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

231–240 of 462 posts

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

#231

Post by maxdo »

dmitriid wrote: post #199
maxdo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> 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…

The author is projecting his assumptions based on 400 people questioned. Is it fair.

Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe. They also promote hybrid Cars that has highest chances to catch on fire compares to EV and regular ICE cars.

But yeah, naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc. That's a logic media is trying to put in our head. Don't think.

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

#232

Post by ummonk »

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.)

The kind of environment that a car is in (and the kind of monitoring required by the driver) is much more akin to autoland than autopilot.

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

#233

Post by FireBeyond »

dboreham wrote: post #111
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 in the context of regulations, they don't claim it to be self-driving.

Exactly. Marketing: "Self driving!" "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The car is driving itself." Legal: "Maintain control of the vehicle at all times."

Same with Summon. Marketing: "Bring your vehicle to you while dealing with a fussy child!" Legal: "Maintain attention and focus on vehicle at all times. Do not use while distracted."

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

#234

Post by oblio »

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…

> 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.

#1 lesson of buying cars is:

1. Don't buy German cars if you don't have to (or if you buy them, never complain about the price of their optional equipment).

The corollary is:

1". Buy Korean or Japanese cars.

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

#235

Post by jliptzin »

ummonk wrote: post #224
maxdo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A third the price but still pouring disgusting fumes into our neighborhoods

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

#236

Post by ummonk »

maxdo wrote: post #231
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…

The author is projecting his assumptions based on 400 people questioned. Is it fair. Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to mak…

What makes you say gasoline cars are much less safe than electric?

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

#237

Post by maxdo »

ummonk wrote: post #224
maxdo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BMW is a luxury Car, you still have to pay for safety extra. That's the difference. One car brand make it mandatory, other ask you extra dollars for every safety camera to install.

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

#238

Post by oblio »

maxdo wrote: post #231
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…

The author is projecting his assumptions based on 400 people questioned. Is it fair. Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to mak…

> Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.

Dude, really?

https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrificati...

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

#239

Post by ummonk »

jliptzin wrote: post #235
ummonk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A third the price but still pouring disgusting fumes into our neighborhoods

The disgusting fumes are almost exclusively from diesel trucks and very old cars. Manufacturing affordable (no, the Model 3 is not affordable) new cars helps take old cars off the streets and make our neighborhoods cleaner.

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

#240

Post by nradov »

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…

People are slow to "accept" self-driving cars because they don't exist in a form that anyone can actually buy. Regardless of safety or lack thereof, I can't purchase a real SAE level 4+ vehicle today at any price.
Post reply on HN