Tesla FSD drives down railroad tracks, gets hit by train

[pamalabama]

First, that is not data. It is Tesla's sanitized, completely unverified interpretation of the data.

Second, if you actually read the report you would notice that it doesn't even include FSD. It includes Autopilot and non-Autopilot miles.

Autopilot technology is both FSD and autopilot.

It is tesla's ADAS reporting. These accidents are reported to the NHTSA as required by the standing general order. Tesla is not hiding any accidents. As long as they happen with in 5 seconds of disengagement they are reported

unlike rivian who chooses not to report accidents, despite being a vertically integrated manufacturer with their own software. They seriously can't tell when an accident happens while the adas system is activated? Are they that behind?

When an accident happens, mobile service needs to come to your house to retrieve the black box information? They don't have this information and the videos of the crash?

It's worth mentioning most cars on the road have nonexistent or barely functioning automatic emergency braking. Tesla has the best auto braking according to euro NCAP tests. So it would make sense that tesla accidents would be half of the average.

If you look at the IIHS test, rivian hit a child in broad daylight and failed to completely brake. If you have a system that can't prevent a simple accident like that, how can you prevent anything more complex? IIHS looks at whether it reduces impact but not whether it prevents a collision entirely

Sponsored

 

[COdogman]

Autopilot technology is both FSD and autopilot.

It is tesla's ADAS reporting. These accidents are reported to the NHTSA as required by the standing general order. Tesla is not hiding any accidents. As long as they happen with in 5 seconds of disengagement they are reported

The fact they are combined on the "report" actually proves my point, but thanks... Just a few posts ago you were attempting to separate them (when it came to an accident), now you want them combined

Read my full comment. That was navigate on autopilot.

Basically tesla has a product called autopilot which has very old perception from 2017.

Tesla used FSD for city streets driving only and the autopilot product would switch on when FSD entered the freeway/highway.

These are both freeway/highway accidents.

They did it this way because autopilot on highways was "good enough" compared to the amount of interventions you would have in city streets driving

 

[pamalabama]

The fact they are combined on the "report" actually proves my point, but thanks... Just a few posts ago you were attempting to separate them (when it came to an accident), now you want them combined

They are combined on the report because tesla is showcasing their general technology.

FSD is safer than autopilot.

In fact FSD accidents are probably very low

Tesla showcases their general technology of autopilot, FSD, automatic emergency braking, etc.

They don't go into how any of it works because it is confidential information. Considering it is better performing than competitor systems I can see why

They also want to highlight the fact that all of this safety is free. Tesla upgraded cars to matrix headlights since 2021. Tesla offers Autopilot for free

They don't share anything about how they can do full self driving with only 50 TOPS of compute because it is a big advantage.

The compute required to run tesla autopilot is insanely low.

 

[COdogman]

They are combined on the report because tesla is showcasing their general technology.

FSD is safer than autopilot.

In fact FSD accidents are probably very low

Again you cannot make those claims because the "report" is so vague.

But even if they did separate them on the "report" it would not be trustworthy. There is no effort to have the data independently verified for accuracy. Tesla/ Musk are unreliable sources of information.

 

[carsly]

First, that is not data. It is Tesla's sanitized, completely unverified interpretation of the data.

Second, if you actually read the report you would notice that it doesn't even include FSD. It includes Autopilot and non-Autopilot miles.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[pamalabama]

Again you cannot make those claims because the "report" is so vague.

But even if they did separate them on the "report" it would not be trustworthy. There is no effort to have the data independently verified for accuracy. Tesla/ Musk are unreliable sources of information.

Musk is not reliable. He makes all the claims he wants on twitter.

Tesla generally does not lie.

Musk made puffery statements about how they'd have self driving in 2017. He was very wrong. Tesla does not publish false information on their website

A company can say all they want about how good their ADAS system is (exaggerate) but the numbers do not lie.

 

[COdogman]

Ignorance is bliss.

It must be… you keep claiming that Tesla has shared data that would support your claim that FSD is safe, yet the report you linked to doesn’t even mention FSD or separate it from Autopilot, which is the first thing every Tesla Stan does when an accident occurs… “oh that was Autopilot….”

 

[COdogman]

Musk is not reliable. He makes all the claims he wants on twitter.

Tesla generally does not lie.

Musk made puffery statements about how they'd have self driving in 2017. He was very wrong. Tesla does not publish false information on their website

A company can say all they want about how good their ADAS system is (exaggerate) but the numbers do not lie.

They are one and the same, but keep spinning.

 

[pamalabama]

It must be… you keep claiming that Tesla has shared data that would support your claim that FSD is safe, yet the report you linked to doesn’t even mention FSD or separate it from Autopilot, which is the first thing every Tesla Stan does when an accident occurs… “oh that was Autopilot….”

You don't want to accept that a company builds their own ADAS and autonomy features and it is safe. You don't want to accept it because this is a significant advantage in the future compared to companies who are clearly very behind on this.

Even the ceo of Lucid Motors has said that self driving is not til after the end of the decade because he is very behind on this. With the current progress being made by Tesla and others this is not the case.



here is 1 hr of driving in central london by a smaller competitor who is also doing vision only driving.

A lot of good progress being made across the board


People on here get too defensive because others have something good. Rivian promised a large charging network, Level 3 self driving, etc. and none of that came to be.

They even exaggerated the capabilities of their current system to make it appear like it is their own driving. Because they are very behind.

Why would they have a slot for lidar on R2 if they are confident in doing L3 with the HW from the R1S?

 

[JM.]

How many are acceptable to you?

Fewer than the meatbag drivers, which is what we already have.

Just admit you are totally ok with more people dying as long as they are killed by humans like god intended, and not a computer, until we reach perfection.

 

[COdogman]

Fewer than the meatbag drivers, which is what we already have.

Just admit you are totally ok with more people dying as long as they are killed by humans like god intended, and not a computer, until we reach perfection.

That’s a very strange way for you to admit you are fine with ADAS systems killing more probably the most honest thing you have ever posted.

Too many humans die and are injured in accidents already. If you can prove that will be lowered with current self driving tech, let’s see it! (You have been asked so many times)

 

[COdogman]

You don't want to accept that a company builds their own ADAS and autonomy features and it is safe. You don't want to accept it because this is a significant advantage in the future compared to companies who are clearly very behind on this.

Even the ceo of Lucid Motors has said that self driving is not til after the end of the decade because he is very behind on this. With the current progress being made by Tesla and others this is not the case.



here is 1 hr of driving in central london by a smaller competitor who is also doing vision only driving.

A lot of good progress being made across the board


People on here get too defensive because others have something good. Rivian promised a large charging network, Level 3 self driving, etc. and none of that came to be.

They even exaggerated the capabilities of their current system to make it appear like it is their own driving. Because they are very behind.

Why would they have a slot for lidar on R2 if they are confident in doing L3 with the HW from the R1S?

Stop changing the subject and moving the goalposts.

 

[pamalabama]

That’s a very strange way for you to admit you are fine with ADAS systems killing more probably the most honest thing you have ever posted.

Too many humans die and are injured in accidents already. If you can prove that will be lowered with current self driving tech, let’s see it! (You have been asked so many times)

you refuse to accept an independent website designed to show every death caused by a tesla. As it is biased somehow?

FSD saved 40 lives. You just won't accept that's the case

Because FSD is a human experiment designed to kill people. As you put it

you're just acting ignorant at this point because the evidence is too obvious. it sounds too good to say FSD is unsafe because rivian doesn't have anything like this. So therefore it can't be safe.

Rivian is far behind and their compute budget is not high enough to catch up anytime soon. Tesla spends more than rivians entire net worth on just compute

 

[COdogman]

you refuse to accept an independent website designed to show every death caused by a tesla. As it is biased somehow?

FSD saved 40 lives. You just won't accept that's the case

Because FSD is a human experiment designed to kill people. As you put it

you're just acting ignorant at this point because the evidence is too obvious. it sounds too good to say FSD is unsafe because rivian doesn't have anything like this. So therefore it can't be safe.

Rivian is far behind and their compute budget is not high enough to catch up anytime soon. Tesla spends more than rivians entire net worth on just compute

Actually I never said any of those things. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 

[pamalabama]

Actually I never said any of those things. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

You refuse to accept only 2 people died from FSD. And FSD is not killing people. 1 of those deaths was not the fault of FSD.

You refuse to accept that a website called tesladeaths.com is not here to make tesla look good. They are just doing the honest thing and independently verifying every death. Instead of just posting ignorant BS.

you started a thread where tesla turned onto a railroad track. Something that there is almost zero chance FSD would do in the context of where that road is located. Because to you it sounds good.

You are just acting ignorant out of defensiveness because Rivian has the worst ADAS that money can buy. Dangerous too.

And that Donald Stanfield guy is remarkably ignorant about how much more dangerous an ADAS system is at highway speeds vs. city driving. City driving is only dangerous to the average automaker because they do not have the advanced vulnerable road user detection that tesla has. If you have that, then city driving is infinitely safer

Sponsored