3 ms·

> 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 n

> 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?

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?