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

351–360 of 462 posts

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

#351

Post by dreamcompiler »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #313
adolph wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are additional confounding variables noted in the paper: - Age of driver - Specific highways used (congestion, road conditions) - What is classified as a highway Overall this is pretty good news for "autopilot" systems. It gives some humans an ego-boost as they clutch to steering wheels like John Henry. It gives others interested in a more relaxed driving experience the confidence that the computer isn't going…

And you know what? All I want out of the first fifteen years of self-driving is a really good highway autopilot. As in one I can hopefully sleep at the wheel on a late night trip between midwestern US cities. John Henryism can navigate the suburbs, stroads, and drivethrus. If they achieve a backup safety system that monitors the humans, well, ok great. But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle…

> But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle the messy last mile.

Me too, and my Tesla handles daytime good-weather non-construction highway driving pretty well with just the standard autosteer. I finish a long road trip much less fatigued in a Tesla than I have in any other car. (Part of that is the seats. Tesla really sweats the details of making seats comfortable.)

But FSD is kind of a sad joke. Off-highway navigation only works in particular major cities, the car stops at green lights, tries to turn right from the left lane, etc. And Elon thinks that's worth an extra $15k. Nope. It really isn't, at least for me.

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

#352

Post by Robotbeat »

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...

Even after adjusting, it does look like autopilot is slightly safer (although not a strong enough effect to say for sure). It doesn't appear to be worse, so good enough to allow it, IMHO.

I actually wonder if there's another effect: Drivers only eligible for beta FSD if they meet a super high safety score (which isn't a perfect metric, but probably better than nothing). That incentivizes good driving even when FSD not engaged. Of course, that's a recent thing and hasn't shown up in data.

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

#353

Post by rurp »

gnicholas wrote: post #308
rurp wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla was first to introduce over the air updates of software and firmware. I want the controls on my car to constantly change out from under me as much as I want my miter saw and power drill to startle me with a new interface. Screwing with safety critical controls does NOT make people safer.

I would like OTA updates that are opt-in. That would be a happy medium between Tesla and traditional automakers.

I think opt-in updates are fine. I want nothing to do with them myself, but have no problem with others making a different decision.

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

#354

Post by Robotbeat »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #348
contravariant wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are additional factors. Teslas are on average substantially newer than the average US passenger car fleet and thus have significantly more safety features and driver assistance tech, are better maintained, etc. If Tesla compared only to vehicles of similar age and class (Audi/BMW/Mercedes etc) their stats would be much less favorable.

People often save up especially for a Tesla (incorporating gas and maintenance savings in the price), including a lot of people who wouldn't be buying a BMW, so I'm not sure price would be the right metric there.

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

#355

Post by llamataboot »

paxys wrote: post #22

I have felt since day 1 that "autopilot is better than the average driver!" is the most misleading fact/statistic in the industry. 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. To be worth it, the car…

I agree with this, and have also been accused of being a Tesla hater, but OTOH someone has to pave the way for the future in which none of /those/ people have to drive either, and our cities aren't taken over by surface parking for cars that move two or three times a day at most.

If we're not gonna switch to sane urban planning, may as well bring on the robo-taxis that can go anywhere

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

#357

Post by ClumsyPilot »

laen wrote: post #248
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.

There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot. Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve…

"Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time"

When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms.

It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers-autopilot-swerve...

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

#358

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jlmorton wrote: post #284
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The driving public knows when it can't take such calculated risks. Does the ML classifier know what it isn't seeing?

I think there are two arguments here: legality, and actual safety. I would argue that the slow rolling stop is perfectly safe in all cases, but the law exists as it is only to reduce ambiguity for enforcement. It's not a calculated risk - there is no circumstance where it's unsafe.

> there is no circumstance where it's unsafe.

Famous last words

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

#359

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jahewson wrote: post #149
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…

I read it that way at first too but I think the reasoning is actually correct. The population of Tesla drivers will of course resemble the overall population of drivers but most drivers are not sleepy/raging/drunks and by extension “most people buying Teslas aren't part of” that group either. To use an analogy: the average person has 1.9 legs but a product which results in its user having 1.95 legs is not an improvem…

Great analogy, thank you, ive been struggling to put this across

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

#360

Post by gefhfffh »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #313
adolph wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are additional confounding variables noted in the paper: - Age of driver - Specific highways used (congestion, road conditions) - What is classified as a highway Overall this is pretty good news for "autopilot" systems. It gives some humans an ego-boost as they clutch to steering wheels like John Henry. It gives others interested in a more relaxed driving experience the confidence that the computer isn't going…

And you know what? All I want out of the first fifteen years of self-driving is a really good highway autopilot. As in one I can hopefully sleep at the wheel on a late night trip between midwestern US cities. John Henryism can navigate the suburbs, stroads, and drivethrus. If they achieve a backup safety system that monitors the humans, well, ok great. But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle…

Actually, seems like you want a train
Post reply on HN