|
|
|
|
|
|
by tclmeelmo
3690 days ago
|
|
|
> It also is very sensitive to resistance, to the point that I actually had to construct ramps for my car to climb the 1-inch lip at the entrance to my garage, otherwise it would stop at that point and refuse to go further. The pictures of the car in a article linked elsewhere in this discussion (https://www.ksl.com/?sid=39727592&nid=148&title=utah-man-say...) show that the windshield was smashed. I'm finding it challenging to reconcile your personal example with the images of the smashed windshield; in my own experience, it takes some effort to break laminated safety glass. I would think (perhaps wrongly) that it would take more effort to break safety glass than would be stopped by a 1in. step. > but I don't think there's much room to discuss safety here. I couldn't disagree more. I don't understand why it should be possible to disable any safety interlock (at least, that's how I'm interpreting the feature description) in a consumer product, especially persistently. |
|
|
Really? It seems fairly obvious to me. The sensors are in the front of the car, lower down. So anything on the ground in front of the car registers as an obstacle and the car stops. Such as a small step.
The front of this trailer (they keep referring to it as the back, but it's clearly the front) was too high off the ground to register as an obstacle. You'll note that the front of the car has plenty room - there's nothing blocking it - but the windscreen doesn't!
So it needs to be fixed; you could imagine a Tesla running into, say, a small truck with timber sticking out the back when the speed was low enough that the safe distance between vehicles was small. But it hardly seems life-threatening in any way.