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

221–230 of 462 posts

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

#221

Post by dzader »

ummonk wrote: post #207
dmitriid wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autopilot is a tool. You can miss use it, sure. But if you care about safety it's hard to match with what they offer. 1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria 2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the dri…

Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice. Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.

"Boeing instructed pilots to take corrective action in case of a malfunction, when the airplane would enter a series of automated nosedives. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

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

#222

Post by avs733 »

contravariant wrote: post #138
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 to summarize: - Freeways account for 93% of distance travelled with Autopilot - Freeways account for 28% of the distance travelled by regular drivers. - "vehicles on non-freeways crashed 2.01 times more often per mile" a quick back of the envelop calculation suggests merely driving on the freeway lowers accidents per mile by ~40%, which accounts for most of the difference between Autopilot and regular drivers.

so in sum, Thomas Bayes just kicked Tesla square in the ass?

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

#223

Post by sokoloff »

sandworm101 wrote: post #174
ipaddr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.

A) Cops don't work such shifts for the weeks/months it takes to get a court date. B) Cops don't normally "show up" in traffic courts. They can often appear via electronic means. C) Cops have great respect for courts. If called, they show up. D) If your only defense is the faint hope that the cop doesn't show, the judge is going to rain hellfire on you for wasting everyone's time. Court costs. Amended tickets. Contemp…

I’ve shown up to contest all but one traffic ticket I’ve ever received*. It’s up to the state to prove what I’m being accused of; I am not required to admit to it or passively pay the fine without appearing if I choose.

I’ve won many (outright or gotten reductions to non-moving violations) and lost some, but I’ve never had a judge “rain hellfire on [me]” or anything even remotely similar to that, even in cases where I pled “not guilty”, listened to the state’s case, and presented no argument in my defense.

* I got a camera ticket in Switzerland on a business trip that I did just pay rather than traveling back to appear and undoubtedly lose.

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

#224

Post by ummonk »

maxdo wrote: post #179
andrepd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. If you're still surprised by this you've not been paying attention to how Telsa operates.

Quoted post unavailable.

It wasn't much of an accomplishment for Tesla to introduce safety features across its lineup, when its lineup consisted of luxury cars.

Today, other car manufacturers are standardizing safety features across their model lineups while manufacturing cars that are a third the price of the cheapest Tesla.

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

#225

Post by rosndo »

julianz wrote: post #219
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.

Daily Beast, not the Economist.

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

#226

Post by FireBeyond »

maxdo wrote: post #215
FireBeyond wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Automatic emergency braking is a required standard feature in the US.

Forward collision warning became standard in 2016 by at least ten manufacturers: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

Without speaking to Blind Spot, my Audi does similar intelligent things. If you change lanes next to a vehicle or just in front of it, but you have a positive speed differential, it won't activate. If there is a vehicle in your blind spot approaching you but their speed differential to you is low, it will activate later. If there's a much higher speed differential (say they're in a HOV lane, and you're in a much slower regular lane), it will activate much earlier.

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

#227

Post by pjkundert »

An even more serious problem with Tesla's claims regarding the safety of its Autopilot is this:

Autopilot failure statistics are non-ergodic. You don't get to "play again" after a catastrophic Autopilot failure.

So, Autopilot must not be 5x or 10x better than your own driving -- it has to be, like 100x or 1000x better, in order to warrant you risking your life on it.

Trusting an autopilot that is just 10x better than you are?

Insane. It randomly drives under a semi-trailer that you would have easily seen and avoided, and you're dead.

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

#228

Post by ummonk »

dzader wrote: post #221
ummonk wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice. Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.

"Boeing instructed pilots to take corrective action in case of a malfunction, when the airplane would enter a series of automated nosedives. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

Indeed, Tesla's autopilot behaves a lot more like MCAS than like an airplane autopilot.

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

#229

Post by watwut »

sokoloff wrote: post #209
dmitriid wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autopilot is a tool. You can miss use it, sure. But if you care about safety it's hard to match with what they offer. 1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria 2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the dri…

> It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft. And that’s what’s confusing to people; most don’t realize that an autopilot is a control used by a driver or pilot to reduce their workload. (As a pilot, I am still logging flight time as the “sole manipulator of controls” during the time the autopilot is engaged.)

And that "confusion" was created intentionally by Tesla. So that it is easy to pretend it was not deliberately pretending higher capabilities while giving yourself option to pretend you are not.

You know like that claim about human being there just because of pesky regulations and laws. Not because human would be needed.

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

#230

Post by oblio »

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…

The thing is, you don't even need Tesla "self driving" for that.

Adaptive cruise control, tech we've had for what, 20+ years? is more than enough for most highways, it takes out ~80% of the stress/boredom of driving, especially since lane changes are minimal and curves are gentle.

The hard parts of driving (aka not highways) are the real problem, as expected. We solved the easy parts in 2000 and who knows if we'll solve the hard parts by 2050.

Post reply on HN