This does not bode well for the Tesla robotaxi pilot launching soon. Depending on how that goes, Q2/Q3 could be a bloodbath for Tesla and I'm sure he knows it.
Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
191–200 of 449 posts
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market Tesla could very well have the best FSD marketing on the software. And that's dangerous. Data point: the "First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System" is ... Mercedes-Benz https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-... The second will be, IDK, maybe BMW? https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combinin..…
> First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
And Mercedes owning liability if you have an incident under their system? That is actually putting your money where your mouth is.
Not just “the driver is only in the seat for legal reasons” bullshit (“but watch us throw a press conference to parade your talented data for the world if we think it will protect our reputation at your expense”).
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it? Seems to be what they do.
Tesla's valuation is based on the heady tales that Musk spins. It's not based on the fact that reality falls far short of them.
Engineering entirely new things isn't like making another set of silverware, there are unforeseeable complications, and all forward looking statements are estimates or projections at best. Success seems to depend most on how many times you're able to try.
Maybe I'm just old, but development roadmaps are always vapor, until they aren't, which happens sometimes. Always been that way.
To be clear, I'd much rather my vehicle have superhuman multisensory awareness than only superhuman awareness. And I think it's fair for regulators to involve themselves with vehicle engineering, as all our safety depends on it. I've also watched the AI day presentations about their vehicle training system, and read their disclaimer text for enabling FSD, and it seems like they're doing a lot to advance the state of the art.
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#194Prediction: over the next 4 years we're going to see lots of stories like this. Some of the stories will be fair, some won't. "Musk bad" stories get clicks. The next administration will be very anti-Tesla. Coincidentally, by that time self-driving will be considered mature enough to warrant proper regulation, rather than the experimental regulation status we have now. Combine the two, and the regulations will be writ…
Hmm, but all the real, registered self driving vehicles in California are safer than human drivers - and that the data is better documented, we know that better than comparing human drivers to each other.
The regulations are doing really well, it’s a big victory for regulators, why not make Teslas abide by the same rules? Why not roll out such strict scrutiny gradually to all vehicles and drivers?
You are talking about regulatory degrees that are about safety. It seems the thing that lawmakers change is reactive to other things. Like how much does the community depend on cars to survive? If you cannot eliminate car dependence you can’t really achieve a more moral legal stance than “People can and will buy cars that kill other people so long as it doesn’t kill the driver.”
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#195I’m normally quite skeptical of these kinds of “Tesla More Dangerous Than Other Brands” headlines since they tend to be B.S. But this seems like a pretty legitimate accusation, and certainly a well researched write-up at the very least.
What gets me is that there are no other brands in Tesla's league. Tesla is the only consumer car that has "FSD" level ability. The competitors have to use pre-mapped roads and availability is spotty at best. There is also risk as Chevy already deprecated their first gen "FSD", leaving early adopters with gimped ability and shutout from future expansions.
That's because the competitors are aiming to provide a feature that works (all the time, consistently).
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#196Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just keeps getting worse.
We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass
> We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well.
No, we don't.
We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence, is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving.
Which is very different than “visual detection works quite well”.
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
Its Mercedes believing in their tech that they take responsibility if it fails.
You didn’t get my point.
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#198The other comment pointing this out has been (ridiculously) flagged, so I'll repeat the point that was made: The analysis is useless if it doesn't account for the base rate fallacy ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy ) The first thing I thought before even reading the analysis was "Does the author account for it?" And indeed he makes no mention that he did. So after reading the whole article I have no…
Base rate fallacy is not relevant here. There are 5 dead people who would be alive today had tesla not pushed this to the market.
Well that makes no sense because then you could say there are X people who would be alive today if they had not ridden a motorcycle.
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#199The 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…
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.
Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other
#200The 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…
Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…
I think that's an oversimplification, and helps mainly in the case where one sensor is totally offline.
If you have two sensors, one says everything's fine but the other says you're about to crash, which one do you trust? What if the one that says you're about to crash is feeding you bad data? And what if the resulting course correction leads to a different failure?
I'd hope that we've learned these lessons from the 737 Max crashes. In both cases, one sensor thought that the plane was at imminent risk of stalling, and so it forced the nose of the plane down, thereby leading to an entirely different failure mode.
Now, of course, having two sensors is better than just having the one faulty sensor. But it's worth emphasizing that not all sensor failures are created equal. And of course, it's important to monitor your monitoring.