Self-driving Tesla does 'the craziest things you can imagine'

But driving skill training can most certainly greatly increase your skills and awareness and thus immensely reduce your risk of mistakes.

Anyone who drives should take as many car control and accident avoidance clinics as they can and refresh up every few years (if not more). These should really be required by law but since they're not, you can increase your odds of living by being proactive about it.

It's weird that this is somehow controversial for car driving. For e.g. airplane pilots there is a long and strict training and skill maintenance routine, because obviously this makes for safer pilots. You don't just get to read a booklet and go flying.

> Seems reasonable to me

Year 2026: autonomous drivers have 80% fewer accidents per million miles than human drivers.

Bug fix to improve that to 90% and prevent an additional 500,000 casualties per year must wait until 2028 for NHTSA certification.

Good fucking luck, that's going to be harder than pulling Elon's teeth out.

Telsa has regularly lied about how well the system works, and will continue to do so unless we strong arm some independent verification on them.

And good luck getting that to happen. Governments roll onto their backs for Musk like it's the second coming of christ.

FSD should not be on the road without transparency. I don't want to get in car accidents because Musk wants to beta test crappy software.

Seriously:

2021 Lamborghini Aventador: 2.8 seconds

2020 Tesla Model S Performance: 2.4 seconds

(Car & Driver figures)

You're more scared of rich boys in lambos than of a Tesla that "disengages in many normal-to-a-human situations with no ability to resume"?

Step 1: you get some independent persons from the government (Tesla or Google, etc pays for this so no need to cry taxes)

Step 2: you drive the cars in the area where you want to approve it for testing/production , you record all mistakes and times the car ahd to intervene

Step 3: drive all year around, all weather conditions, all traffic conditions

Step 4: you analyze the data, see how many times you had to intervene and compute the damages that would have occurred. Get some real statisticins that could put bounds around the damages.

Using the data from 4 you ask the population to vote what is the correct value they are comfortable with.

What Tesla is doing now do not match because:

1 the tests are not transparent, we don't know or we can't trust Tesla for the number of mistakes the AI is doing

2 updates invalidate previous tests and stats

3 the computer will not drive in all conditions and is differing harder parts of the road to the human so this also is screwing the stats, if you let the AI to drive the easy part and the human the hard part then for sure the AI has a good record.

Even if Tesla is perfect you need this laws for the imperfect companies that would move fast... so think about this as laws that will protect you from the evil Google car or some Chinese brand

I'm unaware of anyone I know around here ever getting rear-ended because someone stopped at a stop sign. Granted, the culture here is to actually stop at each stop sign, so, you know, it's expected that people will actually stop and not just assumed that they're going to roll through.

Every rear-end accident I've ever been aware of at a stop sign would have happened whether the person in front stopped for 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 7 seconds. They were all due to the person in the back not paying attention and not driving safely. Whether the person in the front did a slow 5 second rolling stop or a 5-7 second full stop has never been relevant.

Great! I don't roll or blow through stops, follow too closely or speed by more than 5 kmh within city limits. I drive carefully and defensively, avoiding dangerous manoeuvres, especially when a driver close to me seems erratic (for example, blows through a stop sign, speeds or follows too closely).

Tesla should mimic my driving.

Pedestrians should be voting to improve public transportation in addition to improving walkability of their neighbourhoods, not instead of that.

>How is it a solution to make every car go 25 mph just in case some random person decides to jaywalk?

In my Canadian province, crossing mid-block is perfectly legal as long as you yield to traffic, and 'jaywalking' is not a legal concept. Slowing cars down is safer not just because it reduces the likelihood and severity of hitting pedestrians when they cross incorrectly. It is also safer because it reduces the likelihood and severity of hitting pedestrians when they cross correctly, or walk on a sidewalk. It is also safer because it reduces the likelihood and severity of hitting cyclists and other cars. Highways should be designed for speed, whereas streets should be designed for safety at the expense of speed.

Besides, when a city gets above a certain size and is not missing traffic lights where they should be, speeding within city limits is often quite a futile endeavour. I can't tell you how many times I see drivers who go 70 in a 50 kmh zone zoom past me, just to be waiting at the next light, or the one after that as I pull up after going 55 kmh the whole way. I won't lie, it can be amusing.

If self-driving cars just emulate the stupid, dangerous and illogical habits of human drivers, then to hell with self-driving cars, and you can bet I'll be voting for that.

Weird, Musk is always talking about how FSD is far better than human driving, and far safer.

He's never once said "it's trying to mimic humans", or that it's "much safer unless that might cause an accident, and only then will it drive unsafely (like rolling through stop signs)".

This sounds like post-facto rationalization to me.

Cyclists do not follow the rules of the road here. They simply don't. In particular, they go through red lights as if they don't exist. As a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk -- with the cross signal -- you still need to look left and right for bicycles. I don't see cars running red lights too often, but bicycles are a constant threat. And they are silent and sometimes hard to see.

To be fair, this report[1] from 2018 shows the disparity in injuries caused by bicycles (134) versus cars (2,272). With that in mind, it doesn't make sense for me to be complaining about the bicycles.

At the same time, there's a reason these statistics don't match my experience and the experience of many others. I dodge bicycles every day and don't get injured, probably because they're relatively easy to dodge most of the time. I've been hit by a bicycle twice but never reported it because I wasn't injured enough to seek medical care. I've never had to dodge a car.

If you stand on any corner in NYC, you will see cyclists running red lights several times within an hour. You won't see cars doing it as often.

So, I think this issue would be solved if the majority of cyclists followed the rules of the road like the majority of drivers do. Until then, people like me are going to keep complaining, despite the apparent damages not being as severe as what cars cause.

[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-da...

I'm not saying a free pass, I'm saying they act outside the flow of traffic so strongly and regularly compared to cars that people get angry with them.

I don't know why bikers are so un-self-aware that they blow red lights and stop signs as a matter of principle, bully pedestrians in my experience far more than cars, then act like the victim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_neuroscience

I didn't ask around, but I did watch quite a few science lectures/talks by reputable scientists about how the brain and our mind works.

I also did not make any claims other than suggesting that self driving AI will eventually be possible since there is no natural law that prevents it.

Being skeptical is okay, but you might need to back up your claims.