It was way safer to ride a horse and buggy
US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
271–280 of 1001 posts
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#272Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#273Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…
The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of things and felt like I had to take control. But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.
Because it is bad enough that people really do supervise it. I see people who say that wouldn't happen because the drivers become complacent.
Maybe that could be a problem with future versions, but I don't see it happening with 12.3.x. I've also heard that driver attention monitoring is pretty good in the later versions, but I have no first hand experience yet.
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#274Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…
The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of things and felt like I had to take control. But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.
Is Tesla required to report system failures or the vehicle damaging itself? How do we know they're not optimizing for the benchmark (what they're legally required to report)?
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#275The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…
>>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then…
You can't equate airplane safety with automotive safety. I worked at an aircraft repair facility doing government contracts for a number of years. In one instance, somebody lost the toilet paper holder for one of the aircraft. This holder was simply a piece of 10 gauge wire that was bent in a way to hold it and supported by wire clamps screwed to the wall. Making a new one was easy but since it was a new part going on the aircraft we had to send it to a lab to be certified to hold a roll of toilet paper to 9 g's. In case the airplane crashed you wouldn't want a roll of toilet paper flying around I guess. And that cost $1,200.
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#276The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…
> traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.
It's completely acceptable. In fact the numbers are lower than they have been since we've started driving.
> Accidents caused by human drivers
Are there any other types of drivers?
> are one of the largest causes of injury and death
More than half the fatalities on the road are actually caused by the use of drugs and alcohol. The statistics are very clear on this. Impaired people cannot drive well. Non impaired people drive orders of magnitude better.
> technology that could save lives
There is absolutely zero evidence this is true. Everyone is basing this off of a total misunderstanding of the source of fatalities and a willful misapprehension of the technology.
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#277I don't understand why this debate/probing is not just data driven. Driving is all big data. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport This report does not include fatalities, which seems to be the key point in question. Unless the above report has some bias or is false, Teslas in autopilot appear 10 times safer than the US average. Is there public data on deaths reported by Tesla? And otherwise, if the stats say it…
Those statistics are incredibly misleading.
- It is safe to assume that the vast majority of autopilot miles are on highways (although Tesla don't release this information).
- By far the safest roads per mile driven are highways.
- Autopilot will engage least during the most dangerous conditions (heavy rain, snow, fog, nighttime).
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#278Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…
The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of things and felt like I had to take control. But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.
> If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on?
Even if it is true that the data show that with FSD (not Autopilot) enabled, drivers are in fewer crashes, I would be worried about other confounding factors.
For instance, I would assume that drivers are more likely to engage FSD in situations of lower complexity (less traffic, little construction or other impediments, overall lesser traffic flow control complexity, etc.) I also believe that at least initially, Tesla only released FSD to drivers with high safety scores relative to their total driver base, another obvious confounding factor.
Happy to be proven wrong though if you have a link to a recent study that goes through all of this.
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#279The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…
>>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then…
> The answer is zero
If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it.
I agree that it should be regulated and incidents thoroughly investigated, however letting perfect be the enemy of good leads to stagnation and lack of practical improvement and greater injury to the population as a whole.
Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
#280I don't understand why this debate/probing is not just data driven. Driving is all big data. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport This report does not include fatalities, which seems to be the key point in question. Unless the above report has some bias or is false, Teslas in autopilot appear 10 times safer than the US average. Is there public data on deaths reported by Tesla? And otherwise, if the stats say it…
Without opening the link, the problem with every piece of data I’ve seen from Tesla is they’re comparing apples to oranges. FSD won’t activate in adverse driving conditions, aka when accidents are much more likely to occur. And/or drivers are choosing not to use it in those conditions.