• 5 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: February 19th, 2025

help-circle


  • Fair enough!

    At least one of the fatalities is Full-Self Driving (it was cited by name in the police reports). The remainder are Autopilot. So, both systems kill motorcyclists. Tesla requests this data redacted from their NHTSA reporting, which specifically makes it difficult for consumers to measure which system is safer or if incremental safety improvements are actually being made.

    You’re placing a lot if faith that the incremental updates are improvements without equivalent regressions. That data is specifically being concealed from you, and I think you should probably ask why. If there was good news behind those redactions, they wouldn’t be redactions.

    I didn’t publish the software version data point because I agree with AA5B, it doesn’t matter. I honestly don’t care how it works. I care that it works well enough to safely cohabit the road with my manual transmission cromagnon self.

    I’m not a “Tesla reporter,” I’m not trying to cover the incremental changes in their software versions. Plenty of Tesla fans doing that already. It only has my attention at all because it’s killing vulnerable road users, and for that analysis we don’t actually need to know which self-driving system version is killing people, just the make of car it is installed on.





  • No, the zero accidents for other self-driving vehicles is actually zero :) You may have heard of this little boutique automotive manufacturer, Ford Motor Company. They’re one of the primary competitors, and they are far above the mileage where you would expect a fatal accident if they were as safe as a human.

    Ford has reported self-driving crashes (many of them!). Just no fatal crashes involving motorcycles, because I guess they don’t fucking suck at making self-driving software.

    I linked the data, it’s all public governmental data, and only the Tesla crashes are heavily redacted. You could… IDK… read it, and then share your opinion about it?










  • The driver being drunk doesn’t mean the self-driving feature should not detect motorcycles. The human is a fallback to the tech. The tech had to fail for this fatal crash to occur.

    If the system is advertised as overrriding the human speed inputs ( traffic aware cruise control, it is supposed to brake when it detects traffic, regardless of pedal inputs), then it should function as advertised.

    Incidentally, I agree, I broadly trust automated cars to act more predictably than human drivers. In the case of specifically Teslas and specifically motorcycles, it looks like something is going wrong. That’s what the data says, anyhow. If the government were functioning how it should, the tech would be disabled during the investigation, which is ongoing.




  • I am absolutely biased. It’s me, I’m the source :)

    I’m a motorcyclist, and I don’t want to die. Also just generally, motorcyclists deserve to get where they are going safely.

    I agree with you. Self-driving cars will overall greatly improve highway safety.

    I disagree with you when you suggest that pointing out flaws in the technology is evidence of bias, or “cherry picking to make self driving look bad.” I think we can improve on the technology by pointing out its systemic defects. If it hits motorcyclists, take it off the road, fix it, and then save lives by putting it back on the road.

    That’s the intention of the coverage, at least: I am hoping to apply pressure to improve rather than remove. Read my Waymo coverage, I’m actually a big automation enthusiast, because fewer crashes is a good thing.