Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by ra7 » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 9:22 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #307

Veserv wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1]. But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government. As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but…

That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation. > Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. No, but it's still a blow fo…

It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it.

Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes:

  Total Tesla crashes: 1048

  Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997
  Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13%

  Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27

  Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11
  Percentage of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 40.74%

  Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7
  Percentage of fatal crashes with only 'complaint/claim' as source: 25.92%

Matches up to parent comment's numbers. Incredible amount of missing data!

My experience is that when people repeatedly ask for analysis in the face of raw data being presented, it's because they're afraid to find out what's in it and hope to sweep it under the rug.

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

#312

Post by ra7 » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #290

ra7 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said they are not safer than humans like Tesla likes to claim. The methodology is extremely dubious and it’s very easy to debunk it for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. You claim it’s true because have anecdotes and personal experiences. You also say there are no crashes. But there are crashes. We just don’t know if FSD was engaged at the time because, again, Tesla doesn’t reveal it. Go through the…

If you don't like Tesla's methodology, what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? You sound like you have the data: > Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones. Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? "debunking" some statistics might be c…

By the way, if you want to see missing data in action, I did some legwork: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39375581

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

#313

Post by ajross » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 10:16 PM UTC

ra7 wrote: post #311

ajross wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation. > Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. No, but it's still a blow fo…

It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it. Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes: Total Tesla crashes: 1048 Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997 Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13% Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27 Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Percentage of fatal crashes detect…

Good grief:

   Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11
   Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7

Yeah, that's what I thought. Reasoning from outliers. Now for extra credit, compute a confidence interval from these 18 lines you cherry picked from a 1000-entry data set. I mean, really?

Yeah, I declare this debunked. This nonsense is only a tiny bit better than trying to declare a product dangerous based on one DUI accident.

(Also, I'm pretty sure you're making the argument in the wrong direction. Wasn't the contention upthread that there were too *FEW* telemetry-reported accidents, as if to claim that Tesla was suppressing them? This seems to say that Telemetry is a more reliable reporter, no? Meh. Not even interested in the specifics anymore, there's literally nothing a data set this small is going to tell us.)

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

#314

Post by ra7 » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 10:32 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #313

ra7 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it. Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes: Total Tesla crashes: 1048 Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997 Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13% Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27 Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Percentage of fatal crashes detect…

Good grief: Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7 Yeah, that's what I thought. Reasoning from outliers. Now for extra credit, compute a confidence interval from these 18 lines you cherry picked from a 1000-entry data set. I mean, really? Yeah, I declare this debunked. This nonsense is only a tiny bit better than trying to declare a produ…

Cherry picking from raw data of 1000+ crashes? Yeah, you're not here for a good faith discussion after vehemently asking for sources and assuming "confusion and obfuscation". You just want to shout down "I declare this debunked" with absolutely nothing to support it. This is gaslighting at its finest.

The original claim was this:

> Their telemetry systems, which are responsible for detecting 90+% of their reported incidents detected fewer than 40% of their reported fatal crashes. A full 30% of known fatalities were undetected by both telemetry and media and are only recorded due to customer complaints by surviving parties who knew the system was engaged.

So no, I'm not making the argument in the wrong direction. Perhaps try re-reading it? The numbers match it almost exactly.

I'm done with your nonsense.

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

#315

Post by Veserv » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 12:08 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #313

ra7 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it. Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes: Total Tesla crashes: 1048 Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997 Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13% Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27 Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Percentage of fatal crashes detect…

Good grief: Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7 Yeah, that's what I thought. Reasoning from outliers. Now for extra credit, compute a confidence interval from these 18 lines you cherry picked from a 1000-entry data set. I mean, really? Yeah, I declare this debunked. This nonsense is only a tiny bit better than trying to declare a produ…

Your argument is:

“Ha, Tesla actively suppressed and concealed 95% of the evidence so you do not have enough evidence to prove them wrong. Checkmate.

Tesla just hides it because it is too vindicating. So you have no choice but to believe their unsupported and unaudited claims.”

Again, you have not presented a single claim supported by any auditable data or analysis. You demand others present conclusions with a confidence interval when even the Tesla safety team is unable to do so even though Tesla is the one pushing a system conclusively known to kill people. It is their duty to collect sufficient, comprehensive, and incontrovertible evidence that their systems do not incur excess risk and subject it to unbiased audits.

So, present your comprehensive, incontrovertible claim with a confidence interval based on audited data. That is the burden of proof to support killing more people.