5 ms·

That conclusion is not supported by the data in the report. A supportable conclusion based on this report would be that Tesla automation with auto-steer produc

That conclusion is not supported by the data in the report. A supportable conclusion based on this report would be that Tesla automation with auto-steer produces 40% fewer air bag deployments than Tesla automation without auto-steer.

stale2002 10y ago
Thats like saying "This medical procedure doesn't save lives, it just results in 40% fewer incidents of sudden heart failure".
- notahacker 10y ago
  Or saying "just because this drug cocktail appears to reduce incidents of heart failure relative to the weaker drug for patients with a specific condition doesn't mean we should scream at regulators to abandon all further attempts at regulation and start selling all potent heart-related drugs under development over the counter"
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  You should really read the report. It's comparing Tesla TACC to Tesla TACC+Autosteer. Aka the safety increase when going from Level1 to Level2. It doesn't have anything to do with being safer than human drivers.
  - fmihaila 10y ago
    I think it is reasonable to assume that Tesla TACC is not less safe than Tesla non-TACC, therefore the conclusion is also relevant to comparisons between Tesla level 0 (entirely human-driven, no assist) vs. Tesla level 2.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      Why would it be reasonable to assume that?
      - fmihaila 10y ago
        Because traffic-aware cruise control has existed for years from other car manufactures, and I have seen no data showing that this feature decreases safety.
        frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        Perhaps you should be looking for data that shows that traffic-aware cruise control increases or matches safety of human drivers then? Seems strange to just assume one side of the argument if there's no proof either way.
        fmihaila 10y ago
        I can rephrase my original comment according to your terms: there is no evidence that TACC reduces safety. That's equivalent to what I said. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Moreover, if experience showed that TACC reduces safety, NHTSA and its counterparts in other countries would have noticed and put the brakes on it. If you don't think this is a reasonable assumption, so be it.
        frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        Editted to respond to edit. (perhaps my original comment was a bit brash as well) The problem here is that you're mis specifying the null hypothesis. We have had human drivers for 100 years. New automated systems start to come into the fray. We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. The null in this case is that they are not. That's what we assume until proven otherwise.
        fmihaila 10y ago
        > We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. No, we're not. We're trying to figure out if TACC has any impact either way. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is that they are no more and no less safe than human drivers alone. You need data to show the direction of the change. You just picked a direction (i.e., towards worse) that was more intuitive to you.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Level 1 is Human drivers, level 2 is computer "lane assist" and "automated cruise control". So yes, it is literally human Vs computer driven safety.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      Level 1 is Driver Assistance. Level 0 is No Automation. It's literally a graphic in the report... Someone kindly posted the pdf link if you'd like to read it.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        Do you actually believe that cruise control is less safe, to any non negligible degree than human driving? You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian. Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent, going from level 1 to level 2 would make them 40 % safer"
        frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        > You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian. You shouldn't assume intentions. A ton of people here are misreading this study (or should I say not reading it). > Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent, going from level 1 to level 2 would make them 40 % safer" The comparison here is only on Tesla so accordingly it's only on TACC vs TACC+Autosteer. TACC is fundamentally different than the type of cruise control that is in basically all cars.
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Actually we can't even go that far. >22 The crash rates are for all miles travelled before and after Autopilot installation and are not limited to actual Autopilot use.
- zaroth 10y ago
  Which is exactly how you would want the analysis to be done. Because of course there were no autopilot miles in the before bucket you would be skewing the analysis if you only looked at autopilot miles in the after bucket. What we know is after installing the autopilot feature, accidents with airbag deployments reduced 40%. Not just during so-called "safe" autopilot miles, but over all miles driven. Now it's plausible that autopilot makes you a better driver both while it's on and off, but I'd say it's just exceedingly common to rear-end people due to distracted driving.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    Except there are "autopilot" miles in the before bucket. They are comparing before and after Autosteer so Autosteer is in the after bucket only. TACC however is in both buckets, aka this is supposed to be a comparison showing the increase in safety when going from level1 to level2 systems but both buckets have tons of human driven miles mixed in.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Level 1 = cruise control. All cars in the entire world are level 1 autonomous these days.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        Level 1 in the context of this study is specifically TACC.
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        It's not just "cruise control", it's "adaptive cruise control". From the report PDF (emphasis theirs): the driving mode-specific execution by a driver assistance system of either steering or acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task

stale2002 10y ago

Thats like saying "This medical procedure doesn't save lives, it just results in 40% fewer incidents of sudden heart failure".

notahacker 10y ago
Or saying "just because this drug cocktail appears to reduce incidents of heart failure relative to the weaker drug for patients with a specific condition doesn't mean we should scream at regulators to abandon all further attempts at regulation and start selling all potent heart-related drugs under development over the counter"
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
You should really read the report. It's comparing Tesla TACC to Tesla TACC+Autosteer. Aka the safety increase when going from Level1 to Level2. It doesn't have anything to do with being safer than human drivers.
- fmihaila 10y ago
  I think it is reasonable to assume that Tesla TACC is not less safe than Tesla non-TACC, therefore the conclusion is also relevant to comparisons between Tesla level 0 (entirely human-driven, no assist) vs. Tesla level 2.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    Why would it be reasonable to assume that?
    - fmihaila 10y ago
      Because traffic-aware cruise control has existed for years from other car manufactures, and I have seen no data showing that this feature decreases safety.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        Perhaps you should be looking for data that shows that traffic-aware cruise control increases or matches safety of human drivers then? Seems strange to just assume one side of the argument if there's no proof either way.
        fmihaila 10y ago
        I can rephrase my original comment according to your terms: there is no evidence that TACC reduces safety. That's equivalent to what I said. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Moreover, if experience showed that TACC reduces safety, NHTSA and its counterparts in other countries would have noticed and put the brakes on it. If you don't think this is a reasonable assumption, so be it.
        frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        Editted to respond to edit. (perhaps my original comment was a bit brash as well) The problem here is that you're mis specifying the null hypothesis. We have had human drivers for 100 years. New automated systems start to come into the fray. We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. The null in this case is that they are not. That's what we assume until proven otherwise.
        fmihaila 10y ago
        > We're trying to figure out if they are safer than humans. No, we're not. We're trying to figure out if TACC has any impact either way. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is that they are no more and no less safe than human drivers alone. You need data to show the direction of the change. You just picked a direction (i.e., towards worse) that was more intuitive to you.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Level 1 is Human drivers, level 2 is computer "lane assist" and "automated cruise control". So yes, it is literally human Vs computer driven safety.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    Level 1 is Driver Assistance. Level 0 is No Automation. It's literally a graphic in the report... Someone kindly posted the pdf link if you'd like to read it.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Do you actually believe that cruise control is less safe, to any non negligible degree than human driving? You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian. Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent, going from level 1 to level 2 would make them 40 % safer"
      - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        > You are bringing it up, but I don't think you are doing this for any reason other than to be contrarian. You shouldn't assume intentions. A ton of people here are misreading this study (or should I say not reading it). > Also, ALL cars have cruise control right now. So the 40 percent STILL applies to all these cars. The correct way to frase the study is that "99 percent of cars are level 1 autonomous cars. For this 99 percent, going from level 1 to level 2 would make them 40 % safer" The comparison here is only on Tesla so accordingly it's only on TACC vs TACC+Autosteer. TACC is fundamentally different than the type of cruise control that is in basically all cars.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

Actually we can't even go that far. >22 The crash rates are for all miles travelled before and after Autopilot installation and are not limited to actual Autopilot use.

zaroth 10y ago
Which is exactly how you would want the analysis to be done. Because of course there were no autopilot miles in the before bucket you would be skewing the analysis if you only looked at autopilot miles in the after bucket. What we know is after installing the autopilot feature, accidents with airbag deployments reduced 40%. Not just during so-called "safe" autopilot miles, but over all miles driven. Now it's plausible that autopilot makes you a better driver both while it's on and off, but I'd say it's just exceedingly common to rear-end people due to distracted driving.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Except there are "autopilot" miles in the before bucket. They are comparing before and after Autosteer so Autosteer is in the after bucket only. TACC however is in both buckets, aka this is supposed to be a comparison showing the increase in safety when going from level1 to level2 systems but both buckets have tons of human driven miles mixed in.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Level 1 = cruise control. All cars in the entire world are level 1 autonomous these days.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      Level 1 in the context of this study is specifically TACC.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      It's not just "cruise control", it's "adaptive cruise control". From the report PDF (emphasis theirs): the driving mode-specific execution by a driver assistance system of either steering or acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task