Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

I was expecting autopilot to be seriously dangerous, but the data doesn’t back that up. Out of 234 deaths from accidents involving Tesla’s 12 people have died while Tesla autopilot was known to be in use or had recently been in use. http://www.tesladeaths.com Autopilot might be slightly worse than human drivers depending on how you slice the data but that’s about it.

I don’t think it’s a regulation problem as much as it is an acceptance by regulators that driving is inherently dangerous and autopilot isn’t dramatically worse. It’s not even obvious if on net more people would have died if Tesla had never released autopilot.

View on HN

Note that FSD beta participants are selected/limited by Tesla based on proprietary "safe driver" scoring, so FSD data doesn't say much about how the gen pop might fare at managing the system. (I know you were writing about Autopilot -- discussion is on FSD Beta though.)

Note also that other drivers are learning behaviors such as keeping their distance from Tesla's, etc., making it harder to assess the system functionally.

Edit: Actually, there are docs for the scoring, sans changelog though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267858

Or social media clout (maybe not so much any more) where several prominent "influencers" got access regardless of scoring.

Autopilot and FSD are two different things. Elon claimed 0 accidents for FSD late last year, but this year there is video of a Tesla running into a post.

the data is extremely questionable

In what way?

Sampling bias, confirmation bias.

Did you delete your link to tesladeaths.com because you realized the fine print about sketchy autopilot data contradicted your point? Oops!

No, I was trying to keep the link without a http://, https://www.tesladeaths.com/ or https://www.tesladeaths.com/ works www.tesladeaths.com doesn’t nore does www.tesladeaths.com/

I am sure I have seen comment links without the http:// but might have just gotten so used to it than I stopped seeing it.

uh huh. why do you think it's reasonable to conclude that this system is safe given that the reported data is based on faulty analysis [0] and inexplicably exempt from reporting requirements for testing self-driving cars?

[0] https://jalopnik.com/feds-tesla-autosteer-safety-investigati...

I don’t think it is safe.

I just don’t have data showing it’s terrible.

ok but you think it's reasonable to let them test their unproven software (which has already killed people) on public roads anyway?

Yes, as there is no other way to prove it’s safe. Aka your suggesting an impossible standard for any company to meet.

Further the only reasonable standard is roughly average human competency. As soon as a tired driver can turn on self driving and be safer on the road then banning that technology has a real cost.

of course there is, it's what every other company is doing: safety drivers with reporting requirements

Testing hardware and software via safety drivers on public roads doesn’t actually prove safety in the hands of the general public. Just as FSD being released to the safest drivers first doesn’t prove safety in the hands of the general public.

The general public doesn’t use products like you might assume. For example toilet plungers have killed or seriously injured people and not because they where used as a weapon.

what??? they're not subject user error. that's the whole point, and how many times fallible humans had to take over is exactly what the disengagement report tracks

The platonic ideal self driving system possible doesn’t prevent a tire blowout from poor maintenance etc. Similarly a test fleet isn’t going to replicate the publics actual origins, destinations, and time of day. Something as simple as people going to bars more because the self driving system can get them home would mean a different risk profile.

1. Dangerous means causing injury, not just death.

2. How many times has autopilot disengaged and would've caused injury without human intervention?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com