Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Striking Motorcyclists More Than Any Other Brand: New Analysis
-
TL;DR: Self-Driving Teslas Rear-End Motorcyclists, Killing at Least 5
Brevity is the spirit of wit, and I am just not that witty. This is a long article, here is the gist of it:
- The NHTSA’s self-driving crash data reveals that Tesla’s self-driving technology is, by far, the most dangerous for motorcyclists, with five fatal crashes that we know of.
- This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities with the NHTSA in the same time frame.
- The crashes are overwhelmingly Teslas rear-ending motorcyclists.
Read our full analysis as we go case-by-case and connect the heavily redacted government data to news reports and police documents.
Oh, and read our thoughts about what this means for the robotaxi launch that is slated for Austin in less than 60 days.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byGood to know, I'll stay away from those damn things when I ride.
-
build, sell and drive
You two don't seem to strongly disagree. The driver is liable but should then sue the builder/seller for "self driving" fraud.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byMaybe, if that two-step determination of liability is really what the parent commenter had in mind.
I'm not so sure he'd agree with my proposed way of resolving the dispute over liability, which would be to legally require that all self-driving systems (and software running on the car in general) be forced to be Free Software and put it squarely and completely within the control of the vehicle owner.
-
Good to know, I'll stay away from those damn things when I ride.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byCommuting in CA feels like I’m navigating a minefield
-
Human vision is very, very, very good. If you think a camera installed to a car is even close to human eyesight, then you are extremely mistaken.
Human eyes are so far beyond it's hard to even quantify.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byHuman vision is very, very, very good. If you think a camera installed to a car is even close to human eyesight, then you are extremely mistaken.
Why are you trying to limit cars to just vision? That is all I have as a human. However robots have radar, lidar, radio, and other options, there is no reasons they can't use them and get information eyes cannot. Every option has limits.
-
Sounds like NHTSA needs a visit from DOGE!
wrote 6 days ago last edited byGotta get rid of the evidence.
-
TL;DR: Self-Driving Teslas Rear-End Motorcyclists, Killing at Least 5
Brevity is the spirit of wit, and I am just not that witty. This is a long article, here is the gist of it:
- The NHTSA’s self-driving crash data reveals that Tesla’s self-driving technology is, by far, the most dangerous for motorcyclists, with five fatal crashes that we know of.
- This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities with the NHTSA in the same time frame.
- The crashes are overwhelmingly Teslas rear-ending motorcyclists.
Read our full analysis as we go case-by-case and connect the heavily redacted government data to news reports and police documents.
Oh, and read our thoughts about what this means for the robotaxi launch that is slated for Austin in less than 60 days.
wrote 6 days ago last edited bySelf driving vehicles should be against the law.
-
TL;DR: Self-Driving Teslas Rear-End Motorcyclists, Killing at Least 5
Brevity is the spirit of wit, and I am just not that witty. This is a long article, here is the gist of it:
- The NHTSA’s self-driving crash data reveals that Tesla’s self-driving technology is, by far, the most dangerous for motorcyclists, with five fatal crashes that we know of.
- This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities with the NHTSA in the same time frame.
- The crashes are overwhelmingly Teslas rear-ending motorcyclists.
Read our full analysis as we go case-by-case and connect the heavily redacted government data to news reports and police documents.
Oh, and read our thoughts about what this means for the robotaxi launch that is slated for Austin in less than 60 days.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byI imagine bicyclists must be effected as well if they're on the road (as we should be, technically). As somebody who has already been literally inches away from being rear-ended, this makes me never want to bike in the US again.
Time to go to Netherlands.
-
Human vision is very, very, very good. If you think a camera installed to a car is even close to human eyesight, then you are extremely mistaken.
Why are you trying to limit cars to just vision? That is all I have as a human. However robots have radar, lidar, radio, and other options, there is no reasons they can't use them and get information eyes cannot. Every option has limits.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byPlease read my comments before you respond to them.
-
I imagine bicyclists must be effected as well if they're on the road (as we should be, technically). As somebody who has already been literally inches away from being rear-ended, this makes me never want to bike in the US again.
Time to go to Netherlands.
wrote 6 days ago last edited by*affected
-
Elon needs to take responsibility for their death.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byThat's why Tesla's full self driving is officially still a level 2 cruise control. But of course they promise to jump directly to level 4 soon
. -
wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Thank you for your service.
-
wrote 6 days ago last edited by
WHY CAN'T WE JUST HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT, FUCK! TRAINS EXIST!
-
wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Why? Crash rates for Self-Driving Cars (when adjusted for crash severity) are lower.
Removing sensors to save costs on self driving vehicles should be illegal
-
wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Affectively, does it realy mater if someone has slite misstakes in there righting?
-
+1 for you. However, replace "Regards" with the more appropriate words from the German language. The first with an S, and the second an H. I will not type that shit, fuck Leon and I hope the fucking Nazi owned Tesla factory outside of Berlin closes.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byYes I'm not writing that shit, even in a sarcastic post. Bu I get your drift.
On the other hand VW group is absolutely killing it on EV recently IMO.
They totally dominate top 10 EV here in Denmark, with 7 out of 10 top selling models!!
They are competitively priced, and they are the best combination of quality and range in their price ranges. -
Because I do journalism, and sometimes I even do good journalism!
In that case, you wouldn't happen to know whether or not Teslas are unusually dangerous to bicycles too, would you?
wrote 6 days ago last edited bySurprisingly, there is a data bucket for accidents with bicyclists, but hardly any bicycle crashes are reported.
That either means that they are not occurring (woohoo!), or that means they are being lumped in as one of the multiple pedestrian buckets (not woohoo!), or they are in the absolutely fucking vast collection of "severity: unknown" accidents where we have no details and Tesla requested redaction to make finding the details very difficult.
-
"Critical Thinker" Yikes. Somehow the right made that a forbidden word in my mind because they hide behind that as an excuse for asking terrible questions etc.
Anyway. Allegedly the statistics are rather mediocre for self driving cars. But sadly I haven't seen a good statistic about that, either. The issue here is that automatable tasks are lower risk driving situations so having a good statistic is near impossible. E.g. miles driven are heavily skewed when you are only used on highways as a driver. There are no simple numbers that will tell you anything of worth.
That being said the title should be about the mistake that happened without fundamental statements (i.e. self driving is bad because motorcyclists die).
wrote 6 days ago last edited byDid I ask a terrible question, or do you just not like anything being objective about the issue? I'm so far over on the left side ideologically that you'd be hard pressed finding an issue that i'm conservative on. I don't fit the dem mold though, i'm more of a bernie.... though I am very critical in general. I don't just take things at face value. Anywho...
Saying that the statistics aren't great just lends credence to the fact that we can't objectively determine how safe or unsafe anything is without good data.
-
Let's get this out of the way: Felon Musk is a nazi asshole.
Anyway, It should be criminal to do these comparisons without showing human drivers statistics for reference. I'm so sick of articles that leave out hard data. Show me deaths per billion miles driven for tesla, competitors, and humans.
Then there's shit like the boca raton crash, where they mention the car going 100 in a 45 and killing a motorcyclist, and then go on to say the only way to do that is to physically use the gas pedal and that it disables emergency breaking. Is it really a self driving car at that point when a user must actively engage to disable portions of the automation? If you take an action to override stopping, it's not self driving. Stopping is a key function of how self driving tech self drives. It's not like the car swerved to another lane and nailed someone, the driver literally did this.
Bottom line I look at the media around self driving tech as sensationalist. Danger drives clicks. Felon Musk is a nazi asshole, but self driving tech isn't made by the guy. it's made by engineers. I wouldn't buy a tesla unless he has no stake in the business, but I do believe people are far more dangerous behind the wheel in basically all typical driving scenarios.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byIn Boca Raton, I've seen no evidence that the self-driving tech was inactive. According to the government, it is reported as a self-driving accident, and according to the driver in his court filings, it was active.
Insanely, you can slam on the gas in Tesla's self-driving mode, accelerate to 100MPH in a 45MPH zone, and strike another vehicle, all without the vehicle's "traffic aware" automation effectively applying a brake.
That's not sensationalist. That really is just insanely designed.
-
It's hard to tell, but from about 15 minutes of searching, I was unable to locate any consumer vehicles that include a LIDAR system. Lots of cars include RADAR, for object detection, even multiple RADAR systems for parking. There may be some which includes a TimeOfFlight sensor, which is like LIDAR, but static and lacks the resolution/fidelity. My Mach-E which has level 2 automation uses a combination of computer vision, RADAR and GPS. I was unable to locate a LIDAR sensor for the vehicle.
The LIDAR system in Mark's video is quite clearly a pre-production device that is not affiliated with the vehicle manufacturer it was being tested on.
Adding, after more searching, it looks like the polestar 3, some trim levels of the Audi A8 and the Volvo EX90 include a LiDAR sensor. Curious to see how the consumer grade tech works out in real world.
Please do not mistake this comment as "AI/computer vision" evangelisim. I currently have a car that uses those technologies for automation, and I would not and do not trust my life or anyone else's to that system.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byMercedes uses LiDAR. They also operate the sole Level 3 driver automation system in the USA. Two models only, the new S-Class and EQS sedans.
Tesla alleges they'll be Level 4+ in Austin in 60 days, and just skip Level 3 altogether. We'll see.
