3 ms·

Your contention is that having FSD the car makes accidents more likely because people will rely on it when they shouldn't be driving at all. So... does it? T

by ajross 3y ago

Your contention is that having FSD the car makes accidents more likely because people will rely on it when they shouldn't be driving at all. So... does it? The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen, where there have been multiple "driver passed out and the car stopped on the road" incidents. Seems like the truth is the opposite, no? Tesla didn't invent DUIs, but it seems like autopilot is a net win anyway.

fwip 3y ago
Well, there's many, many more cars without "FSD" than with it (especially if you include historical data), so the rate fold change would have to be astronomical for FSD cases to outnumber old-fashioned cases.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
We don't have apples-to-apples data in the public.
- ajross 3y ago
  That's not a license to believe whatever anecdotes you want, though. I'm just saying that if anecdotes are sufficient, autopilot wins the argument. If they're not, we need data and shouldn't be freaking out over the one drunk driving incident in the linked article.
  - ra7 3y ago
    We're not responsible for that data, Tesla is. You should be calling for them to be transparent and not just settle for misleading "safety reports" because it has a narrative you want to believe.
Veserv 3y ago
There are no third party statistics since Tesla lawyers actively force NHTSA to redact information from any reports they do make. Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of scientific rigor they demonstrate is unfit to even grace the hallowed halls of a grade school science fair. Even ignoring that, this is not the first significant incident. By Tesla’s own admission there were already ~30 known incidents a year ago at the beginning of 2023. Unfortunately, I can not tell you which ones specifically because they, you guessed it, demanded NHTSA redact which system was active from their public disclosures. Even ignoring that, their reports are suspect in the first place. Of the over 1,000 crashes they admit to being involved in they did not report the injury severity in ~95% of cases. Of the ~5% of cases where they do report the injury severity a third party (news, official complaint, etc.) published that information which compels Tesla to report the same information under penalty of law. Of the tens of confirmed fatalities, Tesla only discovered a single one on their own (as of 2023-09). Their telemetry systems, which are responsible for detecting 90+% of their reported incidents detected fewer than 40% of their reported fatal crashes. A full 30% of known fatalities were undetected by both telemetry and media and are only recorded due to customer complaints by surviving parties who knew the system was engaged. The amount of missing data is almost certainly staggering. So no, the data does not bear it out since there is no credible positive safety data. And, as we all know, in a safety critical system we must assume the worst or people die. No data, no go.
- ra7 3y ago
  There's more statistics in your comment than in the Tesla safety report :) I'm curious where the data is about their telemetry systems' failure to detect incidents. It seems very fishy.
- ajross 3y ago
  I'm genuinely curious what you're citing here? You're being really specific about this stuff but not actually linking to (or even mentioning) any sources. And as a Tesla owner who's been steeped in this complete shitfest of a debate here on HN for three years, I'd expect to have been exposed to some of that. Yet this is all new. Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fractions of fatal vs. non-fatal crashes? Are you sure that's not just confounded data (fatal crashes are more likely to involve damage to the computers and radio!) or outliers (there are very few fatal crashes known!)? Basically, the red yarn on your bulletin board looks crazy thick to me. But I'd genuinely love a shot at debunking it.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1]. But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government. As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but even forcing NHTSA to suppress unfavorable information. As to “debunking” anything I am saying, whatever. It is not my job to thoroughly analyze Tesla systems from the outside to prove they are unnecessarily dangerous. It is Tesla’s burden to present robust data and analysis to third party auditors to demonstrate they are safe. Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. It just means I, a random person on the internet, could not prove they were definitely unsafe. I probably also can not find the flaw in a random perpetual motion machine someone presents on the internet, but that does not make it work. Though if you are convinced by Tesla’s brand of bad faith safety analysis, then I have a perpetual motion machine powered on dreams to sell you since you can not prove it does not work. [1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_Incident_Reports_ADAS.csv https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...

by ajross 3y ago

fwip 3y ago

Well, there's many, many more cars without "FSD" than with it (especially if you include historical data), so the rate fold change would have to be astronomical for FSD cases to outnumber old-fashioned cases.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

We don't have apples-to-apples data in the public.

ajross 3y ago
That's not a license to believe whatever anecdotes you want, though. I'm just saying that if anecdotes are sufficient, autopilot wins the argument. If they're not, we need data and shouldn't be freaking out over the one drunk driving incident in the linked article.
- ra7 3y ago
  We're not responsible for that data, Tesla is. You should be calling for them to be transparent and not just settle for misleading "safety reports" because it has a narrative you want to believe.

Veserv 3y ago

There are no third party statistics since Tesla lawyers actively force NHTSA to redact information from any reports they do make. Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of scientific rigor they demonstrate is unfit to even grace the hallowed halls of a grade school science fair. Even ignoring that, this is not the first significant incident. By Tesla’s own admission there were already ~30 known incidents a year ago at the beginning of 2023. Unfortunately, I can not tell you which ones specifically because they, you guessed it, demanded NHTSA redact which system was active from their public disclosures. Even ignoring that, their reports are suspect in the first place. Of the over 1,000 crashes they admit to being involved in they did not report the injury severity in ~95% of cases. Of the ~5% of cases where they do report the injury severity a third party (news, official complaint, etc.) published that information which compels Tesla to report the same information under penalty of law. Of the tens of confirmed fatalities, Tesla only discovered a single one on their own (as of 2023-09). Their telemetry systems, which are responsible for detecting 90+% of their reported incidents detected fewer than 40% of their reported fatal crashes. A full 30% of known fatalities were undetected by both telemetry and media and are only recorded due to customer complaints by surviving parties who knew the system was engaged. The amount of missing data is almost certainly staggering. So no, the data does not bear it out since there is no credible positive safety data. And, as we all know, in a safety critical system we must assume the worst or people die. No data, no go.

ra7 3y ago
There's more statistics in your comment than in the Tesla safety report :) I'm curious where the data is about their telemetry systems' failure to detect incidents. It seems very fishy.
ajross 3y ago
I'm genuinely curious what you're citing here? You're being really specific about this stuff but not actually linking to (or even mentioning) any sources. And as a Tesla owner who's been steeped in this complete shitfest of a debate here on HN for three years, I'd expect to have been exposed to some of that. Yet this is all new. Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fractions of fatal vs. non-fatal crashes? Are you sure that's not just confounded data (fatal crashes are more likely to involve damage to the computers and radio!) or outliers (there are very few fatal crashes known!)? Basically, the red yarn on your bulletin board looks crazy thick to me. But I'd genuinely love a shot at debunking it.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1]. But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government. As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but even forcing NHTSA to suppress unfavorable information. As to “debunking” anything I am saying, whatever. It is not my job to thoroughly analyze Tesla systems from the outside to prove they are unnecessarily dangerous. It is Tesla’s burden to present robust data and analysis to third party auditors to demonstrate they are safe. Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. It just means I, a random person on the internet, could not prove they were definitely unsafe. I probably also can not find the flaw in a random perpetual motion machine someone presents on the internet, but that does not make it work. Though if you are convinced by Tesla’s brand of bad faith safety analysis, then I have a perpetual motion machine powered on dreams to sell you since you can not prove it does not work. [1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_Incident_Reports_ADAS.csv https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...