3 ms·

They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their

They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their phones instead of driving the car. When I used to commute past the SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne, I'd see at least one Tesla accident a day.

tuckerman 1y ago
I'm speaking from a research/capabilities perspective but you can also review https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport which seems to refute your anecdote to some extent.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  It really doesn't. A few things you need to know about that report: 1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional". 2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged. 3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
  - tuckerman 1y ago
    I'm not saying FSD is a paragon of safety or even a good product. I just think, based on the numbers shared, that an anecdote of Teslas dangerously careening around might just be an anecdote.
    - gamblor956 1y ago
      No, as the parent points out: Tesla's "safety report" deliberately excludes most accidents, including fatalities, and thus is about as trustworthy as a charlatan.

tuckerman 1y ago

I'm speaking from a research/capabilities perspective but you can also review https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport which seems to refute your anecdote to some extent.

FireBeyond 1y ago
It really doesn't. A few things you need to know about that report: 1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional". 2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged. 3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
- tuckerman 1y ago
  I'm not saying FSD is a paragon of safety or even a good product. I just think, based on the numbers shared, that an anecdote of Teslas dangerously careening around might just be an anecdote.
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    No, as the parent points out: Tesla's "safety report" deliberately excludes most accidents, including fatalities, and thus is about as trustworthy as a charlatan.