2 ms·
> human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex situations. These systems however, are not. This determination needs to be made with data. As
by fallingknife 4y ago
> human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex situations. These systems however, are not.
This determination needs to be made with data. As far as I can tell there is no conclusive evidence that Teslas on autopilot are involved in more crashes per mile than human drivers, and some evidence that it is safer, though that comes from Tesla, so not giving that much weight. So either it's somewhere close to as safe as human drivers, or data collection in this area is just really bad. I don't know which.
- Alupis 4y agoThe evidence provided by the likes of Tesla does not compare to real-world driving. They cannot produce that evidence yet, despite however many millions of miles on test circuits and well-known roads they want to tout - it's a false statistic designed to deliberately mislead the public into thinking the software is better than it really is. The burden of proof is on the FSD companies, not average drivers. The likes of Tesla have to prove their software is far superior to human drivers - and so far they have failed to do so. There are far too many FSD beta videos out recorded by real users that demonstrate obvious safety issues. The software is just not there yet, and may not be there for a long time, if ever. Articles like this come out far too often to just be discarded as media "hit" pieces.
- westurner 4y agoNo, you need a hard metric like "Accident rate per million miles driven" in order to compare the relative hazard.