Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

Post by timschmidt » Mon, Apr 07, 2025, 3:15 AM UTC

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #386

timschmidt wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't use medicine as an example in this case. Medicine does all kinds of ill advised things because they're worse for the disease than the patient. And all kinds of things they know will kill the patient if there's opportunity to learn and improve other lives. It seems like Tesla's been pretty clear with drivers who've opted in to FSD that they're helping to test and develop a system which isn't perfect. Just o…

> "It seems like Tesla's been pretty clear with drivers who've opted in to FSD that they're helping to test and develop a system which isn't perfect." Strawman No matter how many contracts and disclaimers they get in their favor. The "Full self driving" system is causing accidents (and deaths) Turn lights, rearview cameras, safety belts, all exist and are regulated to prevent the manufacturer dumping responsibility o…

Post by y1n0 » Mon, Apr 07, 2025, 4:01 AM UTC

redox99 wrote: post #326

throwaway31131 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They generally can't detect stationary objects, have problems with reflections, most of them are VERY low resolution, and so on. Radar can absolutely detect a stationary object. The problem is not, "moving or not moving", it's "is the energy reflected back to the detector," as alluded to by your second qualification. So something that scatters or absorbs the transmitted energy is hard to measure with radar because…

They can detect stationary objects, yes. But there's so much clutter from things like overpasses, road signs, and other objects that confuse the radar, that for things like adaptive cruise control, stationary objects are often intentionally filtered out or assigned much lower priority. So you detect moving objects (which stand out because of doppler shift).

Post by flashman » Mon, Apr 07, 2025, 5:54 AM UTC

pfannkuchen wrote: post #77

xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

You do want them to be better than humans, but vision quality is not really a major source of human accidents. Accidents are typically caused by driving technique, inattention, or a failure to accurately model the behavior of other drivers. Put another way - would giving humans superhuman vision significantly reduce the accident rate? The issue here is that the vision based system failed to even match human capabilit…

Post by tordrt » Mon, Apr 07, 2025, 10:13 AM UTC

turnsout wrote: post #166

xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

His biographer estimates his IQ is 100-110. [0] [0] https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1892710698683142638

Post by tim333 » Mon, Apr 07, 2025, 11:05 AM UTC

outer_web wrote: post #215

kjkjadksj wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is harping on the engineering. It is a marketing reason first and foremost. Lidar units are ugly as hell. No consumer would ever buy one of those waymo jaguars even if its better if tesla can do 95% of that without looking like a beluga whale.

Didn't early Teslas have lidar? They didn't look like AWACS.