They didn't even control for wealth. People that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc. It doesn't say anything about the statistics when auto-pilot is engaged, it just says cars with auto pilot. And it doesn't give the statistics for Teslas without auto-pilot (Teslas have other safety factors that might mean auto-pilot isn't responsible for the mortality reduction, etc.)
Re:An Update on Last Week’s Accident
by icebraining on Saturday March 31, 2018 @02:46AM
(#16722118)
People that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc.
Is that true? I couldn't find statistics that grouped by income or wealth.
Also look at occupation. Tesla owners = disproportionately software engineers. Software engineers are one of the lowest car insurance risk pools (and we're even before any of them started using auto-pilot).
Re:An Update on Last Week’s Accident
by eanzenberg on Saturday March 31, 2018 @12:47AM
(#16721772)
If that's literally the best case scenario, then that's pretty damn pitiful and a gross misleading of facts using statistics. It's a shame. Let's use "AP disengage" as the equating metric to human-caused crashes and see how it stacks up.
The atlantic had a relevant piece on the morality there this morning https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/got-9...
And that's assuming they can identify that autopilot is statistically safer. If autopilot isn't used in the same conditions as all human driving, the rates aren't apples to apples comparisons, and the "you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident" figure they imply is misleading.