Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher tha human drivers • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by fragmede » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

Tesla Robotaxi service is also available in the San Francisco Bay Area, with an area serviced greater than Waymo. Since at least September, 2025, but probably earlier.

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

#262

Post by viraptor » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:28 PM UTC

tpm wrote: post #135

viraptor wrote: post #30

> showing cumulative robotaxi miles, the fleet has traveled approximately 500,000 miles as of November 2025. Comparing stats from this many miles to just over 1 trillion miles driven collectively in the US in a similar time period is a bad idea. Any noise in Tesla's data will change the ratio a lot. You can already see it from the monthly numbers varying between 1 and 4. This is a bad comparison with not enough data.…

It's always possible to deny the relevancy of a comparison based on some quality of the compared data. The autonomous car pilot trials will be by their very nature restriced to some locations, with specific weather patterns, etc., so even after the mileage will be 1000x of the current one there will be still options. At which point will the comparison be considered relevant?

When the confidence interval is narrow enough. For the human events in 1 trillion, we get 95% interval around [1997229, 2002773]. That barely changes the observed ratio. For 9 events of Tesla robotaxis, we get [4.11537, 17.08480]. That means "the real ratio is maybe half, maybe twice the measured one - we can't tell". The September was so out of usual distribution, that if you checked just October and November, Tesla would have a much better rate than humans.

I'm not saying the relevant agencies shouldn't be checking every crash. Just that "Tesla’s own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor" is completely unjustified. But "crash at rate maybe the same as human and maybe 18x - we're 99% sure" doesn't get clicks.

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

#263

Post by gamblor956 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

jraby3 wrote: post #208

sigmoid10 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's not what happened...

Lemonade announced an entirely new product for FSD driving, which it says should cut rates for FSD vehicles And importantly, FSD driving is no longer covered by the regular policy, so FSD drivers now need two separate insurance policies if using Lemonade: the regular insurance policy, and another one just for when using FSD.

The actual combined cost of the two insurance policies is more than the previous policy was because they didn't reduce rates for the normal insurance policies.

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

#264

Post by gamblor956 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:46 PM UTC

lastofthemojito wrote: post #151

kreetx wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Btw, do you happen to know, why electrek.co changed their tune in such a way? I was commenting on a similarly negative story by the same site, and said that they are always anti-Tesla. But then somebody pointed out that this wasn't always the case, that they were actually supportive, but then suddenly turned.

Fred Lambert was an early Tesla evangelist - he constantly wrote stories praising Tesla and Elon for years. He had some interactions with Elon on Twitter, got invited to Tesla events, referred enough people to earn free Tesla cars, etc. People roasted him for being a Tesla/Elon fanboy: https://www.thedrive.com/tech/21838/the-truth-behind-electre... Fred gradually started asking tougher questions when Tesla's schedule…

Yes, it's basically this: he drank the Tesla lemonade until he realized it was urine.

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

#265

Post by LunicLynx » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 10:03 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #258

LunicLynx wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is more your feelings than actually factual. I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here. I would argue a timeline slipping doesn’t mean you go about killing people and lie about it next. I would even go so far as to say that the timelines did slip to exactly avoid that.

> I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here. No. Not at all. This isn't "timelines slip". This is Musk saying, and I quote, "Self driving is a solved problem. We are just tuning the details." in 2016, and in 2021, "Right now our highest priority is working on solving the problem." Somewhere along the line, it apparently got…

I don’t see how this is connected to the point at hand here.

I think taking time to make sure the system works is the right call. Delaying it is the right call. Not publishing something because you had a different impression previously, just because, is the right call.

I think it integrity to delay a product even when your investors might get angry. Is it a winning strategy at wallstreet? No, probably not.

But what is the argument here „Musk bad“ because he delays a product because it’s not ready?

I think doing the due diligence is required here. Musk argument „it’s solved“ could even be argued by „look at Waymo“ they are doing it, aren’t they?

Tesla is aiming for more than that though. And as it is in product development sometimes, sometimes your don’t know what you don‘t know. Because why do you want to focus on chains guarding parkingspots, your cameras aren’t able to see, when your car can’t even drive through the city.

This is such a big thing to solve and 100% is impossible given some definitions.

Back to the article, I think delaying for safety is the right call, and that is also what the article says. It’s just that the article is in bad faith, as most of the arguments here are.

You probably would turn around and slam Musk for a System that obviously problematic as the alternative and until then it’s saying that he delays.

And if it were obviously problematic I think it would be much louder than just an article from a website that is know for having a biased view at things.

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

#266

Post by LunicLynx » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 10:10 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #182

LunicLynx wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is more your feelings than actually factual. I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here. I would argue a timeline slipping doesn’t mean you go about killing people and lie about it next. I would even go so far as to say that the timelines did slip to exactly avoid that.

> a timeline slipping You're generous with your words to the point they sound like apologism. Musk has been promising fully autonomous driving "within 1-3 years" since 2013. And he's been charging customers money for that promise for just as long. Timelines keep slipping for more than half of the company's existence now, that's not a slipup anymore. Tesla has never been transparent with the data on which they base th…

But these are not facts it’s your assumptions on the matter.

Even the already included escape route.

> If I tell you I have evidence Tesla is lying you'll tell me to show it or STFU.

I mean I wouldn’t choose those words but yes. Yes, you have to prove it, because you state it as a fact.

Innocent until proven guilty. There is a reason to this phrase.

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

#267

Post by lukeschlather » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 10:47 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #105

PaulRobinson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the article's title is pretty fair because the thesis is that Tesla is keeping their data secret because it makes them look bad, which seems consistent with what we know.

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

#268

Post by Forgeties79 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 11:37 PM UTC

LunicLynx wrote: post #265

FireBeyond wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here. No. Not at all. This isn't "timelines slip". This is Musk saying, and I quote, "Self driving is a solved problem. We are just tuning the details." in 2016, and in 2021, "Right now our highest priority is working on solving the problem." Somewhere along the line, it apparently got…

I don’t see how this is connected to the point at hand here. I think taking time to make sure the system works is the right call. Delaying it is the right call. Not publishing something because you had a different impression previously, just because, is the right call. I think it integrity to delay a product even when your investors might get angry. Is it a winning strategy at wallstreet? No, probably not. But what i…

> I think taking time to make sure the system works is the right call. Delaying it is the right call.

You’re absolutely right but musk’s companies constantly fail to do that.

You should look up the past year or so of what’s happened at Tesla’s gigafactory in Germany. It’s pretty wild.

Also different company, same issue/owner: https://www.newschannel5.com/news/workers-walk-off-nashville...

Do you think Twitter/musk took time to get Grok right before unleashing it on social media?

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

#269

Post by simondotau » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 11:47 PM UTC

mejthemage wrote: post #189

Humans average one police reported accident per 500,000 miles?! TIL I'm incredibly unlucky.

You're not. All you need to do is look around a typical car park and count witness marks on car bumpers to know that accidents are extremely common. One study put the estimate at one "driving mistake" every 500 miles and one crash every 60,000 miles.

An insurance policy study estimates that the average person is involved in 3–4 collisions in their lifetime.

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

#270

Post by plqbfbv » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 11:52 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #40

plqbfbv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever driven more than 200km at an average of 80km/h with enough turns on the highway? Perhaps after work, just to see your family once a month? Driver fatigue is real, no matter how much coffee you take. Lane-keep is a game changer if the UX is well done. I'm way more rested when I arrive at destination with my Model 3 compared to when I use the regular ICE with bad lane-assist UX. EDIT: the fact that people…

If you're on a road trip, pull the fuck over and sleep. Your schedule isn't worth somebody else's life. If that's your commute, get a new apartment or get a new job. Endangering everybody else with drowsy driving isn't an option you should ever find tenable.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I've always stopped to take a nap when I had the inferior car, because I knew I was risking my well being and that of others. Ever since I bought my Model 3, I never had to.

As an example, after a refreshing 8h night's sleep, you put yourself at the wheel and you know you need to drive for 8h. After 2h, you'll feel the need to stretch your legs, have a bite, go to the toilet.

But if you have something like Tesla's AP, you'll still be alert and awake. Otherwise - at least for me, but I bet for many people - the constant nagging of micro-correcting the wheel, keeping the distance to the car in front, keeping the right speed, takes a huge toll on your mental resources, so much that it puts you to sleep whether you want it or not, and many people will try and push through that regardless.

You're saying that cruise and lane assist are dangerous because they're used to do bad things.

I'm saying they're very liberating from the busywork that is driving, and even people that use them as an excuse to stay on their phones are better off for it, because something more alert and precise is driving for them and as a consequence, less harm can derive from their stupidity.

I'm not saying that people that do stupid things should not be punished, and I'm quite happy that Tesla had to implement better driver monitoring. I know how things work and that I always need to monitor the system, but many people assume it's a magic button and disconnect their brain.