> but watching the video () of the test shows that the car did not warn the driver

The warnings occur when you look away or don't touch the steering wheel for a while. Not saying that Tesla is without error (it isn't), but just clarify what the warnings are for.

Which testing agencies are doing these tests?

You mean the ones gutted by said owner of said company?

Comparing "Tesla Takedown" with ExxonMobile is way too quick, you should have said Greenpeace. I'd say that TT has to do this, Is part of the point.

In normal times, perhaps, today…

https://www.theverge.com/news/646797/nhtsa-staffers-office-v...

When regular in theory bipartisan mechanisms fail, protest is all you have left.

In my view, the onus to conduct tests and prove that it is safe to use should be conducted by the manufacturer and should meet the requirements of the regulating authority (presumably NHTSA in the U.S.) and appropriate city/states if they agree to allow limited public road usage.

Well quite, it's an indictment of americas institutions if investigations held in the public interest must be conducted by third parties and not the establishment.

What other hidden dangers slip by without public knowledge.

For the same reason that nonprofit consumer advocacy and safety organizations like Consumer Reports and the Center for Auto Safety exist. Lobbyists and wealthy private individuals exert a lot of influence over the operations of publicly funded oversight agencies. They have the power to censor these agencies or as we've seen recently, fire all their staff, defund them or close them completely.

As for the fanbois and f*cbois, they have always existed and will always exist. They are the pawns. Smart mature people learn to lead, direct, manipulate, deflect and ignore them.

Or cigarette companies having doctors show that cigarettes don't cause cancer. It turns out that the bar for science is really really high, and for stuff that's less obvious and takes time and lots of money and effort, it's really hard to show. You'd think I was a loon if I told you gravity wasn't a decided matter of physics, since we're all glued to this Earth every day, but we still don't know that dark matter and the ramifications for the theory of gravity are. Science still doesn't know how to test psychedelic medicine because it's obvious to the control group that they're on the placebo. That doesn't mean we should lower the bar for science, just that we should be aware of shortcomings in our beliefs.

So if you want to get into the details and figure out why a video from "Tesla Takedown" should or should not be believed, in all ears, but I'm some random on the Internet. I don't work at NHTSA or anywhere that could affect change based on the outcome of this video. It's not going to affect my buying decisions one way or another, but it'll only divide people who have decided this matters to them and can't get along with others.

You seem to ignore the historical reasons why testing agencies exist in the first place. There wasn't a consensus back then that they even needed to exist. People like Ralph Nader needed to hammer the point again and again and again to will those standards into existence. The pressure groups fighting against Tesla are doing the same harsh difficult job that Nader did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed%3A_The_Des...

There isn’t. We won’t regulate until there is public outcry over tens or hundreds of deaths.

> Obviously a kid running out from behind a car this late is fairly difficult for any human or self driving system to avoid

That's why you slow down when you pass a bus (or a huge american SUV).

sounds like a tesla problem for naming their crappy tech "full self driving"

it's always the next version that will go from catastrophic failure to being perfect. This card has been played 100 times over the last few years.

It is also a failure that it does a cruise and continues to drive over the thing/child that was hit.

I don't see why Tesla would deserve the benefit of the doubt here. We cannot know how well the actual Taxi software will work, I think it is fair to extrapolate from the parts we can observe.

> Obviously a kid running out from behind a car this late is fairly difficult for any human or self driving system to avoid

Not really - it's a case of slowing down and anticipating a potential hazard. It's a fairly common situation with any kind of bus, or similarly if you're overtaking a stationary high-sided vehicle as pedestrians may be looking to cross the road (in non-jay-walking jurisdictions).

I thin their test is valid and not in bad faith because they demonstrate the Teslas self driving technology has no basic safety standards.

Your argument that a newer version is better simply because it's newer does not convince me. The new version could still have that same issue.

Does the Tesla taxi option afford radar/lidar?

My understanding is that Tesla is the only manufacturer trying to make self-driving work with just visual-spectrum cameras --- all other vendors use radar/lidar _and_ visual-spectrum cameras.

Everytime Tesla's FSD is shown to be lacking someone always says "well that's not the real version and these people are bias!"

I’ve seen this “next version” trick enough times and in enough contexts to know when to call BS. There’s always a next version, it’s rarely night-and-day better, and when it is better you’ll have evidence, not just a salesman’s word. People deserve credit/blame today for reality today, and if reality changes tomorrow, tomorrow is when they’ll deserve credit/blame for that change. Anybody who tries to get you to judge them today for what you can’t see today is really just trying to make you dismiss what you see in favor of what you’re told.

Sorry, I am failing to see how any of these three points are relevant or even important.

The simulation of a kid running out from behind the bus is both realistic, and it points out another aspect of the problem with FSD. It didn't just pass the bus illegally. It was going far too fast while passing the bus.

As for being unrepresentative of the next release of FSD, we've had what eight years ten years of it's going to work on the next release.

Blowing the stop signals on a school bus is one of the few traffic laws that I see overwhelmingly support for strict adherence.

People are way more accepting/understanding of drunk driving than passing school bus stop signals.

I don't agree with this. Not hitting pedestrians should not just be an afterthought. Of course the car should recognise the stop sign, but there are cases in which stop signs are obstructed or missing, and in those cases pedestrians should still not be hit by a car.

Bah. The car should slow down if the view is restricted or when it's passing a bus, especially a school bus, regardless if there's a stop sign or not.