Tesla asked officials to redact info of driver-assistance in use during crashes

Why has nothing changed? If so many people are having problems, how is Tesla allowed to continue?

That being said, when I visited areas with very little road traffic like in central Florida or in country areas in Georgia, it is very hesitant and I can only assume because of the lack of training data. Simple things like left turns become overly hesitant or it goes into a middle turning lane thinking it's a new lane because the lines are rough or non-existent.

I love using it for long trips, it has changed my quality of life when it comes to driving. I simply do not agree calling it 'rubbish' is fair at all and really is a gross oversimplification of it's faults in situations.

"but if you compare FSD with drunk teenage drivers you still get a lower number of incidents"

The point of tech is to improve the status quo significantly, not marginally.

No one will use a calculator that is wrong 2% of the time.

I know this is real life and no driver (AI or not) could perform perfectly, but AI should be WAY better than the average human driver instead of just merely equal to.

Tesla's falsely named "full self driving" cannot drive the car safely so they say you always have to have a driver in control of the car, only that is demonstrably not compatible with human physiology, and again directly contradicts the name.

We do not expect full attention from pilots in aircraft with autopilot, when they have potentially hundreds of lives under their control, but Tesla thinks it's ok to require that of car drivers and give them less time to respond to any sudden incident than a pilot has.

Has this claim been made by an independent third party? (About Tesla's FSD, specifically.)

There have been multiple instances over the years where my car would make completely inappropriate and dangerous decisions (like slamming on the brakes on the interstate or in a parking lot for no reason) and when I ask Tesla for more information about the incident they'll flat our lie and say it never happened or that the car is or is not capable of what I'm claiming. It's lies and gaslighting all the way down even to specific repairs they do (claiming they fix something when they actually do no such thing).

At this point due to Tesla corporate's untrustworthy behavior I believe Teslas are a risk to drivers and pedestrians alike and will take every opportunity to make this known as a warning to prospective buyers.

Tesla, never again.

Tesla has now "decided" that if active restraints or airbags are not deployed, that incident "does not count going forward".

As an automobile manufacturer, there is no good conscience reasoning that Tesla is unaware that active restraint and airbag systems of today are far more nuanced and weigh multiple criteria when deciding to deploy (as compared to initial/early implementations, which were essentially "if collision=true and speed >= X mph then deploy"). You can have a very significant incident (two that I've witnessed recently as a paramedic involved vehicles into stationary objects at ~30mph) without airbag deployment. But if that was a Tesla in FSD that hit something at 30mph and didn't deploy airbags, well, that's not an accident according to Tesla.

That also doesn't account for "incident was so catastrophic that restraint systems could not deploy", also "not counted" by Tesla. Or just as egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and including poor assembly line quality control", also not an accident and also "not counted".

The primary reason why all those Tesla cases lack those details, is that they're reported basically immediately when they happen, because all Teslas are connected to the mothership and report back when it happens.

The NHTSA page even explicitly points it out under the data limitations section, under "Incident Report Data May Be Incomplete or Unverified".

> This means that a reporting entity with access to vehicle telemetry may quickly become aware of an air bag deployment incident subject to the General Order, but it may not become aware of all circumstances related to the crash, such as surface conditions, whether all passengers were belted, or whether an injury occurred.

This is also the reason why Tesla are so overrepresented in the data. Almost no other automaker has connected cars, or are like the GM On-Star a subscription service that not everyone has.

All other reports have to come in manually though actual crash investigations, which can take time. Or not happen at all if nobody thinks those systems might have had been activated/relevant. For example, a car using driver assist technology getting t-boned by a manually driven car at an intersection will likely not raise any alarms about automated systems during crash investigations. But for Tesla they're reported, because they immediately know those cars were in a crash.

So in conclusion, as NHTSA has said, none of the data has been normalized, and lacks important contextual information to properly analyze it, and should thus not be used by itself to draw any conclusions.

Therein lies another problem.

Tesla will happily (and without your specific agreement) release any and all telemetry, or use it against you, if they feel it will protect their reputation.

One of the earlier fatal FSD-related crashes, Tesla held a press conference to defend FSD. They talked about "requiring driver attention" and that, in this case, "the vehicle had issued a warning to the driver about their inattentiveness".

What they didn't say in that press conference, and was only revealed much later, though they obviously knew it at that time, was that while the vehicle had triggered an inattention warning:

1) It happened only one time, and

2) It happened eighteen MINUTES before the collision.

That sentence parses like "Elon would be Jerry about it left and right"

It’s certainly been abused by some companies but is likely beneficial on the whole because it encourages full disclosure and cooperation with the government public safety agencies. The opposite approach would be to not have the protection available and to have companies withhold information until forced to disclose by the government, most likely via a lawsuit of some kind which would take years to resolve. Years that could be used improving public safety.

I'm assuming there are more than 17, but we don't know about them, because "redacted"