3 ms·

No offense but that is whataboutism. I think every crash, where an investigation could prevent another crash in the future, should be investigated. Shouldn't

• DennisP 5y ago
  Tesla is already putting a lot of resources into improving Autopilot and FSD. I'm not sure how regulators are going to help that process, and I think there are a couple possible pitfalls: (1) Will they take relative risk into account? If the car sometimes crashes but less often than humans, will that be sufficient, or considered a flaw because it's not perfect and regulators hate looking bad? (2) Will they take progress into account? If the car drives worse than humans but its accident rate drops 10% per year, then after some number of years we'll accumulate fewer total accidents than if we hadn't allowed progress to continue. That's important because progress won't continue without lots of cars on the road using Autopilot and FSD betas.
  • __m 5y ago
    I never crashed into a stationary vehicle or had a crash. I want a FSD vehicle to be at least as safe as me, not some bad or drunken driver, that's what FSD should be measured against.
    • DennisP 5y ago
      If the FSD vehicle is safer than the average driver, but not as safe as you, then you should want the FSD to be allowed by regulators. The average safety of other drivers will increase, lowering your chance of an accident, without degrading your own driving if you don't use FSD yourself.
• shkkmo 5y ago
  It isn't whataboutism to ask that statistics include the necessary context. The person you are replying to doesn't give a full and proper context, but that doesn't make attempting to provide that context "whataboutism".
  • okl 5y ago
    Sorry, but that - "So why is Tesla being investigated for being involved in 0.25% of these crashes when they made up 3% of car sales in 2020?" - pointing at others/numbers to detract from your own mistakes clearly is whataboutism.
    • shkkmo 5y ago
      Nope, it really isn't. Go read about what "whataboutism" is and where it came from. It is a rhetorical technique where you deflect criticism by asserting that the group you are being criticized by is hypocritical because they do the same thing they are accusing you of doing. There is no implication of hypocrisy here, nor could there be since the NHTSA doesn't make cars... Instead this is a comment asking a legitimate question about the basis for the investigation given the overall rates of occurence for the incident in question. Other repliers attempted to answer this question, you decided to try to shut down discussion by mis-applying a rhetorical label.
• jsight 5y ago
  They should, but people here are afraid that this looks like a government overreaction that won't actually find an accurate result. IMO, they are wrong and this will likely lead to guidance for all automakers, including Tesla. I doubt anything that comes out of this will be a problem for Tesla, if anything it might end up being harder for the others. NHTSA is pretty reasonable most of the time.