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

431–440 of 462 posts

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

#431

Post by HWR_14 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #370
gefhfffh wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, seems like you want a train

I'll answer that with another piece of prognostication: good highway self-driving will cause massive disruption to the airline industry. Would you rather do this for a business trip to a 400-500 mile away city: - fixed time to depart (and fixed for leaving your destination!) - have to book ticket weeks in advance for a reasonable flight - no flexiblity if plans change - pack a small bag - transit to an airport (parki…

I don't see how self-driving changes the calculus. Sure, sometimes I'll drive 5-6 hours instead of flying, but that's already the status quo.

Meanwhile, I don't see many people going somewhere 400-500 miles away regularly. Most places seem either much closer or much further.

If money is a concern, you can always take the bus.

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

#432

Post by InTheArena »

Niedermeyer

Google this guy before you buy any of his spin.

Not saying that Tesla shouldn’t be more transparent, but Niedermeyer is famous for how wrong he has been on Tesla on virtually everything. Like many Tesla partisans (not pro and anti) went way beyond rational discourse long long ago.

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

#433

Post by ZeroGravitas »

HWR_14 wrote: post #429
originalvichy wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go find the HN discussion on this report. German processes and bureaucracy surrounding road worthiness checks is not favourable towards non-established car brands like Tesla. In short: big car brands' cars go through a preliminary check at manufacturers' licensed dealerships, and only after that get sent to the government's checks. It enables manufacturers to fix cars before independent verification so their safety n…

You're explaining (one of) the reasons Tesla is failing at the metric. Far from showing the metric is flawed, you're exposing the value of a dealer system and what Tesla's customers are losing because there isn't one.

What value are you talking about?

Not publishing open stats on test failures? Why is that something the customer would want to pay for?

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

#434

Post by HWR_14 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #433
HWR_14 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're explaining (one of) the reasons Tesla is failing at the metric. Far from showing the metric is flawed, you're exposing the value of a dealer system and what Tesla's customers are losing because there isn't one.

What value are you talking about? Not publishing open stats on test failures? Why is that something the customer would want to pay for?

The value is as an additional line of QC. If you think about it as "hiding statistics" then there is no value. If you think of it as the last step in the production process, then clearly the cars making it to the customers are of a higher average level if the bad ones get rejected.

It also lets Tesla play with the numbers of shipped cars, because cars returned by dealers don't count as shipped.

But look at the recent HN story about the Tesla without a brake pad.

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

#435

Post by ZeroGravitas »

HWR_14 wrote: post #434
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value are you talking about? Not publishing open stats on test failures? Why is that something the customer would want to pay for?

The value is as an additional line of QC. If you think about it as "hiding statistics" then there is no value. If you think of it as the last step in the production process, then clearly the cars making it to the customers are of a higher average level if the bad ones get rejected. It also lets Tesla play with the numbers of shipped cars, because cars returned by dealers don't count as shipped. But look at the recent…

I think you may be confused as to the context. Or else I am, let me check.

Ok, so this is a check done after the car has been used for 3 years.

So, it's not QC before the car leaves the factory, it's fixing things before the government checks them and puts them into the public stats for test "failures".

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

#436

Post by Grustaf »

ipaddr wrote: post #271
Grustaf wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very odd reason to contest a fine. Clearly it was justified.

It may not have been. Can the case be made, is there proof, will anyone show up? Contesting a fine takes time but the judge can reduce the amount if it was unusually high.

enlyth's mother did say she rolled the stop sign, so unless she's lying, it's clearly a justified fine.

I wouldn't hesitate to break traffic rules at 4 o'clock in the morning if there was zero risk of harm - especially while bicycling I'm very flexible, but I also wouldn't complain if I got fined breaking the law. The law must be upheld even at night.

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

#437

Post by kwhitefoot »

CSSer wrote: post #250
oblio wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

I have a car with adaptive cruise control and lane assist, and most of my morning commute (on days when I go into the office) is driven on the highway. Most of the time I don't turn it on because I'm in a self-perceived hurry to get to work, so I forget. You know what would be really nice? Something that detects when it's safe and reasonable to suggest turning on adaptive cruise control so I use it more. Maybe someth…

My 2015 Tesla S 70D (AP1.5) does just this for Autosteer by adding an icon in the instrument cluster to say that the car thinks it could do it. I wish it had an optional chime for it though as I really don't want to spend much time looking at the instrument cluster.

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

#438

Post by HWR_14 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #435
HWR_14 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value is as an additional line of QC. If you think about it as "hiding statistics" then there is no value. If you think of it as the last step in the production process, then clearly the cars making it to the customers are of a higher average level if the bad ones get rejected. It also lets Tesla play with the numbers of shipped cars, because cars returned by dealers don't count as shipped. But look at the recent…

I think you may be confused as to the context. Or else I am, let me check. Ok, so this is a check done after the car has been used for 3 years. So, it's not QC before the car leaves the factory, it's fixing things before the government checks them and puts them into the public stats for test "failures".

I may have misunderstood. These statistics are generated by the government checking vehicles after they've been in service for 3 years by an end consumer? And only after the dealer gives it an immediately preceding check? If so, that invalidates my point.

If it's just the results of regular dealer maintenance, it's fuzzier.

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

#439

Post by kwhitefoot »

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?

Autopilot (called Autosteer in the UI of my Model S) is not full self driving. That licensing issue is a different discussion altogether and doesn't really have much to do with the issue at hand..

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

#440

Post by kwhitefoot »

tim333 wrote: post #405
leroman wrote: post #404

Insurance companies most probably have all the data at hand, couldn't coverage price reflect the real world risk as seen by someone with something to lose?

Teslas are pricey to fix so it'd be hard to tell just from the premiums.

I don't pay much more to insure my Model S than my previous car which had less than half the power and was a lot cheaper to fix if things went wrong. Which suggests to me that the insurance companies here, Norway, don't think that Tesla's are unsafe; or at least that they aren't going to cost the insurer a lot of money. And they do have a lot of experience here, 15 % of private cars on the road here are electric, quite a few of them Teslas because they were in the market from the beginning.
Post reply on HN