4 ms·

Everyone talking about statistical evidence should take a look at this NHTSA report [1]. For example, "Figure 11. Crash Rates in MY 2014-16 Tesla Model S and 2

Everyone talking about statistical evidence should take a look at this NHTSA report [1]. For example, "Figure 11. Crash Rates in MY 2014-16 Tesla Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles Before and After Autosteer Installation", where they are 1.3 and 0.8 per million miles respectively. Unfortunately, this report seems to have shot itself in the foot by apparently using 'Autopilot' and 'Autosteer' interchangeably, so it leaves open the possibility that the Autopilot software improves or adds features to the performance of fairly basic mitigation methods, such as in emergency braking, while having unacceptable flaws in the area of steering and obstacle detection at speed. In addition, no information is given on the distribution of accident severity. It is unfortunate that this report leaves these questions open. Even if these claims are sustained, there are two specific matters in which I think the NHTSA has been too passive: As this is beta software, it should not be on the on the public roads in what amounts to an unsupervised test that potentially puts other road users at risk. Secondly, as this system requires constant supervision by an alert driver, hands-on-the-wheel is not an acceptable test that this constraint is being satisfied. [1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

danso 9y ago
I mentioned this in a reply to another comment, but the NHTSA findings have apparently raised suspicions in other researchers. Currently, the DOT/NHTSA are facing a FOIA lawsuit for not releasing data (they assert that the data reveals Tesla trade secrets) that can be used to independently verify the study's conclusion: http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-systems-corp-sues-dot-tesla-data http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-... https://jalopnik.com/feds-cant-say-why-they-claim-teslas-autosteer-cuts-cras-1819229456 https://jalopnik.com/feds-cant-say-why-they-claim-teslas-aut...
wilun 9y ago
You can add safety automated features without requiring completely insane and dangerous mode of operations (like pretending the car can drive itself except that it can not and pretending that you did not pretend in the first place and reminding that the driver should have its hand on the wheel and be alert and what is even the point then?????) They could be more useful with -- for now -- less features. They probably won't do it because they want some sacrificial beta testers to collect some more data for their marginally less crappy next version. But given the car does not even have the necessary hardware to become a real self driving car (and that some analysts even think Tesla is gonna close soon) the people taking the risks of being sacrificed will probably not even reap the benefits of the risks they have taken, paying enormous amount of money to effectively work for that company (among other things).
haldean 9y ago
That could be because the car is usually right when it thinks it's in danger; this crash happened because it incorrectly thought it was safe. Having an assistive device that emergency-brakes or steers around obstacles is great as long as there's very few false positives, as long as its assistive and not autonomous. Once it's autonomous, you need to have extremely, extremely low false negative rates as well.

danso 9y ago

I mentioned this in a reply to another comment, but the NHTSA findings have apparently raised suspicions in other researchers. Currently, the DOT/NHTSA are facing a FOIA lawsuit for not releasing data (they assert that the data reveals Tesla trade secrets) that can be used to independently verify the study's conclusion: http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-systems-corp-sues-dot-tesla-data http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-... https://jalopnik.com/feds-cant-say-why-they-claim-teslas-autosteer-cuts-cras-1819229456 https://jalopnik.com/feds-cant-say-why-they-claim-teslas-aut...

wilun 9y ago

You can add safety automated features without requiring completely insane and dangerous mode of operations (like pretending the car can drive itself except that it can not and pretending that you did not pretend in the first place and reminding that the driver should have its hand on the wheel and be alert and what is even the point then?????) They could be more useful with -- for now -- less features. They probably won't do it because they want some sacrificial beta testers to collect some more data for their marginally less crappy next version. But given the car does not even have the necessary hardware to become a real self driving car (and that some analysts even think Tesla is gonna close soon) the people taking the risks of being sacrificed will probably not even reap the benefits of the risks they have taken, paying enormous amount of money to effectively work for that company (among other things).

haldean 9y ago

That could be because the car is usually right when it thinks it's in danger; this crash happened because it incorrectly thought it was safe. Having an assistive device that emergency-brakes or steers around obstacles is great as long as there's very few false positives, as long as its assistive and not autonomous. Once it's autonomous, you need to have extremely, extremely low false negative rates as well.