4 ms·

> Here come the tesla fans quoting stats about how safe tesla is. I'm not a Tesla fan. How many accidents have been caused by automated drive systems and how

> Here come the tesla fans quoting stats about how safe tesla is. I'm not a Tesla fan. How many accidents have been caused by automated drive systems and how do their failure rates compare to normal human-driven accident rates?

sremani 5y ago
for better or worse the risk of 'random' luck the system failed means Tesla stats should be 10x or better than human driver. A marginal improvement is not going to cut it.
- void_mint 5y ago
  > for better or worse the risk of 'random' luck the system failed means Tesla stats should be 10x or better than human driver. Based on what? > A marginal improvement is not going to cut it. A 3% improvement is over 100k people not injured. I don't agree at all with your stance.
masswerk 5y ago
Well, this is what is revealed by a quick Google search: > On average, there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents per million miles driven, while the same rate is 4.1 crashes per million miles for regular vehicles. (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars, linking to https://carsurance.net/blog/self-driving-car-statistics/ https://carsurance.net/blog/self-driving-car-statistics/.) Mind that most human accidents happen in environments which are considered off-limits for automated driving systems at the current state technology as deployed. (E.g., narrow urban streets in bad weather conditions and difficult, varying lighting.)
- void_mint 5y ago
  > Well, this is what is revealed by a quick Google search: Sure, it might be. I'm not the one making claims challenging anything's validity, though, so it's not on me to provide any evidence for or against anything. If you're going to make a post after a _single accident_ saying something isn't safe enough, you should be expected to define how you came to that conclusion. In this case, though, it's just a general dislike for Tesla. edit I'll also add, your post is obviously anti-Tesla as well. From Tesla's website: > In the 1st quarter, 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. Which can be corroborated here: > https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest
  - kelnos 5y ago
    These numbers are not directly comparable. Autopilot is only allowed to run in (relatively) low-complexity driving situations, and that's further restricted by a driver's judgment as to whether or not they feel it's safe to engage Autopilot. What we really need is stats on the rate of human-driver accidents caused during driving situations where Autopilot could potentially be used. Then we could compare that number to the rate of Autopilot-related accidents. For example, if a human driver causes an accident on a narrow, unmarked, unlit road in the middle of a snowstorm, you can't throw that data point into the "human driver accidents" bucket when comparing to Autopilot-caused accidents, because Autopilot would never be used in that situation.
  - masswerk 5y ago
    This really exemplifies the problem with the current state of the discussion: Here's the result of an open minded search, it's a statistical statement across all self-driving automotive systems, independent of vendors, but, as the results are not pleasing, it's clearly anti-Tesla. How should we be able to discuss these things?

sremani 5y ago

for better or worse the risk of 'random' luck the system failed means Tesla stats should be 10x or better than human driver. A marginal improvement is not going to cut it.

void_mint 5y ago
> for better or worse the risk of 'random' luck the system failed means Tesla stats should be 10x or better than human driver. Based on what? > A marginal improvement is not going to cut it. A 3% improvement is over 100k people not injured. I don't agree at all with your stance.

masswerk 5y ago

Well, this is what is revealed by a quick Google search: > On average, there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents per million miles driven, while the same rate is 4.1 crashes per million miles for regular vehicles. (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars, linking to https://carsurance.net/blog/self-driving-car-statistics/ https://carsurance.net/blog/self-driving-car-statistics/.) Mind that most human accidents happen in environments which are considered off-limits for automated driving systems at the current state technology as deployed. (E.g., narrow urban streets in bad weather conditions and difficult, varying lighting.)

void_mint 5y ago
> Well, this is what is revealed by a quick Google search: Sure, it might be. I'm not the one making claims challenging anything's validity, though, so it's not on me to provide any evidence for or against anything. If you're going to make a post after a _single accident_ saying something isn't safe enough, you should be expected to define how you came to that conclusion. In this case, though, it's just a general dislike for Tesla. edit I'll also add, your post is obviously anti-Tesla as well. From Tesla's website: > In the 1st quarter, 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. Which can be corroborated here: > https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest
- kelnos 5y ago
  These numbers are not directly comparable. Autopilot is only allowed to run in (relatively) low-complexity driving situations, and that's further restricted by a driver's judgment as to whether or not they feel it's safe to engage Autopilot. What we really need is stats on the rate of human-driver accidents caused during driving situations where Autopilot could potentially be used. Then we could compare that number to the rate of Autopilot-related accidents. For example, if a human driver causes an accident on a narrow, unmarked, unlit road in the middle of a snowstorm, you can't throw that data point into the "human driver accidents" bucket when comparing to Autopilot-caused accidents, because Autopilot would never be used in that situation.
- masswerk 5y ago
  This really exemplifies the problem with the current state of the discussion: Here's the result of an open minded search, it's a statistical statement across all self-driving automotive systems, independent of vendors, but, as the results are not pleasing, it's clearly anti-Tesla. How should we be able to discuss these things?