this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
638 points (89.0% liked)
Technology
59578 readers
3420 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I should be very surprised if people don't generally try to brake or avoid hitting an animal (with some exceptions), if only so that they don't break the car. Whether they succeed at that is another question entirely.
People drive drunk, people drive while checking their phone, people panic and freeze, deers often just jump in front of you from out of nowhere.
People hit fucking humans without braking because they're not paying attention to what the fuck they're doing!
But for some reason if it's a car with assistance well now that's scandalous! No idea if they're safer in general and cause less accidents, one is too many! Unless it's a human behind the wheel then who gives a fuck how many accidents they cause?
... and that's the kind of driving Tesla is trying to emulate? awesome.
No, I'm saying that one video of a Tesla hitting a deer doesn't prove that they're less safe or just as likely as human to hit things when using assisted driving.
Show actual stats of accidents per miles driven compared to cars without assisted driving and then we'll be able to talk.
If we had videos of every Toyotas or Hyundai or Ford that hit deers while being driven by a human, this video of a Tesla doing it would just be a drop in a pool of water, but because it happened with an assistant behind the wheel people are acting like it means assisted driving doesn't make cars safer.
TL;DR: It's an anecdote, without actual stats it's just noise to influence people's opinion
Do you own Tesla stock?
Nope and I'll be the first to say that Musk is a fucking moron, but there's tons of shit to attack him on, pretending that Tesla cars are more deadly than human driven cars with anecdotal evidence is just stupid.
Tesla FSD doesn't exist. Musk lies and says it does to pump Tesla stock. Tesla drivers think they have FSD so they pay less attention and are then more likely to have an accident.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/30/zoox-co-founder-on-tesla-self-driving-they-dont-have-technology-that-works/
https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141361/tesla-autopilot-fsd-nhtsa-investigation-report-crash-death
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/10/31/former-head-of-tesla-ai-explains-why-theyve-removed-sensors-others-differ/
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/automated-vehicles-safety
please stop
Bravo, you're the first person to bring actual fucking statistics to the discussion! Per driven miles would be better than per driver but hey, at least it's not just a clickbait article.
per driven miles would almost definitely be worse for tesla.
That's an assumption I wouldn't be ready to make, but maybe.
are you saying you expect an average tesla to have more mileage than regular cars?
https://insideevs.com/news/587352/tesla-modely-average-annual-mileage-us/
Why not?
because fuel stations are everywhere while tesla uses proprietary charging ports that aren't compatible with other chargers.
forgive me but I'm not gonna take tesla's own words about their mileage at face value.
One costs a lot more to drive than the other though and the gas station vs charging station argument only matters if you travel more than the range of your car, with their models letting you drive pretty far and back without charging, it's not hard to go over the annual average without ever needing to charge somewhere that isn't home. Hell, any EV that does 100 miles on a charge can easily beat it without relying on charging stations as the average is 33 minutes a day!
Problem is the data is rigged. It's road miles driven that autopilot deigned to activate for with cars that rarely need their friction brakes that are less than 10 years old versus total population of cars with more age and more brake wear and when autopilot says 'nope, too dangerous for me', the human still drives.
The other problem is people are thinking they can ignore their cars operation, because of all the rhetoric. A human might have still hit the deer, but he would have at least applied brakes.
Finally, we shouldn't settle for 'no worse than human' when we have more advanced sensors available, and we should call out Tesla for explicitly declaring 'vision only' when we already know other sensors can see things cameras cannot.
You're making quite the assumption there.
I'm not saying we need to settle, I'm saying it's useless to share that example if we don't have actual numbers to compare the stats between human driven miles and miles in cars with assistance available and insurance companies would have that.
And those people are breaking the law.
I don't think I've ever seen someone panic so much they just act as if they didn't even hit a deer.
In this case, the deer was just sitting there, so not applicable.
If it was this much negligence, they'd be facing vehicular manslaughter charges.
It's scandalous when a human does it too. We should do better than human anyway, and we can identify a number of deliberate decisions that exacerbate this problem that could be addressed, e.g. mitigation through LIDAR, which Tesla has famously rejected.