This is why I'm not convinced by arguments that FSD is no worse than normal humans: the ethics of the underlying company. To me it's like someone who regularly drives drunk pointing to the fact they've never had an accident.
There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions (like slamming on the brakes on the interstate or in a parking lot for no reason) and when I ask Tesla for more information about the incident they'll flat our lie and say it never happened or that the car is or is not capable of what I'm claiming. It's lies and gaslighting all the way down even to specific repairs they do (claiming they fix something when they actually do no such thing).
At this point due to Tesla corporate's untrustworthy behavior I believe Teslas are a risk to drivers and pedestrians alike and will take every opportunity to make this known as a warning to prospective buyers.
Tesla, never again.
The answer from Tesla: "It's all lies! It is a competitor!", without addressing the main concern.
Dumb question, but is this with the FSD on or off?
- Enhanced Autopilot $5000 option that I can't get a refund for - Emergency auto-braking (has to be manually disabled for each trip)
I commented because the lack of ethics of this company still apply regardless of the specific tech.
Wow, what a nightmare!
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-07-27/tesla-rang...
They chose this route because claiming they get an extra 40ish miles per charge was more important to them than giving their customers accurate range estimation for the life of the car.
I'm in the market for another car and I periodically compare something to a tesla and it's "Better", but after owning a tesla I know what "Better" actually means.
0. https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
Has this claim been made by an independent third party? (About Tesla's FSD, specifically.)
In principle, even half-baked driver assistance can make things safer, but it all depends upon the way the driver is integrated into that system.
Humans are terrible at vigilance tasks, and if you ask them to passively monitor a system that gets things right 98% of the time, you're going to have a bad time. Even worse if you strongly imply that the system is good enough (e.g. "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons")
I understand this as a hypothesis but it hasn't been borne out by any of the Autopilot usage data. I suspect the reason is that humans suffer greatly from fatigue and ADAS systems reduce fatigue.
I understand this hypothesis, but has it borne out by any independent analysis of Autopilot usage data?
Tesla is selling expensive software and claiming it's safer. It should be safer, I want it to be safer. But is it?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698...
> We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers’ workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092...
> Interviewees reported being less mentally and physically tired—though most focused on the former—both while in transit and upon arrival at their destination. Twelve (12) interviewees mentioned this. The reduction in tiredness seems to be because, from the interviewees perspective, partial automation takes over a substantial portion of the driving task.
Which independent Autopilot usage data are you referencing?
I've read the many critiques of Tesla's analysis, and I tend to agree the benefits are overstated, but I haven't seen any reasonable empirical case that Autopilot hurts safety on net.
because tesla does not release their data
Hundreds of people have died explicitly because well trained people with thousands of hours of experience got distracted from their vigilance task. This isn't a hypothetical. There are bodies in the florida everglades.
I'm saying it was a reasonable hypothesis that "you're going to have a bad time" with a system like Autopilot, because of the vigilance concern you're referencing. But there is clearly more at play than vigilance, because it's not shaking out that way -- Autopilot (and similar lanekeeping + adaptive cruise systems from other manufacturers) aren't killing people left and right.
So, I was sharing my own hypothesis for why that may be: that the benefits of reduced fatigue are outweighing the drawbacks of distraction and complacency.
> By correcting for roadway usage differences between the Autopilot and active safety only data, much of the crash reduction seen by vehicles using Autopilot appears to be explained by lower crash rates experienced on freeways. While the raw crash rate shows an average 43% reduction in crash rate for Autopilot compared to active safety only, this improvement is only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Correcting for age demographics likewise produced an 11% increase in the estimated crash rate. Several other factors may explain difference in safety rates of new vehicle technologies based on who is using them, where they are being used, and when they are being used. Some safety features cannot be used in rain or snow, for example, which may bias the data towards clear weather and lower crash rates generally. In another example, drivers often disengage Autopilot to change lanes or prepare to exit a freeway (Morando et al., 2020), both areas of increased crash risk. While Tesla includes crashes where Autopilot was deactivated less than five seconds prior to impact, there remains a potential for Autopilot use to be biased towards safer, within-lane driving. With more data regarding not only the crashes but also the use of vehicle technologies can allow for more accurate and thorough assessments of vehicle safety benefits.