291–300 of 359 posts
If it autonomous or self-driving then why is the person in the car paying for the insurance? Surely if it's Tesla making the decisions, they need the insurance?
Generally speaking, liability for a thing falls on the owner/operator. That person can sue the manufacturer to recover the damages if they want. At some point, I expect it to become somewhat routine for insurures to pay out, then sue the manufacturer to recover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally known as AES, for example from BMW available with Active Driving Assistant or Driving Assistant Plus packages.
I have a late model Audi, and a Tesla Model 3. Audi has all the bells and whistles. Doesn't come close to the safety I feel in the Tesla. Not even close. I know anecdotal
Not directly related to the topic, I spose, but I have a Model 3, and absolutely love it, but the Smart Cruise Control/Driver Assist is, I hate to admit it, pretty annoying (I think it's gotten worse, too). It's incredibly "jumpy" and over-cautious. A car could pull out in your way 300m ahead of you, totally safely, and the car will shit itself and slam on the brakes to be over-cautious. Same thing with pedestrians w…
FSD is way beyond AutoPilot (the free Traffic Aware Cruise Control + Lane Keep). Autopilot uses an entirely different, hand coded system from several years ago, which they haven't updated at all. FSD is a Deep Learning neutral network based system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be surprised if that was what they were actually looking at. They are an established insurance company with their own data and the actuaries to analyze it. I can't imagine them doing this without at least validating a substantial drop in claims relating to FSD capable cars. Now that they are offering this program, they should start getting much better data by being able to correlate claims with actual FSD usa…
They are a grossly unprofitable insurance company. Your actuaries can undervalue risk to the point you are losing money on every claim and still achieve that. In fact, Tesla Insurance, the people who already have direct access to the data already loses money on every claim [1]. [1] https://peakd.com/tesla/@newageinv/teslas-push-into-insuranc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you greatly overestimate humans
We aren’t talking about the average human here. On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful. But you can know most of those adverse conditions don’t apply when you engage FSD on a given trip. As such the standard needs to be extremely high to avoid increased risks when you’re sobe…
Are those people also able to suprevise FSD like the law and Tesla expects them to? That's also a question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, but could one not argue that the owner of the self-driving car is _not_ the operator, and it is the car, or perhaps Tesla, which operates it?
Mercedes agrees. They take on liability when their system is operated appropriately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It was just another marketing stunt to pump the stock price before their terrible earnings report. One "unsupervised" unit, with the supervisor in a follow car, that nobody could actually get and drive around in. https://electrek.co/2026/01/28/teslas-unsupervised-robotaxis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> First, these cities should be fixed by removing the traffic magnets. 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.
Hmmm. The source for the "FSD is safer" claim might not be wholly independent: "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving"
> "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving" Teslas only do FSD on motorways where you tend to have far fewer accidents per mile. Also, they switch to manual driving if they can't cope, and because the driver isn't paying attention this usually results in a crash. But hey, it's in manual driving, not FSD, so they get to claim FSD is safer. FSD is not and never will be safer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Car traffic magnets like highways inside urban cores? Or people traffic magnets like office buildings, colleges, sports stadiums, performing arts venues, shopping malls?
Large stadium arenas are a special case, but they don't create sustained traffic, and their usage periods typically do not overlap with the regular rush hour.