3 ms·

We need to work with some real numbers. In the US there are about 1.2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven [0]. About 19 months ago, Tesla said their cars

We need to work with some real numbers. In the US there are about 1.2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven [0]. About 19 months ago, Tesla said their cars logged 1.3 billion miles on autopilot [1]. I'd guess that autopilot number has at least doubled by now. So if there have been far fewer than 26 people killed by autopilot, then it's already saving lives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [1] https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles-data-self-driving-program/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles...

rayiner 8y ago
That's the number of miles with autopilot-equipped hardware. It's only 100 million miles with autopilot engaged (from the article you cite). Let's say its 200 million now. They're at two confirmed deaths, which is about what you'd expect. To the extent the numbers are statistically significant, it's worse than you'd expect. The fatality rate for Telsa drivers is 1/4 the average. Since the overwhelming majority of miles on autopilot equipped hardware are driven with autopilot disabled (per your article), that means Tesla human drivers are a lot safer than the average. So you need 1 fatality per 300-400 million miles driven just to match human Tesla drivers.
JackCh 8y ago
This is a deceptive use of statistics because it's papering over all the nuance involved. Not all road miles are equivalent. Specifically, Tesla Autopilot only functions (or is meant to function) in a very narrow subset of all conceivable driving conditions. Many of the situations that Tesla Autopilot isn't meant for are the most dangerous conditions that unassisted humans drive in. Furthermore the statistic doesn't break out the role of "Autopilot" features from the role of other safety features present in Tesla cars but not present in many other cars. More effective airbags, crumple zones, emergency braking(?) could all be lowering the fatality rate in Tesla cars enough to mask the "Tesla Autopilot" making driving more dangerous than if it weren't present. Tesla fatality rates should be compared against equivalent class cars when driven by humans under the conditions which Tesla Autopilot are meant for.
- panarky 8y ago
  > Not all road miles are equivalent Great point. I'm looking for numbers and found this story [0] that says the fatality rate on rural roads is 2.5x urban highways. How many miles are driven on highways and how many fatalities? Does one human driver die per 100M, 200M, 300M miles? Should the standard for autonomous driving be 100%, 50%, or 10% of the human-driver standard before we agree that it's beneficial? [0] https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-are-rural https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads...
  - primesplitter 8y ago
    Also one still needs to include the impact bad wheather conditions, where Tesla's AP is not to be used either. Then there's the impact of "incompetent" drivers on the statistic. As a toy example, consider a world where competent drivers cause 1 death per 100mm miles. AP causes 2 deaths per 100mm miles. However, 20% of all human drivers are driving while drunk and/or sleepy and cause 10 deaths per 100mm miles. This gives an average of 2.8 deaths per 100mm miles. Clearly, AP has a better average but you should only use it while you're drunk.
gamblor956 8y ago
Tesla's Autopilot miles are highway miles, but Tesla is comparing those miles to fatalities across all types of roads--freeways, highways, normal streets, dirt roads, etc. On the safest type of road (i.e., freeways, which have the fewest obstacles or impediments to driving), Tesla is no better than the national average over all types of roads. And that's horrific. It means that Tesla isn't saving lives, it's causing more people to die than would have died if they hadn't been using Autopilot. Worse, as Tesla's many competitors have demonstrated, is that self-driving cars can be safer than human-drven cars. Just not the way Tesla does it.

rayiner 8y ago

That's the number of miles with autopilot-equipped hardware. It's only 100 million miles with autopilot engaged (from the article you cite). Let's say its 200 million now. They're at two confirmed deaths, which is about what you'd expect. To the extent the numbers are statistically significant, it's worse than you'd expect. The fatality rate for Telsa drivers is 1/4 the average. Since the overwhelming majority of miles on autopilot equipped hardware are driven with autopilot disabled (per your article), that means Tesla human drivers are a lot safer than the average. So you need 1 fatality per 300-400 million miles driven just to match human Tesla drivers.

JackCh 8y ago

This is a deceptive use of statistics because it's papering over all the nuance involved. Not all road miles are equivalent. Specifically, Tesla Autopilot only functions (or is meant to function) in a very narrow subset of all conceivable driving conditions. Many of the situations that Tesla Autopilot isn't meant for are the most dangerous conditions that unassisted humans drive in. Furthermore the statistic doesn't break out the role of "Autopilot" features from the role of other safety features present in Tesla cars but not present in many other cars. More effective airbags, crumple zones, emergency braking(?) could all be lowering the fatality rate in Tesla cars enough to mask the "Tesla Autopilot" making driving more dangerous than if it weren't present. Tesla fatality rates should be compared against equivalent class cars when driven by humans under the conditions which Tesla Autopilot are meant for.

panarky 8y ago
> Not all road miles are equivalent Great point. I'm looking for numbers and found this story [0] that says the fatality rate on rural roads is 2.5x urban highways. How many miles are driven on highways and how many fatalities? Does one human driver die per 100M, 200M, 300M miles? Should the standard for autonomous driving be 100%, 50%, or 10% of the human-driver standard before we agree that it's beneficial? [0] https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-are-rural https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads...
- primesplitter 8y ago
  Also one still needs to include the impact bad wheather conditions, where Tesla's AP is not to be used either. Then there's the impact of "incompetent" drivers on the statistic. As a toy example, consider a world where competent drivers cause 1 death per 100mm miles. AP causes 2 deaths per 100mm miles. However, 20% of all human drivers are driving while drunk and/or sleepy and cause 10 deaths per 100mm miles. This gives an average of 2.8 deaths per 100mm miles. Clearly, AP has a better average but you should only use it while you're drunk.

gamblor956 8y ago

Tesla's Autopilot miles are highway miles, but Tesla is comparing those miles to fatalities across all types of roads--freeways, highways, normal streets, dirt roads, etc. On the safest type of road (i.e., freeways, which have the fewest obstacles or impediments to driving), Tesla is no better than the national average over all types of roads. And that's horrific. It means that Tesla isn't saving lives, it's causing more people to die than would have died if they hadn't been using Autopilot. Worse, as Tesla's many competitors have demonstrated, is that self-driving cars can be safer than human-drven cars. Just not the way Tesla does it.