Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot

Re:Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Aut... by golol on Saturday June 10, 2023 @11:44AM (#36271509)

I despise whoever wrote this article. It is almost completely devoid of any real information. Trying to gain an understanding of the situation based on the on the information presented here (Total crash and fatality numbers all time and last year, motorcycle numbers too) is impossible.

If you want to talk about this subject, find the following data: Crash RATES of humans autopilot as well as other driver assistance systems in total and split over various time periods, compared to the number of systems in use in that period, and split over various categories like highway vs rural roads, or type of vehicles involved.

If you can not find this information then you know nothing and don't have anything to say. Just make your article about the fact that these numbers are important and do your best to get an idea. State the absolute number but explain how it is meaningless.

Right now this is just embarrassing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Aut... by shortcake27 on Saturday June 10, 2023 @03:43PM (#36274287)

I don’t understand why this has been downvoted. The article is clickbait fear-mongering. It claims 17 deaths in 3 years is a “shocking” toll yet and focuses on a couple of nasty accidents, yet has no opinion, comment, or issue with the 40,000 people that die _each year_ due to human error (a figure quoted nonchalantly in the article).

Articles like this prove how irrational humans are. Wanting to ban a system of driving that is quite literally orders of magnitude safer than a human driver, because very occasionally it makes a mistake a human wouldn’t make.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Aut... by rcxdude on Saturday June 10, 2023 @03:58PM (#36274450)

It isn't actually safer, though. That's a pretty key point. Tesla has used misleading statistics in the past to claim that its driver assist (misleadingly labelled "full self driving") is safer than humans, but this is false. In the situations where Tesla's driver assist can be used, human drivers are much safer than they are on average, so comparing the accident rate directly does not tell you which is safer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Aut... by fzeroracer on Sunday June 11, 2023 @01:29AM (#36278432)

Order of magnitudes safer according to whomst, exactly? Whomst is supplying that data? And what exactly is their vested interest in claiming that it's safer?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Aut... by iudqnolq on Sunday June 11, 2023 @02:13AM (#36278678)

As long as Tesla keeps the real data secret it's reasonable for us to speculate. And it's reasonable to infer there's a reason they won't disclose it.

> It is unclear which of the systems was in use in the fatal crashes: Tesla has asked NHTSA not to disclose that information. In the section of the NHTSA data specifying the software version, Tesla’s incidents read — in all capital letters — “redacted, may contain confidential business information.”

[ Parent | on HN ]