4 ms·

They kill a lot fewer people than the ones driven solely by humans.

by moduspol 1y ago

jaggederest 1y ago
Given the topic at hand, how do you know that? How is it possible to know that?
- moduspol 1y ago
  Well, my claim was fairly specific, so it's quite easy. There are ~42k traffic fatalities in the US each year. Cameras-only self driving cars are a tiny fraction of the number of total cars. The highest estimates I've seen for annual traffic deaths with an ADAS involved (not even implying causation) is in the range of dozens. Cameras-only self driving cars would be a fraction of those. As a result, there are quite possibly more than a thousand traffic fatalities each year caused by human-driven cars for each ONE caused by a cameras-only self driving car. But my original claim was only that they kill a lot fewer. That seems self-evident.
  - Calwestjobs 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - moduspol 1y ago
      I didn't use AI, so I guess I learned something about myself today.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      Please don't do this here. If a comment seems unfit for HN, please flag it and email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can have a look.
  - jaggederest 1y ago
    That's cute, and also totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about absolute numbers, the thing to care about is the rate. Pick your denominator, but I like deaths per million miles. Polonium ingestion also kills fewer people than self driving cars, so by that token, polonium ingestion is perfectly safe.
    - moduspol 1y ago
      The claim was the claim. If you want to discuss numbers that neither of us have sources for, it'll have to be with someone else. Meanwhile, there are ~42k traffic deaths per year that could be prevented by focusing on human-driven cars.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Meanwhile, there are ~42k traffic deaths per year that could be prevented by focusing on human-driven cars Eh, there are over a hundred thousands deaths attributable to Musk's actions in the White House [1]. I agree with you on the short-term calculus. But trusting Tesla to help reduce those traffic deaths--and furthermore, enabling its position of power--puts those states' sovereignty in jeopardy. Swapping lives for sovereignty is an old (and trusted) trade. [1] https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/tracking-anticipated-deaths-from-usaid-funding-cuts/ https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/tracking-anticipat...
tw04 1y ago
Tesla has roughly 0.3% VIO TOTAL in the US (taking global statistics into account it's barely measurable), and a fraction of that fraction are actually using FSD on a regular basis - so I would sure hope they kill "a lot fewer people". https://wolfstreet.com/2021/12/13/vehicles-in-operation-and-registrations-in-2021-by-automaker-and-segment-wheres-tesla/ https://wolfstreet.com/2021/12/13/vehicles-in-operation-and-...
- moduspol 1y ago
  Indeed. My point is: so why focus on regulation that targets <0.1% of traffic fatalities? Here's an alternative idea that would save a lot more lives: Take the camera-based driver attention monitoring that works in my seven year-old Tesla, which notices IMMEDIATELY if I look away from the windshield for more than a second or two, and then require that in the human-driven cars. Estimates for annual deaths in the US from distracted driving are between 3,250 and 12,400. An in-cabin camera is not expensive or specialty hardware. The tech is there, the costs are low. We could save a lot of lives! If we're ignoring that to focus on Tesla's FSD, the goal is not sensible regulation or saving lives.
  - tw04 1y ago
    >Indeed. My point is: so why focus on regulation that targets <0.1% of traffic fatalities? A: Citation? Just because it's less than 0.3% of cars on the road doesn't mean it's less than 0.1% of fatalaties. And citation that doesn't let Tesla pass off any FSD crash as "driver error" which they have a horrible habit of doing. If FSD disengages at impact, they call that driver error, which is absolute bullshit. And because Tesla is taking 0 accountability for it, they are passing it onto the driver. They want to have their cake and eat it too. If you or I are driving distractedly and kill someone, we face serious criminal and financial repercussions. If FSD decides to swerve out of the lane and into oncoming taffic, Tesla wants to shrug and say "I guess the driver should have been better". That's trash, and should be banned from our roads summarily.
  - RollingRo11 1y ago
    > Take the camera-based driver attention monitoring that works in my seven year-old Tesla, which notices IMMEDIATELY if I look away from the windshield for more than a second or two, and then require that in the human-driven cars This. Put it on all vehicles that are driven (exc. waymo, zoox, and the like). It looks like something similar is already happening in the EU (with momentum in the US too.) (See https://spyro-soft.com/blog/automotive/driver-monitoring-systems-to-become-mandatory-under-new-eu-and-us-road-safety-regulations https://spyro-soft.com/blog/automotive/driver-monitoring-sys...)

They kill a lot fewer people than the ones driven solely by humans.

jaggederest 1y ago

Given the topic at hand, how do you know that? How is it possible to know that?

moduspol 1y ago
Well, my claim was fairly specific, so it's quite easy. There are ~42k traffic fatalities in the US each year. Cameras-only self driving cars are a tiny fraction of the number of total cars. The highest estimates I've seen for annual traffic deaths with an ADAS involved (not even implying causation) is in the range of dozens. Cameras-only self driving cars would be a fraction of those. As a result, there are quite possibly more than a thousand traffic fatalities each year caused by human-driven cars for each ONE caused by a cameras-only self driving car. But my original claim was only that they kill a lot fewer. That seems self-evident.
- Calwestjobs 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - moduspol 1y ago
    I didn't use AI, so I guess I learned something about myself today.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    Please don't do this here. If a comment seems unfit for HN, please flag it and email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can have a look.
- jaggederest 1y ago
  That's cute, and also totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about absolute numbers, the thing to care about is the rate. Pick your denominator, but I like deaths per million miles. Polonium ingestion also kills fewer people than self driving cars, so by that token, polonium ingestion is perfectly safe.
  - moduspol 1y ago
    The claim was the claim. If you want to discuss numbers that neither of us have sources for, it'll have to be with someone else. Meanwhile, there are ~42k traffic deaths per year that could be prevented by focusing on human-driven cars.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Meanwhile, there are ~42k traffic deaths per year that could be prevented by focusing on human-driven cars Eh, there are over a hundred thousands deaths attributable to Musk's actions in the White House [1]. I agree with you on the short-term calculus. But trusting Tesla to help reduce those traffic deaths--and furthermore, enabling its position of power--puts those states' sovereignty in jeopardy. Swapping lives for sovereignty is an old (and trusted) trade. [1] https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/tracking-anticipated-deaths-from-usaid-funding-cuts/ https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/tracking-anticipat...

tw04 1y ago

Tesla has roughly 0.3% VIO TOTAL in the US (taking global statistics into account it's barely measurable), and a fraction of that fraction are actually using FSD on a regular basis - so I would sure hope they kill "a lot fewer people". https://wolfstreet.com/2021/12/13/vehicles-in-operation-and-registrations-in-2021-by-automaker-and-segment-wheres-tesla/ https://wolfstreet.com/2021/12/13/vehicles-in-operation-and-...

moduspol 1y ago
Indeed. My point is: so why focus on regulation that targets <0.1% of traffic fatalities? Here's an alternative idea that would save a lot more lives: Take the camera-based driver attention monitoring that works in my seven year-old Tesla, which notices IMMEDIATELY if I look away from the windshield for more than a second or two, and then require that in the human-driven cars. Estimates for annual deaths in the US from distracted driving are between 3,250 and 12,400. An in-cabin camera is not expensive or specialty hardware. The tech is there, the costs are low. We could save a lot of lives! If we're ignoring that to focus on Tesla's FSD, the goal is not sensible regulation or saving lives.
- tw04 1y ago
  >Indeed. My point is: so why focus on regulation that targets <0.1% of traffic fatalities? A: Citation? Just because it's less than 0.3% of cars on the road doesn't mean it's less than 0.1% of fatalaties. And citation that doesn't let Tesla pass off any FSD crash as "driver error" which they have a horrible habit of doing. If FSD disengages at impact, they call that driver error, which is absolute bullshit. And because Tesla is taking 0 accountability for it, they are passing it onto the driver. They want to have their cake and eat it too. If you or I are driving distractedly and kill someone, we face serious criminal and financial repercussions. If FSD decides to swerve out of the lane and into oncoming taffic, Tesla wants to shrug and say "I guess the driver should have been better". That's trash, and should be banned from our roads summarily.
- RollingRo11 1y ago
  > Take the camera-based driver attention monitoring that works in my seven year-old Tesla, which notices IMMEDIATELY if I look away from the windshield for more than a second or two, and then require that in the human-driven cars This. Put it on all vehicles that are driven (exc. waymo, zoox, and the like). It looks like something similar is already happening in the EU (with momentum in the US too.) (See https://spyro-soft.com/blog/automotive/driver-monitoring-systems-to-become-mandatory-under-new-eu-and-us-road-safety-regulations https://spyro-soft.com/blog/automotive/driver-monitoring-sys...)