884
Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
884 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
60033 readers
2738 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm saying larger sample size == larger numbers.
Tesla announced 300 million miles on FSD v12 in just the last month.
https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2001/tesla-on-fsd-close-to-license-deal-with-major-automaker-announces-miles-driven-on-fsd-v12
Geographically, that's all over the U.S, not just in hyper specific metro areas or stretches of road.
The sample size is orders of magnitude bigger than everyone else, by almost every metric.
If you include the most basic autopilot, Tesla surpassed 1 billion miles in 2018.
These are not opinions, just facts. Take them into account when you decide to interpret the opinion of others.
That's not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn't correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.
No one's talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I'm not justifying anything because I'm not injecting my opinion here. I'm only pointing out that without context, counts don't give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that's just math. You can't even derive a rate without that context!
That's not my point though. We both know that the government agency doing this work is primarily interested in the rates, whether or not reports from the media are talking about the total numbers or not. The only reason they started the process of investigation was because of individual incidents, yes, but they're not looking for a few cases, but a pattern.
(Like this one:https://www.ranzlaw.com/why-are-tesla-car-accident-rates-so-high/)
Once more, I'm literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone's point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you're talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn't, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn't work unless that context is there.
(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here's the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI's for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla%20drivers%20have%20the%20highest%20accident%20rate%20compared%20with%20all,over%2020.00%20per%201%2C000%20drivers.)