I’m normally quite skeptical of these kinds of “Tesla More Dangerous Than Other Brands” headlines since they tend to be B.S.
But this seems like a pretty legitimate accusation, and certainly a well researched write-up at the very least.
But this seems like a pretty legitimate accusation, and certainly a well researched write-up at the very least.
The author kind of plays this up a bit by insinuating that there are incidents we don't know of, and they probably aren't wrong that if there are five fatalities there are going to be many more near misses and non-fatal fender bender collisions.
But for the number of millions of miles on the road covered by all vehicles, extrapolating from five incidents is doing a lot of statistical heavy lifting.
The competitors have to use pre-mapped roads and availability is spotty at best. There is also risk as Chevy already deprecated their first gen "FSD", leaving early adopters with gimped ability and shutout from future expansions.
As far as I am aware, everyone else's offerings only work in pre-mapped areas, i.e. Chevy's system only covers half my commute.
Tesla has already said that some of its vehicles, sold with “all the hardware necessary for FSD” will never get it.
No they didn't. They said it turned out the vehicles didn't have all the hardware necessary, but that a free retrofit to add it will be forthcoming.
Level 4 is a commercially viable product. Mapping allows verification by simulation before deployment. Tesla offers level 3, which is not monetizable beyond being a gimmick.
What is clear is Tesla is not currently capable of self driving and he has lied year after year after year about it.
I think carmakers should have to be liable for their cars capabilities in the areas they allow them to be used.
The issue is not quite how good the automation is in absolute terms, it's how good it is vs. how it is sold. Tesla is an outlier here, right down to the use of the term "FSD" i.e. "Full Self-Driving", when it's nothing of the sort.
Tesla could very well have the best FSD marketing on the software. And that's dangerous.
Data point: the "First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System" is ... Mercedes-Benz
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-...
The second will be, IDK, maybe BMW? https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combinin...
It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog.
VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
Not just “the driver is only in the seat for legal reasons” bullshit (“but watch us throw a press conference to parade your talented data for the world if we think it will protect our reputation at your expense”).
I for one find this line of argument - that videos on YouTube are a stronger signal than regulatory approval - to be absolutely wrongheaded, delusional and laughable. YouTube proves nothing, and as a platform, was never intended to. Unlike regulatory approval.
Comparing fsd to whatever Mercedes is doing is like chatgpt v Markov chains
We know this is one of the core issues of Tesla FSD: its capabilities have been hyped and over promised time and time again. We have countless examples of drivers trusting it far more than they should. And who’s to blame for that? In large part the driver, sure. But Elon has to take a lot of that blame as well. Many of those drivers would not have trusted it as much if it wasn’t for his statements and the media image he has crafted for Tesla.
Tesla is a victim of their own success, they’ve set the bar so high people now expect it to have 0.0000% failure rate.
I'd wager far more motorcyclists get hit by humans driving non-Teslas in non-autonomous modes. I could rephrase your comment to:
"Yeah, but if humans drive cars without safety features, and that leads to a bunch of motorcyclists getting hit, then maybe that’s exactly the problem."
... to make the (faulty[1]) argument that driving with FSD turned on is better for motorcyclists.
[1] Faulty not because it's false, but because it is a logical fallacy.
People arguing over base rates of motorcycle accidents as if Tesla didn't get fooled by a loony tunes wall. If Waymo had killed 5 motorcyclists in SF we would know. But they operate there without an incident for years.
Meanwhile, Tesla just after releasing autopilot to the world a man is decapitated because the system is deficient. Then it happened again in 2016 under eerily similar circumstance. Then we observe Teslas hitting broad objects like fire trucks and busses.
The correct response to that is not to say "Well what's the base rate for decapitations and hitting broad objects?"
No, you find out the reason for this thing happening. And the reason is known: a deficient sensor suit that it prone to missing objects clearly in its field of view.
So with the motorcycle situation, we already know what the problem is. This isn't a matter of a Tesla just interfacing with the statistical reality of getting rear-ended by a car. Because we know Teslas have a deficient sensor suit.
Important distinction: FSD didn't get fooled by a looney tunes wall. Legacy Autopilot did.
But other people have tried to reproduce the experiment with FSD, and it wasn't fooled.
TEST 1 (FSD): https://youtu.be/9KyIWpAevNs?feature=shared&t=112
"Show FSD is activated on video, we did that... Here we go feet aren't touching, hands aren't touching.... it's going to hit the wall!" *slams on breaks, ends up about 2 meters from the wall* "Cannot see the wall" *inches forward until the car can see the wall* "Only sees the wall when I'm barely touching it"
"Self drive, not touching anything." *manually slams on breaks, stops a few meters short* "That was gonna hit the wall" *inches forward* "Car... does... not... see... now it does." *only inches from the wall* "That would have been too late" (ya think??)
"Does not see the wall... does not see the wall.... does not see the wall...." *manually slams on breaks to avoid hitting the wall*
Maybe sometimes the FSD is not fooled by the cartoon wall trick. But the results show that even in ideal conditions - full light, no weather, clean course - the thing can still fail.
Research prototypes from two decades ago would not be fooled by this. The sophomores in my intro to robotics class could build a robot that would not be fooled by this. And yet Elon Musk and the geniuses at Tesla can't build a car that isn't fooled.
Sidenote: It's amazing to me that we can't look up data and see the extensive government reports on the safety and capabilities of these systems. We are literally just deploying them on public streets and relying on random youtube celebrities to conduct these evaluations, because Musk has fully captured the people who would do this kind of regulation.
Watching how fast these things accelerate and how close they have to be to a literal wall to see it is terrifying.