Live data from Hacker News

Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

washingtonpost.com

271–280 of 315 posts

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a robotics person outside this space, it's not amazing that the shift to L4 as a goal has not been clearly grok'd by the public. After years of rhetoric, most people still believe that cars will be fully autonomous because they just don't understand the limitations. It's also quite amazing to me we, the so called smart ones, ever believed level 5 was happening but those were the good old days, huh.

It's hard to impossible for me to know how difficult level 5 driving even is since we don't have any machine that can do it. Trying to achieve it has been a good example of turtles all the way down. At the same time I feel like people are ignoring how well self-driving works RIGHT NOW, the rate of accidents is still less than with human drivers. So I'm still pretty optimistic.

> It's hard to impossible for me to know how difficult level 5 driving even is

I have slightly a different opinion. I think you can easily guesstimate how difficult something will be by listing the "new" stuff. But I think you can't easily estimate how easy something will be because you can't list everything, so anything you miss could easily delay.

Said another way: We should have known it would take at least a decade, but should never have said it will take at most two decades. (as technologists).

And yeah - agree - lvl 3 is pretty good, feature-wise.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#272
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their safety report is a joke and their methodology is full of holes. There are a bunch of replies to this comment that explain why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359437 As far as proving how unsafe it is, no one can do it unless Tesla is transparent with their data. Deliberately hiding that data doesn't automatically mean it's safer than humans, so yes, their claims are indeed highly misleading.

I see a lot of folks casting doubts and asking questions like you in the linked thread, but nobody seems willing to dispute the signal itself, just it's relevance. From the top comment: > You're essentially telling us that drivers driving Teslas with active autopilot (i.e. limited to great weather conditions on high quality roads) have fewer accidents than those without active autopilot (e.g. driving in poor weather…

> FSD refusing to engage in unsafe driving conditions does not compromise the system's safety.

That’s not the relevant part here. It’s that other humans do drive in unsafe conditions that contribute to overall human crash rates and those variables are not controlled for in the comparison.

You can’t just drive in areas your system deems safe, but then compare to humans who drive everywhere. You understand how that skews the comparison, right? It’s pretty basic statistics.

> Right, so how are you confidently discounting Elon's claim without data?

Elon’s claim isn’t supported by data either. That’s how I can discount it.

When you say “safer than human”, you better support it with data that holds up to scrutiny. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, you’re asking us to prove a negative.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Model S Plaid is not describing the paint scheme of the vehicle. Full Self Driving is the name of the feature specifically chosen to mislead about its capabilities.

> Full Self Driving is the name of the feature specifically chosen to mislead about its capabilities. Full Self Driving was chosen to describe its intended capabilities exactly. Was the SLS misleading before its first flight in 2022 because it had yet to launch to space? Were the James Webb or Hubble falsely advertised during production? "They want us to call that thing a 'Space Telescope' when it's obviously a pile…

It would be wrong to have called Mercury "lunar orbiters" though.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#274
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, now do the statistics for the number of people who burned to death. Actually, no need, I have them right here. The NFPA (the same organization Tesla is quoting for vehicle fire counts) estimates 560 fire deaths per year in the US over 290 million registered vehicle years [2] or ~1.93 deaths per million vehicle-years. Third party reports show at least 20 people burned to death in their Tesla's in the US in 2022…

>Third party reports show at least 20 people burned to death in their Tesla's in the US in 2022 [1] I started fact checking [1], and stopped when there was only 1 death in 2022: a cat. Many of "your" fires are indirectly related to Tesla (e.x. bad EVSE wiring job), so please link me to anything I may have missed and I'll continue.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. The page has clear links to news stories corroborating the deaths. Here are a few in 2022 with minimal paywalls:

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221111234459/https://www.cbsne...

“A Tesla is believed to have burst into flames upon impact.

One person, a passenger inside the Tesla, was pronounced dead at the scene by first responders.”

[2] https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/atlanta-crash-ral...

“ One person is dead after a fiery crash on Tuesday morning in southwest Atlanta where Atlanta Police officers were unable to rescue the driver from a burning Tesla.”

[3] https://www.denver7.com/news/investigations/fatal-tesla-cras...

Look familiar? “The crash happened in the late evening of May 16 on Upper Bear Creek Road when the car went off the road and slammed into a tree. The car then caught fire.

A passenger made it out of the vehicle, but the driver, 33-year-old Hans von Ohain, died at the scene.”

Yep, literally the very crash this thread is about was a fire death.

You clearly either did not even look at the link provided or failed to understand how the data was presented.

And just in case you did not read the NFPA report I linked and make a statement like, “But, but, those were crashes, they don’t count.” The NFPA report counts all fires where a death occurred directly or indirectly, especially collisions which were responsible for almost 2/3 of vehicle fire deaths.

What the data actually shows is that non-collision fires, which are almost never deadly, are uncommon on Teslas. However, collision fires, which are very deadly, are disproportionately dangerous and common on Teslas to the extent that their total fire death rate is multiple times higher than regular cars.

As it turns out, reducing your near miss rate in return for increasing catastrophic failure rate is not acceptable.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#275

This is a sensationalized hit piece against Tesla Autopilot. It is definitely unfortunate the drunk employee operating the car was involved in a crash, that at least from the wp reporting sounds avoidable—Autopilot active or not. Any death is unfortunate, and an opportunity to improve vehicle safety. Tesla's Q4 2023 stats should speak for themselves: > In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 5.39 million…

Elon can also speak for himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFTlx68itk&t=93s

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#276
post #48

As I said in another comment, these two were idiots driving drunk. Let's get that out of the way. The bigger issue here is how this deniability is all too convenient for Tesla. The process goes like this: 1. Ship a clearly half baked system called "Full Self Driving". 2. Require driver's hands on the wheel at all times. 3. Be extremely non-transparent about your system's safety. Tesla's crash reports in the public NH…

It should be illegal for them to call it full self drive. It's 100% false advertising not to mention the 'danger' that people will assume it is what it says it is.

It is in California, but it hasn't been enforced yet: https://www.autobodynews.com/news/tesla-not-allowed-to-call-...

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#277
post #77

There is no difference between advertising "Full Self Driving" and advertising "Guaranteed Investment Returns", but only the latter is illegal. Your move, Lina.

All my investments have guaranteed returns between -100% and +100000000000%. (I don't sell puts)

My robotaxi is basically a money printing machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoFxTTC-tm0&t=546s

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#278
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how proximate cause works in a negligence case.

Can you explain?

Sure. If it's a fact that being sober wouldn't have prevented the accident from happening, then being drunk could not have been a proximate cause.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#279
post #269
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were asked for any evidence that it's unsafe, and you don't have it. The linked article is the only fatal accident you can even point to, and even that one is (1) only a suspected FSD accident based on previous driver statements and (2) really obviously a DUI anyway. Look, these are the most popular vehicles on the road. Where are the wrecks? Where are the bodies? Surely if these were significant there would at l…

No one can tell with a wreck if FSD was active or not. No shit, no one can point you to actual evidence because Tesla doesn’t release any data. You realize what a ridiculous, circular argument you’re making, right? It’s telling that you want to rely on anecdata and news reports as proof rather than asking Tesla to be forthcoming. To call a system safe and more specifically safer than human, you need data and you don’…

Is the burden of proof really on me? I mean, I look around and don't see any accidents. Seems safe. That's good enough. And it's good enough for most people. You're the one shouting like crazy on the internet about how everyone is wrong and making explicit general statements that the system is clearly unsafe. And that doesn't match my experience. And when asked for evidence of your own you admit it doesn't exist.

So... it's like that Money Printer Go Brrr... meme. Shouting loudly about something you believe deeply doesn't make it true. Cars aren't crashing. QED.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#280
post #279
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one can tell with a wreck if FSD was active or not. No shit, no one can point you to actual evidence because Tesla doesn’t release any data. You realize what a ridiculous, circular argument you’re making, right? It’s telling that you want to rely on anecdata and news reports as proof rather than asking Tesla to be forthcoming. To call a system safe and more specifically safer than human, you need data and you don’…

Is the burden of proof really on me? I mean, I look around and don't see any accidents. Seems safe. That's good enough. And it's good enough for most people. You're the one shouting like crazy on the internet about how everyone is wrong and making explicit general statements that the system is clearly unsafe . And that doesn't match my experience. And when asked for evidence of your own you admit it doesn't exist. So…

Precisely what I expected from you. You’re exactly Tesla’s target audience. The irony and projection in your comment is comical.

“It’s safer than humans.”

“Proof?”

“Just look around, bro. Trust me, it’s good enough. No data needed.”

Thankfully, some of us don’t lack critical thinking.

Post reply on HN