4 ms·

> all of these factors would drive the average highway safety way up. Up? Why not down? More data could easily show the opposite.

by deegles 10y ago

vkou 10y ago
Driving on a divided highway is safer then an undivided one. Driving in conditions where you can use cruise control is safer then in ones where you can't. (Snow, ice, sleet, heavy rain, poor visibility.) I'm not sure where driving on a highway falls compared to city driving.
ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
What I was trying to get at is that the benchmark that Tesla is using as comparison (1 fatality/94 million highway miles) takes into account all highway vehicles. Tesla is a high-end, expensive, luxury vehicle, and the autopilot also does not function in certain conditions (like heavy rain). It would seem to me that if you just took into account other luxury vehicles, and excluded really adverse driving conditions, that the 94 million mile number would probably be higher, and I think that would be a fairer comparison for Tesla to use if they want to claim the car is faster than human driving. Are you trying to say that you think taking these factors into account would actually make comparables comparitively less safe?
- deegles 10y ago
  gnicholas@ linked to this article that explains the factors: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/why-tesla-s-cars-and-autopilot-aren-t-as-safe-as-elon-musk-claims.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/why-tesla-s... From what I understand, if you limit the stat to a) cars made in the last 2 years and b) luxury cars and c) the conditions where Autopilot is mostly driven, the fatalities per million miles would be lower. i.e 94 million is too low of a number
  - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
    Right, that's what I was saying! I guess we just misread each other, but this is absolutely right - their comparison should use a higher denominator than 94 million!!!
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Also keep in mind that the average doesn't just include low-end cars, but a non-negligible tail of twenty-year old low-end cars that don't even have airbags and proper crumple zones. Imagine something like a 1994 Mazda Protege or Geo Metro. I couldn't find a representative early 90s pre-airbag crash test vid, but here is a '96 Chevy Astro small overlap test: https://youtu.be/8kuSghb7P7U https://youtu.be/8kuSghb7P7U

> all of these factors would drive the average highway safety way up. Up? Why not down? More data could easily show the opposite.

by deegles 10y ago

> all of these factors would drive the average highway safety way up. Up? Why not down? More data could easily show the opposite.

vkou 10y ago

Driving on a divided highway is safer then an undivided one. Driving in conditions where you can use cruise control is safer then in ones where you can't. (Snow, ice, sleet, heavy rain, poor visibility.) I'm not sure where driving on a highway falls compared to city driving.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago

What I was trying to get at is that the benchmark that Tesla is using as comparison (1 fatality/94 million highway miles) takes into account all highway vehicles. Tesla is a high-end, expensive, luxury vehicle, and the autopilot also does not function in certain conditions (like heavy rain). It would seem to me that if you just took into account other luxury vehicles, and excluded really adverse driving conditions, that the 94 million mile number would probably be higher, and I think that would be a fairer comparison for Tesla to use if they want to claim the car is faster than human driving. Are you trying to say that you think taking these factors into account would actually make comparables comparitively less safe?

deegles 10y ago
gnicholas@ linked to this article that explains the factors: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/why-tesla-s-cars-and-autopilot-aren-t-as-safe-as-elon-musk-claims.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/why-tesla-s... From what I understand, if you limit the stat to a) cars made in the last 2 years and b) luxury cars and c) the conditions where Autopilot is mostly driven, the fatalities per million miles would be lower. i.e 94 million is too low of a number
- ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
  Right, that's what I was saying! I guess we just misread each other, but this is absolutely right - their comparison should use a higher denominator than 94 million!!!
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Also keep in mind that the average doesn't just include low-end cars, but a non-negligible tail of twenty-year old low-end cars that don't even have airbags and proper crumple zones. Imagine something like a 1994 Mazda Protege or Geo Metro. I couldn't find a representative early 90s pre-airbag crash test vid, but here is a '96 Chevy Astro small overlap test: https://youtu.be/8kuSghb7P7U https://youtu.be/8kuSghb7P7U