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

201–210 of 286 posts

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

#201

Post by hedora »

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 does a comparison with average (estimated), low-speed contact events that are not police-reported by humans, of one incident every 200,000 miles.

Where does it say that? I see "However, that figure doesn’t include non-police-reported incidents. When adding those, or rather an estimate of those, humans are closer to 200,000 miles between crashes, which is still a lot better than Tesla’s robotaxi in Austin."

All but one of the Tesla crashes obviously involved significant property damage or injuries (the remaining one is ambiguous).

So, based on the text of the article, they're assuming only 2/5ths of property damage / injury accidents are reported to the police. That's lower than I would have guessed (don't people use their car insurance, which requires the police report?), but presumably backed by data.

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

#203

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

bluGill wrote: post #183
ghaff wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical. If someone really wants a Tesla, my guess is that they'll rationalize Musk's actions or least compartmentalize them.

That was 10-15 years ago, but back then Musk appeared different, and Telsa was new. Today you can buy a Tesla, they are no longer the status symbol they once were. A 15 year old Mercedes is a status symbol in the US, a 15 year old Tesla is not, Tesla didn't capture the status symbol market (which might have been a good decision - what wasn't a good decision was for the CEO to go public about political views that are…

A 15 year old Mercedes is a falling apart PoS maintenance nightmare driven by someone with a lack of common sense.

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

#205

Post by jraby3 »

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 find it interesting the Lemonade insurance just began offering a 50% discount for Tesla with FSD.

Insurance companies are known for analytics and don't survive if they use bad data. This points to your comment being correct.

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

#206

Post by brookst »

tsimionescu wrote: post #152
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…

All of your arguments are expounded upon in the article itself, and their conclusions still hold, based on the publicly available data. The 3x figure in the title is based on a comparison of the Tesla reports with estimated average human driver miles without an incident, not based on police report data. The comparison with police-report data would lead to a 9x figure instead, which the article presents but quickly di…

I agree with most of your points and your conclusion, but to be fair OP was asserting that human drivers under-report incidents, which I believe. Super minor bumps where the drivers get out, determine there’s barely a scratch, and go on. Or solo low speed collisions with walls in garage or trees.

I don’t think it invalidates the conclusion, but it seems like one fair point in an otherwise off-target defense.

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

#207

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

sammyjoe72 wrote: post #29

Elon promised self driving cars in 12 months back in 2017? He’s also promising Optimus robots doing surgery on humans in 3 years? Extrapolating…………… Optimus is going to kill some humans and it will all be worth it!

Optimus could do surgery on humans right now if it wasn't for regulation that prohibits killing people off with robots.

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

#208

Post by jraby3 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #21
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've actually started ignoring all these reports. There is so much bad faith going on in self-driving tech on all sides, it is nearly impossible to come up with clean and controlled data, much less objective opinions. At this point the only thing I'd be willing to base an opinion on is if insurers ask for higher (or lower) rates for self-driving. Because then I can be sure they have the data and did the math right to…

The biggest indicator for me that this headline isn't accurate is that Lemonade insurance just reduced the rate for Tesla FSD by 50%. They probably have accurate data and decided that Tesla's are significantly safer than human drivers.

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

#209

Post by ivolimmen »

user34283 wrote: post #168
tsimionescu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on an hoax immediately debunked at the time We've all seen the video, there is no hoax and no doubt that he was doing a nazi salute, with some level of "humor" defense.

[flagged]

I think most of us don't care about the opinion of any Israël politician as they are doing Nazi things (genocide).

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

#210

Post by dham »

AlexandrB wrote: post #115
cbeach wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tend to defend companies that push the frontiers of self-driving cars, because the technology has the potential to save lives and make life easier and cheaper for everyone. As engineers, we understand that the technology will go from unsafe, to par-with-humans, to safer-than-humans, but in order for it to get to the latter, it requires much validation and training in an intermediate state, with appropriate safegua…

> Tesla's approach has been more risk averse and conservative than others. You lost me here. Tesla's approach has absolutely not been risk averse or conservative. They've allowed random public "testers" to beta test their self driving stack while even they called it a "beta". They've irresponsibly called the feature "full self driving" when it wasn't able to do any such thing. They've made completely outlandish promi…

So I'm assuming you're fine with regular drivers using basic lane keep systems from other companies, which honestly doesn't even work well, even in the latest cars. (there's a reason Comma.ai exists) At least people who are using FSD are enthusiasts and understand the tech. You have some people using lane keep with adaptive cruise control and think the car is "self driving". That's dangerous.
Post reply on HN