Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldgradstudent | Hacker News Reader

In keeping with the "Autopilot" terminology, this was "Controlled Flight info Terrain".

Tesla demonstrates their usual abuse of statistics. 1.25 fatalities per 100 million miles is the average across all types of terrain, conditions, and cars.

The death rate in rural roads is much higher than in urban areas. The death rate on highways is much lower than average. The death rate with new cars is much lower than average.

The autopilot will not engage in the most dangerous conditions. This alone will improve the fatality rate, even if the driver does all the work.

Tesla cars are modern luxury cars. They appear to have done a great job building a well constructed, safe, car. This does not mean their autopilot is not dangerous.

View on HN

Note: Tesla is comparing the fatality rate of autopilot-equipped cars with the average accident rate. They are NOT only counting miles where autopilot is used, they are counting all miles driven by their cars. It could be that Tesla drivers are inherently safer than the general population, or that the cars themselves are much safer. What they are not doing (at least with the data) is making a statistical claim about autopilot safety.

Exactly. Tesla drivers will be older, more affluent, and I bet, generally safer drivers. I'm sure an insurance company could easily debunk those statistics.

That's a very good point. But it raises a new question, why didn't Tesla compare the safety record of Teslas with Autopilot against Teslas without Autopilot.

I don’t know. It could be because the comparison isn’t favorable, or it could be because it’s very hard (as your parent post states) to generate a valid comparison that controls for driver age and skill, driving conditions, and vehicle safety.

What I do know is that Tesla have previously published a comparison of the safety of their cars before and after the autopilot feature was made available, and there is a statistically significant improvement of nearly 60%. This study should factor out most of those caveats, since it’s the same cars, same drivers and same roads before and after the feature release. http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesla-autopilot-crash-safety-stati...

They have done so. As mentioned in their previous blog post, Tesla's crash rate was reduced by 40% after introduction of Autopilot based on data reviewed by NHTSA.

> This does not mean their autopilot is not dangerous.

It also doesn't mean that it is dangerous. That bag of doritos that you ate, it might also be dangerous. Let's use facts and not vague worrisome complaints. So if you want to talk about the higher danger of rural roads, please give a number, and then give a number for tesla, or estimate one. Don't just say "urgh".

I mean, if Tesla is comparing their luxury car's death rates to motorcycles, which have 10x-50x the fatality rate of passenger cars, then, yes, it's dangerous.

Remember, there are several very normal cars models that have had ZERO deaths: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/record-9-models-have-...

These autopilot cars are death traps.

I wonder if it’s possible to determine whether those cars have zero death rates in part because someone who would buy that model is less likely to get in a fatal accident in the first place—whether because of who they are, or how they were advertised, or whatever. I imagine a minivan owner as a very cautious driver…then again, I have been in the passenger seat when a friend was doing drifts in his mom’s minivan, so your mileage may vary.

I've had 2 of those cars - the Sorento and the Odyssey, and they both feel really tactile/agile to drive, as well as being chill, relaxing rides.

Yes, one might quip that males under the age of 25 wouldn't be seen dead in any of those vehicles.

Who doesn’t wanna sit in an Audi A4 Quattro?

I'd say the report is misleading.

Fatalities are rare events. They chose cars with 100,000 registered vehicles or more. The categories these vehicles belong to experienced around 30 deaths per million cars, so cars that have 100,000 registrations would expect 3 deaths. You could easily get a few models with 0 deaths just as a matter of chance.

I don't think these results necessarily show these cars are inherently safer than other cars in the same category.

Outside of the Tesla marketing department, conditional probability has been known for 300 years. Comparing the average fatality rate to the fatality rate of a modern car with Autopilot is an egregious abuse of statistics. How can anyone defend this practice ?!

Just as an example, click on California (it is mostly consistent all over) on the map [1]. California has a lower average fatality rate of 1.01 per 100 million miles.

Rural roads have 2.62 fatalities per 100 million miles. Urban roads have 0.70 fatalities per 100 million miles.

The fatality rate is much lower on highways, according to Wikipedia [2], freeways have 3.38 fatalities per billion km (0.54 per 100 million mile, if I managed the conversion).

[1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

I completely agree; Tesla’s marketing modus operandi is to fudge statistics. In my view, they are consistently on the wrong side of the marketing puffery | misrepresentation borderline.

I do take issue, however, with your claim that Teslas are “well constructed” - they are not. They are poorly designed, poorly constructed vehicles that feel and look cheap. Test one side by side with, say, a BMW 3-Series or a Volkswagen Golf and the difference in production quality will be palpably obvious.

The author was talking about road safety from the cars rigorous construction. There seems to be little doubt about that non-subjective issue.

I saw the argument that a traditional motor’s noise level hides rattling sounds and similar subtle car defects, which a fully-electric vehicle’s silence does not cover.

(I haven’t seen scientific comparisons, though.)

Traditionally at least, the only thing one would hear inside a Mercedes Benz going at 60mph would be the tick of the clock.

> "Controlled Flight Into Terrain"

Thanks, I never knew this term before. Seems like a dark humour gem - equally funny and terrifying.

Agreed. I don't know why they think they get away with it. Is there any independent agency providing numbers about Tesla claims?

It is only dangerous, if it is worse than the average driver.

No, it is still killing people, but average people are cuppable. Big difference.

You realize killing people less than average is not dangerous. It is actually safer. Without understanding this basic logic, than I am not sure what else to say.

What percent of all driving is done on rural roads?

for varying values of dangerous.

You're saying autopilot refuses to run on rural roads?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com