3 ms·

Tesla does not release the data required to substantiate such a claim. It simply doesn’t and you’re either lying or being lied to.

londons_explore 2y ago
tesla releases this data: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
- rainsford 2y ago
  That data is not an apples to apples comparison unless autopilot is used in exactly the same mix of conditions as human driving. Tesla doesn't share that in the report, but I'd bet it's not equivalent. I personally tend to turn on driving automation features (in my non-Tesla car) in easier conditions and drive myself when anything unusual or complicated is going on, and I'd bet most drivers of Teslas and otherwise do the same. This is important because I'd bet similar data on the use of standard, non-adaptive cruise control would similarly show it's much safer than human drivers. But of course that would be because people use cruise control most in long-distance highway driving outside of congested areas, where you're least likely to have an accident.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Per the other comment: no, they don't. This data is not enough to evaluate its safety. This is enough data to mislead people who spend <30 seconds thinking about the question though, so I guess that's something (something == misdirection and dishonesty). You've been lied to.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  No, it releases enough data to actively mislead you (because there is no way Tesla's data people are unaware of these factors): The report measures accidents in FSD mode. Qualifiers to FSD mode: the conditions, weather, road, location, traffic all have to meet a certain quality threshold before the system will be enabled (or not disable itself). Compare Sunnyvale on a clear spring day to Pittsburgh December nights. There's no qualifier to the "comparison": all drivers, all conditions, all weather, all roads, all location, all traffic. It's not remotely comparable, and Tesla's data people are not that stupid, so it's willfully misleading. This report does not include fatalities. It also doesn't consider any incident where there was not airbag deployment to be an accident. Sounds potentially reasonable until you consider: - first gen airbag systems were primitive: collision exceeds threshold, deploy. Currently, vehicle safety systems consider duration of impact, speeds, G-forces, amount of intrusion, angle of collision, and a multitude of other factors before deciding what, if any, systems to fire (seatbelt tensioners, airbags, etc.) So hit something at 30mph with the right variables? Tesla: "this is not an accident". - Tesla also does not consider "incident was so catastrophic that airbags COULD NOT deploy*" to be an accident, because "airbags didn't deploy". This umbrella could also include egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and including poor assembly line quality control", as also not an accident and also "not counted".

londons_explore 2y ago

tesla releases this data: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

rainsford 2y ago
That data is not an apples to apples comparison unless autopilot is used in exactly the same mix of conditions as human driving. Tesla doesn't share that in the report, but I'd bet it's not equivalent. I personally tend to turn on driving automation features (in my non-Tesla car) in easier conditions and drive myself when anything unusual or complicated is going on, and I'd bet most drivers of Teslas and otherwise do the same. This is important because I'd bet similar data on the use of standard, non-adaptive cruise control would similarly show it's much safer than human drivers. But of course that would be because people use cruise control most in long-distance highway driving outside of congested areas, where you're least likely to have an accident.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Per the other comment: no, they don't. This data is not enough to evaluate its safety. This is enough data to mislead people who spend <30 seconds thinking about the question though, so I guess that's something (something == misdirection and dishonesty). You've been lied to.
FireBeyond 2y ago
No, it releases enough data to actively mislead you (because there is no way Tesla's data people are unaware of these factors): The report measures accidents in FSD mode. Qualifiers to FSD mode: the conditions, weather, road, location, traffic all have to meet a certain quality threshold before the system will be enabled (or not disable itself). Compare Sunnyvale on a clear spring day to Pittsburgh December nights. There's no qualifier to the "comparison": all drivers, all conditions, all weather, all roads, all location, all traffic. It's not remotely comparable, and Tesla's data people are not that stupid, so it's willfully misleading. This report does not include fatalities. It also doesn't consider any incident where there was not airbag deployment to be an accident. Sounds potentially reasonable until you consider: - first gen airbag systems were primitive: collision exceeds threshold, deploy. Currently, vehicle safety systems consider duration of impact, speeds, G-forces, amount of intrusion, angle of collision, and a multitude of other factors before deciding what, if any, systems to fire (seatbelt tensioners, airbags, etc.) So hit something at 30mph with the right variables? Tesla: "this is not an accident". - Tesla also does not consider "incident was so catastrophic that airbags COULD NOT deploy*" to be an accident, because "airbags didn't deploy". This umbrella could also include egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and including poor assembly line quality control", as also not an accident and also "not counted".