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

Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 462 posts

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#211

Post by rtikulit »

jacquesm wrote: post #184
rtikulit wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a public road I almost always come to a full stop, and if I don't I recognize it as an error. That's the law and there are very good reasons for it. It's an unambiguous standard of performance, for example. Arguments for rolling stops based on personal utility are selfish, IMHO, and arguments pleading utility to others are disingenuous--the rolling stoppers say that it's safer to rolling stop because of the rollin…

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm struggling to respond constructively to your comment. Think about all the phenomena that make up "cognitive ability" and all of the possible dimensions and properties of "cognitive decline".

It should be obvious that your advice is not in any way useful or actionable. And rituals are a very well accepted strategy for dealing with situations which demand consistent and good attention, where human cognitive variability causes problems.

A couple of famous examples--checklists used by aircraft pilots, or the pointing rituals used on Japanese railways.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#212

Post by huubuub »

capableweb wrote: post #197
sudosysgen wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are buying an expensive, new car, meaning higher income, meaning that those things are less likely : https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644

In my person experience, the "drunk drivers", "road ragers", "habitual speeders" groups seems to be over-represented in expensive cars rather than cheaper cars. Poor people cannot afford to crash their car while rich people can.

I do not think a car crash is normally the result of a decision people make based on whether they can afford it or not.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#213

Post by aeternum »

sudosysgen wrote: post #136
jjulius wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your broader statement about autopilot's safety relative to other drivers, but... >The "average driver" involved in an accident includes drunk drivers, road ragers, habitual speeders, teenagers, people driving in bad conditions (rain, snow), people driving without sleep and several other risky groups that most people buying Teslas aren't part of. ... what ? Tesla owners absolutely can be habitua…

Because they are buying an expensive, new car, meaning higher income, meaning that those things are less likely : https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644

Keep in mind that this study could just mean that people in expensive cars with higher incomes are less likely to be arrested/stopped by police.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#214

Post by FireBeyond »

cma wrote: post #56
Xylakant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to compare to the average driver. You may be not average by virtue of not being a teenager and not driving drunk, but you're not magically immune to being run over or crashed into by one of those. So even if a hypothetical FSD capable car would not drive one yota better than you do, it cwould still make you safer by virtue of making the surrounding environment safer.

Tesla's claim relied on inclusion of motorcycles one time, which seems super misleading and unfair.

Misleading, from a company that once (several days ago) claimed that they sold more cars in Australia than Camry's last year.

Until someone pointed out that vehicle registration... disagreed. By nearly 30%.

Then "Oops. We made a mistake and counted 3,000+ deliveries which haven't actually been, well, delivered."

I hope they get spanked hard for that. Australia has very onerous "truth in advertising" laws.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#215

Post by maxdo »

FireBeyond wrote: post #183
maxdo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Facts: Tesla was the first to introduce such wide range of safety features in every car they sold. Please itemize these "wide range of safety features" for us that other manufacturers do not have or did not have until Tesla innovated them. > They invest in own crash test facilities. Only Volvo is kind of on par. Audi owns one, for just one.

Sure, https://www.tesla.com/safety

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KR2N_Q8ep8

Tesla roll out cars in generations. So just take a $40k Model 3/Y platform was introduced in 2017 and compare it with any car been introduced that year. My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that. Maybe you can have them but you have to buy extra packages for extra money.

Tesla don't sell safety features for extra price. The only extra feature is Autopilot. But hardware, camera's , lane departure avoidance, blind spot collision warning etc in every car.

You can even take such a simple feature as forward collision warning system. When you drive it is super accurate it uses the same data and models from Autopilot to predict when there is a crash. If your slowing down dynamic is not good or the car in front/back change it dynamics it will warn you immediately. Only this feature saved me several times from collision. I'm not a good driver.

As I said in 2022 there are many car brands that catching up in some cases they doing better. And this is good.

Human is a bad, constantly distracted driver. Technology is the only way to make our life safer.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#216

Post by wilde »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #204
gnicholas wrote: post #2

Underlying study is here. [1] Full disclosure, I co-wrote the piece for The Daily Beast [2] that originally suggested that Tesla's methodology was seriously flawed. I am not a Tesla-hater though — I just thought it was odd that the company was playing quite so fast and loose with their safety claims. 1: https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973/3986 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exagge...

So it sounds like it's Simpson's paradox [1] at work. I had always wondered why many people are slow to accept self-driving cars despite the claims of them being statistically safer. I think that explains it --- to make consumers confident about the self-driving technologies, it is not enough for them to be able to handle the "easy" kind of driving (e.g. on highway and under relatively good visibility conditions) bet…

I think traditional auto makers have done a much better job of communicating to consumers what the tech can actually do. We don’t have self driving cars (which implies that they can drive in those harder conditions). We have cars that are good at lane keeping on freeways.

I wish Tesla would celebrate that victory rather than double down on lies.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#217

Post by sokoloff »

aspenmayer wrote: post #88
NikolaNovak wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully support the noble notions and idealistic ideas. But let's make it real, and let's ask a question about the real world: Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways? If so, those cars will inherently be a danger to life and limb. I don't care about any self-righteous driver who indicates houghtily " I drive speed limit on…

> Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways? It’s already against road rules to stay in the passing lane when cars behind wish to pass, regardless of the speed limit, or if you’re already driving at it. If cars behind desire to overtake, give way. This is already codified. No need to blame the cars or the self-driving tech. I…

That depends on the jurisdiction. In my state (MA), I can use the left lane while passing other traffic even if there is traffic behind me who wishes to go faster than I am.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#218

Post by _ea1k »

caditinpiscinam wrote: post #70

How is it that Tesla (and other companies developing self-driving capabilities) are allowed to deploy their products in the real world? We make people take a test to get a drivers license -- why don't we have requirements for self-driving systems? We require that cars pass routine mechanical inspections -- why isn't the software controlling these cars regulated?

Because based upon this data it is at least as safe as not deploying it. This data actually suggests that it is marginally safer.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#219

Post by julianz »

gnicholas wrote: post #2

Underlying study is here. [1] Full disclosure, I co-wrote the piece for The Daily Beast [2] that originally suggested that Tesla's methodology was seriously flawed. I am not a Tesla-hater though — I just thought it was odd that the company was playing quite so fast and loose with their safety claims. 1: https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973/3986 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exagge...

So that Daily Beast article has been up for more than 5 years with nobody fixing the horrible typo in the headline? Wow.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#220

Post by Swenrekcah »

jacquesm wrote: post #184
rtikulit wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a public road I almost always come to a full stop, and if I don't I recognize it as an error. That's the law and there are very good reasons for it. It's an unambiguous standard of performance, for example. Arguments for rolling stops based on personal utility are selfish, IMHO, and arguments pleading utility to others are disingenuous--the rolling stoppers say that it's safer to rolling stop because of the rollin…

Quoted post unavailable.

Safety rituals are extremely useful exactly because accidents happen when you have reduced capacity without realising it.

Doesn’t matter if it’s because of lack of sleep, work stress, cognitive decline, etc.

Post reply on HN