6 ms·

The actual, non-editorialized data, along with the two actual NHTSA reports (one for level 2 driver assistance systems, one for self-driving systems in levels 3

by cs702 4y ago

The actual, non-editorialized data, along with the two actual NHTSA reports (one for level 2 driver assistance systems, one for self-driving systems in levels 3-5), are here: * Overview: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/initial-data-release-advanced-vehicle-technologies https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/initial-data-release-ad... * Data: https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/103486 https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/103486 * Report on level 2 systems: https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/summary-report-standing-general-order-adas-l2 https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/summary-report-standing-gener... * Report on level 3-5 systems: https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/summary-report-standing-general-order-ads https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/summary-report-standing-gener... Going forward, the NHTSA will release data updates monthly. That's exactly what we need to judge progress with these technologies: data. Bravo! Everyone: Let's at least skim the data and read the reports' summary conclusions before we start sharing our opinions.

robertlagrant 4y ago
The newspaper owned by the billionaire that hates the billionaire that owns Tesla is probably not the most reliable source :-D
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Considering the newspaper owned by the billionaire runs stories criticizing said billionaire's company's anti-union efforts [1], mayhap there's editorial independence? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-union-retaliation-allegations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-...
  - toolz 4y ago
    Whatever the motives (from whomever), the smear campaign from WaPo against musk is obvious enough that I've seen many people talking about it and even a twitter post detailing the many articles painting musk in a negative light and comparing that to other sources which if the data is taken at face value was very damning of WaPo. Personally I don't really care enough to investigate, but I thought it might provide some context as there appear to be (what I would assume) neutral parties commenting on the unfair reporting on musk from WaPo.
    - trs8080 4y ago
      > obvious enough that I've seen many people talking about it and even a twitter post If you're accusing an investigative journalism outfit of bias, you'll need better evidence than "people talking about it and even a twitter post."
      - toolz 4y ago
        > If you're accusing I'm not, I agree that if I was then I would need evidence.
    - dariusj18 4y ago
      > Personally I don't really care enough to investigate but you do care enough to comment on the internet with no evidence, thus your context is just disguised misinformation mixed with the hubris that your opinion matters.
      - toolz 4y ago
        Geez, some people really go out of there way to make things hostile. My opinion does matter, just ask my mom! I simply gave people some context and terms they can google if they're invested in this story. I'm not invested, and really don't much care if wapo is or isn't targeting musk. It doesn't affect my life one bit. If you think my comment isn't valuable, downvote and move on - that's what the arrows are for.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        dariusj18 4y ago
        It's not just that your comment had no value, it had negative value. If it only had no value, I would have done as you said, downvoted and moved on. But since it's existence was a detraction, I felt it was important enough to attempt to mitigate the propagation of potential misinformation. I do apologize that adding the bit of "... hubris that your opinion matters" came across rather harshly and was unneeded to my point.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    I think this is least of the worries. WaPO has extreme left bias which while reporting the truth, omission of important facts as they see fit for their readership. HN’s left bias matches WaPO in perfect resonance. So, it’s difficult to even discuss it here.
    - cityzen 4y ago
      Show me an example of “extreme left bias” on WaPo…
      - Tostino 4y ago
        For real, I don't think OP understands the term. Classically liberal is right wing, not left.
        RobertWHurst 4y ago
        Classical liberal is only right wing if you slide left so hard you break the overton window.
        beepbooptheory 4y ago
        Isn't this kind of misunderstanding what the overton window is? The window doesn't pay attention to the content of ideologies per se, just where a culture's sentiments gravitate towards. It doesn't in itself define political beliefs. At some point you need to actually care about principles!
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's right wing in the sense of individualism vs collectivism.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      As someone with an actual "extreme left bias" claiming the WaPo is on the "extreme left" is hilarious. Using American political terms, I'd put the NYT as having a centrist Democrat bias, the WaPo as having a centrist Republican position and the WSJ having a Republican bias. All of them are pro-capitalist and different wings of the neoliberal party and really right wing in the way the rest of the world thinks about politics. I don't even understand this world where people can accuse the WaPo of being far left. Yeah, they shat all over Trump, but that just reflects how far Trump went completely off the reservation. And it created the surreal situation where every other week I was agreeing with something that Bill Kristol said. The fact that Trumpers feel the need to scream about how the WaPo is a bunch of communists really shows how intellectually bankrupt the whole thing is.
- dylan604 4y ago
  You replied to someone that posted NHTSA links. This only makes you sound more whiny than if you had just posted this as a reply to the article itself.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    The reply highlighted an issue that seriously affects interpretation of the data from the NHTSA link. Citing a source isn't enough if either the source or the commenter misrepresents the facts. There was no justification for you to be so insulting.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  A similar article was also published in the LA Times, whose billionaire owner is friends with Musk. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-06-14/data-likely-show-teslas-on-autopilot-crash-more-than-rivals https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-06-14/data-likel...
stopyellingatme 4y ago
The level 3–5 report shows Apple as having a reported incident. Is Apple testing level 3-5 autonomous system?
- echelon 4y ago
  This should be a headline of its own.
is_true 4y ago
Can we trust Tesla (and other manufacturers) after they did this: "Tesla eventually agreed to split the cost of the repair, but before they would do that, the owner had to sign away his right to discuss the defect, which could preclude him from reporting it to the National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration (NHTSA)." Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/06/09/is-tesla-trying-to-keep-owners-from-reporting-vehicle-safety-problems/?sh=2dd6e5706258 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/06/09/is-tesla...
- cmurf 4y ago
  No. They are offering bribes. It's anti-competitive behavior in that it withholds information consumers need to make free and informed decisions. And it's fraud. Tesla gains financially from this deception. If offering the bribe is not already illegal, it should be made illegal. If it is illegal it should be prosecuted. By all means start out with a per bribe fine at least equivalent to the profit of a single unit, or else the fine is just a cost of doing business. Otherwise, treat it as a crime.
cs702 4y ago
Here's some actual data I just pulled from the report, showing number of incidents when using a level 3-5 system, sorted in descending order and then alphabetically by reporting entity. Despite having the greatest number of FSD users, Tesla has only a single reported accident when FSD was engaged. Other level 3-5 systems with much smaller installed bases are doing far worse. The data for level 2 is further below. # of incidents, levels 3-5: Waymo 62 Transdev 34 Cruise 23 GM 16 Zoox 12 Argo 10 Ford 7 May Mobility 3 Mercedes Benz 3 Pony.ai 3 Easymile 2 Toyota 2 WeRide 2 Apple 1 Beep 1 Chrysler 1 Hyundai 1 Local Motors 1 NVYA 1 Navistar 1 Porsche 1 Robert Bosch 1 Robotic Rsrch 1 Tesla 1 TuSimple 1 Here's the level 2 data -- number of incidents, again sorted in descending order and then alphabetically by reporting entity. The biggest caveat with these figures is that the NHTSA does NOT know how the rate of adoption & usage of level 2 technologies varies by reporting entity. It's likely that Tesla and Honda have the greatest rate of adoption & usage of level 2 technologies, but we don't really know: # of incidents, level 2: Tesla 273 <-- figure quoted by the OP Honda 90 Subaru 10 Ford 5 Toyota 4 BMW 3 APTIV 1 Hyundai 1 Lucid 1 Porsche 1 VW 1 Sources: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde... -- click on "Reporting Entity (ADS)" for the level 3-5 data, and on "Reporting Entity (ADAS)" for the level 2 data. -- EDIT: After a quick look at the report and the data, my take is that it's way too early to reach conclusions other than non-Tesla level 3-5 systems appear to have more accidents despite being used in many fewer vehicles. Shame on the Washington Post for publishing such an unjustifiably alarmist piece!
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  It would be interesting to see per 1000 vehicle owners or normalized in some ways.
  - cs702 4y ago
    Actually, it would be interesting to see the data per mile driven while using the driver assistance system, both for level 2 and levels 3-5, because to compare these systems apples-to-apples we would want to exclude all miles driven by human beings without any assistance. And ideally, I'd want to see data per mile driven in each road class (highway vs city, rural vs urban, etc.).
klvino 4y ago
Thank you for linking to all of the data. Consumers have different priorities than society when it comes to these systems, "convenience" vs "safety" respectively. If these systems are not improving safety above baseline (rate of accidents for non-assisted driving) it would be interesting to find out how this difference appears with each system's level of assistance. Then within those levels, are there certain platforms which pull the numbers in different directions (e.g is a Tesla more or less safe than other DAS of the same level). If these systems are not resulting in a reduction of accidents, should we rethink what kind of 'driver assistance' should systems provide? If higher level systems are less safe, should the industry hold off on pushing those systems to market until they're developed further? If a specific platform is a significant source for the reported accidents, then what action should be taken to address? (disable those specific DAS already in market?)
- cs702 4y ago
  Great questions. I don't think anyone has good (defensible) answers for them yet. This new effort by the NHTSA to compare ADAS and DAS systems apples-to-apples, in combination with more traditional efforts to collect overall data per mile driven (for both machine and human drivers), should eventually give us the answers :-)

by cs702 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago

The newspaper owned by the billionaire that hates the billionaire that owns Tesla is probably not the most reliable source :-D

jcranmer 4y ago
Considering the newspaper owned by the billionaire runs stories criticizing said billionaire's company's anti-union efforts [1], mayhap there's editorial independence? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-union-retaliation-allegations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-...
- toolz 4y ago
  Whatever the motives (from whomever), the smear campaign from WaPo against musk is obvious enough that I've seen many people talking about it and even a twitter post detailing the many articles painting musk in a negative light and comparing that to other sources which if the data is taken at face value was very damning of WaPo. Personally I don't really care enough to investigate, but I thought it might provide some context as there appear to be (what I would assume) neutral parties commenting on the unfair reporting on musk from WaPo.
  - trs8080 4y ago
    > obvious enough that I've seen many people talking about it and even a twitter post If you're accusing an investigative journalism outfit of bias, you'll need better evidence than "people talking about it and even a twitter post."
    - toolz 4y ago
      > If you're accusing I'm not, I agree that if I was then I would need evidence.
  - dariusj18 4y ago
    > Personally I don't really care enough to investigate but you do care enough to comment on the internet with no evidence, thus your context is just disguised misinformation mixed with the hubris that your opinion matters.
    - toolz 4y ago
      Geez, some people really go out of there way to make things hostile. My opinion does matter, just ask my mom! I simply gave people some context and terms they can google if they're invested in this story. I'm not invested, and really don't much care if wapo is or isn't targeting musk. It doesn't affect my life one bit. If you think my comment isn't valuable, downvote and move on - that's what the arrows are for.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dariusj18 4y ago
        It's not just that your comment had no value, it had negative value. If it only had no value, I would have done as you said, downvoted and moved on. But since it's existence was a detraction, I felt it was important enough to attempt to mitigate the propagation of potential misinformation. I do apologize that adding the bit of "... hubris that your opinion matters" came across rather harshly and was unneeded to my point.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I think this is least of the worries. WaPO has extreme left bias which while reporting the truth, omission of important facts as they see fit for their readership. HN’s left bias matches WaPO in perfect resonance. So, it’s difficult to even discuss it here.
  - cityzen 4y ago
    Show me an example of “extreme left bias” on WaPo…
    - Tostino 4y ago
      For real, I don't think OP understands the term. Classically liberal is right wing, not left.
      - RobertWHurst 4y ago
        Classical liberal is only right wing if you slide left so hard you break the overton window.
        beepbooptheory 4y ago
        Isn't this kind of misunderstanding what the overton window is? The window doesn't pay attention to the content of ideologies per se, just where a culture's sentiments gravitate towards. It doesn't in itself define political beliefs. At some point you need to actually care about principles!
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's right wing in the sense of individualism vs collectivism.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    As someone with an actual "extreme left bias" claiming the WaPo is on the "extreme left" is hilarious. Using American political terms, I'd put the NYT as having a centrist Democrat bias, the WaPo as having a centrist Republican position and the WSJ having a Republican bias. All of them are pro-capitalist and different wings of the neoliberal party and really right wing in the way the rest of the world thinks about politics. I don't even understand this world where people can accuse the WaPo of being far left. Yeah, they shat all over Trump, but that just reflects how far Trump went completely off the reservation. And it created the surreal situation where every other week I was agreeing with something that Bill Kristol said. The fact that Trumpers feel the need to scream about how the WaPo is a bunch of communists really shows how intellectually bankrupt the whole thing is.
dylan604 4y ago
You replied to someone that posted NHTSA links. This only makes you sound more whiny than if you had just posted this as a reply to the article itself.
- notacoward 4y ago
  The reply highlighted an issue that seriously affects interpretation of the data from the NHTSA link. Citing a source isn't enough if either the source or the commenter misrepresents the facts. There was no justification for you to be so insulting.
gamblor956 4y ago
A similar article was also published in the LA Times, whose billionaire owner is friends with Musk. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-06-14/data-likely-show-teslas-on-autopilot-crash-more-than-rivals https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-06-14/data-likel...

stopyellingatme 4y ago

The level 3–5 report shows Apple as having a reported incident. Is Apple testing level 3-5 autonomous system?

echelon 4y ago
This should be a headline of its own.

is_true 4y ago

Can we trust Tesla (and other manufacturers) after they did this: "Tesla eventually agreed to split the cost of the repair, but before they would do that, the owner had to sign away his right to discuss the defect, which could preclude him from reporting it to the National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration (NHTSA)." Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/06/09/is-tesla-trying-to-keep-owners-from-reporting-vehicle-safety-problems/?sh=2dd6e5706258 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/06/09/is-tesla...

cmurf 4y ago
No. They are offering bribes. It's anti-competitive behavior in that it withholds information consumers need to make free and informed decisions. And it's fraud. Tesla gains financially from this deception. If offering the bribe is not already illegal, it should be made illegal. If it is illegal it should be prosecuted. By all means start out with a per bribe fine at least equivalent to the profit of a single unit, or else the fine is just a cost of doing business. Otherwise, treat it as a crime.

cs702 4y ago

Here's some actual data I just pulled from the report, showing number of incidents when using a level 3-5 system, sorted in descending order and then alphabetically by reporting entity. Despite having the greatest number of FSD users, Tesla has only a single reported accident when FSD was engaged. Other level 3-5 systems with much smaller installed bases are doing far worse. The data for level 2 is further below. # of incidents, levels 3-5: Waymo 62 Transdev 34 Cruise 23 GM 16 Zoox 12 Argo 10 Ford 7 May Mobility 3 Mercedes Benz 3 Pony.ai 3 Easymile 2 Toyota 2 WeRide 2 Apple 1 Beep 1 Chrysler 1 Hyundai 1 Local Motors 1 NVYA 1 Navistar 1 Porsche 1 Robert Bosch 1 Robotic Rsrch 1 Tesla 1 TuSimple 1 Here's the level 2 data -- number of incidents, again sorted in descending order and then alphabetically by reporting entity. The biggest caveat with these figures is that the NHTSA does NOT know how the rate of adoption & usage of level 2 technologies varies by reporting entity. It's likely that Tesla and Honda have the greatest rate of adoption & usage of level 2 technologies, but we don't really know: # of incidents, level 2: Tesla 273 <-- figure quoted by the OP Honda 90 Subaru 10 Ford 5 Toyota 4 BMW 3 APTIV 1 Hyundai 1 Lucid 1 Porsche 1 VW 1 Sources: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde... -- click on "Reporting Entity (ADS)" for the level 3-5 data, and on "Reporting Entity (ADAS)" for the level 2 data. -- EDIT: After a quick look at the report and the data, my take is that it's way too early to reach conclusions other than non-Tesla level 3-5 systems appear to have more accidents despite being used in many fewer vehicles. Shame on the Washington Post for publishing such an unjustifiably alarmist piece!

systemvoltage 4y ago
It would be interesting to see per 1000 vehicle owners or normalized in some ways.
- cs702 4y ago
  Actually, it would be interesting to see the data per mile driven while using the driver assistance system, both for level 2 and levels 3-5, because to compare these systems apples-to-apples we would want to exclude all miles driven by human beings without any assistance. And ideally, I'd want to see data per mile driven in each road class (highway vs city, rural vs urban, etc.).

klvino 4y ago

Thank you for linking to all of the data. Consumers have different priorities than society when it comes to these systems, "convenience" vs "safety" respectively. If these systems are not improving safety above baseline (rate of accidents for non-assisted driving) it would be interesting to find out how this difference appears with each system's level of assistance. Then within those levels, are there certain platforms which pull the numbers in different directions (e.g is a Tesla more or less safe than other DAS of the same level). If these systems are not resulting in a reduction of accidents, should we rethink what kind of 'driver assistance' should systems provide? If higher level systems are less safe, should the industry hold off on pushing those systems to market until they're developed further? If a specific platform is a significant source for the reported accidents, then what action should be taken to address? (disable those specific DAS already in market?)

cs702 4y ago
Great questions. I don't think anyone has good (defensible) answers for them yet. This new effort by the NHTSA to compare ADAS and DAS systems apples-to-apples, in combination with more traditional efforts to collect overall data per mile driven (for both machine and human drivers), should eventually give us the answers :-)