5 ms·

> Here's a statistic for you: 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, that's the deat

> Here's a statistic for you: 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, that's the death rate on the American road as of 2014, the last year for which there is complete data. This one per 100 million miles statistic keeps getting thrown around. I think we can come up with a better number for comparison (see #'ed list below) I also think we can push for more transparency from Tesla and other companies offering driver-assistance systems. California already requires monthly reports on all accidents involving completely autonomous vehicles [0]. We should be getting this for systems offering driver-assistance across all states. Tesla seems unlikely to report on this until their competitors are forced to report on it too. Here are a few reasons why the 100 million figure isn't as good as it could be, (1) Those 100 million miles include all roads, not just divided ones where autopilot is likely to be activated (2) Autopilot is less likely to be activated during adverse conditions like rain, ice and snow (3) The 100 million figure includes all types of vehicle deaths, including those from motorcycles. Motorcycle deaths should not be compared to car deaths (4) The vehicle price is lost in such an average. Safety reports are best done when considering cost. Obviously a 2016 Tesla is going to be safer than a 1990 beater I'd like to see someone report a more useful statistic for comparison using available data such as this [1]. This guy [2] says it is 1 in 150 million when considering only divided roads. That would make Tesla's autopilot less safe than the average American driver given current statistics. [0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_ol316 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [1] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4sgxv1/while_tesla_appears_surprised_over_criticism_of/d59eazl https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4sgxv1/while_te...

greglindahl 10y ago
Given the large error-bar on the Tesla data, you have no idea if Tesla is less safe or more safe than the average American driver.
- studentrob 10y ago
  I'm using the same data Tesla used when they made their claims.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    And that adds to a well-reasoned and statistics-informed discussion on HN, because... ?
    - studentrob 10y ago
      None of Tesla's recent press releases indicate their data is error-prone [1] [2] Rather, they mention a "wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used." I'm drawing a different conclusion from the same data. I'm not claiming it's gospel. I'm just an internet commenter. Forthcoming investigations from the NHTSA and NTSB may shed more light. [1] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss [2] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        I was trying to engage you in a discussion about your error, not Tesla's. Hopefully you're an internet commenter trying to make Hacker News a better place?
        studentrob 10y ago
        > Hopefully you're an internet commenter trying to make Hacker News a better place? For sure. Through this discussion about assisted-driving cars, I also try to contribute to a safer driving community, more transparency from companies offering driver-assistance systems, thoughts about the best ways to advance AI, and better capital allocation. > I was trying to engage you in a discussion about your error, not Tesla's. I don't see what error of mine that you are pointing out here. It sounds like you're talking about Tesla's data: >> Given the large error-bar on the Tesla data, you have no idea if Tesla is less safe or more safe than the average American driver.

greglindahl 10y ago

Given the large error-bar on the Tesla data, you have no idea if Tesla is less safe or more safe than the average American driver.

studentrob 10y ago
I'm using the same data Tesla used when they made their claims.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  And that adds to a well-reasoned and statistics-informed discussion on HN, because... ?
  - studentrob 10y ago
    None of Tesla's recent press releases indicate their data is error-prone [1] [2] Rather, they mention a "wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used." I'm drawing a different conclusion from the same data. I'm not claiming it's gospel. I'm just an internet commenter. Forthcoming investigations from the NHTSA and NTSB may shed more light. [1] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss [2] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      I was trying to engage you in a discussion about your error, not Tesla's. Hopefully you're an internet commenter trying to make Hacker News a better place?
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > Hopefully you're an internet commenter trying to make Hacker News a better place? For sure. Through this discussion about assisted-driving cars, I also try to contribute to a safer driving community, more transparency from companies offering driver-assistance systems, thoughts about the best ways to advance AI, and better capital allocation. > I was trying to engage you in a discussion about your error, not Tesla's. I don't see what error of mine that you are pointing out here. It sounds like you're talking about Tesla's data: >> Given the large error-bar on the Tesla data, you have no idea if Tesla is less safe or more safe than the average American driver.