3 ms·

> selling "full self driving" that is downright dangerous. Is there evidence of this, at this point? I haven't looked into it in several years, but back then,

> selling "full self driving" that is downright dangerous. Is there evidence of this, at this point? I haven't looked into it in several years, but back then, Teslas were getting in fewer accidents per driver mile than average. I would think given that there's a faction of the public, and especially of the activist public, who are hostile to Tesla/Musk, that if FSD is in fact more dangerous (which would mean more accidents per driver mile), there would be a good URL you could provide us which makes that case using the available statistics on the subject. Because it's an entirely empirical question. Anyone can argue from first principles in either direction, but one of two things are the reality: either FSD driver miles are less prone to accident than average, or they're more so. I suppose it could be precisely at 50%, as well.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
It may be an empirical question, but as long as Tesla insists on keeping the raw data secret, it's reasonable to suspect their conclusions/claims https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-autopilot-crash-investigation-997b0129 https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-autopilot-crash-inv...
toast0 2y ago
To do proper statistical analysis, you'd need to compare miles driven with FSD to miles driven by humans in similar conditions. That's not the easiest thing to do. Tesla had occasionaly released statistics with their earlier driver assistance technology, but without enough detail to form informative comparisons. Based on past experience, I don't expect Tesla to provide meaningful statistical data or to allow outside access to their raw data (which fwiw, seems like a huge privacy risk to collect), so I don't think we'll have an empirical result unless there's discovery for a lawsuit.
theluketaylor 2y ago
Extensive analysis of Tesla and NHTSA crash reporting (some by NHTSA themselves) shows that autopilot and fsd do not have significantly better safety outcomes than manual drivers or drivers aided by other non-tesla assistance systems. This NHTSA report is pretty damning about Tesla's cavalier attitude towards the design of safe systems. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-again-paints-a-very-misleading-story-with-their-crash-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-tesla-autopilot-statistics-show-its-almost-as-safe-driving-with-it-as-without/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-te... https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-risky-deaths-crashes-nhtsa-investigation/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-risky-deaths-cra...
- samatman 2y ago
  > shows that autopilot and fsd do not have significantly better safety outcomes Ok. So in the middle then. Not, in other words, "downright dangerous". That would be, worse safety outcomes. Rather than insignificantly better.
gamblor956 2y ago
either FSD driver miles are less prone to accident than average, or they're more so. I suppose it could be precisely at 50%, as well. This has been proven false by Tesla's own data released to the NHTSA. Teslas have more accidents per vehicle than any other cars with advanced cruise control from every other automaker in the world combined. And that doesn't even include the far worse accident statistics for 2023 and 2024. There were three Tesla-related fatalities in the past week in the U.S. alone, including one in which the design of the Cybertruck is thought to have contributed directly to the death of its driver. Teslas get into so many accidents that news media don't even bother to report on Tesla-related accidents anymore unless someone dies.
- samatman 2y ago
  > > either FSD driver miles are less prone to accident than average, or they're more so. I suppose it could be precisely at 50%, as well. > This has been proven false by Tesla's own data released to the NHTSA. What I said is very close to a tautological statement, and cannot be proven false by data. What data can do is determine which of these three categories that data falls into. Your anecdotes don't appear to align with the actual data as summarized by someone kind enough to provide some. > Teslas get into so many accidents that news media don't even bother to report on Tesla-related accidents anymore unless someone dies. Why would they?
- Sysreq2 2y ago
  You are confusing a claim - specifically that “Teslas are dangerous” or “FSD is dangerous” with a much broader reality; that all Cars are dangerous. You assert that 3 people died this week due to Tesla related fatalities in the US alone. That adds up to more than 150 per year! But considering that Tesla’s comprise 5% of the car market, that 150 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 43000 that die in car accidents in the US every single year. Tesla’s fully autonomous self driving is about as safe as a regular person. Many of it’s “accidents” as shown by the various investigations have shown that “drivers” in the plurality of cases had several(>5) seconds to react but failed to do so. The curious case of Tesla’s safety record will one day be a case study in every undergraduate business class. The naysayers want to see the company fail, the CEO fail, or the technology fail. But the problem is not the technology, but rather the people using it. It’s been long known that increasing protective equipment in sport decreases minor injury but paradoxically increase the likelihood of severe ones. Why? Because people are lulled into a false sense of security. Individuals take risks they would not otherwise due to the inhibition of the natural feedback mechanism that would otherwise deter them from continuing to push the bounds. Since they keep getting away with it, they continue to push, only to discover that the failure mode has gone from mild to extreme. Those small injuries are the warnings that keep you safe and prevent you from taking greater and greater risks. Technology is like that. Cars are safer now than ever. Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags - and yet looking at the statistics you would never know it. This has led to urban legend like cars in the 1940s being “safer” due to their all steel construction. But this is not true. What is true is that people drove slower in the 1940s. Most highway traversal occurred at a mere 40 miles per hour. A far cry from the 80 everyone does on the way to work today. As safety increases so too does our tolerance for risk. Ultimately, that is the problem with self driving cars. They work too well. They unintentionally encourage drivers to take greater and greater risks. And they get away with it. Until suddenly. They don’t.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

It may be an empirical question, but as long as Tesla insists on keeping the raw data secret, it's reasonable to suspect their conclusions/claims https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-autopilot-crash-investigation-997b0129 https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-autopilot-crash-inv...

toast0 2y ago

To do proper statistical analysis, you'd need to compare miles driven with FSD to miles driven by humans in similar conditions. That's not the easiest thing to do. Tesla had occasionaly released statistics with their earlier driver assistance technology, but without enough detail to form informative comparisons. Based on past experience, I don't expect Tesla to provide meaningful statistical data or to allow outside access to their raw data (which fwiw, seems like a huge privacy risk to collect), so I don't think we'll have an empirical result unless there's discovery for a lawsuit.

theluketaylor 2y ago

Extensive analysis of Tesla and NHTSA crash reporting (some by NHTSA themselves) shows that autopilot and fsd do not have significantly better safety outcomes than manual drivers or drivers aided by other non-tesla assistance systems. This NHTSA report is pretty damning about Tesla's cavalier attitude towards the design of safe systems. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-again-paints-a-very-misleading-story-with-their-crash-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-tesla-autopilot-statistics-show-its-almost-as-safe-driving-with-it-as-without/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-te... https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-risky-deaths-crashes-nhtsa-investigation/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-risky-deaths-cra...

samatman 2y ago
> shows that autopilot and fsd do not have significantly better safety outcomes Ok. So in the middle then. Not, in other words, "downright dangerous". That would be, worse safety outcomes. Rather than insignificantly better.

gamblor956 2y ago

either FSD driver miles are less prone to accident than average, or they're more so. I suppose it could be precisely at 50%, as well. This has been proven false by Tesla's own data released to the NHTSA. Teslas have more accidents per vehicle than any other cars with advanced cruise control from every other automaker in the world combined. And that doesn't even include the far worse accident statistics for 2023 and 2024. There were three Tesla-related fatalities in the past week in the U.S. alone, including one in which the design of the Cybertruck is thought to have contributed directly to the death of its driver. Teslas get into so many accidents that news media don't even bother to report on Tesla-related accidents anymore unless someone dies.

samatman 2y ago
> > either FSD driver miles are less prone to accident than average, or they're more so. I suppose it could be precisely at 50%, as well. > This has been proven false by Tesla's own data released to the NHTSA. What I said is very close to a tautological statement, and cannot be proven false by data. What data can do is determine which of these three categories that data falls into. Your anecdotes don't appear to align with the actual data as summarized by someone kind enough to provide some. > Teslas get into so many accidents that news media don't even bother to report on Tesla-related accidents anymore unless someone dies. Why would they?
Sysreq2 2y ago
You are confusing a claim - specifically that “Teslas are dangerous” or “FSD is dangerous” with a much broader reality; that all Cars are dangerous. You assert that 3 people died this week due to Tesla related fatalities in the US alone. That adds up to more than 150 per year! But considering that Tesla’s comprise 5% of the car market, that 150 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 43000 that die in car accidents in the US every single year. Tesla’s fully autonomous self driving is about as safe as a regular person. Many of it’s “accidents” as shown by the various investigations have shown that “drivers” in the plurality of cases had several(>5) seconds to react but failed to do so. The curious case of Tesla’s safety record will one day be a case study in every undergraduate business class. The naysayers want to see the company fail, the CEO fail, or the technology fail. But the problem is not the technology, but rather the people using it. It’s been long known that increasing protective equipment in sport decreases minor injury but paradoxically increase the likelihood of severe ones. Why? Because people are lulled into a false sense of security. Individuals take risks they would not otherwise due to the inhibition of the natural feedback mechanism that would otherwise deter them from continuing to push the bounds. Since they keep getting away with it, they continue to push, only to discover that the failure mode has gone from mild to extreme. Those small injuries are the warnings that keep you safe and prevent you from taking greater and greater risks. Technology is like that. Cars are safer now than ever. Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags - and yet looking at the statistics you would never know it. This has led to urban legend like cars in the 1940s being “safer” due to their all steel construction. But this is not true. What is true is that people drove slower in the 1940s. Most highway traversal occurred at a mere 40 miles per hour. A far cry from the 80 everyone does on the way to work today. As safety increases so too does our tolerance for risk. Ultimately, that is the problem with self driving cars. They work too well. They unintentionally encourage drivers to take greater and greater risks. And they get away with it. Until suddenly. They don’t.