4 ms·

Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.

by valine 3y ago

VectorLock 3y ago
"Adequate" is an interesting choice of a word when describing something's safety record.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Adequate to many is “Kills fewer people than the average human driver.” And yet, the average driver kills 0 people. It’s in the far margins where deaths occur - a fraction of a fraction of a percent. This is in comparison to the arguably singular entity “Tesla Autopilot” which has already killed several.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Tesla autopilot replaces a lot more than one human driver, so this is a mathematically nonsensical argument.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      So does a bus driver. Or a pilot. Or an engineer. And we hold them responsible for the humans in their care.
      - belltaco 3y ago
        We don't. 42K people are killed in the US every year in automobile accidents. Yet humans are allowed to keep driving and killing people despite their massive flaws.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Individual humans have their license revoked and sometimes even face manslaughter charges if they cause too much death on the road. FSD is like one mind in control of an entire fleet. It's mistakes are amplified relative to a lone human
Veserv 3y ago
FSD has no safety record as Tesla does not release their datasets for analysis by third partys, research institutes, or government regulators. In fact, they have deliberately misclassified FSD to not be a autonomous vehicle system, despite repeatedly indicating that it is intended to be and currently is a autonomous vehicle, to avoid mandatory California DMV reporting requirements [1]. The only "safety record" available is published by Tesla themselves with no access to the underlying data which is the entity with the greatest financial conflict of interest. You might as well ask Ford how safe the Pinto was or VW how clean their diesel was. There is literally no reason to believe those safety reports, in fact, you should probably anti-believe them as this is the standard pattern of manufacturers of unsafe/inadequate systems. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/disengagement-reports/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...
lotsofpulp 3y ago
If Tesla had an adequate safety record, they would back their claims by offering liability insurance when self driving is enabled. The fact that Tesla does not put their money where their mouth is says all you need to know. Wake me up when someone is willing to take on liability. Until then automated driving does not exist.
- valine 3y ago
  FSD isn’t to the point where it can safely operate without a driver monitoring it. You’re arguing against allowing it on the roads with a safety driver on the basis that FSD isn’t ready to be operated without a safety driver. That makes zero sense. FSD with a safety driver does not pose a threat to public safety. That’s not coming from me, it’s coming from the NHTSA.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I have no problem allowing it on the road. I do have a problem calling something that does not drive itself “self driving”. Much less FULL self driving. Although, I guess my bigger issue is actually with the government that takes no action about false advertising.
    - martindbp 3y ago
      "Full" can mean a lot of things. You chose to interpret it as L5, but to me it clearly compares itself to AP and other lesser ADAS systems which has a much smaller ODD. FSD has a nearly full ODD (it doesn't do parking and reversing yet). I understand you might get the impression that Musk means L5, and clearly that is the long term goal, but that doesn't mean FSD has to be L5. Anyway, arguing about a name is pointless. There are literally thousands of videos online where someone who's about to purchase a product for $15,000 can see exactly what they will get. The "fear" that grown adults will purchase something for $15,000 purely based on a vague name without reading any disclaimers or read/watch a single review is disingenuous and purely false concern.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago

Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.

by valine 3y ago

Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.

VectorLock 3y ago

"Adequate" is an interesting choice of a word when describing something's safety record.

falcolas 3y ago
Adequate to many is “Kills fewer people than the average human driver.” And yet, the average driver kills 0 people. It’s in the far margins where deaths occur - a fraction of a fraction of a percent. This is in comparison to the arguably singular entity “Tesla Autopilot” which has already killed several.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Tesla autopilot replaces a lot more than one human driver, so this is a mathematically nonsensical argument.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    So does a bus driver. Or a pilot. Or an engineer. And we hold them responsible for the humans in their care.
    - belltaco 3y ago
      We don't. 42K people are killed in the US every year in automobile accidents. Yet humans are allowed to keep driving and killing people despite their massive flaws.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Individual humans have their license revoked and sometimes even face manslaughter charges if they cause too much death on the road. FSD is like one mind in control of an entire fleet. It's mistakes are amplified relative to a lone human

Veserv 3y ago

FSD has no safety record as Tesla does not release their datasets for analysis by third partys, research institutes, or government regulators. In fact, they have deliberately misclassified FSD to not be a autonomous vehicle system, despite repeatedly indicating that it is intended to be and currently is a autonomous vehicle, to avoid mandatory California DMV reporting requirements [1]. The only "safety record" available is published by Tesla themselves with no access to the underlying data which is the entity with the greatest financial conflict of interest. You might as well ask Ford how safe the Pinto was or VW how clean their diesel was. There is literally no reason to believe those safety reports, in fact, you should probably anti-believe them as this is the standard pattern of manufacturers of unsafe/inadequate systems. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/disengagement-reports/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...

lotsofpulp 3y ago

If Tesla had an adequate safety record, they would back their claims by offering liability insurance when self driving is enabled. The fact that Tesla does not put their money where their mouth is says all you need to know. Wake me up when someone is willing to take on liability. Until then automated driving does not exist.

valine 3y ago
FSD isn’t to the point where it can safely operate without a driver monitoring it. You’re arguing against allowing it on the roads with a safety driver on the basis that FSD isn’t ready to be operated without a safety driver. That makes zero sense. FSD with a safety driver does not pose a threat to public safety. That’s not coming from me, it’s coming from the NHTSA.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I have no problem allowing it on the road. I do have a problem calling something that does not drive itself “self driving”. Much less FULL self driving. Although, I guess my bigger issue is actually with the government that takes no action about false advertising.
  - martindbp 3y ago
    "Full" can mean a lot of things. You chose to interpret it as L5, but to me it clearly compares itself to AP and other lesser ADAS systems which has a much smaller ODD. FSD has a nearly full ODD (it doesn't do parking and reversing yet). I understand you might get the impression that Musk means L5, and clearly that is the long term goal, but that doesn't mean FSD has to be L5. Anyway, arguing about a name is pointless. There are literally thousands of videos online where someone who's about to purchase a product for $15,000 can see exactly what they will get. The "fear" that grown adults will purchase something for $15,000 purely based on a vague name without reading any disclaimers or read/watch a single review is disingenuous and purely false concern.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago