I mean, if someone was coming along from the DMV and saying "here's a report showing a 95% confidence of a higher than average accident rate among FSD beta vehicles" then I'd be first in line to admit that, yes, we should probably halt deployment while we figure out what's going wrong.
But that's not what's happening here at all. The people with the data are silent, which tells me something that confirms my priors as a FSD beta tester: this system as deployed is safe. It is.
What form are random cops going to fill out for "Tesla fucked it again and this was FSD Beta version whatever" ? Or will cops exactly and reliably fill out accident reports in exactly the same way with impossible precision, and then who is going to notice? How many accidents will they miss? How many _near_ accidents will they miss? How many takeovers by the driver will they have no idea about?
Look, if you're arguing that we need a unified system in place for reporting accidents and correctly tagging them to autonomous vehicle software stacks, then I'd tend to agree. But that's not an argument about Tesla safety, nor even with Tesla's compliance with existing regulation.
All I'm saying is that (1) my personal experience with this system as deployed is that it's quite safe, frankly safer than driving personally, (2) there is a ton of data out there being generated by all these cars, and (3) let's go find it instead of pursuing brand flamewars like this.
If it takes them 6 years, they're not getting enough actionable data quickly enough.
> How does the CDC get covid infection statistics? How does the NTSB do aviation safety studies? How does OSHA report on occupation risks? Of course the government can do this.
By requiring that key industries and people report the data, then sometimes with inspectors. It's not magic, and it's not going to go well if you're expecting the data to just appear for them.
The phrase "over 6 years" means that the sample set was six years long (since AP was first deployed), not that the data is six years old! This doesn't seem like a serious argument.
My point, to repeat, was that regulators absolutely look at this data, to the extent that a cluster just 13 accidents was enough to trigger an investigation. The data is absolutely available! And to the extent that it's not, let's talk about specific reforms you'd like to see to improve the quality.
But none of that is an argument about whether or not Tesla FSD beta is currently operating safely. Again, it's quite clear that it is.
eyeroll I'm glad you've conceded the argument on my behalf. Any other decisions you'd like to make for me?
> And to the extent that it's not, let's talk about specific reforms you'd like to see to improve the quality.
I'd start with Tesla complying with the law and providing data about how many accidents, how many disengagements, how many miles, etc. and not having to depend on what gets noticed over 6 years.
To be clear: there is no case, nor has Tesla tried to make one. The linked article is an opinion essay by an academic in the field. The CA DMV hasn't said anything.
For myself: I'd argue that we have ~23k FSD beta vehicles on US roads now that have been driving for 3-4 months and that if we're really concerned about the safety of the system (vs. getting into semantic arguments about the statute language of some random law) we should just go get the data and see. By my math that's going to be something in the tens of millions of miles now. That should be well above the noise floor.