They all have someone behind the wheel.

Yes, they have safety drivers for now, but they are still running them as an autonomous fleet.

And also, they are driving fully autonomous in Texas and Florida.

> for now

So let me guess, fully unsupervised self driving is rolling out "next year" right?

Are you trying to pick a fight or something?

This seems like a pretty hostile response to a well answered question. Weird.

They have more fully unsupervised robotaxis riding around Texas than Waymo.

https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

That link doesn’t say how many, and it doesn’t differentiate between when there is a driver in the car or not

> Miles Driven Autonomously

It does. None of them have a driver. Doesn’t count bay area.

I don’t see why it’s scary. Most cars on the road have a driver and no LIDAR. The cybercab is no different.

For now, their goal is to have no driver and no lidar. That is what said the commenter is scared of.

They intend to take the driver out, and they are already running them without a driver in Texas and Florida.

Yep, very safely https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

Thank goodness we definitely know we can trust the data in that link /s

gov reports seem to agree so unless you have any data to deny this just take the L

You mean the government that Elon Musk gutted with DOGE?

https://www.newsweek.com/doge-cuts-watchdogs-investigating-s...

> Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cut 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) workers in February, disproportionately affecting regulators tasked with assessing self-driving vehicle risks, according to a Financial Times report.

Share those reports then.

Photogrammetry + AI has developed to the degree, that there are 3D scanning apps on iPhone that don't even use the Lidar when available, so you can certainly make do without and get comparable results.

What makes you say they aren't safe? The numbers say they are about 4-6x safer than a car with a human driver.

What numbers?

these https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

We know this data is trustworthy because Musk and his companies would never ever ever lie about anything important.

Ah you’re right it’s not like there’s any media scrutiny of robotaxis

Then share those instead of the same biased blog post.

In the Bay Area they have human supervisors but in Austin they are autonomous.

Is there data to suggest they are unsafe in Austin - as in less safe than a human?

They're working hard to not release any of their safety data, unlike all the other autonomous car companies.

wrong

https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

I’m not sure these self-reported numbers are trustworthy considering they report “0 robotaxi injuries” when a cursory Google search turns up this article claiming 249 Roboxtaxi accidents in Austin and at least two injuries that required hospital visits. Which is at least two more than “0 injuries”.

Those were Waymos.

how does your brain work?

Yes. My mistake. It seems that the article is grouping all autonomous taxis under the title of "Cybertaxi", which is where I was confused.

That's what Elon wants you to think...

A shining example of brainrot

It was a joke dumbass.

Biased source.

What would an unbiased source be for this data?

A blog post from the company definitely ain't it.

Sorry, I meant the opposite. What would a good source be? Isn't Tesla the primary source of such data? Where else would you expect it to come from?

A source that doesn't have an incentive to lie about the topic...

Can you name it?

The implication seems to be that Tesla are lying about accidents. It seems like that would easily get caught out. Accidents tend to be things that happen in public.

Tesla can not be impartial about itself.

So... where should the data come from?

Independent third party auditers like any sane industry.

Well, I can agree with you that it would be nice if that existed.

Overall, I doubt that there's a problem. If there were substantial numbers of significant accidents occurring on public roads that weren't being reported, I think someone would be catching reporting errors. There are a lot of very interested parties watching autonomous vehicles. (competitors, media, etc.)

Why do you assume lidar is must for safety. So far the Tesla auto pilot record is better than human drivers

Because less then ideal conditions for vision exist? Heavy snow/rain/fog, sun shining into cameras at dawn and dusk etc

It’s not hard to be better then an average human generally, the issue is liability as when a driverless taxi hits or hurts someone you can’t just go “but we are safer then human drivers!”

A fleet of hundreds of cars, right? Maybe even thousands including Austin? All with no LIDAR, and operating perhaps up to 18 hours a day?

So then where are all the horrible accidents if they're not safe?