5 ms·
Tesla concealed fatal accidents to continue testing autonomous driving
- doener 6mo agoThe article was also published in German: https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/autonomes-fahren-wie-tesla-unfaelle-verheimlichte-um-seinen-autopiloten-zu-testen https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/autonomes-fahren-wie-tesla-un...
- raverbashing 6mo agoIt's the Swiss national radio/tv service, they probably have the article in 4 languages or more
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- oblio 6mo agoLook, there is no way corporations would lie for their own interest. Especially when they spent tens of billions to develop something. It's not like they sold us leaded gasoline or "healthy tobacco" for decades.
- gchamonlive 6mo ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 6mo agoThat’s certainly the myth musk and his compatriots repeat whenever they’re slightly inconvenienced by consideration for the broader public, yes.
- philipallstar 6mo ago[flagged]
- post-it 6mo agoUsually when people provide examples, they're intended to serve as a representative sample of a larger trend, and not an exhaustive list. Hope that helps.
- cj 6mo agoTheir point still stands. Not all companies do illegal things. IMO it’s also a distraction to blame it on “capitalism” or some “larger trend” rather than just pointing directly at the company and people responsible. “The system is broken” line hasn’t worked for years now. Maybe if we stop blaming the system and start blaming the people?
- ModernMech 6mo agoNo one claimed all companies do illegal things.
- philipallstar 6mo agoAll of this is a crazy overgeneralisation of the hundreds of millions of companies in the world: > Look, there is no way corporations would lie for their own interest. Especially when they spent tens of billions to develop something. > It's not like they sold us leaded gasoline or "healthy tobacco" for decades.
- ModernMech 6mo agoSaying "corporations have lied in the past for their own self interest" and then pointing to two very well known examples does not imply or over generalize that all corporations do that. The point isn't to demonize all corporations, it's to say specifically that a pathology of some megacorporations is broadscale lying to the public about the safety of their products for personal gain.
- Forgeties79 6mo agoYou would be surprised how passionately people defend Tesla on HN sometimes, especially when safety records come up.
- friendzis 6mo agoOtherwise number go down
- lotsofpulp 6mo agoLiability insurance pricing tells the whole story, without clickbait articles or emotion. If there was a significant problem, my liability only insurance premiums would be higher for the Tesla compared to a non Tesla. But they are not.
- belter 6mo ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> my liability only insurance premiums would be higher for the Tesla compared to a non Tesla. But they are not You’re correct inasmuch as we have no evidence there is “a significant problem.” But if Tesla is hiding evidence, as this article suggests, that might just be because lawsuits are still gaining steam.
- lotsofpulp 6mo agoLiability insurance premiums would reflect higher risk of Tesla vehicles causing collisions, regardless if Tesla is at fault or if the driver is at fault. The insurance company still has to pay, which means the Tesla owners have to pay.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> Liability insurance premiums would reflect higher risk of Tesla vehicles causing collisions, regardless if Tesla is at fault or if the driver is at fault Why? They only pay out if you’re at fault. And if there aren’t final judgements in a deep pipeline of cases, premiums wouldn’t have a reason to adjust yet.
- chneu 6mo agoOr pushed beef that destroys the environment and gives people GI cancers while claiming the opposite.
- IAmBroom 6mo agoI don't recall any TV ads claiming beef cured GI cancers. Maybe you should change your channel.
- ymolodtsov 6mo agoTesla has a very bad track record in terms of both compliance and disclosure when it comes to autonomy incidents.
- boringg 6mo agoDid you find the article lack any real numbers related to the claims? It was a bit weird in that that information was so vague. Individual tragic anecdotal incidences aside the vagueness of the article really diluted the merit of the claims.
- dangus 6mo agoTo pile on to this pathetic excuse for a company: anyone considering buying a Tesla should know that they are the #1 brand for fatal accidents in the United States, with over twice the accident rate of a typical automaker: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highest-fatal-accident-rate-of-all-auto-brands-study/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highes... This terrible statistic can’t just be explained by aggressive driving owners or some other factor like that. Dodge has plenty of aggressive drivers buying their 700HP V8 rear wheel drive vehicles but they have better fatal accident rates than Tesla. I’m convinced that Tesla makes unsafe cars and covers it up wherever they can. The crash test safety awards their vehicles have won are clearly not representative of reality. The self-driving system Tesla offers is only “ahead” of the competition because the competition is unwilling to sell an unsafe system.
- philipallstar 6mo ago> Tesla vehicles have a fatal crash rate of 5.6 per billion miles driven, according to the study; Kia is second with a rate of 5.5, Basically the same as Kia. Why are Kias so bad?
- xutopia 6mo ago2 reasons I can see. Kia have way smaller and cheaper cars with less security features to market. Tesla had front page news at some point saying how they were the safest car ever produced. Tesla is giving people driving their cars a false sense of security.
- philipallstar 6mo agoBut the article doesn't say that at all - quite the opposite: > The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
- jasoncartwright 6mo agoTeslas turning off autopilot seconds before a crash, apparently avoiding being recorded as active during an incident, is wild https://futurism.com/tesla-nhtsa-autopilot-report https://futurism.com/tesla-nhtsa-autopilot-report
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo agoI think this is part of the reason I am wary of trying it ( including some of the competitor's variants ). They all want you to pay attention, because you may be forced to make a decision out of the blue. I might as well be in control all the time and not try to course correct at the literal last second.
- IgorPartola 6mo agoA self driving car should have no steering wheel. If it has a steering wheel it is a vote of no confidence from the manufacturer.
- ghaff 6mo agoI don't really buy that. There are a lot of situations (e.g. being directed to park in a space at a fairgrounds, ski area, or whatever) that you can't reasonably expect AFAIK to be programmed into a car's computer. Even if a car can legitimately handle roads under most circumstances, they're not going to be able to handle everything.
- catlikesshrimp 6mo ago"Because the Origin does not have manual controls, the NHTSA must issue an exception to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to permit operation on public roads" Too bad that project failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_(autonomous_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_(autonomous_vehicle)
- butlike 6mo agoI think their point was "it's not ready yet."
- rvz 6mo ago[flagged]
- x187463 6mo agoThis article specifically mentions "Autopilot", not FSD. I'll call out Tesla for BS as much as the next person and I own no stock, but FSD (Supervised) is exactly what it says. There's no aspect of vehicle operation that isn't controlled by FSD, but it must be supervised.
- kotaKat 6mo agoHot take but I feel like Tesla owners (hell, anyone with 'autonomous driving' vehicles) need to see some kind of modern lecture based on the Children of the Magenta talk on automation dependence in aircraft. Mandatory, before you can trigger the system on. FSD has built this generation's newest children of the magenta line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs
- meindnoch 6mo ago>Tesla owners (hell, anyone with 'autonomous driving' vehicles) Or LLM users.
- zulgin 6mo agoLook I don't like Tesla as much as the next person, I think it is wildly over-hyped and over-valued. But this article is just slop. The headline says - "How Tesla hid accidents to test its Autopilot" but the actual article has no explanation as to (1) how Tesla hid anything or, for that matter, (2) who did Tesla hide this information from It mashes together a Tesla data leak from 2022 and an unconnected lawsuit from 2026 without ever explaining how those 2 are connected. Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.
- tiberriver256 6mo agoThanks
- HFguy 6mo agoAfter you wrote this, I went and read the article I also didn't see much there either. And wonder why you are getting down voted. And TBC, also not a tesla fan (the truck is dumb).
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Lerc 6mo ago>Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all. This is something I find frequently as well, moreso with Musk related things than Tesla. Lord knows there are plenty of things to be critical of. If investigative journalism wants to regain the respect it once had, fewer allegations with concrete claims serves both the public and faith in media over large quantities of vague claims. I admit if you want to sway public opinion, the latter is more effective, but is also a mechanism that doesn't require alignment with the truth. When that approach is normalised, it opens the door for anyone to shove popular opinion around.
- RoxiHaidi 6mo agoOne day an AI will obviously be infinitely better at driving than a human will be but that day is not yet here.
- bluefirebrand 6mo agoPersonally I don't know if I care. Unless I can have some guarantee that the AI will prioritize my life and safety over literally any other concern, I'm not sure I would trust it I don't ever want to be inside an AI driven vehicle that might decide to sacrifice me to minimize other damage
- occamofsandwich 6mo agoSure, but then I don't want you to have a vehicle at all to minimize my own risk.
- bluefirebrand 6mo agoFeel free to minimize your own risk by staying home and never leaving
- occamofsandwich 6mo ago[flagged]
- pmarreck 6mo ago> to minimize other damage You mean deaths to multiple other people, do you not? Let's just call a spade a spade here and point out the genuine ethical dilemma. What's the ratio between "bodies of your own kids" and "other human bodies you have no other connection with" in terms of what a "proper" AI that is controlling a car YOU purchased, should be willing to make in trade in terms of injury or death? I think most people would argue that it's greater than 1* (unless you are a pure rationalist, in which case, I tip my hat to you), but what "SHOULD" it be? *meaning, in the case of a ratio of 2 for example, you would require 2 nonfamiliar deaths to justify losing one of your own kids
- dham 6mo agoHere we go again. Autopilot != FSD. Autopilot is not "autonomous" driving. It's lane keep with adaptive cruise control. The same system that Honda, Toyota, etc have. Yes the naming is wrong, the marketing is bad, but I don't see it as much worse as Toyota safety sense. If you use it to be "safe" you're going swerve off the highway into a ditch. I used super cruise from GM in my friends suv. As soon as lane markers go away on a bridge, I almost hit the railing. I'll get downvoted but just giving you the facts. I'm glad the Autopilot name has been retired. Such a bad name, but maybe a good name because autopilot in planes can't see and avoid obstacles either.
- buellerbueller 6mo agoHere we go again; Musk fanboy to the rescue!
- Glemllksdf 6mo agoI don't get it? If autopilot was missleading, full self driving is too?
- x187463 6mo agoThe difference is FSD is properly annotated as (Supervised) and does exactly that. Autopilot does not 'autopilot' the vehicle by any reasonable measure.
- Glemllksdf 6mo agoSupervisded self driving would be correct. I don't think I was aware of the (Supervised) before your comment tbh.
- freejazz 6mo agoFSD (not)
- x187463 6mo agoFSD controls every aspect of the vehicle's operation and explicitly demands human supervision. There's nothing misleading or incorrect in the name FSD (Supervised).
- adev_ 6mo agoSo...For a bit of context on the video and the article: - The documentary is from the RTS. The RTS is the main publicly owned media from Switzerland. They are not the typical European owned public media: They are generally pretty well funded (contrary to most). They also tend to generate good (high) quality content, tend to be independent and rather neutral (leaning slightly to the left politically speaking). - The video is in French because, in Switzerland, the media are divided in three group associated to the regional languages: RTS for the French, SSR for the German and RSI for the Italian. Thats why you do get German translation. - They are generally pretty cooperative and open minded. If one of you want to submit english subtitles. Just contact them, they might accept it (I do not promise anything).
- limbero 6mo agoSorry, but you seem to be implying that European public owned media outlets are not normally to be trusted. Why? I started out writing a list of European countries with high quality public broadcasters, but the comment started looking silly since the list quickly grew very long.
- u_sama 6mo agoThey have left leaning biases, RTVE is basically a propaganda channel for the PSOE at this point and France Info/France2 have center-left biases which makes them not neutral and representing the corpus of society. They are all well-funded though.
- orwin 6mo agoFrance info is really right wing in my opinion, probably the most liberal (economically) public radio station in France. Even calling them center right doesn't do them justice. Maybe borrowing from historians and calling them 'extreme center' is the best to position them on a political spectrum.
- u_sama 6mo agoI mistook France Info and France Inter there, France Info is actually neutral meaning they have right wing and left wing voices which I like.
- mnvsbl 6mo agoFull report here (video): https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/temps-present/video/tesla-la-face-sombre-delon-musk?urn=urn:rts:video:ed3bb504-37fe-3214-8585-a4fd7bbf12e6 https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/temps-present/video/tesla-la-face...
- pmarreck 6mo agoAre these still accidents where the driver was not paying attention, though?
- singpolyma3 6mo agoOf course. But the argument that the nature of FSD causes them to not pay attention.
- mikl 6mo agoSame article in German, if that’s more your thing: https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/autonomes-fahren-wie-tesla-unfaelle-verheimlichte-um-seinen-autopiloten-zu-testen https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/autonomes-fahren-wie-tesla-un...
- Geee 6mo agoThis is about the old autopilot, not FSD, and there doesn't seem to be anything new in the article. This is based on the same leaked data which has been public since 2023. The title seems to be inaccurate, as there's nothing to indicate that they hid fatal accidents.
- 93po 6mo ago[flagged]
- mnvsbl 6mo agoThis discussion was #1 and just vanished. Why?
- red75prime 6mo agoBecause the article is sensationalized crap.