7 ms·

This FUD is insane. You make it sounds like Tesla's with FSD on are crashing all the time. This makes no sense at all, because... they aren't?

l33t233372 3y ago
FUD is an interesting term. Why do you use it here? Are you implying GP’s message is part of a broader campaign?
- natch 3y ago
  Not op but there are several groups that are independent but essentially aligned on anti-Tesla motivation that have reasons to support campaigns against Tesla: TSLAQ, union supporters, oil producers, legacy auto, to name just a few. There are more. And FUD is well known and easy enough that even individuals can practice it, so I wouldn’t read too much into that.
  - l33t233372 3y ago
    I’m not convinced FUD is a real thing.
    - natch 3y ago
      Right, I fear there is doubt and uncertainty, I see what you did there.
  - amelius 3y ago
    I can understand anti-Tesla motivation considering that Tesla doesn't act in a responsible way: they call their system "Autopilot" when it really isn't that; and they don't take responsibility in case of a crash. Both of these things should imho be illegal but somehow they get away with it.
    - natch 3y ago
      There you go. With people believing this stuff of course they face some opposition.
  - bboygravity 3y ago
    I was thinking hedge funds paying troll-farms to bash anything TSLA related when they're short the stock (yes I actually believe that is a real thing that happens all the time), but sure those too.
cgh 3y ago
I'm not sure what the track record for FSD is so far but Autopilot's isn't great and inspires little confidence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-a... 17 fatalities, 736 crashes.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  And yet it’s been used on several orders of magnitude more miles than any other offering. Check the numbers for general driver crashes and fatalities.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    > And yet it’s been used on several orders of magnitude more miles than any other offering. Based on what? ACC/LKAS has been a feature since before Tesla even existed as a corporation. You might be confusing their claims about FSD with AP (which they very much would like you to) Similarly, they love for people to compare AP to all driver crashes and fatalities when AP only works in the situations that are otherwise least dangerous to drivers, in cars that are newer than the average car, driven by a demographic with higher than average safety records, etc... which means AP would need to kill a lot of people to not have better numbers than average
- concordDance 3y ago
  Those are crashes WITH, not crashes BECAUSE. Without knowing the usual amount of no fault crashes given the number of driving miles the number is meaningless
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    $TSLA speaking?
    - concordDance 3y ago
      I have no financial involvement in Tesla, owning neither shares nor shorts. And even if I did, my motivation for speaking up does not affect the fact that a crash happening does not mean autopilot was at fault.
BoorishBears 3y ago
Teslas with FSD are disengaging all the time. And even worse, it's not always FSD initiating: often times it's FSD not realizing it's about to do something wrong, the humans take over, and then them brushing it off as "well it's a beta" or "I bet it would have gotten it but I wasn't so sure". Getting to a point where Mercedes can guarantee their system will correctly initiate disengagements and do so with a 10 seconds of response time while putting the liability on themselves is a massive leap of anything Tesla has ever put out. Again, this is what happens when you have literally no clue how the space works (and then turn around and accuse people of FUD.)
- ncr100 3y ago
  Yup Mercedes should be applauded for accepting liability. Tells me what I want to know about which system is safer.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  Tesla's with the FSD option (with or without FSD engaged) are crashing less than any other car. Yet, according to you that is somehow a bad thing (dangerous?) or worse han some other brand. Which again, is factually untrue afaik. This reasoning still makes no sense at all.
gamblor956 3y ago
I agree, the Fucked Up Deaths are insane. For point of comparison, the entire rest of the auto industry, worldwide has fewer advanced driver deaths than Tesla, despite millions more cars on the road with advanced driving functionality. On an absolute, and relative, basis Tesla advanced driving is the most dangerous advanced driving system in the world.
- concordDance 3y ago
  I'd love to know the numbers on this. How many crashes with advanced drivers enabled are there and how many miles of driving have they done?
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    They might be mislead by articles like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/self-driving-car-nhtsa-crash-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/self-driving-car... Where in the first few paragraphs it gives the impression Tesla has 5:1 deaths, but later you learn that they are including simple lane keeping and cruise control in the comparison, and > None of the cars using the automated systems were involved in fatal accidents
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      None of the cars using the automated systems were involved in fatal accidents If you mean Tesla, that is definitely false. Mostly famously, the Bay Area crash where autopilot was conveniently disabled seconds before the car crashed into a barrier, killing the driver. In the aftermath, the driver's family, and other Tesla drivers noted that a recent update to FSD had caused a regression, whereby Teslas would swerve toward the divider instead of away from it. simple lane keeping and cruise control in the comparison Some of Tesla AP's worst fatalities are instances where the car was just replicating simple lane keeping functionality and yet the car still crashed into a big rig or emergency vehicle the Tesla didn't see but which any other carmaker's system would have seen. Notably, in instances where the Tesla was at fault Musk refuses to discuss the accident, even though he otherwise has no issues releasing information about the driver when the driver is at fault. It's telling that Musk rarely (but still) does this, which means that every time he doesn't it's very strong circumstantial evidence that the car was at fault. At some point you need to stop making excuses for Tesla's atrocious safety practices and abysmal safety record and just except that they're fundamentally dangerous cars.
amelius 3y ago
> This FUD is insane. What are you talking about? The real FUD is Tesla not taking responsibility when "Autopilot" crashes into something.
pms 3y ago
An there are no official investigations into Tesla crashes either? https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF

l33t233372 3y ago

FUD is an interesting term. Why do you use it here? Are you implying GP’s message is part of a broader campaign?

natch 3y ago
Not op but there are several groups that are independent but essentially aligned on anti-Tesla motivation that have reasons to support campaigns against Tesla: TSLAQ, union supporters, oil producers, legacy auto, to name just a few. There are more. And FUD is well known and easy enough that even individuals can practice it, so I wouldn’t read too much into that.
- l33t233372 3y ago
  I’m not convinced FUD is a real thing.
  - natch 3y ago
    Right, I fear there is doubt and uncertainty, I see what you did there.
- amelius 3y ago
  I can understand anti-Tesla motivation considering that Tesla doesn't act in a responsible way: they call their system "Autopilot" when it really isn't that; and they don't take responsibility in case of a crash. Both of these things should imho be illegal but somehow they get away with it.
  - natch 3y ago
    There you go. With people believing this stuff of course they face some opposition.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  I was thinking hedge funds paying troll-farms to bash anything TSLA related when they're short the stock (yes I actually believe that is a real thing that happens all the time), but sure those too.

cgh 3y ago

I'm not sure what the track record for FSD is so far but Autopilot's isn't great and inspires little confidence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-a... 17 fatalities, 736 crashes.

asynchronous 3y ago
And yet it’s been used on several orders of magnitude more miles than any other offering. Check the numbers for general driver crashes and fatalities.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  > And yet it’s been used on several orders of magnitude more miles than any other offering. Based on what? ACC/LKAS has been a feature since before Tesla even existed as a corporation. You might be confusing their claims about FSD with AP (which they very much would like you to) Similarly, they love for people to compare AP to all driver crashes and fatalities when AP only works in the situations that are otherwise least dangerous to drivers, in cars that are newer than the average car, driven by a demographic with higher than average safety records, etc... which means AP would need to kill a lot of people to not have better numbers than average
concordDance 3y ago
Those are crashes WITH, not crashes BECAUSE. Without knowing the usual amount of no fault crashes given the number of driving miles the number is meaningless
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  $TSLA speaking?
  - concordDance 3y ago
    I have no financial involvement in Tesla, owning neither shares nor shorts. And even if I did, my motivation for speaking up does not affect the fact that a crash happening does not mean autopilot was at fault.

BoorishBears 3y ago

Teslas with FSD are disengaging all the time. And even worse, it's not always FSD initiating: often times it's FSD not realizing it's about to do something wrong, the humans take over, and then them brushing it off as "well it's a beta" or "I bet it would have gotten it but I wasn't so sure". Getting to a point where Mercedes can guarantee their system will correctly initiate disengagements and do so with a 10 seconds of response time while putting the liability on themselves is a massive leap of anything Tesla has ever put out. Again, this is what happens when you have literally no clue how the space works (and then turn around and accuse people of FUD.)

ncr100 3y ago
Yup Mercedes should be applauded for accepting liability. Tells me what I want to know about which system is safer.
bboygravity 3y ago
Tesla's with the FSD option (with or without FSD engaged) are crashing less than any other car. Yet, according to you that is somehow a bad thing (dangerous?) or worse han some other brand. Which again, is factually untrue afaik. This reasoning still makes no sense at all.

gamblor956 3y ago

I agree, the Fucked Up Deaths are insane. For point of comparison, the entire rest of the auto industry, worldwide has fewer advanced driver deaths than Tesla, despite millions more cars on the road with advanced driving functionality. On an absolute, and relative, basis Tesla advanced driving is the most dangerous advanced driving system in the world.

concordDance 3y ago
I'd love to know the numbers on this. How many crashes with advanced drivers enabled are there and how many miles of driving have they done?
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  They might be mislead by articles like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/self-driving-car-nhtsa-crash-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/self-driving-car... Where in the first few paragraphs it gives the impression Tesla has 5:1 deaths, but later you learn that they are including simple lane keeping and cruise control in the comparison, and > None of the cars using the automated systems were involved in fatal accidents
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    None of the cars using the automated systems were involved in fatal accidents If you mean Tesla, that is definitely false. Mostly famously, the Bay Area crash where autopilot was conveniently disabled seconds before the car crashed into a barrier, killing the driver. In the aftermath, the driver's family, and other Tesla drivers noted that a recent update to FSD had caused a regression, whereby Teslas would swerve toward the divider instead of away from it. simple lane keeping and cruise control in the comparison Some of Tesla AP's worst fatalities are instances where the car was just replicating simple lane keeping functionality and yet the car still crashed into a big rig or emergency vehicle the Tesla didn't see but which any other carmaker's system would have seen. Notably, in instances where the Tesla was at fault Musk refuses to discuss the accident, even though he otherwise has no issues releasing information about the driver when the driver is at fault. It's telling that Musk rarely (but still) does this, which means that every time he doesn't it's very strong circumstantial evidence that the car was at fault. At some point you need to stop making excuses for Tesla's atrocious safety practices and abysmal safety record and just except that they're fundamentally dangerous cars.

amelius 3y ago

> This FUD is insane. What are you talking about? The real FUD is Tesla not taking responsibility when "Autopilot" crashes into something.

pms 3y ago

An there are no official investigations into Tesla crashes either? https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF