Are the facts presented in the article incorrect?

One of them is a bus hitting a stationary Tesla - hard to paint that as the teslas fault.

A few are low speed reversing into things, the extreme majority of which done by humans are never reported and are not in the dataset comparing how many crashes Tesla have had vs humans.

I would say they’re facts, but they’re being used dishonesty

> One of them is a bus hitting a stationary Tesla - hard to paint that as the teslas fault.

Since the narratives are redacted, who's to say the Tesla didn't change lanes to be in front of the bus, slam on the brakes, then get rear ended?

Or pull partially out of a driveway, stopping and blocking a lane with a bus traveling 35mph in said lane and got hit by it?

> A few are low speed reversing into things, the extreme majority of which done by humans are never reported and are not in the dataset comparing how many crashes Tesla have had vs humans.

I'm sure this happens to humans all the time, but not a single one of those humans would be considered a good (or even decent) driver.

> not a single one of those humans would be considered a good (or even decent) driver.

So is the bar here being a good or decent driver, or being x times worse than the average human?

I see a lot of bar moving.

> So is the bar here being a good or decent driver, or being x times worse than the average human?

> I see a lot of bar moving.

"Less than decent" means "worse than the average human driver".

I've never hit a stationary object, or any object for that matter, in 20 years of driving.

I understand that might not be the same for you. My bar is that it must be better than my own good driving.

That is a completely made up bar that is impossible to test for, and can never be met.

Even Waymo have tons of reported crashes in the same document.

Self driving cars need to be better than the average human - which means less injuries and deaths. Given 100 people will be killed on the road in the US today, it’s actually not a crazy high bar to clear.

> That is a completely made up bar that is impossible to test for, and can never be met.

My own bar being a self driving car better than me is made up and impossible to test for?

Stop trying to force shitty self driving implementations down other's throats. If they were good and useful, people would voluntarily use them.

> Self driving cars need to be better than the average human

And Teslas are obviously not, to everyone except the terminally brainwashed. Two more weeks until it works though, right?

I’m not shoving anything. I don’t make the laws. If you don’t like them, elect different representatives.

Your bar is irrelevant, this isn’t about you, personally. This is about everyone.

You could say the same in reverse about HN.

In reverse? What do you mean exactly?

As someone who is neither an Elon fan nor a hater, it irks me how deranged HN is about anything Musk-related.

still is the best ev site. the elon cult is every bit as bad as maga

It's not the best EV site when all of the coverage of the US market leader is so incredibly slanted due to personal politics of the editor.

Tesla is not the market leader in BEVs. It's BYD (2.25m 2025), then Tesla (1.6m), then VW AG (1 million). Given the current growth/shrinkage rates (33% growth for VW AG, 9% drop for Tesla), they'll be third in a year or so.

Of course if you are accostumed with the Elon and Tesla glazing 2002-2024 , critique and scrutiny feels like oppression.

It's always like that. The poor billionaire soon trillionaire is getting bullied by the blogger. Not.

Do you even realize how dumb that sounds?

Is there evidence of that? No matter who is criticizing Musk's companies, they will get slandered in one way or nother, which doesn't mean Electrek isn't biased.