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

California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#61

Post by culi »

nradov wrote: post #46
ra7 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the video of that Google experiment you mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ePWBBrWSzo Google had hands-free driving working on highways a decade ago, but decided they didn't want to take the incremental approach of L2 -> L3 -> L4 exactly for the reasons you mentioned and jumped straight to making L4 (fully driverless) work.

GM has taken the incremental approach and has been selling the L2 Super Cruise feature for several years. So far it seems to have a good safety record. They plan to start selling an "Ultra Cruise" system next year with autonomous driving on a wider range of roads, but it will still be L2. Mercedes-Benz had hands-free driving working on highways in 1987 (before Google even existed). However, their approach relied on e…

Yup and Super Cruise was essentially the same as Tesla's initial "Autopilot" but they didn't wanna deal with getting sued and being held liable for deaths. Something that Tesla, until recently, seems to have been immune from

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#62

Post by culi »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #60
culi wrote: post #20

Before Tesla came out with autopilot, Google had done extensive user research on "autopilot" cars and found that no matter how many times you tell users that they must be fully attentive, people WILL go on their phones or stop paying attention. It's the entire reason Google didn't go to market with their technology before Tesla Then Musk came along and completely ignored the research (which he must've been really awa…

This is another version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Even without any driving assistance, people will go in their their phones and have lapses of attention. The data shows that people are more irresponsible with the autopilot technology. Does this fault fall on the drivers or manufacturer.

A commenter above pointed out GM's "super cruise" feature. A much safer choice of language for the same thing Tesla was initially offering

Tesla chose to go with "autopilot" because they sell people what they wanna hear. It's irresponsible and unsafe

> This is another version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument.

And no actually this is quite the opposite argument.

> The data shows that people are more irresponsible with the autopilot technology. Does this fault fall on the drivers or manufacturer.

Just like the fact that tools are specifically built in a way that makes them much more likely to be used to kill people, the fact that Tesla's are made and marketed the way they are makes them much more likely to be lead to people being irresponsible

I think you got the arguments backwards buddy. you're exactly the one who's making a version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#63

Post by culi »

chmod600 wrote: post #59
simion314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't know, Tesla is secret about the real data. From what we see in videos where people are testing FSD and the human had to save teh day many times in 30 minutes. So for just that 1 car you would have had 1 death if the human was not there. IF we would have the number of how many times the driver would have been hurt if he did not take control then we could have a better guess how many kilometers a Tesla would s…

That's not needed to answer my question. Regardless of FSD, are Teslas more lethal per mile than other cars?

> Tesla’s Driver Fatality Rate is more than Triple that of Luxury Cars (and likely even higher)

https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#64

Post by simion314 »

chmod600 wrote: post #59
simion314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't know, Tesla is secret about the real data. From what we see in videos where people are testing FSD and the human had to save teh day many times in 30 minutes. So for just that 1 car you would have had 1 death if the human was not there. IF we would have the number of how many times the driver would have been hurt if he did not take control then we could have a better guess how many kilometers a Tesla would s…

That's not needed to answer my question. Regardless of FSD, are Teslas more lethal per mile than other cars?

Maybe you want to make you question more clear, do you mean Tesla with FSD, or only with autopilot, or with autopilot off, or in US highways, More lethal then all cars(old or new, cheap or expensive), motorcycles, trucks. If you compare with other luxury cars with similar safety system you might be disappointed and if you would then be honest ab out safety you would have to stop propagating the fake stats otherwise Tesla shares might fall and lots of suffering will happen for the fans.

If you question was if self driving is safer then humans the answers sr probably no, if it were even close Tesla would have shown the numbers not kepp them hidden.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#65

Post by culi »

toolz wrote: post #35
simion314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't know, Tesla is secret about the real data. From what we see in videos where people are testing FSD and the human had to save teh day many times in 30 minutes. So for just that 1 car you would have had 1 death if the human was not there. IF we would have the number of how many times the driver would have been hurt if he did not take control then we could have a better guess how many kilometers a Tesla would s…

Tesla isn't hiding data, they simply only have autopilot data on highways, which their autopilot data suggests it's safer than human pilots on highways. Which to me suggests we should be putting social effort behind making autopilot (on the highway, at least) the norm. Perfection is not a requirement for advancement.

Actually autopilot seems to be just as safe as driving without it

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-te...

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#66

Post by s1artibartfast »

culi wrote: post #62
s1artibartfast wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Even without any driving assistance, people will go in their their phones and have lapses of attention. The data shows that people are more irresponsible with the autopilot technology. Does this fault fall on the drivers or manufacturer.

A commenter above pointed out GM's "super cruise" feature. A much safer choice of language for the same thing Tesla was initially offering Tesla chose to go with "autopilot" because they sell people what they wanna hear. It's irresponsible and unsafe > This is another version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. And no actually this is quite the opposite argument. > The data shows that people are more…

I'm just saying it is the same argument, not that you are taking a given position on it.

The question of if Tesla sells a more dangerous product is different from the false advertising claim. Both could be true, false, or mixed.

I personally think FSD is false advertising but the name doesn't make the product anymore dangerous then if it would have been if called "super cruise", "driver assist", or whatever with identical features.

The features themselves may also be more dangerous, but the question of if that puts blood on their hands is the gun debate all over again.

Fast cars and cheap cars are also more dangerous, ect

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#67

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #29
belkinpower wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have meanings. If you call something “full self-driving” you can’t get upset when people assume it means full self-driving.

So just so I understand, you think there are Tesla owners that think they have Full self driving because the Tesla website calls it FSD?

Spend time on a Tesla owner's Facebook group and you'll see that yes, there are definitely Tesla owners that think that. They buy a Tesla with FSD and then get upset when they find out that FSD isn't actually FSD.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#68

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

acdha wrote: post #47
ra7 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why even call it FSD if it's not fully self driving? There's no reason to use a misleading name in the first place.

The absurdity of that point becomes obvious when you look at it from a business perspective: Tesla’s marketing department wants that there because it sounds better than what their competitors offer. They wouldn’t make it so prominent if they didn’t want you to take exactly that impression.

Buying FSD now is really just buying a promise that FSD will be delivered in the future.

Whether Tesla will actually achieve FSD is debatable. Personally, I think they will. Yes, even with vision-only. It's going to be several more years, but I think they'll get there eventually.

But what do you call it when you're selling that feature to customers today?

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#69

Post by BoorishBears »

Volundr wrote: post #51
BoorishBears wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla isn't hiding data No they are. They won't break out FSD and they 100% could > their autopilot data suggests it's safer than human pilots on highways Their autopilot data compared to every single type of car, with every single type of driver, only on highways. So we're comparing every 1994 Corolla with a teenage driver to every 2021 EV with a 30 yr old driver. The reality is AP should really be compared to mod…

> Their autopilot data compared to every single type of car, with every single type of driver, only on highways. Is there new data I missed? Last I was aware Telsa had published data comparing autopilot to human drivers, but not adjusting for road type, weather, road condition, construction, and any number of other factors in addition to the ones you mentioned. So basically Telsa determined that autopilot on easy-mod…

I think you're misunderstanding the quoted section, my exact point is they're comparing a narrow section of drivers on highways (people in Teslas who enabled AP) to all drivers on highways

The narrow section excludes older vehicles, skews away from the most at risk demographics of drivers, removes the toughest highway situations from the equation since AP will disengage, the list goes on.

Re: California DMV accuses Tesla of making false claims about Autopilot and FSD

#70

Post by acdha »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #68
acdha wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absurdity of that point becomes obvious when you look at it from a business perspective: Tesla’s marketing department wants that there because it sounds better than what their competitors offer. They wouldn’t make it so prominent if they didn’t want you to take exactly that impression.

Buying FSD now is really just buying a promise that FSD will be delivered in the future. Whether Tesla will actually achieve FSD is debatable. Personally, I think they will. Yes, even with vision-only. It's going to be several more years, but I think they'll get there eventually. But what do you call it when you're selling that feature to customers today ?

Especially if it’s tied to the vehicle. How many people who paid for FSD originally will have sold their car or had it reach the end of its service life by the time anything like the original promise is delivered?
Post reply on HN