3 ms·

Driving is deadly. FSD makes it less so.

by zaroth 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago
Citation needed, beyond Tesla's misleading attempt to push statistics that compare "a limited subset of driving conditions where conditions are sufficiently optimal that FSD will engage, including but not limited to weather, location, time of day and road condition" against "all drivers in all weather, locations, all times of day and all road conditions".
- giantg2 3y ago
  Wasn't there some sort of aircraft autopilot study that showed something like less actual control time ended up making pilots less skilled in the more dangerous conditions simply due to having fewer hours of actually controlling the aircraft? I wonder if something similar might be the case for FSD, if that study were to ever take place.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  Not to mention, they purposefully disengage autopilot right before crashes, so they aren't included in crash statistics.
  - zaroth 3y ago
    Crashes are included in the statistics, even if autopilot was disengaged immediately before.
    - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
      https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest...
      - zaroth 3y ago
        The article is just speculating on how to interpret log files. A forced disengagement of AutoPilot puts up a screaming red warning to “Take Control Immediately”, and I can definitely see that happening ahead of a crash. But Tesla is clear in their methodology; “To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds before impact”
- zaroth 3y ago
  Which claim needs a citation? Mine or X3874s?
  - glitchcrab 3y ago
    Both claims should be backed up.
    - zaroth 3y ago
      Tesla does provide crash statistics. Those stats used to be criticized on the basis that AutoPilot was driving predominantly highway miles and it’s safety record was being compared to overall driving crash statistics which have much more non-highway driving. Now Tesla breaks out AutoPilot and FSD statistics and shows that FSD driving, noting that those miles are predominantly non-highway, still has 5x fewer crashes per million miles than average. As you can see, the goalposts moved however. Now the “standard” for convincing stats includes controlling for road surfaces, weather patterns, and phase of the moon. https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1650601088981307392?s=20 https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1650601088981307392...
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        > Now the “standard” for convincing stats includes controlling for road surfaces, weather patterns, and phase of the moon. Much as you'd like to imply there is goalpost shifting, these are quite valid concerns, and not facetious. Road surfaces: poor paint, marking, potholes, heavy use of crack filler - all things which will cause FSD to disengage as it can't determine where the road actually is. Weather: FSD will disengage in sufficiently heavy rain/show/fog/hail. It will also be compromised by bright sunlight and road reflections hitting the "vision only" camera system. > Now Tesla breaks out AutoPilot and FSD statistics and shows that FSD driving, noting that those miles are predominantly non-highway, still has 5x fewer crashes per million miles than average. All of those factors above happen on all types of roads. By absolutely no coincidence, many of these factors result in increased collisions. FSD gets turned off in these conditions, so "conveniently" it doesn't suffer the collision adjustment as a result. Human drivers have no such ability, and nor do NHTSA statistics say "Well, these crashes happened but they weren't under optimal and level playing field conditions so, well, they don't count". Rephrased: to be actually comparable and worthy of anything beyond Tesla "marketing", crash stats should be looking at "similar constraints" between FSD and humans, i.e. if FSD can't or won't engage on a given stretch of road, or in given weather conditions, then the human crashes that happened on that same stretch of road or weather conditions shouldn't count for comparison, because you have no way of saying whether FSD would have driven better, because _it wouldn't even engage_. Breaking it down to "highway vs non-highway" is certainly _easier_ but reductive to the point of near-meaninglessness.

Driving is deadly. FSD makes it less so.

by zaroth 3y ago

Driving is deadly. FSD makes it less so.

Citation needed, beyond Tesla's misleading attempt to push statistics that compare "a limited subset of driving conditions where conditions are sufficiently optimal that FSD will engage, including but not limited to weather, location, time of day and road condition" against "all drivers in all weather, locations, all times of day and all road conditions".

giantg2 3y ago
Wasn't there some sort of aircraft autopilot study that showed something like less actual control time ended up making pilots less skilled in the more dangerous conditions simply due to having fewer hours of actually controlling the aircraft? I wonder if something similar might be the case for FSD, if that study were to ever take place.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
Not to mention, they purposefully disengage autopilot right before crashes, so they aren't included in crash statistics.
- zaroth 3y ago
  Crashes are included in the statistics, even if autopilot was disengaged immediately before.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest...
    - zaroth 3y ago
      The article is just speculating on how to interpret log files. A forced disengagement of AutoPilot puts up a screaming red warning to “Take Control Immediately”, and I can definitely see that happening ahead of a crash. But Tesla is clear in their methodology; “To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds before impact”
zaroth 3y ago
Which claim needs a citation? Mine or X3874s?
- glitchcrab 3y ago
  Both claims should be backed up.
  - zaroth 3y ago
    Tesla does provide crash statistics. Those stats used to be criticized on the basis that AutoPilot was driving predominantly highway miles and it’s safety record was being compared to overall driving crash statistics which have much more non-highway driving. Now Tesla breaks out AutoPilot and FSD statistics and shows that FSD driving, noting that those miles are predominantly non-highway, still has 5x fewer crashes per million miles than average. As you can see, the goalposts moved however. Now the “standard” for convincing stats includes controlling for road surfaces, weather patterns, and phase of the moon. https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1650601088981307392?s=20 https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1650601088981307392...
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > Now the “standard” for convincing stats includes controlling for road surfaces, weather patterns, and phase of the moon. Much as you'd like to imply there is goalpost shifting, these are quite valid concerns, and not facetious. Road surfaces: poor paint, marking, potholes, heavy use of crack filler - all things which will cause FSD to disengage as it can't determine where the road actually is. Weather: FSD will disengage in sufficiently heavy rain/show/fog/hail. It will also be compromised by bright sunlight and road reflections hitting the "vision only" camera system. > Now Tesla breaks out AutoPilot and FSD statistics and shows that FSD driving, noting that those miles are predominantly non-highway, still has 5x fewer crashes per million miles than average. All of those factors above happen on all types of roads. By absolutely no coincidence, many of these factors result in increased collisions. FSD gets turned off in these conditions, so "conveniently" it doesn't suffer the collision adjustment as a result. Human drivers have no such ability, and nor do NHTSA statistics say "Well, these crashes happened but they weren't under optimal and level playing field conditions so, well, they don't count". Rephrased: to be actually comparable and worthy of anything beyond Tesla "marketing", crash stats should be looking at "similar constraints" between FSD and humans, i.e. if FSD can't or won't engage on a given stretch of road, or in given weather conditions, then the human crashes that happened on that same stretch of road or weather conditions shouldn't count for comparison, because you have no way of saying whether FSD would have driven better, because _it wouldn't even engage_. Breaking it down to "highway vs non-highway" is certainly _easier_ but reductive to the point of near-meaninglessness.