[GreedIsGood]

Is this worse than humans?

(edit) I see that the article included that FSD is 5x safer than humans, which may be valid.

The article then said : "However, the only reason it is safer than the US average is that it is supervised by drivers who ideally pay extra attention when using FSD."

I am positive that they had zero data to back that assertion.

[AlexandrB]

Historically these kinds of assertions have been quite misleading. If FSD is mostly used on highways and other "low complexity" environments and then you compare that to human collision rates in all environments, of course FSD will be "safer". Especially if you're measuring collisions/mile vs collisions/hour. Then there are other confounding factors like how Teslas are:

* Generally newer than average.

* Generally owned by more affluent drivers than average.

* Probably used predominantly in urban areas instead of rural ones (to be clear this might unfairly tilt the stats against Tesla thanks to the highway thing).

I'm not sure I've seen a good "apples to apples" comparison on this that corrects for these confounding factors.

[ceejayoz]

Tesla's using statistical sleight of hand with that stat; FSD can only be engaged in certain scenarios, and they're inherently newer vehicles than the national average. Comparing Teslas on the highway in California against 20 year old beaters in snowstorms in New England is... not reasonable.

It's also entirely self-reported, which given that they've knowingly lied about range, is itself a bit concerning... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

[deely3]

Do you agree that without "autopilot" this incident would not have happened?

[ceejayoz]

I don't think there's any way of knowing that for sure.

People look at their phones while driving with and without autopilot.

[SoftTalker]

The question is irrelevant when it comes to liability and responsibility.