3 ms·

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

by 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...
- ajross 3y ago
  That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation. > Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. No, but it's still a blow for good faith argument and worth pursuing.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    You claimed Tesla systems are safe stating: “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. The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen…” You have presented exactly zero analysis or data supporting your claim that machines that have demonstrably killed people are in actuality safe. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence, not me. In fact, I have even presented you a new data source filled with official data that you apparently have never seen before that can bolster your point. So how about you engage in good faith argument and support your positive claims of Tesla safety instead of demanding I prove the negative? Note that quoting unaudited statements by the Tesla marketing department are not support by the same token that official statement by VW about their emissions or Philip Morris about the safety of cigarettes are invalid. You should also not point to haphazard “analysis” derived from those statements. Also try not to argue there is a absence of evidence that the systems are unsafe. That is only applicable before somebody dies. A death is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof that a system is unsafe. The burden of proof then shifts to demonstrate that the rate of death is acceptable. If there is a absence of evidence to demonstrate the rate of death is acceptable, then we must conclude, based on the burden of proof already established, that the system is unsafe. That is your real burden here. Demonstrating the available data is sufficiently unbiased, robust, and comprehensive to support your claim. Good luck, you’ll need it.
  - ra7 3y ago
    It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it. Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes: Total Tesla crashes: 1048 Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997 Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13% Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27 Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Percentage of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 40.74% Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7 Percentage of fatal crashes with only 'complaint/claim' as source: 25.92% Matches up to parent comment's numbers. Incredible amount of missing data! My experience is that when people repeatedly ask for analysis in the face of raw data being presented, it's because they're afraid to find out what's in it and hope to sweep it under the rug.

by ajross 3y ago

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...

ajross 3y ago
That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation. > Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. No, but it's still a blow for good faith argument and worth pursuing.
- Veserv 3y ago
  You claimed Tesla systems are safe stating: “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. The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen…” You have presented exactly zero analysis or data supporting your claim that machines that have demonstrably killed people are in actuality safe. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence, not me. In fact, I have even presented you a new data source filled with official data that you apparently have never seen before that can bolster your point. So how about you engage in good faith argument and support your positive claims of Tesla safety instead of demanding I prove the negative? Note that quoting unaudited statements by the Tesla marketing department are not support by the same token that official statement by VW about their emissions or Philip Morris about the safety of cigarettes are invalid. You should also not point to haphazard “analysis” derived from those statements. Also try not to argue there is a absence of evidence that the systems are unsafe. That is only applicable before somebody dies. A death is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof that a system is unsafe. The burden of proof then shifts to demonstrate that the rate of death is acceptable. If there is a absence of evidence to demonstrate the rate of death is acceptable, then we must conclude, based on the burden of proof already established, that the system is unsafe. That is your real burden here. Demonstrating the available data is sufficiently unbiased, robust, and comprehensive to support your claim. Good luck, you’ll need it.
- ra7 3y ago
  It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at it. Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes: Total Tesla crashes: 1048 Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997 Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13% Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27 Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11 Percentage of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 40.74% Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7 Percentage of fatal crashes with only 'complaint/claim' as source: 25.92% Matches up to parent comment's numbers. Incredible amount of missing data! My experience is that when people repeatedly ask for analysis in the face of raw data being presented, it's because they're afraid to find out what's in it and hope to sweep it under the rug.