4 ms·

The base rate was discussed early in the article, but not by that name: > It’s not just that self-driving cars in general are dangerous for motorcycles, either

The base rate was discussed early in the article, but not by that name: > It’s not just that self-driving cars in general are dangerous for motorcycles, either: this problem is unique to Tesla. Not a single other automobile manufacturer or ADAS self-driving technology provider reported a single motorcycle fatality in the same time frame.

PaulRobinson 2y ago
That gives you absolute rate, but not relative rate. There are not many other cars out there (in comparison), with a self-driving mode. There are so many Teslas in the World out there driving around, that I think you'd have to considerably multiply all the others combined to get close to that number. As such, while 5 > 0, and that's a problem, what we don't know (and perhaps can't know), is how that adjusts for population size. I'd want to see a motorcycle fatality rate per auto-driver-mile number, and even then, I'd want it adjusting for prevalence of motorcycles in the local population: the number in India, Rome, London and South California vary quite a bit.
- azinman2 2y ago
  “ADAS self-driving technology” ADAS is fairly common. It was in my VW and BMW, and I’m certain many other cars have it too.
- polygamous_bat 2y ago
  > As such, while 5 > 0, and that's a problem, what we don't know (and perhaps can't know), is how that adjusts for population size. This puts the burden on companies which may hesitate to put their “self driving” methods out there because it has trouble with detecting motorcyclists. There is a solid possibility that self driving isn’t being rolled out by others because they have higher regard for human life than Tesla and its exec.
outer_web 2y ago
To add, even if the fatality numbers are small, accelerating into a person is a pretty outrageous failure mode.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  My Subaru has done this many times, and with regular cars, not motorcycles.
  - bink 2y ago
    Your car has accelerated into a person many times and yet you continue to use this feature/car?
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      Find me a car with autonomous capabilities (e.g. adaptive cruise control) that never does it, and I'll consider it. As all car manufacturers point out: A prerequisite to enabling any safety mechanism is that the driver overrides when it fails. This includes blind spot detection, lane drift detection/correction, and adaptive cruise control. It is understood that when I enable it, I'm responsible for its behavior given that I can override it. But that's all an aside. The point isn't that I continue to drive it, but that this is not something special about Teslas.
      - outer_web 2y ago
        We are probably in the weeds here but there is a difference between notification safety mechanisms and ones that take action. And to get really pedantic, emergency breaking doesn't permit user override (either functionally or simply because of how abrupt it is). And autonomy features are a different domain altogether.
BeetleB 2y ago
That is not addressing the base rate. To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. Even more illustrative, if 10 people on motorcycles had died from Teslas, and 1 person had died from that sole non-Tesla, then that non-Tesla would be deemed much, much more dangerous than Tesla.
- btrettel 2y ago
  It does address the base rate, though not in a fully satisfactory way. You're correct to point out the number of Teslas on the road vs. other vehicles, as is this person who mentions driving hours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601681 The replies to my comment seem to me to be addressing the question of what the appropriate reference class is, not the base rate fallacy.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > The replies to my comment seem to me to be addressing the question of what the appropriate reference class is, not the base rate fallacy. The base rate fallacy is fundamentally about the relative rates in the population, and I don't see that data in the article.
    - btrettel 2y ago
      Again, I think it comes down to what the "population" (reference class) is. Implicit in what I quoted was the population being companies. I personally would criticize it on that point, not that they are making the base rate fallacy because I think from their perspective they are not. Seems like semantics to me, I don't think we actually disagree on much.
- polygamous_bat 2y ago
  > To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?
93po 2y ago
Another part of the problem: Waymo, for example, doesn't provide motorcycle specific stats. They only provide collisions with vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. There's no breakdown of vehicle type. So the basis of this article is already bullshit and likely done just for "space man bad" reasons
- sidibe 2y ago
  Well we can come up the number of Waymo-involved motorcycle fatalities from such a breakdown easily from the total fatalities which is 0
  - 93po 2y ago
    Yes but this is like saying "medical school graduates kill more people through surgical medical mistakes than any other profession". Virtually no one else is meaningfully performing surgery on humans at numbers high enough to kill them.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

That gives you absolute rate, but not relative rate. There are not many other cars out there (in comparison), with a self-driving mode. There are so many Teslas in the World out there driving around, that I think you'd have to considerably multiply all the others combined to get close to that number. As such, while 5 > 0, and that's a problem, what we don't know (and perhaps can't know), is how that adjusts for population size. I'd want to see a motorcycle fatality rate per auto-driver-mile number, and even then, I'd want it adjusting for prevalence of motorcycles in the local population: the number in India, Rome, London and South California vary quite a bit.

azinman2 2y ago
“ADAS self-driving technology” ADAS is fairly common. It was in my VW and BMW, and I’m certain many other cars have it too.
polygamous_bat 2y ago
> As such, while 5 > 0, and that's a problem, what we don't know (and perhaps can't know), is how that adjusts for population size. This puts the burden on companies which may hesitate to put their “self driving” methods out there because it has trouble with detecting motorcyclists. There is a solid possibility that self driving isn’t being rolled out by others because they have higher regard for human life than Tesla and its exec.

outer_web 2y ago

To add, even if the fatality numbers are small, accelerating into a person is a pretty outrageous failure mode.

BeetleB 2y ago
My Subaru has done this many times, and with regular cars, not motorcycles.
- bink 2y ago
  Your car has accelerated into a person many times and yet you continue to use this feature/car?
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    Find me a car with autonomous capabilities (e.g. adaptive cruise control) that never does it, and I'll consider it. As all car manufacturers point out: A prerequisite to enabling any safety mechanism is that the driver overrides when it fails. This includes blind spot detection, lane drift detection/correction, and adaptive cruise control. It is understood that when I enable it, I'm responsible for its behavior given that I can override it. But that's all an aside. The point isn't that I continue to drive it, but that this is not something special about Teslas.
    - outer_web 2y ago
      We are probably in the weeds here but there is a difference between notification safety mechanisms and ones that take action. And to get really pedantic, emergency breaking doesn't permit user override (either functionally or simply because of how abrupt it is). And autonomy features are a different domain altogether.

BeetleB 2y ago

That is not addressing the base rate. To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. Even more illustrative, if 10 people on motorcycles had died from Teslas, and 1 person had died from that sole non-Tesla, then that non-Tesla would be deemed much, much more dangerous than Tesla.

btrettel 2y ago
It does address the base rate, though not in a fully satisfactory way. You're correct to point out the number of Teslas on the road vs. other vehicles, as is this person who mentions driving hours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601681 The replies to my comment seem to me to be addressing the question of what the appropriate reference class is, not the base rate fallacy.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > The replies to my comment seem to me to be addressing the question of what the appropriate reference class is, not the base rate fallacy. The base rate fallacy is fundamentally about the relative rates in the population, and I don't see that data in the article.
  - btrettel 2y ago
    Again, I think it comes down to what the "population" (reference class) is. Implicit in what I quoted was the population being companies. I personally would criticize it on that point, not that they are making the base rate fallacy because I think from their perspective they are not. Seems like semantics to me, I don't think we actually disagree on much.
polygamous_bat 2y ago
> To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

93po 2y ago

Another part of the problem: Waymo, for example, doesn't provide motorcycle specific stats. They only provide collisions with vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. There's no breakdown of vehicle type. So the basis of this article is already bullshit and likely done just for "space man bad" reasons

sidibe 2y ago
Well we can come up the number of Waymo-involved motorcycle fatalities from such a breakdown easily from the total fatalities which is 0
- 93po 2y ago
  Yes but this is like saying "medical school graduates kill more people through surgical medical mistakes than any other profession". Virtually no one else is meaningfully performing surgery on humans at numbers high enough to kill them.