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

Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 286 posts

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#101

Post by [deleted] »

coryrc wrote: post #71
noncoml wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other approaches, which use sensors like LIDAR as a crutch for their more rudimentary software. Do me a favor and take Musk and get on a plane with just a bunch of cameras instead of sevsors like radar, airspeed sensor, altimeter, GPS, ILS, etc. No need for those crutches. Do autopiloting like a real man!

Human-piloted planes have altimeters and airspeed indicators; the failure of which have caused many accidents. Tesla cars have speed sensors as well as GPS. (Altimeter and ILS not being relevant). I agree with Musk's claim they don't need LIDAR because human drivers don't; it's self-evidently true. But I think they _should_ have it because they can then be safer than humans; why settle for our current accident and de…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#102

Post by user34283 »

adriand wrote: post #42
cbeach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I would call strong opposition to Musk a democratic responsibility, not a derangement. We are talking about a guy with a fondness for the far right and throwing Nazi salutes, and whose destruction of USAID had, by November 2025, resulted in “hundreds of thousands of deaths”. [1] Those, of course, are just a couple of examples. If strong opposition to that kind of evil makes me deranged, count me in. 1: https://hsph.h…

I strongly oppose the constant slander and the litany of lies partisan commenters post about Musk.

You don't get to throw out "fondness for throwing Nazi salutes" slander, based on an hoax immediately debunked at the time, and then act like you're doing democracy a favor. Try to stick to the facts.

Regarding the journalist discussed here, I had a look at his X account, and he posted no less than 20 posts attacking Tesla and Musk in just the last day. It's virtually all he posts, and it indeed appears deranged. The flagged comment was fair enough.

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#103

Post by philipallstar »

fabian2k wrote: post #12
z7 wrote: post #7

The comparison isn't really like-for-like. NHTSA SGO AV reports can include very minor, low-speed contact events that would often never show up as police-reported crashes for human drivers, meaning the Tesla crash count may be drawing from a broader category than the human baseline it's being compared to. There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the…

I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. They should convince people that their Robotaxis are safe. If they redact the details about all incidents so that you cannot figure out who's at fault, that's on Tesla alone.

The burden of proof is on the article writer.

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#104

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #76
fabian2k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. They should convince people that their Robotaxis are safe. If they redact the details about all incidents so that you cannot figure out who's at fault, that's on Tesla alone.

>I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. That just sounds like a cope. The OP's claim is that the article rests on shaky evidence, and you haven't really refuted that. Instead, you just retreated from the bailey of "Tesla's Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse ..." to the motte of "the burden of proof here on Tesla". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy More broadly I think…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#105

Post by philipallstar »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #86
z7 wrote: post #7

The comparison isn't really like-for-like. NHTSA SGO AV reports can include very minor, low-speed contact events that would often never show up as police-reported crashes for human drivers, meaning the Tesla crash count may be drawing from a broader category than the human baseline it's being compared to. There's also a denominator problem. The mileage figure appears to be cumulative miles "as of November," while the…

TFA does a comparison with average (estimated), low-speed contact events that are not police-reported by humans, of one incident every 200,000 miles. I think that's high - if you're including backing into static objects in car parks and the like, you can look at workshop data and extrapolate that a lower figure might be closer to the mark. TFA also does a comparison with other self-driving car companies, which you ac…

> TFA's main point is that we can't really know what this data means because Tesla keep their data secret

If that's so, then the article title is very poor.

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#106

Post by speed_spread »

UltraSane wrote: post #64
fragmede wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We made drunk driving super illegal and that still doesn't stop people. I would rather they didn't in the first place, but since they're going to anyway, I'd really rather they have a computer that does it better than they do. FSD will pull over and stop if the driver has passed out.

Modern cars could easily detect drunk like driving and stop or call the cops.

A car that calls the cops on you. Great. It could also park, lock the doors and hold you in while the police take their sweet time knowing you're already in a cell?

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#107

Post by noncoml »

coryrc wrote: post #71
noncoml wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other approaches, which use sensors like LIDAR as a crutch for their more rudimentary software. Do me a favor and take Musk and get on a plane with just a bunch of cameras instead of sevsors like radar, airspeed sensor, altimeter, GPS, ILS, etc. No need for those crutches. Do autopiloting like a real man!

Human-piloted planes have altimeters and airspeed indicators; the failure of which have caused many accidents. Tesla cars have speed sensors as well as GPS. (Altimeter and ILS not being relevant). I agree with Musk's claim they don't need LIDAR because human drivers don't; it's self-evidently true. But I think they _should_ have it because they can then be safer than humans; why settle for our current accident and de…

[flagged]

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#108

Post by ghaff »

FeloniousHam wrote: post #88
Spooky23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be silly. Why would a reasonable person think “Full Self Driving” meant that a car would fully drive itself?

My current FSD percentage is 90% over 2k miles (recorded since v14 update). FSD is not perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.

A couple of friends with Teslas have told me it's not perfect and you do still have to pay attention but they do regular long drives and say it mostly works and they use it all the time.

(They also say there's still the handoff issue if a human needs to take control but it's still a big net win.)

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#109

Post by tsimionescu »

gruez wrote: post #76
fabian2k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. They should convince people that their Robotaxis are safe. If they redact the details about all incidents so that you cannot figure out who's at fault, that's on Tesla alone.

>I think it's fair to put the burden of proof here on Tesla. That just sounds like a cope. The OP's claim is that the article rests on shaky evidence, and you haven't really refuted that. Instead, you just retreated from the bailey of "Tesla's Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse ..." to the motte of "the burden of proof here on Tesla". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy More broadly I think…

The point is this: the article writer did what research they could do given the available public data. It's true that their title would be much more accurate if it said something like "Tesla's Robotaxi data suggests crash rate may be up to 3x worse than human drivers". It's then 100% up to Tesla to come up with cleaner data to help dispel this.

But so far, if all the data we have points in this direction, even if the certainty is low, it's fair to point this out.

Re: Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers

#110

Post by dgb23 »

LunicLynx wrote: post #68
xnx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla could share real/complete data at any time. The fact that they don't is likely and indicator the data does not look good.

You can do this with every topic. XYZ does not share this, so IT MUST BE BAD.

Yes, that's very often the case with things that would very likely be shared if it looked good.

There are things that don't get shared out of principle. For example there are anonymous votes or behind the scenes negotiations without commitment or security critical data.

But given that Musk tends to parade around vague promises since a very long time, it seems sharing data that looks very good would certainly be something they would do.

Post reply on HN