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.

  • captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Tesla self driving is never going to work well enough without sensors - cameras are not enough. It’s fundamentally dangerous and should not be driving unsupervised (or maybe at all).

    • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Accurate.

      Each fatality I found where a Tesla kills a motorcyclist is a cascade of 3 failures.

      1. The car’s cameras don’t detect the biker, or it just doesn’t stop for some reason.
      2. The driver isn’t paying attention to detect the system failure.
      3. The Tesla’s driver alertness tech fails to detect that the driver isn’t paying attention.

      Taking out the driver will make this already-unacceptably-lethal system even more lethal.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        66
        ·
        2 days ago
        1. Self-driving turns itself off seconds before a crash, giving the driver an impossibly short timespan to rectify the situation.
        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          64
          ·
          2 days ago

          … Also accurate.

          God, it really is a nut punch. The system detects the crash is imminent.

          Rather than automatically try to evade… the self-driving tech turns off. I assume it is to reduce liability or make the stats look better. God.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yep, that one was purely about hitting a certain KPI of ‘miles driven on autopilot without incident’. If it turns off before the accident, technically the driver was in control and to blame, so it won’t show up in the stats and probably also won’t be investigated by the NTSB.

              • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                2 days ago

                NHTSA collects data if self-driving tech was active within 30 seconds of the impact.

                The companies themselves do all sorts of wildcat shit with their numbers. Tesla’s claimed safety factor right now is 8x human. So to drive with FSD is 8x safer than your average human driver, that’s what they say on their stock earnings calls. Of course, that’s not true, not based on any data I’ve seen, they haven’t published data that makes it externally verifiable (unlike Waymo, who has excellent academic articles and insurance papers written about their 12x safer than human system).

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  So to drive with FSD is 8x safer than your average human driver.

                  WITH a supervising human.

                  Once it reaches a certain quality, it should be safer if a human is properly supervising it, because if the car tries to do something really stupid, the human takes over. The vast vast vast majority of crashes are from inattentive drivers, which is obviously a problem and they need to keep improving the attentiveness monitoring, but it should be safer than a human with human supervision because it can also detect things the human will ultimately miss.

                  Now, if you take the human entirely out of the equation, I very much doubt that FSD is safer than a human at it’s current state.

              • jonne@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                If they ever fixed it, I’m sure Musk fired whomever is keeping score now. He’s going to launch the robotaxi stuff soon and it’s going to kill a bunch of people.

        • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          2 days ago

          Even when it is just milliseconds before the crash, the computer turns itself off.

          Later, Tesla brags that the autopilot was not in use during this ( terribly, overwhelmingly) unfortunate accident.

      • br3d@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        There’s at least two steps before those three:

        -1. Society has been built around the needs of the auto industry, locking people into car dependency

        1. A legal system exists in which the people who build, sell and drive cars are not meaningfully liable when the car hurts somebody
        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. A legal system exists in which the people who build, sell and drive cars are not meaningfully liable when the car hurts somebody

          That’s a good thing, because the alternative would be flipping the notion of property rights on its head. Making the owner not responsible for his property would be used to justify stripping him of his right to modify it.

          You’re absolutely right about point -1 though.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Maybe, 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.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I mean, maybe, but previously when I’ve said that it’s typically gone over like a lead balloon. Even in tech forums, a lot of people have drunk the kool-aid that it’s somehow suddenly too dangerous to allow owners to control their property just because software is involved.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      they originally had lidar, or radar, but musk had them disabled in the older models.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        They had radar. Tesla has never had lidar, but they do use lidar on test vehicles to ground truth their camera depth / velocity calculations.

    • ascense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Most frustrating thing is, as far as I can tell, Tesla doesn’t even have binocular vision, which makes all the claims about humans being able to drive with vision only even more blatantly stupid. At least humans have depth perception. And supposedly their goal is to outperform humans?

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 days ago

        Tesla’s argument of “well human eyes are like cameras therefore we shouldn’t use LiDAR” is so fucking dumb.

        Human eyes have good depth perception and absolutely exceptional dynamic range and focusing ability. They also happen to be linked up to a rapid and highly efficient super computer far outclassing anything that humanity has ever devised, certainly more so than any computer added to a car.

        And even with all those advantages humans have, we still crash from time to time and make smaller mistakes regularly.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          They also happen to be linked up to a rapid and highly efficient super computer far outclassing anything that humanity has ever devised

          A neural network that has been in development for 650 million years.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Anyone who has driven (or walked) into a sunrise/sunset knows that human vision is not very good. I’ve also driven in blizzards, heavy rain, and fog - all times when human vision is terrible. I’ve also not seen green lights (I’m colorblind).

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            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.

            And bullshit on you not being able to see the lights. They’re specifically designed so that’s not an issue for colourblind people.

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              And bullshit on you not being able to see the lights. They’re specifically designed so that’s not an issue for colour blind people

              Some lights are, but not all of them are. I often say I go when the light turns blue. However not all lights have that blue tint and so I often cannot tell the difference between a white light and a green light by color. (but white is not used in a stoplight and I can see red/yellow just fine) Where I live all stoplights have green on the bottom so that is always a cheat I use, but that only works if I can see the relative position - in an otherwise dark situation I only see a light in front of me and not the rest of the structure and so I cannot tell. I have driven where stoplights are not green on bottom and I can never remember if green is left/right.

              Even when the try though, not all colorblind is the same. There may not be a mitigation that will work from two different people with different aspects of colorblind.

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Bro I’m colorblind too and if you’re not sure what color the light is, you have to stop. Don’t put that on the rest of us.

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I can see red clearly and so not sure means I can go.

              I’ve only noticed issues in a few situations. When I’m driving at night and suddenly the weirdly aimed streetlight turns yellow - until it changed I didn’t even know there was a stoplight there. The second was I was making a left turn at sunset (sun behind me) and the green arrow came on but the red light remained on so I couldn’t see it was time/safe to go until my wife alerted me.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      These fatalities are a Tesla business advantage. Every one is a data point they can use to program their self-driving intelligence. No one has killed as many as Tesla, so no one knows more about what kills people than Tesla. We don’t have to turn this into a bad thing just because they’re killing people /s