Mid 2000s LKA was passive systems in the US market: they were backups that vibrated the seat or steering wheel, or provided mild outputs. That meant they couldn't actively put the driver into danger, making them inherently safer than a system that will gladly drive onto a sidewalk
Now what about active systems from back then? Almost 20 years ago Lexus had learned the lessons that Tesla kicked and resisted until about 2 years ago on. You need to watch the driver to ensure they're full attentive: https://lexusenthusiast.com/2007/09/08/a-look-at-the-lexus-l...
In markets with LKA, that same module was used to ensure that drivers were actively watching the road while it was activated.
Tesla blamed a man for playing Candy Crush when his Tesla drove into a barrier and killed him. Lexus had solved the problem that killed this man over a decade prior.
A 2007 Lexus would have used its Driver Awareness Module to recognize the man was not paying attention and stopped lane centering. The solution was not complex, not expensive, iirc Tesla even had interior facing cameras by then but was still resisting turning them on until much more recently.
Tesla put their not-marketing ahead of human life, because if they had enabled more aggressive awareness monitoring than capacitance sensing or silly steering wheel jiggles, Elon wouldn't get to tweet about how "you're just there for regulatory reasons"
-
Also slightly off topic, but I think my biggest internet pet peeve is when people ask for a citation on a complex problem that requires critical thinking. I can't chew and pour the conclusion for you, but you're free to research before making low effort commentary like "Cite"
Now what about active systems from back then? Almost 20 years ago Lexus had learned the lessons that Tesla kicked and resisted until about 2 years ago on
Lexus/Toyota doesn't "learn lessons". The are simply ultra-conservative about adopting anything so when anything is a dud or the V1 version sucks they wind up looking smart.
"They're not so smart, they just took a conservative approach to the life or death problem of drive attentiveness that resulted in their V1 solution outperforming Tesla's V3.x solution which came out 16 years later"
I mean for all their risk averseness, the Corolla got driver awareness monitoring before Tesla did, I don't think your point really works...
Are you saying a Lexus has never had a driver fatality from inattention? That seems ridiculous. What are you actually claiming here? If Lexus is safer than Tesla that seems like something someone can measure. Have they?
I gave a concrete example of a systematic decision that Tesla is making that has resulted in avoidable deaths. I showed how a comparable system was trivially capable of avoiding the same cause of death due to its manufacturer making a decision in the opposite direction of Tesla: Putting human life above the marketability of a piece of tech.
If you want to somehow "interpret" into saying no one has ever died driven distracted in a Lexus, you're free to, but that's a leap I won't bother engaging with.
There's always some room for (mis)interpretation, but I think you're taking a football field on this one.
Are you saying a Lexus has never had a driver fatality from inattention?
That appears to be a deliberate misreading.
The GP was pointing out Tesla refused to follow well known best practices from around the beginning of Model S creation. Despite it being pointed out to them as a reckless choice numerous times.
They never said Lexus was perfect, they showed evidence Lexus appears to have taken the risks involved seriously in a way Tesla hasn’t, as evidenced by numerous recommendations from NHTSA that they did not follow or followed belatedly.
Comments
Cite? Everyone likes to throw around the word "safety" as a qualitative thing, but the only data we have points to the system being extremely safe.
Mid 2000s LKA was passive systems in the US market: they were backups that vibrated the seat or steering wheel, or provided mild outputs. That meant they couldn't actively put the driver into danger, making them inherently safer than a system that will gladly drive onto a sidewalk
Now what about active systems from back then? Almost 20 years ago Lexus had learned the lessons that Tesla kicked and resisted until about 2 years ago on. You need to watch the driver to ensure they're full attentive: https://lexusenthusiast.com/2007/09/08/a-look-at-the-lexus-l...
In markets with LKA, that same module was used to ensure that drivers were actively watching the road while it was activated.
In other words a 2007 Lexus did a better job on the one thing that Tesla is still getting dinged on (https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-driver-moni...)
Tesla blamed a man for playing Candy Crush when his Tesla drove into a barrier and killed him. Lexus had solved the problem that killed this man over a decade prior.
A 2007 Lexus would have used its Driver Awareness Module to recognize the man was not paying attention and stopped lane centering. The solution was not complex, not expensive, iirc Tesla even had interior facing cameras by then but was still resisting turning them on until much more recently.
Tesla put their not-marketing ahead of human life, because if they had enabled more aggressive awareness monitoring than capacitance sensing or silly steering wheel jiggles, Elon wouldn't get to tweet about how "you're just there for regulatory reasons"
-
Also slightly off topic, but I think my biggest internet pet peeve is when people ask for a citation on a complex problem that requires critical thinking. I can't chew and pour the conclusion for you, but you're free to research before making low effort commentary like "Cite"
Lexus/Toyota doesn't "learn lessons". The are simply ultra-conservative about adopting anything so when anything is a dud or the V1 version sucks they wind up looking smart.
... what and utterly bizzare form of sour grapes.
"They're not so smart, they just took a conservative approach to the life or death problem of drive attentiveness that resulted in their V1 solution outperforming Tesla's V3.x solution which came out 16 years later"
I mean for all their risk averseness, the Corolla got driver awareness monitoring before Tesla did, I don't think your point really works...
Are you saying a Lexus has never had a driver fatality from inattention? That seems ridiculous. What are you actually claiming here? If Lexus is safer than Tesla that seems like something someone can measure. Have they?
I gave a concrete example of a systematic decision that Tesla is making that has resulted in avoidable deaths. I showed how a comparable system was trivially capable of avoiding the same cause of death due to its manufacturer making a decision in the opposite direction of Tesla: Putting human life above the marketability of a piece of tech.
If you want to somehow "interpret" into saying no one has ever died driven distracted in a Lexus, you're free to, but that's a leap I won't bother engaging with.
There's always some room for (mis)interpretation, but I think you're taking a football field on this one.
That appears to be a deliberate misreading.
The GP was pointing out Tesla refused to follow well known best practices from around the beginning of Model S creation. Despite it being pointed out to them as a reckless choice numerous times.
They never said Lexus was perfect, they showed evidence Lexus appears to have taken the risks involved seriously in a way Tesla hasn’t, as evidenced by numerous recommendations from NHTSA that they did not follow or followed belatedly.