[_ph_]

As far as I understand, those Robotaxis are only available within Austin so far. That is slow city traffic, the number of miles per ride is very small. However the number for human drivers seem to take all kind of roads into respect. Of course, highways are the roads where you drive most of the distance at the least risk for an accident. Has this been taken into account for the evaluation?

It would be ironic that people are claiming the Tesla numbers for Autopilot are to optimistic, as it is used on highways only and at the same time don't notice that city-only numbers for the FSD would be pessimistic statistics-wise.

[raincole]

It does look extremely pessimistic. Like one of the 'incident' is that they hit a curb at a parking lot at 6 MPH.

No human driver would report this kind of incident. A human driver would probably forget it after the next traffic light.

While it's clearly Tesla's fault (if you hit any static object it's your fault), when you take this kind of 'incident' into account of course it'd look worse than humans.

[tsimionescu]

The human data estimate they compare to to get the 3x number also includes this type of incident - even if of course no one reports it, you can get some idea of the number of such incidents based on service and paint shop data.

[janc_]

More importantly: it seems like Austin is mostly a typical US city grid of wide streets. Nothing comparable with an average old inner city, or narrow countryside roads with a ditch or cliff or quay on one or both sides. Probably not many pedestrians & cyclists roaming the streets either?