[polygamous_bat]

> To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas.

However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

[BeetleB]

> What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

You handle it the same way any new technology is introduced. Standards and regulations, and these evolve over time.

When the first motor car company started selling cars, pedestrians died. The response wasn't to ban cars altogether.

The appropriate response would be to set some rules, examine the incidents, see if any useful information can be gleaned.

And of course, once more models are out there with self driving abilities, we compare between them as well.

Here, we can get better data than what's in the article: What is the motorcycle death rate with cars with no automated driving? If, per mile, it's higher than with Teslas with automated driving, then Tesla is already ahead. The article is biased right from the get go: It compares only cars with "self-driving" (whatever that means) capabilities, and inappropriately frames the conversation.

If I'm a motorcyclist, I want to know two things:

1. If all cars were replaced with Teslas with self driving capabilities, am I safer than the status quo?

2. If all self driving cars were replaced with other cars with self driving capabilities, am I safer than the status quo?

The article fails to answer these basic questions.