phone calls while
driving?

~~~
Silhouette
_How can we simultaneously believe it 's possible to instantly engage with
driving and that people can't be trusted to text or make phone calls while
driving?_

Exactly. Driving while distracted by phones is well-known to be very
dangerous, which is why it's against the law in many places. Encouraging
drivers who might need to take over in an emergency to zone out and focus on
other activities seems unwise for the same reason. This is why the middle
levels on the self-driving scale could be very dangerous.

------
notRobot
> The Munich court agreed with the industry body’s assessment and banned Tesla
> Germany from including “full potential for autonomous driving” and
> “Autopilot inclusive” in its German advertising materials.

Fully autonomous driving won't be here for _at least_ half a decade so this
judgement makes complete sense. Tesla was engaged in flase advertising.

~~~
gardaani
Only five days ago Elon Musk claimed that _" we will have the basic
functionality for level five autonomy complete this year."_ (yeah..!)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313)

~~~
croes
Didn't he claim the same last year and the year before?

~~~
Vysero
Really? You're guna bet against Elon Musk? You really think that's wise? XD

~~~
u10
Betting against Elon is a fools errand not because he's right, but because
he's built a personality cult around himself.

~~~
mtgp1000
Counterpoint: Elon Musk is the only (publicly visible) CEO who is seriously
talking about going to Mars and direct interfacing between machines and humans
_and making tangible steps_ toward these futuristic goals.

His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are selling to [mostly] good
reviews, and neuralink seems to be doing something too.

Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because although he (along with
basically the entire industry) overpromised on self driving timelines,
nonetheless he does seem to be one of the few people with the practical vision
to take us into a techno future.

Consider that this guy went from a payment processing app to a bonafide
private rocket company and is democratizing space flight (and satellite
internet!) in what, about a decade?

People love to hate the guy, I believe because he has brash and harbors some
unpopular (callous but rational) opinions. Regardless, the respect that he
gets from his fanboys is arguably in deserved, if you're the type to find
inspiration in great people.

~~~
kerkeslager
I don't think that anyone is arguing that Musk hasn't done _big_ things. The
problem is, he's about 50/50 on how often the big things he does are actually
_good_. This is completely ignored by his fanboys, who ignore the bad, and
laud the good to an extent that's entirely untethered from reality.

Take your post for example: You soften the word "lied" to "overpromised" and
then slowly build to more and more absurd lavishing praise. "Practical vision"
is a bit of a stretch, but "democratizing" is _just not reality_. And "if
you're the type to find inspiration in great people"\--just about everyone
finds inspiration in great people, so that's not even saying anything, it's
just trying to indirectly say Elon Musk is a great person.

~~~
Vysero
Yes they are.

~~~
kerkeslager
Links or it didn't happen.

~~~
Vysero
Unless of course you are the one who should be providing links, then they
don't matter right?

------
H8crilA
Tesla has been selling level 5 autonomy since 2016. I can see nothing wrong
with that. Definitely not vaporware /s

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-
now...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-
full-self-driving-hardware)

~~~
Alupis
I realize this is a sarcastic comment, but I think this illustrates the
problem.

Tesla vehicles cannot operate fully autonomous as-of now. Tesla has no idea if
they'll need to replace or upgrade hardware either. They simply have not
solved the problem yet, but want everyone to buy into the hype. And, the hype
machine is working, unfortunately.

~~~
rootusrootus
It's a scam. They're implying level 5 capability is just around the corner,
when none of the current hardware will ever get past level 2. The current
cameras can't even stay clean enough to keep autopilot reliable, it'd be
pretty foolish to rely on them for any kind of real self-driving.

I love my car but the FSD debacle is embarassing. A lot of people are finding
out that they'll never get anywhere near $8K value from their pre-purchase,
and they bought a license that expires when they sell the car. I expect a
class action lawsuit eventually (I'm surprised it hasn't happened already).

------
hudon
I own a Tesla and love it. Having said that, “full self driving” is so far off
what it actually does it’s actually not just a marketing issue, it is a safety
issue. I’ve had my Tesla drive towards an incoming lane, slam on the breaks in
the middle of the highway with no cars in front of us, swerve into another
lane with no warning, and probably other hiccups I don’t remember.

I know now I not only need to keep my hands on the wheel but I need to
actively make sure the car doesn’t kill us. And I know the car warned me the
feature required awareness, but its name made me think it was way more
developed and safe than it actually is, and that disconnect will surely cause
other drivers to trust it more than they should.

~~~
bjarneh
> I need to actively make sure the car doesn’t kill us

Same experience here. Why people say this is relaxing; and takes the stress
away from long distance driving is beyond me...

~~~
jiggawatts
When I test drove a Tesla for a weekend my opinion of the Autopilot was the
same as the car's owner: "It drives like a learner driver". Just like the
nervous parent teaching their teenager to drive, this is _not_ a relaxing
experience.

However, the speed-adaptive cruise control is the best I've ever experienced.
It maintains the set speed _exactly_ , slows down for corners automatically,
and follows the car in front as if there was a steel rod connecting the two
vehicles.

Using the cruise control in the Tesla was some of the most relaxing long-
distance driving I've ever done in my life...

------
ping_pong
His remarks talking about how Level 5 is fundamentally solved should be
investigated by the FTC. I think he is purposefully and fraudulently saying
that self-driving will be available to get more people to pay the $8000 for
the self-driving software "before it goes up". They should make sure his
statements are actually true otherwise he would be fined severely because to
me, self-driving is decades away still.

~~~
Traster
Never mind his $8000 self-driving packages, Tesla's share price is where the
action is.

------
libertine
When are we going to address the elephant in the room?

Advertising regulators aren't able to regulate, or arre taking too long to
regulate, and we're leaving this to platforms.

When it should be done by a regulator, and fines should be applied to both the
advertiser and the media owner - BECAUSE YES, media owners/platforms have the
responsibility and should abide by law. I'm looking at Google/Facebook.

If platforms can't do it, too bad on them, pay up.

False advertising is alive and well, and it's encouraged. People are being
defrauded and we're whistling.

------
maxharris
If you actually believe that Tesla will fail to deliver full self-driving in
the coming years, I have two questions.

1\. have you watched this entire technical presentation made by Andrej
Karpathy, Senior Director of AI at Tesla?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7BXih7zx8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7BXih7zx8)

2\. if you understand what you've seen in that video, why do you think Tesla
will fail?

~~~
ryan93
Google has a much larger and better funded team that still doesnt seem close.
Karpathy is no doubt smart but google has like 10 karpathys for every one
TESLA has.

~~~
maxharris
Did you watch the video? Waymo is stuck using lidar, and the video explains
why that's a dead-end.

(Want to keep in touch about this bet? I'm maxharris9 on twitter.)

~~~
catalogia
I skimmed the video. It's doing what I expected, knocking down a goofy
strawman of _LIDAR-only_ while ignoring the obvious _camera /LIDAR sensor
fusion._ The depth map Tesla is getting from stereoscopic vision is pretty
shoddy; sensor fusion with LIDAR is the obvious solution. The reason Telsa
resists this is because they want to market their cars as having all the
requisite hardware and acknowledging the usefulness of LIDAR wouldn't let them
market their cars that way profitably.

~~~
maxharris
Hmm, looks like Tesla actually _does_ do sensor fusion, just not with lidar:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19803817](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19803817)

I also think that being _so_ cynical about Tesla's motives is pretty short-
sighted from an investment perspective. In the long-term, they don't win if
they don't get this right.

~~~
catalogia
Their radar/ultrasound has _awful_ angular resolution. That's where LIDAR
excels.

This is why Telsa cars run into trucks parked across the street. Their
stereoscopic depth map is shoddy and the radar or ultrasound has awful angular
resolution that can't tell the difference between an object parked next to the
street and one parked in the middle of the street.

> _" In the long-term, they don't win if they don't get this right."_

They've been claiming they're on the cusp of getting it right in the _short_
-term for years. So far, my cynicism has served me well.

~~~
maxharris
I have 110 shares, and I'd love to talk to you about how that's going in 2024.
I'm maxharris9 on twitter

------
ken47
It's unsurprising that Germany isn't as tolerant of "growth hack" advertising
as the US. Many Tesla owners are smart enough to realize that their cars can't
actually drive themselves. But those few who buy into the marketing and ignore
the fine print pose a risk to themselves and the drivers around them.

------
billfor
I wonder how many people complaining about Tesla's marketing actually have a
Tesla. The car clearly makes you acknowledge that the driver is responsible
before using any Autopilot/FSD capability, and if you bought the car with the
expectation that it didn't , you have a return period to get your money back
in full. It doesn't matter if they said it would take you to the moon and
back. If you test drive or buy it and don't like it then just return it: no
harm done.

~~~
Barrin92
It does in Germany (as the ruling in question indicates). False advertising
here is very much considered 'harm done' and no way to do business. Lying to
the customer until she takes the product out of the box is in no way, shape or
form how you operate in this country. (well I guess it was for wirecard which
is embarassing enough)

I do not want to live somewhere where I have to order ten things, three are
fake, three I have to sent back, another few break and the last thing works.

~~~
viklove
Even in the US false advertising like OP suggests is considered fraudulent and
against the law. There are just too many Musk fanboys around here that don't
seem to know how the law works.

------
dlivingston
While the average non-Tesla owner might be confused on phrases like
“autopilot”, any Tesla owner is very aware of its capabilities and
shortcomings.

When you first purchase your Tesla and are beginning the setup process, you’re
presented with multiple warning screens like this:
[https://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/autostee...](https://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/autosteer-
warning-tesla.jpg)

That’s an old image: I couldn’t find the current warning screen on Google
Images, but it’s even more stark and serious about the driver’s role w.r.t.
autopilot.

~~~
monkeyfacebag
Aren't the ads largely targeted to non-owners? Even if I agreed with your
point, I just don't see how it's relevant.

~~~
dlivingston
I’m actually confused by the phrase “ads”, because my understanding is that
Tesla has an advertising budget of $0. I assume they’re referring to marketing
materials (pamphlets, websites, etc).

~~~
fluffything
The law is against fraudulent advertisement.

The channel used to perform the advertisement and how expensive that channel
is are completely irrelevant.

For example, if Tesla claims in their website that their cars can drive
themselves and they can't, that's false advertising and illegal in Germany. If
Tesla organizes a concert in some city somewhere, and the singer states that
Tesla's cars can drive themselves and they can't, that's false advertisement.

If Tesla distributes stickers to their car owners that claim that Tesla's can
drive themselves, and their car owners stick them in public bathrooms where
people can see them, that is, as well, illegal advertisement, even if Tesla
did not stick those stickers themselves.

The law basically requires all companies selling products in Germany to be
honest about what their products can and cannot do. This is good for
consumers, and good for companies doing business there, because everybody is
forced to play by the same rules.

The definition of being honest and what communication means etc. are all super
loose, so most companies don't risk lying about their products. There are
dozens of consumer protection organizations that'll sue a company for you due
to false advertisement. The main consequences for the sued company are usually
damages if there are any, and mainly the fines designed to discourage false
advertisement. Most of the money ends up on the tax payers accounts, so
consumers are really encouraged to report these times of crimes.

------
kabes
Not a lot of companies can get away with selling $6000 packages on which
they'll never be able to deliver.

~~~
dlivingston
The Full Self Driving package is actually quite good. With the exception of
going “hands free”, this is an accurate video on the current state of FSD:
[https://youtu.be/tlThdr3O5Qo](https://youtu.be/tlThdr3O5Qo)

~~~
ReidZB
Another huge difference: the current FSD feature set will not make turns at
intersections as demonstrated in this video. It now (as of recently) can be
configured to automatically stop at appropriate traffic signage (stop signs,
red/yellow lights, not sure about yields). However, it won't make a left or
right turn.

Some caveats: sometimes it will still want to stop at a green light, in my
experience, and requires a manual override; and, if you're the foremost car in
your lane at a traffic light, it won't begin moving on its own. I assume the
same is true for stop signs.

I guess that video is intended to be a preview of what the current software
could do with all the driver interaction safety switches off (no required
hands on wheel, no requirement to confirm safety through intersections/turns,
etc) and all the internal feature flags turned on (particularly: enabling
turns and enabling Navigate on Autopilot on non-freeways).

------
adamqureshi
Why not call Full Self Driving: "Future Self Driving". This way you don't need
to make the claim. People will make the inference from FSD. If they can change
FSD to mean. "Future Self Driving" Perhaps this will help them make it very
clear what the FSD can do and cannot do. amiright?

------
richardrk
Good. This kind of advertising is misleading and was not only posing a risk
for individuals but also for the sector of autonomous driving as a whole. I
always feared that one more Tesla autopilot death might cause the public to
generally distrust any company working in the field.

~~~
neop1x
Exactly! That's why I am glad EU is very cautious in approving self-driving
solutions. Yes, we need full self-driving and it doesn't look like an
impossible task to achieve eventually. But it has to be done step by step,
ensuring it behaves consistent and that the current limitations are well-
understood by drivers. Bad reputation of some self-driving implementations
could cause damage to the whole self-driving industry which would be bad.

------
kwhitefoot
So no quotes either from what Tesla said or what the court said. Bit of a
useless article.

------
simion314
I am wondering if a regular person when is thinking about autopilot term in a
car is thinking at movies and not at aircrafts. In SciFi/spy movies autopilot
means the ship or car is piloting itself and you can do something else.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Sure, they probably do. But more problematic is what does an average person
think when they read "Full Self-Driving Capability" and "Includes the Full
Self Driving Computer"?

~~~
simion314
Yeah, but the "autopilot" claim will spawn a large numbers of fanboys with
dictionaries and definition trying to defend Tesla's marketing department ,
the terms you mentioned will mostly get the mention of some text message you
have to click OK on when you start using the car.

------
subsubzero
Auto-pilot is disingenuous at best, it should be labelled "driving assist" or
something similar. I remember that one person in florida[1] where they died by
having their tesla on "auto-pilot" and a tractor trailer truck collided and
killed them while they were watching Harry Potter and not driving with their
attention on the road. Would this person have died if the Auto-pilot feature
was named something different? Who can say as people do dumb things on the
road, but it could lead tesla to future lawsuits from similar events.

[1] - [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-
dri...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-driver-
killed-autopilot-self-driving-car-harry-potter)

------
paulcole
> All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the
> hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level
> substantially greater than that of a human driver.

From Tesla.com/autopilot in February of 2017. Absolutely shameful.

------
mindfulplay
Great. I hope they bring charges against Tesla for causing deaths that were
completely avoidable.

In fact we keep talking about AI ethics and so on. But we seem to have missed
this very basic key ethical point: when Silicon Valley VC funded madness via
AI/ML crap is pushed at breakneck speeds via these metal torpedoes, who is
taking accountability?

It's really amazing that Elon is worried about AI overlords when a 'simple'
autopilot is not engineered to ethical standards. (Same goes for people like
Andrej Karpathy and co who should take the blame and publicly
apologize/resign).

Shameful.

Glad Germany is ahead of the curve.

~~~
mleland
Out of curiosity, what part of the driving AI of tesla would you say is
currently not lining up with ethical standards?

~~~
mindfulplay
The fact that they cannot disambiguate between a white truck and the sky color
that killed an innocent driver is a starting point.

I realize the drivers probably should be paying attention etc: but when Tesla
falsely advertises (or worse by the toddler antics of Elon, portrays the
optics of L5 automation); and drivers believe such advertisements then of
course they wouldn't know that the car is much worse than promised.

------
martythemaniak
Well, I'm gonna disagree. Let's quote wikipedia:

> An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft,
> marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a
> human operator. Autopilot does not replace human operators. Instead,
> autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the
> operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring
> the trajectory, weather and on-board systems).

This is 100% exactly what Tesla is selling. Instead of constant manual control
you focus on the broader operations of your car.

Even the colloquial use of "autopilot" makes it clear that being on autopilot
means you're not paying very much attention:
[https://learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-does-on-autopilot-
mea...](https://learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-does-on-autopilot-mean)

Your car being on autopilot very much implies you still have to pay attention.

~~~
richardrk
Not sure if that quote supports your argument. Tesla states:

"Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully
attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take
over at any moment." [0]

This sounds very different from "allowing the operator to focus on broader
aspects of operations". I have never heard of pilots having their hand and
feet on the stick and paddles in case the airplane make an incorrect maneuver.

[0] [https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/autopilot-and-full-
self-...](https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/autopilot-and-full-self-driving-
capability)

~~~
atonalfreerider
> I have never heard of pilots having their hand and feet on the stick and
> paddles in case the airplane make an incorrect maneuver.

From the FAA guidlines on Autopilot:

> Be ready to fly the aircraft manually to ensure proper course/clearance
> tracking in case of autopilot failure or misprogramming [0]

[0]
[https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/a...](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/advanced_avionics_handbook/media/aah_ch04.pdf)

~~~
ummonk
Being ready to fly doesn't require keeping your hand and feet on the stick and
paddles.

~~~
atonalfreerider
The FAA guideline is "ready to fly manually" -> key word "manual" from the
Latin manus meaning "hand". Tesla is going a step further by requiring hands-
on contact at all times, which makes this system a MORE restrictive autopilot.

Contrary to what has been posted in other comments, pilots don't just get up
and start walking around the aircraft. There must be one pilot always ready to
take IMMEDIATE control of the aircraft.

I hate when arguments devolve into semantics, which is the premise of this
whole thread. But for the sake of discussing semantics, the use of the word
"autopilot" is technically accurate. Its vernacular understanding is not. But
this was also the case with cruise control. See this case where a driver set a
cruise control on her RV and got up to make a cup of tea:

[https://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/motorhome-
crash/](https://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/motorhome-crash/)

~~~
lolc
Being semantically right does not help against technically colliding. I can
hook up an avian autopilot to a car to keep my bearing. While this is
semantically a car with an autopilot, the contraption is useless on a road.

When I talk about autopilots, I'm talking about a system that allows me to
disengage from steering. Literally by employing a self-steerer. The Tesla
"Autopilot" does not permit this because I still have to closely monitor the
trajectory at every moment. As such it does not fulfil the main expectation I
have of an autopilot. What are your expectations of an autopilot?

~~~
atonalfreerider
I'm sorry, I'm terribly confused by your logic.

> hook up an [aircraft] autopilot to a car

This sounds histrionic

> semantically a car with an autopilot

??

> Literally by employing a self-steerer. The Tesla Autopilot does not permit
> this

This is not how Tesla autopilot works.

If you are genuinely asking my opinion, I would very much like to see this
technology in the driver seat of more vehicles on the road as soon as
possible. Where distracted drivers kill 9 people PER DAY in the US [0], if an
autopilot system (speaking about the current one available today) is anything
less than that, then it is well worth it.

[0]
[https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/in...](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/index.html)

~~~
lolc
Autopilots are reliable in aviation because they are simple. An autopilot for
road steering cannot be that simple. The term transfers badly.

It is a false dilemma to say that we need autopilots to avoid road deaths.
Because assistive tech is already successfully being used for exactly this.

We want self-driving cars to avoid the drudgery of driving. But the current
batch of implementations needs very controlled conditions (Waymo), or close
human supervision (Tesla).

------
nixass
Full autonomous driving is so far away that I don't know why people and media
even talk about it.

~~~
rtkwe
Because companies like Tesla keep claiming it's just around the bend...

~~~
kp98
and politicians that need a useful lie to leverage ie Yang stating all the
driving jobs will be gone in 5 years lol

~~~
rtkwe
Trucking jobs are a little more vulnerable because theoretically highway
driving to a depot or drop off is easier than city driving. Or there's an
older idea of making convoy trucks where multiple semis follow one human
piloted truck.

------
jacquesm
Good. Not that it will stop Tesla from the next round of hype, from the most
recent news we can expect level 5 autonomous driving soon. Maybe they'll call
it 'autopilot'? Who will they blame when it doesn't work?

------
natch
Can someone provide a link to a Tesla advertisement? Haven't seen this.

~~~
FabHK
[https://www.tesla.com/de_de/models](https://www.tesla.com/de_de/models)

> Hardware für autonomes Fahren Jedes neue Model S verfügt standardmäßig über
> modernste Hardware, um die Autopilot-Funktionalität schon heute und
> vollkommen autonomes Fahren in der Zukunft zu ermöglichen. Software-Updates
> werden diese Funktionalität im Laufe der Zeit weiter ausbauen und
> verbessern.

> Die Autopilot-Funktionalität ermöglicht dem Fahrzeug automatisches Lenken,
> Beschleunigen und Bremsen auf seiner Spur. Die Funktionalität für autonomes
> Fahren bietet zusätzliche Merkmale und erweitert bestehende Funktionen, um
> Ihrem Fahrzeug weitere Fähigkeiten zu verleihen.

Looks like a pretty close translation of the same thing on the US site:

[https://www.tesla.com/models](https://www.tesla.com/models)

> Full Self-Driving Hardware Every new Model S comes standard with advanced
> hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-
> driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to
> improve functionality over time.

> Autopilot enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically
> within its lane. Full Self-Driving Capability introduces additional features
> and improves existing functionality to make your car more capable over time
> including:

~~~
natch
That’s a web site though, not an advertisement. Was asking about
advertisements.

~~~
Slartie
That web site clearly advertises a Tesla car. Hence it is an advertisement.

Maybe you meant to say "TV commercial"? The German law doesn't make that
distinction though, which means that blatantly false claims about capabilities
of a product are just as illegal on the products' website as they are in a
products' TV commercial.

~~~
natch
I don’t see any blatantly false claims though. But certainly there can be
false interpretations.

------
antpls
That's hypocrisy from the German court. This is 100% a push from German car
industry lobby. Note that the case wasn't started from consumer complaints, it
was instead started by an industrial group.

I bet _all_ Tesla buyers are aware about what they are actually buying. They
can return the car and get a refund if they are not pleased with it.

This ban is bullshit considering that many ads in many industries are
deceptive, including healthcare. Tesla is punished only because it is a direct
competitor of German cars.

~~~
SheinhardtWigCo
Deceptive healthcare ads aren’t allowed in Europe either. Consumer protection
standards are much higher.

~~~
pjc50
Heck, in the UK if a medicine is prescription-only you're not allowed to
advertise it _at all_. This is a great improvement, frankly.

~~~
DanBC
> you're not allowed to advertise it at all.

You're not allowed to advertise it to the general public. You can still
advertise it to prescribers and suppliers.

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advertise-your-
medicines](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advertise-your-medicines)

> You can’t advertise prescription-only medicines (POMs) to the general public
> but you can promote them to healthcare professionals and others who can
> prescribe or supply the product.

~~~
rsynnott
The advertising to prescribers is fairly strictly regulated, though; you
certainly couldn’t put ‘we anticipate this malaria drug will cure COVID-19’,
say.

------
danielovichdk
German is a huge car manufactoring country. Wonder if they feel a bit of a
threat from Tesla on certain points and wish to control their inner markets.

On the other hand, Tesla doesn't come close to driving an Audi, BMW or MB.
Neither tech-wise. It might be the choice for the nerd or the socalled
envitonmentalist, but for people that don't have time for reloading batteries
all the time, it's a toy car.

------
kahlonel
This is good, even though it could be a possible result of VW/BMW/Mercedes
lobbying efforts. Human life safety is the top priority in any industry in
Germany. Regulations are keeping Germany a little behind in the innovation
race but, at the end, it is all worth it if people are not dying everyday
because of failed tech.

------
runeks
> Tesla’s Chief Executive Elon Musk said this month the electric car
> manufacturer was close to making its cars capable of automated driving
> without any need for driver input, so-called Level 5 autonomy.

I suspect we will remain “close to” autonomous cars for several decades.

------
rho4
I think / hope that Elon Musk wanted everyone to be crystal clear about the
end goal from the outset. Go on public record about the ambition in a way that
will push himself and his employees. Use language to drive vision and outcome.

~~~
pbasista
I agree that presenting a vision and facing it with reality of what is
currently possible is great because it may motivate people to try to achieve
something better than they would normally think of.

But misrepresenting the reality as if it already was reflecting the vision,
when in fact it is not, bears in my opinion many signs of fraud.

For example, consider someone who has a "vision of wine" and decides to sell
bottles of grape juice which are supposed to represent that vision. They can
have honest intention to fill those bottles with wine at some point in time.
But as far as they in fact sell the grape juice, I think that it is reasonable
to require them to clearly present it as such.

------
noisy_boy
They should call it "DriveAssist" because thats what it is instead of layering
autonomy with Autopilot (for that matter, even Copilot carries similar
underlying semantics).

------
Robotbeat
I think it’s poor for “autopilot.” That word has a long history. It really is
the best existing word to use.

But a fair ruling for “autonomous.” And I think the concerns HN people have
with “autopilot” are in part due to the fact that the terms have not been
properly contrasted by Tesla. Being more careful with “autonomous” and “self-
driving” would help a lot with the confusion with the word “autopilot.”

~~~
dragontamer
Tesla's not only calling their stuff "autopilot", but also "full self
driving", which is probably the wrong way to describe their current
implementation.

Its a bit annoying to see people so fixated on the word "autopilot" when its
clear that "full self driving" is complete and utter vaporware, a $5000 lie
sold by the company.

~~~
valine
The reason many people buy the full self driving package is so they can
experience the latest state of the art autonomous driving software as Tesla
develops it, and Tesla continues to deliver on that promise. Smart summon and
stopping for traffic control were both added recently as software updates.
Even more recently they’ve improved the lane keeping performance on curvy
roads, which is something nobody really mentions. Many of the problems people
talk about like Tesla’s swerving out of the lane have been greatly improved in
recent updates.

There’s also the auto lane changes on the highway, which is really quite
impressive to watch. Your car will automatically pass slow cars, move out of
the passing lane when traffic clears up, and change lanes to follow your gps
navigation. Not sure how you can call that vaporware.

~~~
dragontamer
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866482406160609280](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866482406160609280)

>>> (Question from Twitter): Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo?

>> Elon: Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any Tesla car with
HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year) will be able to do this.

May, 2017. Elon bragging that "coast-to-coast" autonomous driving will be
available by end of 2017. Straight up vaporware, a lie, no where close to
done. We still have "Full Self Driving" cars crashing into the sides of trucks
in 2020.

~~~
valine
It’s obviously behind schedule, but that doesn’t make it vaporware. Tesla is
still actively developing fsd and continues to release useful features.

Would you rather they stopped hyping the feature altogether? The income from
selling fsd helps fund development.

~~~
dragontamer
> Would you rather they stopped hyping the feature altogether? The income from
> selling fsd helps fund development.

Selling stocks funds development. Raising bonds funds development.

Selling $5000 features to paying customers that don't work is immoral, and the
very definition of vaporware. Its blatant false advertisement.

When a customer crashes into a police car and dies, due to misunderstanding
what "full-self driving" means, the blood is on Telsa's hands. When a customer
is beheaded by a stationary truck in the middle of the road, because the "Full
Self Driving" Tesla cannot see stopped vehicles, it is blood on the hands of
Tesla.

\-----------

Leave the speculation to stockholders and bondholders. They're rewarded with
speculation. Customers literally die if they use these features wrong, and
have already died over this issue.

~~~
valine
The features do work though, navigate on autopilot is great. Sure there is a
potential for misuse but that’s true for any car, cars are just inherently
dangerous.

Overall Tesla’s have great safety ratings. Can you show me hard data that
autopilot makes the car measurably less safe? If anything I would guess that
it makes good drivers better.

~~~
dragontamer
> The features do work though

Not according to the German courts they don't. That's why Tesla's marketing
was just banned there. Its not "full self driving", not by any definition of
the word.

If you don't like it, take it up with the German courts. Despite being from
America, I think the Germans did the right thing here.

Call it what it is: automated lane assist. Automated lane centering. Etc. etc.
Don't lie about it. That's where the line is drawn.

------
kohlerm
It's surprising that it took so long to identify this as a dangerous lie

------
coronadisaster
Tesla haven't been sued for this yet?

------
lazyjones
The hate in this thread is staggering. Let's see you explain how "smart" your
phone is...

------
jaimex2
Guess they will need to apply the same to Airbus as the two systems both
function in the same way.

------
iamaziz
That explains why Germany makes best cars in the world.

------
mrtksn
This was probably the most brilliant advertising scheme of all times. Tesla is
not just an electric car, it's the self driving car brand - even if it doesn't
actually do that.

I believe banning this kind of advertisement will only cement Tesla's image as
the "Self Driving Car company" as no other company would be able to replicate
it. People will continue to post memes about self driving Teslas but no one
else would be able to claim anything like that up until they actually make a
self driving car, and if they do it before Tesla, when people hear about it
they will say "Oh cool!, So just like a Tesla?".

~~~
xinsight
Or it backfires when people realize their newly purchased, expensive car
doesn't do what they thought it could do. Tesla is not managing expectations
well.

~~~
londons_explore
That's what the 7 day return period is for.

------
itchyjunk
Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass to be able to
claim certain things? It there were levels of tests and passing each gave you
better rating, that might give everyone an idea of there the system is. But
most of the talks about this type of stuff seems to be gut feeling rating.
Someone will say they think some car/software is good, other's will say it's
no where close and the conversation ends there.

It is also possible that updates can make software worse than it was before
right? Say a software does pass some test. But how do you know it's still as
good or better after some update?

Is the problem we know for sure if has specific issues or it is more that we
have no idea where it might fail while randomly driving? Are all this problems
considered solvable in short term?

~~~
Barrin92
>Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass to be able to
claim certain things? It there were levels of tests and passing each gave you
better rating, that might give everyone an idea of there the system is.

The 'five levels' of autonomy are fairly well established by now. Full
autonomy generally is defined as driving capability that does not involve
human attention, that is to say it is what the name suggests, the vehicle
drives itself, you could ship it to the consumer without a steering wheel.

~~~
voqv
Likely can't ship. The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic prohibits fully
driverless cars [1], I assume the US has something similar. Cruise is still
waiting for their waiver to have cars without a steering wheel and that's not
even for consumers.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traf...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic)

~~~
bearjaws
Here in the states, its at the state level what is allowed.

We have autonomous vehicle testing in pretty much any state that allows it.

------
bgorman
I wonder how much BMW/Daimler/Volkswagen had to do with this.

It is a common practice for technology companies to offer features that will
only become available after a certain time period. It actually takes time and
money to build these features.

I'm sure the fact that BMW/Daimler/VW have completely botched their
EV/Autonomous vehicle strategy and the automotive industry is Germany's cash
cow has nothing at all to do with the court's decision.

Disclosure: I do not any automotive companies stock, and I am a dual US/German
citizen.

~~~
chki
> I'm sure the fact that BMW/Daimler/VW have completely botched their
> EV/Autonomous vehicle strategy and the automotive industry is Germany's cash
> cow has nothing at all to do with the court's decision.

What are you implying? That the German Court felt pressured by the Auto Lobby
to take this decision? That the judges were biased? Bribed? Vague statements
like this are very unhelpful, because you can't argue against them but they
try to make a point anyway.

~~~
filoleg
> That the German Court felt pressured by the Auto Lobby to take this
> decision?

Probably that + the constituents. When a very large chunk of your constituents
are employed by local car manufacturing companies, letting those companies
fail and lose to a foreign competitor not only loses money for those
companies, it also puts a threat of unemployment on your voting population.

Lobbying from local car companies + your voting population's employment
dependent on success of those local car companies is a very strong
combination.

EDIT: to clarify, I am aware that judges in Germany are not elected, I wasn't
implying that judges would support the ban just get re-elected. I meant it to
say that the judge could see it not only as some lobbying effort, but also as
a move to protect interests of the working people they are serving.

~~~
DasIch
Judges in Germany generally aren’t elected. The few that are cannot be re-
elected and have fairly long terms.

The voting population in this case would consist of politicians in the
legislative branch.

~~~
filoleg
I am aware they are not elected, I wasn't implying that judges would do it
just get re-elected. I meant it to say that the judge could see it not only as
some lobbying effort, but also as a move to protect interests of the working
people they are serving.

