Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you’re misunderstanding my assertion or I’m not communicating it properly. People will die behind the wheel, this is inevitable. You will not get to zero auto fatalities in our lifetime. 19 deaths for how many Tesla miles are driven autonomously, in your words, rounds down to zero. For comparison, GM’s ignition switch recall (which they knew was deadly for a decade), required a 30 million vehicle recall, resulted in 124 deaths, and a $3B loss in GM shareholder value.

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

~5 billion miles have been driven on Autopilot (and that growth rate accelerates as Tesla continues to ramp manufacturing), and if it was truly wildly dangerous, we’d be discussing far more than 19 deaths from 16 incidents. Check my math: assuming the above, that’s 1 death every 263,157,894 Autopilot miles driven.

You are more likely to be killed by a shark attack or a falling coconut than Autopilot, statistically speaking.

https://www.tesladeaths.com/miles.html

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio...

(I appreciate the kind words by the way, thank you)

Autopilot is typically driven only in the newest cars by the richest people in ideal conditions. Heck, Autopilot disengages when it gets confused, which is often. And even with all of that, the fatality rate (at least the ones we know if) is only a third of the U.S. total population on a per-mile basis. Autopilot is likely more dangerous than the same set of drivers on the same routes in the same Teslas with Autopilot disabled.

And yet, regulators across the world (US, Europe, Canada, China, Japan) allow its continued sale and use. Maybe they’re right and HN is wrong? How would you reconcile conservative regulators not taking action while participants here carry on about how unsafe it is? Inaction by one regulator might be explained, but all of them? Occam's razor leads us to a tolerance for the risk exposure, not a conspiracy.

It appears that it has to be proven dangerous, not foolproof, due to the driver still being responsible and assuming liability for its use, and that burden has not been met by critics.

Edit: I’m appealing to, broadly, transport safety professionals across various governments and continents (in aggregate) versus randos on an Internet forum. That seems like a pretty solid strategy from a risk perspective, as your risk math isn’t impacted by failures at a single regulatory body, nor by a layman without the professional body of domain knowledge that might be missing something critical.

> And yet, regulators across the world … allow its continued sale and use.

Well, for one thing, regulators generally don’t “allow sales” but disallow things for various reasons.

By this logic the continued sale and use of tobacco is perfectly safe because the regulators allow it.

I don't understand why you are appealing to authority while earlier pointing out the GM ignition switches that killed 124 people. If authority are a valid judge of safety, why didn't they act on the GM ignition switches earlier?

> And yet, regulators across the world (US, Europe, Canada, China, Japan) allow its continued sale and use

The article is about Tesla FSD, not Autopilot (fancy word for cruise control and lane keeping).

I'm not aware of this feature being allowed for sale outside of North America, is this not the case?

The regulators probably don't have the expertise or access to sufficiently evaluate autopilot safety. It's not in Musk's interest to be transparent about the dangers. This is the guy who keeps cutting sensors to increase profits over safety.

> And yet, regulators across the world (US, Europe, Canada, China, Japan) allow its continued sale and use.

I wouldn't be so sure, with more and more agencies signaling their intent to escalate...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com