10 ms·

DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

anonporridge 5y ago
Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? This data, https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/, doesn't tell us much if accurate, other than Tesla crashes don't seem to be any kind of real problem in an absolute sense.
- klyrs 5y ago
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    > Does human life have intrinsic value? Yes? I don't understand your point. We have limited problem solving resources, which means we need to be smart about how we use those resources to solve the problems that legitimately have the biggest impact on human suffering. Getting bogged down on issues that are negligible in a relativistic sense, but trigger greater emotional response, is a recipe for failure. See the anti nuclear power movement for example, https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
    - klyrs 5y ago
      > We have limited problem solving resources, which means we need to be smart about how we use those resources to solve the problems that legitimately have the biggest impact on human suffering. Sounds great in principle, but how do self-driving cars fit into that picture?
      - anonporridge 5y ago
        It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, suffering, and property damage through car crashes all the time. Unless there's hard data that FSD is worse than the status quo, attempts to curtail it's use is not only a waste of time, but potentially actively contributing to unnecessary suffering if in fact it's contributing to fewer accidents.
        seoaeu 5y ago
        Why should the burden of proof be on the critics? Carmakers shouldn't be able to unleash experimental technology that jeopardizes the lives of pedestrians without credible evidence that it is at least as safe as human drivers
        klyrs 5y ago
        Whatever Tesla is offering, it's not even remotely full self driving. It can't handle much beyond a highway on a sunny day, and even then, they have an unfortunate habit of crashing into stopped emergency vehicles. Reduction of total cars on the road, in favor of competent mass transit, would do much more to actually reduce suffering. But Musk wants money, not improved quality of life for those who can't afford Teslas. This isn't some rinkydink charity, it's a fat slice of a trillion dollar industry.
        simion314 5y ago
        >It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, Why not maybe don't allow bad drivers to drive at all? Like don't give a license without 40 hours of driving school with a professor, have a test with traffic rules, then have a final test with an official. Have the drivers provide medical proof they are capable, Each time a driver does something dangerous like speeding remove his driving license for a few months, etc. Btw don't give driving licenses to kids could also work. It is not like we the ONLY solution is AI driven cars, there are a lot of more cheaper solutions, even tech ones like identifying drunk drivers, speed limiting cars to match the road limits etc.
        sideshowb 5y ago
      - seoaeu 5y ago
        Cars are the primary cause of death for certain age groups! Technologies that meaningfully change the fatality rate (up or down) are of extreme importance to reducing human suffering
  - speedgoose 5y ago
    You can argue than yes, you can put a price on human life. It’s definitely the case for road safety and Covid-19. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.213 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.213 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life In France today, it’s about 3 000 000€
- foepys 5y ago
  Since Tesla is a very young and upscale brand deaths per mile would be very misleading. You need to also account for price range, car type, and age of the vehicle. There is quite the difference getting into an accident with a 20 year old Honda Accord and a 3 year old Model 3.
  - carlivar 5y ago
    And also road setting. Highways (where self driving tech is most commonly used) are the safest per mile.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Ok, still, try to compare it to equivalent brands and socio-economic groups. My point is that anti Tesla self driving sentiment is almost exclusively driven by emotion, not hard data. Show me the data that justifies why I need to be afraid of public FSD.
    - marricks 5y ago
      It’s a new technology which no one else is testing in the real world with actual drivers at such a scale. Onus is on Tesla to provide data for others to verify the claim that it’s safe.
      - bpodgursky 5y ago
        I don't think this is a good faith answer; feels more like "I don't have a good answer for why this is a problem, so I'm going to punt it onto you to convince me"
        Kbelicius 5y ago
        The only ones who have the hard data are Tesla and you are expecting somebody else to provide it. Are you serious?
        mellavora 5y ago
        Disagree. It is a good faith answer which states standard practice for safety standards. Burden of proof is on Tesla to show that FSD is safe, not on the DMV to prove that it isn't. You are welcome to argue that this principle is in need of reform. People may or may not agree with you. The discussion might be interesting. But like it or not, the underlying principle for an exception to an established safety principle is that the burden of proof is on Tesla.
- kunai 5y ago
  Absolute data points like this are pretty much useless, what would be more helpful is a percentage of deaths compared to Teslas out on the road vs. other automakers' cars. Still though, there's so many confounders (weather, types/subsets of customers, etc) that would make it nearly impossible to use this data to judge whether Teslas are safer or more dangerous than Car X or Car Y.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    > what would be more helpful is a percentage of deaths compared to Teslas out on the road vs. other automakers' cars ...yeah, that's exactly what I asked for in the first sentence.
    - kunai 5y ago
      Right, but what I'm saying is that that still wouldn't paint the entire picture, there's too many overlapping variables and too few Tesla vehicles relative to market share of other brands to make any sort of sound or critical judgment of their safety. I'm not defending Tesla here, just stating the obvious. Not a fan of their cars for quite a few reasons
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  > Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? Not really. Most of the data is based on comparing all sorts of cars against all sorts of other cars. Even ignoring how many years other brands have been making cars compared to Tesla, car models have very specific demographics they cater to. Take the Corvette for example, one of the highest deaths per mile, and it's not because the car is inherently unsafe... it just attracts a very specific type of buyer with a very specific purpose in driving. - Adding in Autopilot makes the comparison even more hopeless since it works best in the absolute easiest situation (basic highways) doesn't work in the hardest ("stroads") and limits speeding. You could try comparing only cars that have AEB/LKA/etc. but no one seems to have done that (Tesla certainly won't since it doesn't sell their narrative) FSD would be slightly more interesting, but again, will work best on highways (so people will enable it there more) and also Tesla hasn't shared FSD numbers separately
- yumraj 5y ago
  Tesla has to provide data that its technology works, not the other way around. Public doesn't have to prove or provide data for shit. Just like drug companies have to prove that their medicines work before FDA approves them to be provided to patients, similarly Tesla has to provide data and prove that it works before it should have been unleashed on public roads since both, drugs and FSD/autopilot, have the capacity to kill if they don't work as designed/promised.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I've found this series illuminating. https://blog.piekniewski.info/2020/03/01/av-safety-myths-and-facts-2020-update/ https://blog.piekniewski.info/2020/03/01/av-safety-myths-and...
- simion314 5y ago
  >Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? Hopefully this evaluation will force Tesla to share the data as the other companies, hopefully the army of fanboys have nothing against transparency.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    USA drives 3.225 trillion miles per year, and kills 38000 people, that's about 1 death per 100 million miles. According to the anti Tesla site above, Tesla cars kill 1 person per 200 million miles. That's not accounting for deaths from pollution though
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      That's....honestly bad.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        1 death in 100 million miles driven? that's amazingly good!
    - simion314 5y ago
      It is easy to use statistics bad. For example you can compare all kind of drivers vs Tesla drivers , you don't have teens driving Teslas so stats are not the same. You can compare all cars vs Tesla and you still have bad stats since Tesla are new and expensive cars, you can't compare with old cheap cars. You can compare autopilot vs human drivers and is still bad stats because most of autopilot miles are on good conditions on big hihgways so you would need to compare on the exact same roads. TL:DR you need stats for the similar driver population, similar car prices and age and drive assist, similar roads. The TFA asks for more transparency so we would get more data and maybe we get better stats or more bad statistics, that we need to debug.
      - mavhc 5y ago
        Do all the other car companies provide those stats?
- icapulet2 5y ago
  There's data on the other parts of the website. Use the links.
- MarkMc 5y ago
  The problem is deaths are so infrequent that it takes many years to get a statistically representative sample. Perhaps at-fault collisions per mile would be a better metric?
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/uxUGD https://archive.is/uxUGD
thereisnospork 5y ago
In other news, coming to your local bar, high school, and nursing home parking lots: The 2022 Hummer EV with 1,000hp capable of propelling its 9,000+ pounds to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less. Legally operable by anyone with a pulse[0]. I'm not sure its the AI drivers of the future that worry me. [0]Just about. https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mavhc 5y ago
  Given the rate that non China/Tesla companies make EVs I wouldn't worry, they'll have sold about 12 by 2025
  - XenophileJKO 5y ago
    I wouldn't mind owning one though.
pengaru 5y ago
Sure took long enough, do your jobs already. The general public shouldn't be forced to share roads with FSD Beta vehicles having a tendency to veer into oncoming traffic among other unpredictable and dangerous behaviors shown in various twitter videos. Nevermind the autopilot failures smashing into stopped emergency vehicles and semi trailers. I'm pro-EV but Tesla is a reckless shit show.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Rygian 5y ago
  When you say "having a tendency to," how often exactly does that happen? Have you been able to watch Twitter videos of all driving situations FSD is exposed to, or was your research biased to "videos that get a lot of views," itself a subset of "FSD driving that was caught on camera"?
  - mwill 5y ago
    I think it's fair to view Telsa's FSD as a single (very prolific) driver. If there were multiple viral videos of a single person veering into oncoming traffic, I wouldn't care how many hours of video there was of them NOT veering into oncoming traffic there was tbh, I would still like to see some intervention.
    - the8472 5y ago
      No, that's not how you make reasonable policy. That's just listening to your gut reaction to such a video. Gut reactions do not work at this scale because this "single prolific driver" drives far more than a human in their lifetime. Therefore even rare events become common. Put a different way, as driven distances goes up the probability of having some scary event approaches 1. What we want to know at which rate it approaches 1. Twitter videos don't tell us that.
      - omegalulw 5y ago
erulabs 5y ago
This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  There's good and bad ways to develop new technologies. It is our responsibility to champion the good and call out the bad. If not us, the people who actually understand and build the technology - then who? [edit] I'm pro EPA too btw, its nice that rivers don't catch fire.
  - martindbp 5y ago
    If EPA regulations stood in the way of saving a million lives a year, yeah it would be a bad way to develop new technologies. We know humans are terrible drivers leading to countless tragedies. Tesla FSD is far from working at the moment, nobody is claiming otherwise. But it requires a human supervisor, and this is enforced by a driver facing camera. That combination likely makes it safer than the average driver already today. What I'm seeing is that Tesla's appraoch, fleet learning, is likely to accelerate the advent of L4. If Tesla can solve this using the existing cheap camera sensors, they can scale this out incredibly fast. This year they are likely to produce upwards of 2 million vehicles, and by 2025 it's likely close to 6-7 million. Even if other self-driving solutions get there first, they have no way of reaching Tesla's scale as they need specialized sensors and partnerships with OEMs etc. Consider the possibility that I'm right. By stoking fears and getting FSD banned or delayed, many lives would be lost in the name of safety, when there has been no fatality recorded on FSD.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      If saving lives were paramount would we not just be advocating for more trains? I think this is simply a cost-saving measure. They have not developed a sufficiently reliable system, they are marketing it as though it is, and putting it on the road. I strongly suspect that they do not in fact require more data to perfect this system - I suspect they need more sensors. If they do need more data, they're free to obtain it otherwise. Autopilot has tried to murder me a few times lol.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
feelonmuch 5y ago
feelonmuch 5y ago
Also you dont seem to realize that the corrupt CA Air Resources Board calls the shots because they need Tesla to stay afloat to sell carbon credits to the rest of the car industry otherwise there is no electric car in the US.
perfectstorm 5y ago
good. Tesla owners have been complaining about phantom braking for a while now with the new update. I would hate to be behind a Tesla that phantom brakes in the middle of the highway even if I come to a complete stop, the person behind me may not stop in time.
MarkMc 5y ago
Why doesn't the government force Tesla to do a randomised controlled trial? You get in a Tesla and ask it to drive you to your destination. The Tesla flips a digital coin and either agrees to drive you, or tells you to drive yourself. After 10 million such trips you can see who is the better driver - Tesla or human?
- mavhc 5y ago
  Because it's in beta. Once self driving is a thing the government should make the cars do a billion mile driving test in a simulation they design, with all possible crazy things happening

Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? This data, https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/, doesn't tell us much if accurate, other than Tesla crashes don't seem to be any kind of real problem in an absolute sense.

klyrs 5y ago
- anonporridge 5y ago
  > Does human life have intrinsic value? Yes? I don't understand your point. We have limited problem solving resources, which means we need to be smart about how we use those resources to solve the problems that legitimately have the biggest impact on human suffering. Getting bogged down on issues that are negligible in a relativistic sense, but trigger greater emotional response, is a recipe for failure. See the anti nuclear power movement for example, https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > We have limited problem solving resources, which means we need to be smart about how we use those resources to solve the problems that legitimately have the biggest impact on human suffering. Sounds great in principle, but how do self-driving cars fit into that picture?
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, suffering, and property damage through car crashes all the time. Unless there's hard data that FSD is worse than the status quo, attempts to curtail it's use is not only a waste of time, but potentially actively contributing to unnecessary suffering if in fact it's contributing to fewer accidents.
      - seoaeu 5y ago
        Why should the burden of proof be on the critics? Carmakers shouldn't be able to unleash experimental technology that jeopardizes the lives of pedestrians without credible evidence that it is at least as safe as human drivers
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Whatever Tesla is offering, it's not even remotely full self driving. It can't handle much beyond a highway on a sunny day, and even then, they have an unfortunate habit of crashing into stopped emergency vehicles. Reduction of total cars on the road, in favor of competent mass transit, would do much more to actually reduce suffering. But Musk wants money, not improved quality of life for those who can't afford Teslas. This isn't some rinkydink charity, it's a fat slice of a trillion dollar industry.
      - simion314 5y ago
        >It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, Why not maybe don't allow bad drivers to drive at all? Like don't give a license without 40 hours of driving school with a professor, have a test with traffic rules, then have a final test with an official. Have the drivers provide medical proof they are capable, Each time a driver does something dangerous like speeding remove his driving license for a few months, etc. Btw don't give driving licenses to kids could also work. It is not like we the ONLY solution is AI driven cars, there are a lot of more cheaper solutions, even tech ones like identifying drunk drivers, speed limiting cars to match the road limits etc.
        sideshowb 5y ago
    - seoaeu 5y ago
      Cars are the primary cause of death for certain age groups! Technologies that meaningfully change the fatality rate (up or down) are of extreme importance to reducing human suffering
- speedgoose 5y ago
  You can argue than yes, you can put a price on human life. It’s definitely the case for road safety and Covid-19. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.213 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.4.213 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life In France today, it’s about 3 000 000€
foepys 5y ago
Since Tesla is a very young and upscale brand deaths per mile would be very misleading. You need to also account for price range, car type, and age of the vehicle. There is quite the difference getting into an accident with a 20 year old Honda Accord and a 3 year old Model 3.
- carlivar 5y ago
  And also road setting. Highways (where self driving tech is most commonly used) are the safest per mile.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Ok, still, try to compare it to equivalent brands and socio-economic groups. My point is that anti Tesla self driving sentiment is almost exclusively driven by emotion, not hard data. Show me the data that justifies why I need to be afraid of public FSD.
  - marricks 5y ago
    It’s a new technology which no one else is testing in the real world with actual drivers at such a scale. Onus is on Tesla to provide data for others to verify the claim that it’s safe.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      I don't think this is a good faith answer; feels more like "I don't have a good answer for why this is a problem, so I'm going to punt it onto you to convince me"
      - Kbelicius 5y ago
        The only ones who have the hard data are Tesla and you are expecting somebody else to provide it. Are you serious?
      - mellavora 5y ago
        Disagree. It is a good faith answer which states standard practice for safety standards. Burden of proof is on Tesla to show that FSD is safe, not on the DMV to prove that it isn't. You are welcome to argue that this principle is in need of reform. People may or may not agree with you. The discussion might be interesting. But like it or not, the underlying principle for an exception to an established safety principle is that the burden of proof is on Tesla.
kunai 5y ago
Absolute data points like this are pretty much useless, what would be more helpful is a percentage of deaths compared to Teslas out on the road vs. other automakers' cars. Still though, there's so many confounders (weather, types/subsets of customers, etc) that would make it nearly impossible to use this data to judge whether Teslas are safer or more dangerous than Car X or Car Y.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  > what would be more helpful is a percentage of deaths compared to Teslas out on the road vs. other automakers' cars ...yeah, that's exactly what I asked for in the first sentence.
  - kunai 5y ago
    Right, but what I'm saying is that that still wouldn't paint the entire picture, there's too many overlapping variables and too few Tesla vehicles relative to market share of other brands to make any sort of sound or critical judgment of their safety. I'm not defending Tesla here, just stating the obvious. Not a fan of their cars for quite a few reasons
BoorishBears 5y ago
> Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? Not really. Most of the data is based on comparing all sorts of cars against all sorts of other cars. Even ignoring how many years other brands have been making cars compared to Tesla, car models have very specific demographics they cater to. Take the Corvette for example, one of the highest deaths per mile, and it's not because the car is inherently unsafe... it just attracts a very specific type of buyer with a very specific purpose in driving. - Adding in Autopilot makes the comparison even more hopeless since it works best in the absolute easiest situation (basic highways) doesn't work in the hardest ("stroads") and limits speeding. You could try comparing only cars that have AEB/LKA/etc. but no one seems to have done that (Tesla certainly won't since it doesn't sell their narrative) FSD would be slightly more interesting, but again, will work best on highways (so people will enable it there more) and also Tesla hasn't shared FSD numbers separately
yumraj 5y ago
Tesla has to provide data that its technology works, not the other way around. Public doesn't have to prove or provide data for shit. Just like drug companies have to prove that their medicines work before FDA approves them to be provided to patients, similarly Tesla has to provide data and prove that it works before it should have been unleashed on public roads since both, drugs and FSD/autopilot, have the capacity to kill if they don't work as designed/promised.
emodendroket 5y ago
I've found this series illuminating. https://blog.piekniewski.info/2020/03/01/av-safety-myths-and-facts-2020-update/ https://blog.piekniewski.info/2020/03/01/av-safety-myths-and...
simion314 5y ago
>Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? Hopefully this evaluation will force Tesla to share the data as the other companies, hopefully the army of fanboys have nothing against transparency.
- mavhc 5y ago
  USA drives 3.225 trillion miles per year, and kills 38000 people, that's about 1 death per 100 million miles. According to the anti Tesla site above, Tesla cars kill 1 person per 200 million miles. That's not accounting for deaths from pollution though
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    That's....honestly bad.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      1 death in 100 million miles driven? that's amazingly good!
  - simion314 5y ago
    It is easy to use statistics bad. For example you can compare all kind of drivers vs Tesla drivers , you don't have teens driving Teslas so stats are not the same. You can compare all cars vs Tesla and you still have bad stats since Tesla are new and expensive cars, you can't compare with old cheap cars. You can compare autopilot vs human drivers and is still bad stats because most of autopilot miles are on good conditions on big hihgways so you would need to compare on the exact same roads. TL:DR you need stats for the similar driver population, similar car prices and age and drive assist, similar roads. The TFA asks for more transparency so we would get more data and maybe we get better stats or more bad statistics, that we need to debug.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      Do all the other car companies provide those stats?
icapulet2 5y ago
There's data on the other parts of the website. Use the links.
MarkMc 5y ago
The problem is deaths are so infrequent that it takes many years to get a statistically representative sample. Perhaps at-fault collisions per mile would be a better metric?

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/uxUGD https://archive.is/uxUGD

thereisnospork 5y ago

In other news, coming to your local bar, high school, and nursing home parking lots: The 2022 Hummer EV with 1,000hp capable of propelling its 9,000+ pounds to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less. Legally operable by anyone with a pulse[0]. I'm not sure its the AI drivers of the future that worry me. [0]Just about. https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mavhc 5y ago
Given the rate that non China/Tesla companies make EVs I wouldn't worry, they'll have sold about 12 by 2025
- XenophileJKO 5y ago
  I wouldn't mind owning one though.

pengaru 5y ago

Sure took long enough, do your jobs already. The general public shouldn't be forced to share roads with FSD Beta vehicles having a tendency to veer into oncoming traffic among other unpredictable and dangerous behaviors shown in various twitter videos. Nevermind the autopilot failures smashing into stopped emergency vehicles and semi trailers. I'm pro-EV but Tesla is a reckless shit show.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rygian 5y ago
When you say "having a tendency to," how often exactly does that happen? Have you been able to watch Twitter videos of all driving situations FSD is exposed to, or was your research biased to "videos that get a lot of views," itself a subset of "FSD driving that was caught on camera"?
- mwill 5y ago
  I think it's fair to view Telsa's FSD as a single (very prolific) driver. If there were multiple viral videos of a single person veering into oncoming traffic, I wouldn't care how many hours of video there was of them NOT veering into oncoming traffic there was tbh, I would still like to see some intervention.
  - the8472 5y ago
    No, that's not how you make reasonable policy. That's just listening to your gut reaction to such a video. Gut reactions do not work at this scale because this "single prolific driver" drives far more than a human in their lifetime. Therefore even rare events become common. Put a different way, as driven distances goes up the probability of having some scary event approaches 1. What we want to know at which rate it approaches 1. Twitter videos don't tell us that.
    - omegalulw 5y ago

erulabs 5y ago

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

arcticbull 5y ago
There's good and bad ways to develop new technologies. It is our responsibility to champion the good and call out the bad. If not us, the people who actually understand and build the technology - then who? [edit] I'm pro EPA too btw, its nice that rivers don't catch fire.
- martindbp 5y ago
  If EPA regulations stood in the way of saving a million lives a year, yeah it would be a bad way to develop new technologies. We know humans are terrible drivers leading to countless tragedies. Tesla FSD is far from working at the moment, nobody is claiming otherwise. But it requires a human supervisor, and this is enforced by a driver facing camera. That combination likely makes it safer than the average driver already today. What I'm seeing is that Tesla's appraoch, fleet learning, is likely to accelerate the advent of L4. If Tesla can solve this using the existing cheap camera sensors, they can scale this out incredibly fast. This year they are likely to produce upwards of 2 million vehicles, and by 2025 it's likely close to 6-7 million. Even if other self-driving solutions get there first, they have no way of reaching Tesla's scale as they need specialized sensors and partnerships with OEMs etc. Consider the possibility that I'm right. By stoking fears and getting FSD banned or delayed, many lives would be lost in the name of safety, when there has been no fatality recorded on FSD.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    If saving lives were paramount would we not just be advocating for more trains? I think this is simply a cost-saving measure. They have not developed a sufficiently reliable system, they are marketing it as though it is, and putting it on the road. I strongly suspect that they do not in fact require more data to perfect this system - I suspect they need more sensors. If they do need more data, they're free to obtain it otherwise. Autopilot has tried to murder me a few times lol.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

feelonmuch 5y ago

Also you dont seem to realize that the corrupt CA Air Resources Board calls the shots because they need Tesla to stay afloat to sell carbon credits to the rest of the car industry otherwise there is no electric car in the US.

perfectstorm 5y ago

good. Tesla owners have been complaining about phantom braking for a while now with the new update. I would hate to be behind a Tesla that phantom brakes in the middle of the highway even if I come to a complete stop, the person behind me may not stop in time.

MarkMc 5y ago

Why doesn't the government force Tesla to do a randomised controlled trial? You get in a Tesla and ask it to drive you to your destination. The Tesla flips a digital coin and either agrees to drive you, or tells you to drive yourself. After 10 million such trips you can see who is the better driver - Tesla or human?

mavhc 5y ago
Because it's in beta. Once self driving is a thing the government should make the cars do a billion mile driving test in a simulation they design, with all possible crazy things happening