5 ms·
The rate of driving fatalities is ~1 per 60 million miles driven. At an average speed of 60 mph that would be ~1 per million hours. Even if we were to assume th
by Veserv 5y ago
The rate of driving fatalities is ~1 per 60 million miles driven. At an average speed of 60 mph that would be ~1 per million hours. Even if we were to assume there would be only one fatality-inducing error per hour, 99.99% success rate would make FSD 9 100x more dangerous than the average driver. I do not remember the exact numbers, but that would make FSD something like 1000x more dangerous than the classic example of a deathtrap, the Ford Pinto.
- xeromal 5y agoThat's your estimation but we'd need to wait with actual statistics
- kadoban 5y agoWhy is Tesla going live with this (sure, call it private beta, but on public roads that makes no sense) without already disclosing all of those numbers to the public? If they're being this careless, bad estimates are all we have.
- zaroth 5y agoWe have actual statistics on how well humans do with Tesla ADAS and it’s remarkably well. The accident rate numbers are hard to compare apples-to-apples since miles driven with all ADAS features active are different from miles driven without the full ADAS active, but the numbers show that the software is absolutely not “1000x more dangerous”. > In the 1st quarter [2021], we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
- Invictus0 5y ago> one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven Not really a great metric. We should be looking at disengagements per MM.
- marvin 5y agoIf you're evaluating the system as a L5 autonomous driving system. Not if you're evaluating it as a safety assistance feature.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoIf it’s a safety assistance feature, it’s not full self driving is it? My crosstrek comes with plenty of safety assistance features too.
- marvin 5y agoThat’s true enough, but I’m not going to argue semantics. Tesla is explicitly clear in their product communication that what they’re selling as «full self driving» comes with the massive asterix of «someday» and is not currently an L5 autonomous driving system. The part of the discussion that concerns their marketing is uninteresting and overdone; someone else can discuss that part.
- studentrob 5y agoThe rub in Tesla's safety report is it compares Teslas to all makes of vehicles, including motorcycles and trucks, and all costs. A fair comparison would be to newer vehicles in a similar price range. Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.
- zaroth 5y agoYes, this is the retort every time someone posts these numbers, which is why I said they are not apples to apples comparisons. But in the context of the OP comment that Tesla ADAS software makes driving 1000x more dangerous it is clear evidence to the contrary. Mostly the Tesla numbers are comparing accident rates of just Teslas. You can ignore average accident rate across all vehicles if you like. If would be truly great if the NHTSA could publish accident rates broken down is various ways like by road type and weather conditions. I’ve never been able to find this data.