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

271–280 of 286 posts

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

#271

Post by simondotau »

janc_ wrote: post #99
orwin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He compared to the estimated statistics for non-reported accident (typically your example, that involve only one vehicle and only result in scratched paint) to estimate the 3x. Else the title would have been 9x (which is in line with 10x a data analyst blogger wrote ~ 3month ago). > roundabouts in cities (in Europe anyway) tend to increase the number of crashes Not in France, according to data. It depends on the spee…

They reduce accidents in general, but bring us some “entertaining” new ones where a (usually) drunk driver crashes into the statue/fountain/whatever in the middle or uses the little “hill” in the middle as a jump ramp…

As opposed to drunk drivers who treat a non-roundabout intersection as a game of Russian roulette?

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

#272

Post by simondotau »

ModernMech wrote: post #143

Of course, it could be no other way for a company that unleashed "FSD Beta" onto the streets and allowed all of us to be subjected to their bloody (literally) beta test. You don't get a safer future with "move fast and break things" mentality. Especially when the CEO is as illiterate as Musk about his own technology that he discount the results of actual experts in the field. I mean, just look at the trail of headles…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8564Ne3kai0

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

#273

Post by simondotau »

UltraSane wrote: post #257
speed_spread wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is creepy but it WOULD save lives.

The most effective way to "save lives" would be to sterilize the entire population, reducing fatalities to zero within 100 years or so.

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

#274

Post by olelele »

DennisP wrote: post #243
SoftTalker wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a reach. Many people just loved the stuff he was doing and didn't really know much about him as a person. When a more complete picture (specifically his politics) emerged, and people decided they really didn't like the person, they had to resolve their cognitive dissonance by finding reasons they were right then and right now, instead of admitting they projected the person they imagined onto the person th…

Well one major change to his politics was his view on climate change. He also supported Obama in both elections, and had the self-control to keep pretty quiet about issues unrelated to his business. I found the article I was talking about: https://alisoncrosthwait.substack.com/p/a-ketamine-addicts-p... It says it's quite easy for ketamine use to get out of control without the users noticing, that they're are able to…

I have seen it a few times. It really twists some people up.

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

#275

Post by Forgeties79 »

LunicLynx wrote: post #266
close04 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Another commenter linked plenty of proof

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

#276

Post by _ea1k »

overfeed wrote: post #233
_ea1k wrote: post #164

TBH, the comments here amaze me. The claim is that a human being paid to monitor a driver assistance feature is 3x more likely to crash than a human alone. That needs extraordinary evidence. Instead the evidence is misleading guesses.

> That needs extraordinary evidence. Waymo studied this back when it was a Google moonshot, and concluded that going full automation is safer than human supervision. A driving system that mostly works lulls the driver into complacency. Besides automation failure, driver complacency was a big component[1] of the fatal accident that led to the shuttering of Ubers self-driving efforts - the safety driver was looking at…

Sure, but we now have millions of miles of Tesla autopilot and FSD data in the hands of untrained and often semi-malicious end users as well. Out of that data, we've gotten flawed reports from Tesla claiming that it is dramatically safer, as well as independent renormalization that showed it to be at best about the same.

None of those millions of miles resulted in a smoking gun showing the cars to be even 2x worse.

And yet a badly written blog thinks they've shown them to be 3x worse with professional monitors? This is indeed an extraordinary claim.

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

#277

Post by jraby3 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #263
jraby3 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mor…

Yes but they charge per mile, so the net change in price should be a substantial reduction.

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

#278

Post by UltraSane »

simondotau wrote: post #273
UltraSane wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is creepy but it WOULD save lives.

The most effective way to "save lives" would be to sterilize the entire population, reducing fatalities to zero within 100 years or so.

That is even LESS reasonable than my idea. Society is a delicate balance between individual and group rights.

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

#279

Post by UltraSane »

awakeasleep wrote: post #118
UltraSane wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is fraud trying to inflate Tesla stock price.

The real term is “marketing puffery.” It’s a fun, legally specific way to describe a company bullshitting to hype its product.

Puffery should really be limited to subjective things like flavor and not self-driving cars.

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

#280

Post by PaulRobinson »

hedora wrote: post #201
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 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…

This might be UK-specific, but:

Car insurance often requires the payment of an excess, and a loss of no claims bonuses. I've had two prangs, only one was reported to my insurance as the damage caused by the lorry that smashed into me was significant. That was not reported to the police, and an insurance claim does not require a police report.

Post reply on HN