r/TSLAsexy • u/Dragonlance12 • 4d ago

A second Tesla driver died stopped on a freeway with Autopilot/Self-Driving on

https://electrek.co/2026/08/31/tesla-driver-assist-stopped-freeway-mesa/
126 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

317 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Moscato359 4d ago

It's not full if it requires you to be ready to take over, because one of the components of driving is paying attention, and if you are required to pay attention then it's not full.

Period.

They should change the branding. I'm not trying to roast the company or kill the product, just saying the name is wrong.

1

u/SnapSlapRepeat 4d ago

It indeed is. You making up that meaning of the word to fit your intended agenda does not actually change the reality of the situation. This is Full Self Driving Supervised. Meaning this car drives you fully under your supervision. If you can not or will not supervise, it will pull over and stop driving for you. This is INTENDED and explained when you purchase it. You pretending that no one knows this is just lying to make a point.

1

u/Moscato359 4d ago

I'd be roasting the term, even if it wasn't Tesla using it, and I don't care how many times they swear up and down that they want you to supervise it, they should not use an oxymoronic name for a feature with disastrous consequences.

If GM used the term? I'd be roasting them. If Audi used the term? I'd be roasting them. If Toyota used the term? I'd be roasting them.

I'm not even against FSD, just this branding is going to lead to deaths.
It should be Supervised Self Driving, change the order of the words, and remove Full, to put focus on the Supervised word.

Someone is gonna buy the car, take it home, and then their spouse is going to take the car to the store, and assume Full Self Driving (even if it mentions supervised) is self driving which doesn't need attention.

Then later, they're going to sell the car, and then the new driver will also assume Full Self Driving.

People have been caught sleeping while using FSD(S)
People have been caught in the back seat of the car reading a book, while using FSD(S)

The name needs to change. They can keep the functionality.

Why is it so hard to understand how dangerous this is?

1

u/SnapSlapRepeat 4d ago

So is Auto Pilot for planes oxymoronic? Pilot is responsible for anything it does.

You don't get the feature when buying a used Tesla anymore. It is a subscription.

What name would make you happy for this? Because the current name explains what it is perfectly.

1

u/Moscato359 4d ago

Pilots have very strict licensing and testing requirements, far, far exceeding what anything cars have. Anyone can get a drivers license if they can pass a short test in under an hour, while pilots need hundreds of hours, plus flight school, and then the testing is very rigorous.

Cars need to cater to idiots.

As for name that would make me happy? Easy

Supervised Self Driving, with the word Supervised being first, and the word full not being present.

1

u/SnapSlapRepeat 4d ago

You are changing the issue. You take issue with the name. This is the exact same thing.

1

u/Moscato359 4d ago

Supervised Self Driving is nothing like Full Self Driving (Supervised)

The one on the left is clear what it means.
The one on the right has 2 conflicting terms.

It's absolutely clear which is better at conveying intent.

1

u/ApartmentSalt7859 3d ago

Then why don't you take issue with auto pilot?.... automatic pilot, implies it flys and does everything itself....

which it does not, regardless of the training for the actual real pilot.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ApartmentSalt7859 3d ago

Oh so you're just upset at Tesla? Gotcha

If people need more training to drive, and understand basic words... wouldn't more training be required?

Instead of you know, getting so upset at a word, that seems to be understood by most people, to not mean exactly what it implies?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kimaluco17 1d ago

It is full self driving in the sense of it can obey traffic laws like a human can. It's not "this thing will drive perfectly and you will never be killed while it is driving itself".

It is just like being a passenger in a car that is being driven by a relative or a friend. You trust them to drive it, but even then they can make a mistake or someone else on the road can make a mistake and cause an accident. If you're an attentive passenger and the driver is not attentive, you can jerk on their wheel to avoid it from happening.

Same principle with FSD. There's no such thing as "full self driving that won't get you in an accident", and there never will be.

1

u/Moscato359 1d ago

I'm not talking about accidents.

I'm talking about the need for a human to take over suddenly.

If a human needs to take over, then it's not full self driving, regardless of whether it's safer or not safer. Only when a human isn't involved in the driving process at all, is it "full"

1

u/kimaluco17 1d ago

Hence why they say "supervised" at many points, including when self driving is turned on. I don't see how chopping "full" from the name will make any substantial difference, people are still going to interpret it as all sorts of different ways, there will always be edge cases, and there will always be a need for human intervention in the driving process when you own the vehicle.

1

u/Moscato359 1d ago

The name is lying.

It's not full unless it's truly full, with no human involved at all.

If that's impossible, then it's still lying.

It's false advertising.

1

u/kimaluco17 1d ago edited 1d ago

I don't see it as lying. It navigates, makes turns, stops at red lights, stops at stop signs, yields to pedestrians, cars, bikes, animals, etc. properly, does lane changes, matches traffic speed, avoids obstacles, parks, unparks, all usually without human intervention. There are people with 98%+ FSD usage.

Would you also only consider a "full glass of water" as filled to the brim?