I don't care how safe it is, its nowhere near as safe or reliable as the sales and marketing are pushing. I wish it was criminal how misleading tesla has been regarding reliability, and regarding how close they are to full self driving.
I guess it's polite to point out when you're unwilling to change your mind based on evidence, but that's a hell of a take.
I'm not a Tesla fan.
How many accidents have been caused by automated drive systems and how do their failure rates compare to normal human-driven accident rates?
> On average, there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents per million miles driven, while the same rate is 4.1 crashes per million miles for regular vehicles.
(https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars, linking to https://carsurance.net/blog/self-driving-car-statistics/.)
Mind that most human accidents happen in environments which are considered off-limits for automated driving systems at the current state technology as deployed. (E.g., narrow urban streets in bad weather conditions and difficult, varying lighting.)
Sure, it might be. I'm not the one making claims challenging anything's validity, though, so it's not on me to provide any evidence for or against anything.
If you're going to make a post after a _single accident_ saying something isn't safe enough, you should be expected to define how you came to that conclusion.
In this case, though, it's just a general dislike for Tesla.
edit
I'll also add, your post is obviously anti-Tesla as well. From Tesla's website:
> In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.
Which can be corroborated here:
What we really need is stats on the rate of human-driver accidents caused during driving situations where Autopilot could potentially be used. Then we could compare that number to the rate of Autopilot-related accidents.
For example, if a human driver causes an accident on a narrow, unmarked, unlit road in the middle of a snowstorm, you can't throw that data point into the "human driver accidents" bucket when comparing to Autopilot-caused accidents, because Autopilot would never be used in that situation.
How should we be able to discuss these things?
A marginal improvement is not going to cut it.
Based on what?
> A marginal improvement is not going to cut it.
A 3% improvement is over 100k people not injured. I don't agree at all with your stance.