Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 327 posts

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#121

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

stale2002 wrote: post #108
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 1 is Driver Assistance. Level 0 is No Automation. It's literally a graphic in the report... Someone kindly posted the pdf link if you'd like to read it.

Do you actually believe that cruise control is less safe, to any non negligible degree than human driving? You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian. Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent…

> You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian.

You shouldn't assume intentions. A ton of people here are misreading this study (or should I say not reading it).

> Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent, going from level 1 to level 2 would make them 40 % safer"

The comparison here is only on Tesla so accordingly it's only on TACC vs TACC+Autosteer. TACC is fundamentally different than the type of cruise control that is in basically all cars.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#122

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

stale2002 wrote: post #114
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there are "autopilot" miles in the before bucket. They are comparing before and after Autosteer so Autosteer is in the after bucket only. TACC however is in both buckets, aka this is supposed to be a comparison showing the increase in safety when going from level1 to level2 systems but both buckets have tons of human driven miles mixed in.

Level 1 = cruise control. All cars in the entire world are level 1 autonomous these days.

Level 1 in the context of this study is specifically TACC.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#123

Post by agildehaus »

ebbv wrote: post #42
cryptoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35,000 people die from car accidents every single year in the USA alone. Other drivers are not "really good".

Personally I believe most people are really terrible drivers. That being said, there were 210 million drivers in the US in 2009. There's probably a lot more today. That's just 0.01% of drivers. That fact makes me have to question just how bad people really are, despite my own personal opinion. Or maybe cars are just really safe. A better statistic might be number of accidents. In 2015 2.44 million people were injured…

They're not really safe when compared to other forms of transportation.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#124

Post by greedo »

JBReefer wrote: post #83
r00fus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need audiobooks or podcasts. Heck, I love taking a conference call while on my commute (handsfree of course) - 80% of it is in the left lane of an interstate.

The left lane is only for passing, and if you are passing >80% of the cars on the road, you are a reckless driver.

Nope. Not all Interstates are 4+ lanes of traffic. Many states simply require slower traffic to use the right hand lanes.

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#125

Post by fmihaila »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #111
fmihaila wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. No, we're not. We're trying to figure out if TACC has any impact either way. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is that they are no more and no less safe than human drivers alone. You need data to show the direction of the change. You just picked a direction (i.e., towards worse) that was more intuitive to you.

Fair enough. I'd still say that invalidates your original comment. >I think it is reasonable to assume that Tesla TACC is not less safe than Tesla non-TACC, therefore the conclusion is also relevant to comparisons between Tesla level 0 (entirely human-driven, no assist) vs. Tesla level 2. Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case? Neither of us can say either way, seems like it would be imposs…

> Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case?

Yes, because this assumption is consistent with the null hypothesis. The negation of this statement is that it is strictly less safe, which is not consistent with the null hypothesis, and for which there is no evidence.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#126

Post by 1209120931 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #119
Dan_Nguyen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat as you here. Level 2 and 3 are unsafe for me as an individual. When I drive, actively focusing on the road and driving keeps me awake. When I'm a passenger, the lack of mental concentration plus the gentle rocking motion of a moving car knocks me out within ten minutes. The current Tesla autopilot is obviously working well for many people, but for myself I have to wait until level 4. Anything mor…

What kind of "CARTCHA" challenges and games might be fun to play, to prove to your car that you were paying attention to the road and traffic, yet not distract you from being ready to take over driving? Computer vision and speech recognition could be useful for proving the driver's awake, as well as driving the car itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_numberplate_game

The challenge of driving the car manually, without any hyped autopilot.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#127

Post by sigmar »

xenadu02 wrote: post #3

For those who don't want to signup to Scribd just to download a publicly available PDF: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

Thank you! I'm completely unwilling to register for that site just to download a pdf

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#128

Post by guelo »

Vik1ng wrote: post #58
snewman wrote: post #2

Tesla comes off extremely well in this report. For one thing, the 40% statistic cited in the headline appears to be well supported by the NHTSA report (section 5.4) and actually manages to frame the incident in a very positive light: ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package, either in…

Just funny that the 40% from Autosteer seem to exactly match with the general AEB safety improvement rate also mentioned in the report... IIHS research shows that AEB systems meeting the commitment would reduce rear-end crashes[emphasis added] by 40 percent. IIHS estimates that by 2025 – the earliest NHTSA believes it could realistically implement a regulatory requirement for AEB – the commitment will prevent 28,000…

Yea, it really doesn't seem like autosteer would avoid that many crashes. All that autosteer does is keep you in your lane on a marked highway. Human errors that autosteer would correct are probably relatively rare, things like distractedly drifting into another lane or falling asleep at the wheel. AEB, on the other hand, helps avoid the most common type of crash, rear end collisions.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#129

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

fmihaila wrote: post #125
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I'd still say that invalidates your original comment. >I think it is reasonable to assume that Tesla TACC is not less safe than Tesla non-TACC, therefore the conclusion is also relevant to comparisons between Tesla level 0 (entirely human-driven, no assist) vs. Tesla level 2. Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case? Neither of us can say either way, seems like it would be imposs…

> Is it really reasonable to assume it's not less safe in this case? Yes, because this assumption is consistent with the null hypothesis. The negation of this statement is that it is strictly less safe, which is not consistent with the null hypothesis, and for which there is no evidence.

Okay so let me follow. We're fine assuming it's not less safe. So then we must be fine assuming it's not more safe.

These two lead us to your null which is that it is as safe.

When a new unproven technology comes out does it seem correct to automatically assume that it is as safe as the current standard? Would you not expect some proof?

Post reply on HN