• Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 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.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

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

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 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.