Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemothekid | Hacker News Reader

While I admit I shouldn't be defending Tesla for free - I've come to realize a lot of these "FSD crashed into me and Elon is hiding it!" claims usually come down to the user driving recklessly then using FSD as a get out of jail free card.

FSDs failures are either far more boring (imagining a stop sign) or put's the user in danger (driving onto train tracks).

View on HN

The article is about Tesla not wanting the data out for everyone to see.

If that’s the case they should show it.

Unless the data literally sings it from the tree tops less than honest people will pretend it says whatever they want it to say for clicks and eyeballs.

With how popular Musk is these days I can 100% where Tesla is coming from here.

> less than honest people will pretend it says

Like Tesla?

If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of reporting (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged.

Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.

Don't all event data recorders, in every brand of car, decide to log events based on airbag deployment?

I hope not. I don't believe airbags aren't deployed when you're rearended, and some other circumstances.

I looked up the American regs and they say record event if "non-reversible deployable restraint" was deployed ... or if the vehicle accelerated over a delta-V greater than 8km/h in 150ms. The regulatory record from 20 years ago is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/08/28/06-7094...

Yes. Been standard since 1990s. IDK if it's actually required but everyone does it. At a minimum they store data of the last N seconds before deployment. It's mostly for debugging problems and preventing insurance fraud. The data can be pretty sparse depending on year/make/model. Like in the 90s it was little more than speed and throttle position.

Isn't Musk one of the least honest persons on the planet? His capacity for lying is known for years and literal grounds for his success.

Then the data would support that no?

It is possible that Tesla wouldn't want positive data released. If their approach is trending positively, releasing the data would suggest to competitors that they should adopt the same approach.

Too bad? Their devices are interacting with people in a public environment. Tough industry I guess.

I agree. I think the public benefit of that data being published is more important their competitive concern.

You are arguing about / defending something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The actual article is about how Tesla claims that providing this data would be a competitive disadvantage that rivals could use.

Which is a very odd claim to try to make.

Would we accept Pfizer releasing a new pill without evidence?

“It’s better at preventing heart attacks than anything else. But we can’t show you data, that would hurt our competitive advantage.”

Pfizer provides the data to the FDA which decides whether to approve the medication, and releases only a subset of the data to public.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...

> The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report, filed Monday.

...

> But we can’t show you data

Tesla shows the data to the NHTSA whose experts look at it and can force recalls so your analogy and argument make no sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com