4 ms·
A count of all-cause disengagements is not "safety data", nor is it "objective public reporting". Much like LoC it can be a signal of progress early on but thes
by simondotau 3y ago
A count of all-cause disengagements is not "safety data", nor is it "objective public reporting". Much like LoC it can be a signal of progress early on but these days it's ambiguous noise given that many disengagements occur because of reasons other than safety, such as spotting a good place to park moments before reaching a destination. But even where a disengagement is safety related, the data can be confounded — especially given that there has been a rather dramatic uptick in assertiveness in recent releases, revealing further edge cases masked by prior conservativeness.
It's funny, because it reminds me of provisional drivers in my home city of Sydney, Australia. Drivers with less than 1 year of road experience must show a red [P] plate on their vehicle. Drivers with between 1 and 3 years of road experience must show a green [P] plate. This is interesting to me because I consistently find that red [P] drivers are mostly conservative and green [P] drivers are mostly overconfident to the point of dangerous.
Some might say we shouldn't allow people with between 1 and 3 years of road experience to drive on our roads.
- jeremyjh 3y agoYes disengagements can be noise, but there are significant differences between manufacturers, and Tesla's numbers were not competitive, and then they stopped reporting them, leaving us to draw our own conclusions. It is not a perfect metric, but it is a metric. You never did tell me what metric you are using to judge Tesla's progress. Since you clearly believe they are making progress, maybe you could tell me the reason why you think that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]