281–290 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles (since v14.x). Besides driving everywhere, everyday with FSD, I have driven 4 hours garage to hotel valet without intervention. It is absolutely "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous". FSD isn't perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.
If it was full self driving, wouldn't your usage be 100%?
A 50% discount is pretty damning empirical evidence for FSD being better at driving your Tesla than you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not, in some cities that have near grid-lock rush-hour traffic - there's between 50-100%+ as many people traveling by bus as by car. If all of those people switch to cars, you end up with it taking an hour to travel 1 mile by car. It's almost as if they have busses for a reason.
First, these cities should be fixed by removing the traffic magnets. It's far past the point where we used the old obsolete ideology of trying to supply as much traffic capacity as possible. But anyway, your statement is actually not true anywhere in the US except NYC. Even in Chicago, removing ALL the local transit and switching to 6-seater minivans will eliminate all the traffic issues.
If you remove the jobs and housing, traffic does get a lot better. But it's not much of a city without jobs and housing.
Gees! Come on!
PS: I'm not talking about Tesla's fake FSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might be right, but it does two interesting things: 1) it let's lemonade reward you for taking safer driving routes (or living in a safer area to drive, whatever that means) 2) it (for better or worse) encourages drivers to use it more. This will improve Tesla's training data but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)
> ...but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!) As a father of kids in a neighborhood with a lot of Teslas, how do I opt out of this experiment?
I'm quite skeptical of Tesla's reliability claims. But for exactly that reason, I welcome a company like Lemonade betting actual money on those claims. Either way, this is bound to generate some visibility into the actual accident rates.
The insurance industry is a commercial prediction market. It is often an indicator of true honesty, providing there is no government intervention. Governments intervene in insurance/risk markets when they do not like the truth. I tried to arrange insurance for an obese western expatriate several years ago in an Asian country, and the (western) insurance company wrote a letter back saying the client was morbidly obese…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might be right, but it does two interesting things: 1) it let's lemonade reward you for taking safer driving routes (or living in a safer area to drive, whatever that means) 2) it (for better or worse) encourages drivers to use it more. This will improve Tesla's training data but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)
> ...but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!) As a father of kids in a neighborhood with a lot of Teslas, how do I opt out of this experiment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drunk driving isn't the primary mover of high risk driving. It kind of is. They're responsible for something like 30% of traffic fatalities despite being a far smaller percentage of drivers. > People who can't afford self driving cars (now the insurance industry has a good proxy for income that they couldn't tap into before) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30172108/ But also, wouldn't they already have this by usin…
Only .61% of car crashes involve fatalities, so that’s like .2% of car crashes you are referring to. Probably more due to alcohol, but we don’t know the ratio of accidents that involve alcohol, which would be more telling. > How sure are we that the people who don't trust technology are older? And again, the insurance company already knows your age Boomers are already the primary anti-EV demographic, with the complai…
Fatalities get more thoroughly investigated so we have better numbers on them, but if you had to guess whether the people who get behind the wheel drunk were similarly disproportionately likely to bang up their cars in a non-fatal way, what would your guess be?
> Boomers are already the primary anti-EV demographic, with the complaint that real cars have engines.
EVs and self-driving are two different things. Fox News tells boomers that EVs are bad because Republicans have the oil companies as a constituency.
> It doesn’t matter if they know your age of state laws keep them from acting on it.
The only states that do that are Hawaii and Massachusetts.[1]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/select/best-car-insurance-seniors/
> If most cars are $250k Waymo cars, and you hit one…and you are at fault, ouch. And we will know if it is your fault or not since the Waymo is constantly recording.
If X% of cars are Waymos and you hit another car in your normally priced car and you're at fault, there is an X% chance it will be expensive. If the Waymo hits another car and it's at fault, there is a 100% chance it will be expensive because it will damage itself, and an additional X% chance that it will be very expensive because both cars are.
And again, that's assuming the price stays as high as it is when the production volume increases. A $250,000 car can't become the majority of cars because that percentage of people can't afford that.
> That’s not how the math works out (smaller risk pools are more expensive per person period).
Smaller risk pools don't have higher risk, they have higher volatility, and then if they're too small insurers have to charge a volatility premium. But the auto insurance market is very large and for it to get to the size that it would have volatility issues it would have to be a consequence rather than a cause of the large majority of people switching to self-driving cars.
> And it won’t be people switching at random to self driving cars (the ones not switching will be the ones that are more likely to have accidents).
You keep saying that but it's still not obvious that it's what would happen, and in any event the ones more likely to have accidents are already the ones paying higher insurance premiums -- which is precisely a reason they would have the incentive to be the first to switch to self-driving cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never say never—it’s not physically impossible. But yes, as it stands, it seems that Tesla will not be self driving any time soon (if ever).
They literally just (in the last few days) started unsupervised robotaxis in Austin. They are as self-driving as a car can be. This is different than the one where they had a human supervisor in passenger seat (which they still do elsewhere). And different than the one where they didn't have human supervisor but did have a follow car. Now they have a few robotaxis that are self driving.
https://electrek.co/2026/01/28/teslas-unsupervised-robotaxis...
I'm quite skeptical of Tesla's reliability claims. But for exactly that reason, I welcome a company like Lemonade betting actual money on those claims. Either way, this is bound to generate some visibility into the actual accident rates.
That’s the difference.