4 ms·

Tesla claims [1] that autopilot driving is safer than regular driving in terms of risk of accident per mile. Not sure if I agree with the way they've constructe

Tesla claims [1] that autopilot driving is safer than regular driving in terms of risk of accident per mile. Not sure if I agree with the way they've constructed their statistics, but for a moment take them at face value. Isn't then the safer thing to release and encourage autopilot to the largest extent possible? [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/q3-2018-vehicle-safety-report?redirect=no https://www.tesla.com/blog/q3-2018-vehicle-safety-report?red...

evv 8y ago
That statistic is wildly and purposefully misleading. It compares the safety of Autopilot (which only drives on the freeway) with human drivers on any road. Accidents-per-mile are already much lower on the freeway. Plus, the statistic ignores the fact that responsibility is actually shared between humans and the car. If autopilot gets into an unsafe situation and gives control to the human at the last moment, the car company might claim that the accident happened under human control. We have a long way to go before we can truly understand the safety of semi-autonomous vehicles.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> If autopilot gets into an unsafe situation and gives control to the human at the last moment We have lots of experience with the reverse, where the human drives but the autopilot rips control away when things go wrong. Traction control, radar-triggered braking, even basic ABS is a machine taking over from the human once things get hairy. Several AirForce fighters have systems that will sometimes ignore the pilot's inputs and save the aircraft from a crash. That's the real path for semi-autonomous cars imho: you do all the driving until the robot steps in to save your ass. (I cannot wait for the day someone tries to sell a car that will automatically obey speed limits regardless of driver input. That's a stock to short.)
- Faark 8y ago
  I'd even expect their human driven statistics not actually representative or useful for comparisons. Their cars are expensive, mostly excluding young and thus often unexperienced drivers. They also don't particularly target older people, the other group with high accident rates. Controlling for all those variables is hard and not to their benefit, thus I'd never expect their pr team to do so. But I wonder if that might even creep into their automated driving stats... e.g. by drivers taking control in dangerous situations.
ucaetano 8y ago
> for a moment take them at face value Why would you do so? This is like saying "Let's assume the sky is purple. Then, we can conclude that the sky is purple."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
drb91 8y ago
Well, it’s not autopilot, it’s guided steering and gas, which on a freeway is the “easy” autopilot path: trivially (for a human) identifiable routes, signage, infrequent low visibility occluded by tight turns, etc. I’d guess a) if you removed the driver from behind the wheel the accident per mile would skyrocket and b) humans already have a much improved accident rate on the freeway compared to general purpose driving. Is it better than a driver driving alone? Maybe—time will tell as more dose off behind wheel, although I am hopeful—but it’s hardly designed to operate without failure and should not be referred to as autopilot at all. It would help if Tesla provided a meaningful comparison instead of the disingenuous one they trot around.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Safety improvements on divided highways I think are to the point that driving is so boring for humans that any increase in safty ends up with offsetting human behaviors like, eating, texting, phone calls, looking at the scenery, falling asleep. If auto-cars can do on-ramp to off-ramp driving 3 times? safer than humans(and many say that is already here), this would be a huge improvement for lots of people. Long commuters and overnight trips instead of flying, especially.

evv 8y ago

That statistic is wildly and purposefully misleading. It compares the safety of Autopilot (which only drives on the freeway) with human drivers on any road. Accidents-per-mile are already much lower on the freeway. Plus, the statistic ignores the fact that responsibility is actually shared between humans and the car. If autopilot gets into an unsafe situation and gives control to the human at the last moment, the car company might claim that the accident happened under human control. We have a long way to go before we can truly understand the safety of semi-autonomous vehicles.

sandworm101 8y ago
>> If autopilot gets into an unsafe situation and gives control to the human at the last moment We have lots of experience with the reverse, where the human drives but the autopilot rips control away when things go wrong. Traction control, radar-triggered braking, even basic ABS is a machine taking over from the human once things get hairy. Several AirForce fighters have systems that will sometimes ignore the pilot's inputs and save the aircraft from a crash. That's the real path for semi-autonomous cars imho: you do all the driving until the robot steps in to save your ass. (I cannot wait for the day someone tries to sell a car that will automatically obey speed limits regardless of driver input. That's a stock to short.)
Faark 8y ago
I'd even expect their human driven statistics not actually representative or useful for comparisons. Their cars are expensive, mostly excluding young and thus often unexperienced drivers. They also don't particularly target older people, the other group with high accident rates. Controlling for all those variables is hard and not to their benefit, thus I'd never expect their pr team to do so. But I wonder if that might even creep into their automated driving stats... e.g. by drivers taking control in dangerous situations.

ucaetano 8y ago

> for a moment take them at face value Why would you do so? This is like saying "Let's assume the sky is purple. Then, we can conclude that the sky is purple."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

drb91 8y ago

Well, it’s not autopilot, it’s guided steering and gas, which on a freeway is the “easy” autopilot path: trivially (for a human) identifiable routes, signage, infrequent low visibility occluded by tight turns, etc. I’d guess a) if you removed the driver from behind the wheel the accident per mile would skyrocket and b) humans already have a much improved accident rate on the freeway compared to general purpose driving. Is it better than a driver driving alone? Maybe—time will tell as more dose off behind wheel, although I am hopeful—but it’s hardly designed to operate without failure and should not be referred to as autopilot at all. It would help if Tesla provided a meaningful comparison instead of the disingenuous one they trot around.

njarboe 8y ago
Safety improvements on divided highways I think are to the point that driving is so boring for humans that any increase in safty ends up with offsetting human behaviors like, eating, texting, phone calls, looking at the scenery, falling asleep. If auto-cars can do on-ramp to off-ramp driving 3 times? safer than humans(and many say that is already here), this would be a huge improvement for lots of people. Long commuters and overnight trips instead of flying, especially.