Tesla: Please add Cruise Control to the Cybertruck

[CyberGus]

The reason it's dangerous is because other drivers will follow you too closely, especially if they have no reason to think you'd brake unexpectedly (i.e. road ahead is absolutely clear). So TACC is setting one up for being rear ended at high speed.

easy fix

Sponsored

 

[cybercricket]

easy fix

Thinking about it more, there is also a secondary source of danger - some [unstable] people may think this CT is brake checking them...

 

[CyberGus]

Tesla doesn't agree with what ? That it's unsafe ? Do we need a few collisions and go via the recall route for the issue to be recognized ? FSD is not a standard feature, and thus is irrelevant in the TACC conversation.

Edit:
Related lawsuit is still in progress btw https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...om-braking-lawsuit-us-judge-rules-2024-11-22/

The lawsuit is about spurious applications of Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), not random slowdowns in FSD/TACC.

Modern vehicles are required to include forward-collision abatement/warnings, and all suffer from some degree of false-positives.

 

[cybercricket]

The lawsuit is about spurious applications of Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), not random slowdowns in FSD/TACC.

Modern vehicles are required to include forward-collision abatement/warnings, and all suffer from some degree of false-positives.

I understand the limited scope of the lawsuit I referenced. A similar lawsuit will be filed regarding TACC if it keeps causing trouble.

 

[DJAlan2000]

I understand the limited scope of the lawsuit I referenced. A similar lawsuit will be filed regarding TACC if it keeps causing trouble.

If so, they will need to file suits against GM, Toyota, Ford and pretty much everyone else with hardware/software for collision avoidance...

The REAL issue though is, which is SAFER, using it or NOT using it? So far the numbers are saying it's MUCH safer to use than not to use... Nothing is perfect in this world...

 

[cybercricket]

If so, they will need to file suits against GM, Toyota, Ford and pretty much everyone else with hardware/software for collision avoidance...

The REAL issue though is, which is SAFER, using it or NOT using it? So far the numbers are saying it's MUCH safer to use than not to use... Nothing is perfect in this world...

By that logic a software update-bricked Cybertruck is the safest vehicle on the road - it is literally safer than millions of other vehicles. Tesla should be rolling that out en-mass.

 

[DJAlan2000]

By that logic a software update-bricked Cybertruck is the safest vehicle on the road - it is literally safer than millions of other vehicles. Tesla should be rolling that out en-mass.

Really? THAT's where 'logic' takes you? A 'bricked' vehicle is one that's not drivable, therefore it's not really 'on the road' and therefore cannot be the safest vehicle 'on the road'. And no, you cannot say it is if it's just sitting there... There are plenty of things that are 'on the road' that aren't even vehicles...

 

[cybercricket]

Really? THAT's where 'logic' takes you? A 'bricked' vehicle is one that's not drivable, therefore it's not really 'on the road' and therefore cannot be the safest vehicle 'on the road'. And no, you cannot say it is if it's just sitting there... There are plenty of things that are 'on the road' that aren't even vehicles...

Any bug/flaw that makes the vehicle less driveable or travel at lower average speeds can be claimed to improve safety, but as you pointed out it's not a valid claim as the improvement to safety only counts within the normal utility and not at expense of it. My ridiculous example was meant to illustrate that.

Sponsored