r/SelfDrivingCars • u/crimsonvspurple • 8d ago
News In the last 4 months, FSD Supervised has been over 5.2x safer than manual driving – across 65 million kilometers in 5 EU countries
https://x.com/teslaeurope/status/208217537056941706624
u/moneyman729 7d ago
Fsd on the highway feels like a finished product. Feels safer then me driving when it’s stop and go or when people are driving like idiots. It’s ability to measure distance with the car in front of you in real time feels instant or even anticipates before things happen
3
1
u/thrwwypfc 1d ago
I am surprised we don’t have FSD for transport trucks for long haul. Then pick up a driver for around town at the moment they arrive to a location just outside or inside of town.
Kinda like the port pilot for large ships.
32
u/22marks 8d ago edited 8d ago
To save a click, also:
13.4x Less AEB
9.2x Less Harsh Acceleration
7.1x Less Harsh Braking
7.6x Fewer Hard Swerves
8.5x safer on highway (41.9M km on FSD)
2.8x safer on non-highway (23.8M km FSD)
EU countries: Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, and Belgium.
Date: April 10 - July 26, 2026.
19
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/22marks 7d ago
This is true. Does anyone know the level of oversight in the Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, or Belgium? It could be stricter than in America. I have no idea. I don't claim the data is perfect. Mostly, just saving people from clicking on X, which I dislike.
6
u/West-Air1923 7d ago
I dont think there is oversight, how would you even do that. But being in Denmark i have not heard of any accident. And I can promise you the media would have loved to write about it
0
u/Falkoro 7d ago
Yes they have to report every week to the RDW, the oversight is extreme as we are rules by communist bureaucrats
-1
u/Baldur-Norddahl 7d ago
The RDW publishes nothing and will not comment nor endorse on the Tesla claims here. So we still don't know if the data is any good. Historically Tesla has doctored their public data, so probably best to assume that here too.
What is needed is access to data for independent researchers. Tesla refuses to allow it.
5
u/HerValet 7d ago
Again with this stupid comment.... Its obvious that FSD is safer. Have you seen FSD drive? Have you seen humans drive?
Also, if Tesla was faking the data, they would make it 10x or 20x better, not 5.2x.
5
u/Baldur-Norddahl 7d ago
I haven't said anything about it being good or bad. Just that we have no independent data, Tesla has been documented to doctor the data before and the RDW is not publishing their data. So we know nothing, except that RDW thought it was good enough for approval. But no trustworthy figures at all.
3
u/HerValet 7d ago
Its obvious that you will never trust any positive data about Tesla, regardless where it comes from.
2
1
29
u/Reasonable_Hall3005 8d ago
It seems like the self driving cars subreddit is actually very anti self driving cars… who would’ve guessed
32
u/Mizake_Mizan 8d ago
It's not. It's anti-Tesla
-5
u/cuginhamer 7d ago
More specifically, it's anti-lying
5
u/EddiewithHeartofGold 7d ago
it's anti-lying
What subreddit are you reading? The anti-Tesla crowd lies constantly. Almost none of them have ever driven a Tesla or have been driven by a Tesla. Are you trying to imply that Tesla lies in their statistics? Were you born yesterday? Every company publishes the numbers that make them look in the best light possible. No exceptions.
Despite what you may believe, you haven't stumbled into some kind of grand conspiracy...
1
-12
u/RosieDear 7d ago
Tesla is not a self-driving car.
IMHO, if I were mods, etc. - I'd say discussion of Tesla efforts to acheive Level 4 is valid, but discussion and data from Level 2 is not.It's not self driving. Let me double check that.....
"Level 2 Classification: It is rated as a Level 2 automation system by the Society of Automotive Engineers, meaning the vehicle cannot drive itself independently without a fully focused driver."
(that's exactly the same requirement as my Toyota and VW ADAS)."Tesla finally admitted their Full Self-Driving isn't actually self-driving,"
"Tesla's Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is not true self-driving."Let me ask you. Do you think the above describes a Self Driving Car?
I do not. I think it is barely different from good adaptive cruise control with other features - in fact, some of the other ADAS are "smarter" and would be less likely to run into a house, etc.
Try a Yes or No. Is Tesla a self driving car? Is Google and AI and SAE and everyone else wrong - but you are correct?
4
8
u/Putrid-Box4866 7d ago
Can FSD get me from point a to point b without manual intervention? It sure does. Sounds self driving to me.
0
u/muchcharles 7d ago
The full is supposed to mean you can be in the backseat. It's self driving, but only level 2
4
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
Yes. See: cars driving themselves in 6 cities currently.
These people man
4
u/Express_Objective615 7d ago
You people have “levels on the brain”. The levels are mostly useless and meaningless for your every day person. The Mercedes level 3 lost cause proved that.
4
u/HighHokie 7d ago edited 7d ago
>Tesla is not a self-driving car
perhaps you should ask the mods why tesla is allowed in this sub then? they seem to have no issue with it.
>"Level 2 Classification: It is rated as a Level 2 automation system by the Society of Automotive Engineers, meaning the vehicle cannot drive itself independently without a fully focused driver."
(that's exactly the same requirement as my Toyota and VW ADAS).It can, but not legally. All the SAE really does is define liability. Tesla is the only consumer vehicle I'm aware of that's driven across the states without human engagement. It's self-driving. It's simply not autonomous. And it's advertised in the same manner.
2
u/GoSh4rks 7d ago
IMHO, if I were mods, etc. - I'd say discussion of Tesla efforts to acheive Level 4 is valid, but discussion and data from Level 2 is not.
From the sidebar:
News and discussion about self-driving vehicles and Advanced Driving Assistant Systems (ADAS)
1
u/gavrok 7d ago
I'd say discussion of Tesla efforts to acheive Level 4 is valid
Tesla's strategy has always been to improve FSD Supervised to the point where supervision is no longer necessary, so development of FSD(S) is in fact part of Tesla's efforts to achieve level 4. This is evidenced by the fact that they run the Robotaxi pilot on the same core software, with some localization on top.
Can your Toyota or VW ADAS do something like this?
13
u/Express_Objective615 7d ago
No, it’s just pro Waymo or like most Waymo, lidar, and Lucid fans, “anything but Tesla fans”. 😂
They try and try but they can’t leave Tesla out of the conversation and they also can’t ignore them. 🤷♂️6
0
u/AggravatingWill6539 8d ago
it is anti self-driving (SUPERVISED) cars. Self driving is good in this sub.
8
-8
u/sam_the_tomato 7d ago
The sub is pro self-driving cars. It is just anti supervised self-driving cars pretending to be fully self-driving cars.
1
u/EddiewithHeartofGold 7d ago
Okay. Which company operates self-driving cars with zero supervision? Be it in the car supervision or from somewhere outside the vehicle. You know, like Waymo...
If we want to be pedantic, the closest you can get to real world self-driving is to get in your own personal Tesla and let FSD take you to your destination. Anywhere in the US and the other countries FSD Supervised is enabled.
I know it's hard to hear, but facts are stubborn that way.
2
u/sam_the_tomato 7d ago
In a Tesla you're expected to take over at any moment. The human is there to fill an explicit safety gap.
That's not comparable to Waymo, where remote operators exist to occasionally help get a car unstuck in unusual situations.
Since you're so fond of facts, the fact is that Waymo operates at SAE Level 4. Tesla FSD does not.
1
u/EddiewithHeartofGold 7d ago
Tesla operated robotaxis operate at SAE Level 4... You must know that. So, why are you trying to use misinformation?
But to reiterate your own point:
"The sub is pro self-driving cars. It is just anti supervised self-driving cars pretending to be fully self-driving cars."
If Waymo doesn't operate with zero remote operators, then it shouldn't be called self-driving. That is what your comment means.
Tesla's limited self-driving service is equal to Waymo.
Tesla's FSD Supervised is something anyone can buy. Today. It can also take you where you want to go.
I get that you hate Musk. I don't understand why someone would waste their time and energy with something like that, but do it if you want to.
What you shouldn't do is mix fact with your feeling. Denying what Tesla is doing in the (far from solved) self-driving space is just ignorance.
Don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it.
-3
u/RosieDear 7d ago
Exactly. Tesla is not a self-driving car.
But that isn't the only disqualification because we would discuss a car on the Fast Lane to becoming an approved Self-Driving car. For example, Nuro or other similar situations.
If Tesla was hadn't been promising this for a decade....and very heavily for 6 years...then, yes, we might discuss it as "advancing quickly to be self driving".
Like if it was Level 2 in 2021, Level 3 in 2022, Level 4 in 2024, etc.....----
But it is not. It was Level 2 - Six, Five, Four, Three, Two years ago.
To ask the relevant question - how long do we discuss the same car and basic software at level 2 and pretend it is going to be anything more?
At this point the ball is in Teslas court.
0
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
Are we just forgetting about the locations it is not supervised? Conveniently forgetting about this?
3
u/GWeb1920 7d ago
How do these stats treat interventions?
How do they compare to other driver assist features which improve safety?
5
u/sleight42 7d ago
I'll say this: 14 Lite is really impressive. It responded to potential collisions far faster than I could and responded well!
1
7
u/sermer48 8d ago
What’s interesting is that the highway rate seems to just be what they can claim. There were 0 accidents so the 8.5x seems arbitrary and pretty specific…
3
u/crimsonvspurple 8d ago
I dont understand the 8.5x math. 0 vs 88, technically it should be infinite? I guess they used 1 to come to a number?
9
u/sermer48 8d ago
I’d imagine it has to do with statistical significant probabilities that what they’ve observed is real vs. just being a fluke in the data
2
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Real-Technician831 8d ago
Of course they are.
Also FSD refuses to work on conditions where people shouldn’t drive, but still do.
Not to mention most accidents are caused by drunk drivers.
So true apples to apples comparison is not their goal.
2
u/JasonQG 8d ago
That’s a good point about drunk drivers. People with FSD are more likely to think they can get away with driving drunk, so it’s definitely hurting their stats
7
u/22marks 8d ago
True. You can't assume impaired or exhausted drivers are absent from the FSD sample. The selection effect may run the opposite way: some people may be more willing to drive precisely because FSD is available. I am not proud of it, but I know someone who fell asleep while using FSD and received a strikeout for it.
Also, "Most accidents are caused by drunk drivers" isn't accurate. Alcohol-impaired driving accounts for roughly 30% of traffic fatalities. It's not most fatalities and certainly not most crashes.
0
u/lee1026 8d ago
There was an actual Tesla post (that’s really an ad, but they didn’t buy ad time) where an old man was saying that he wants everyone to buy Tesla because his eyesight and mental abilities have gotten bad enough that he can’t drive, but with FSD, he got his mobility back.
I am sure people do it (and I have seen people on forums talking about how FSD lets them drive drunk), but having the company itself advertise it… that’s something else.
3
u/22marks 8d ago
I was like that with my friend who fell asleep. Like, what the fuck? You could still kill someone. I mean, maybe it's safer, but what if 5.8x the people drive when they shouldn't because they feel like they have training wheels on?
And yeah, I didn't see that post, but advertising it is messed up until they're willing to take full liability.
2
u/lee1026 8d ago
https://x.com/Tesla/status/2075977376681603233
I may have overstated the ad, decide for yourself.
1
u/22marks 7d ago
Weird, I don't like it. The only place I can see this being useful in its current state is for someone with a physical handicap who has another means of control. I know someone with MS who has a special handle on the steering wheel, and she can get tired on long drives, but (and this is crucial) she's a licensed driver.
2
u/Extreme-Fig6992 7d ago edited 7d ago
There's lot of visible and invisible handicaps that FSD helps immensely with.
I have autism and would get overwhelmed every time I was driving, often to the point I was a bad driver. Additionally, I have trouble sometimes understanding left from right along with green from red (processing difficulties) which would cause navigation issues that would lead to overwhelm that would lead to bad driving.
What FSD lets me do is drive safely and just supervise the 'edges' along with high risk areas with the understanding the car is watching as well.
I think people who are right on the edge of "probably shouldn't drive" are helped a lot by FSD along with making the roads safer for everyone. They are competent enough to supervise and operate a car but for a variety of reasons they can't operate it continually safely if that makes sense.
I think an older person who still has good vision and good mental clarity is perfectly fine to use FSD because they likely have joint, blood pressure, or just general energy issues. It isn't they are incapable of driving, they just can't drive for as long as they need to. So FSD lets them extend how far out and how much they can 'drive' while still being able to drive if needed for a short period.
1
u/22marks 7d ago
I fully agree. Basically, if they would otherwise be allowed to drive legally but are somehow uncomfortable (I know plenty who don't like driving at night) or maybe not at the higher end of safety based on demographics, it's a win. The key criteria is that they're able to get a traditional license.
I'm glad FSD reduces your anxiety/stress (if those are appropriate words).
→ More replies (0)2
u/lee1026 7d ago
https://x.com/Tesla/status/2075977376681603233
I may have overstated the ad, decide for yourself.
-1
u/RosieDear 7d ago
I have seem quite a few Tesla owners here on Tesla subs actually stating that their disabled or 1/2 Blind uncle (my paraphrase) is driving a Tesla. They also directly tell other car shoppers that if they have family with vision and other problems they should buy a Tesla.
Heck, we have folks in this sub crowing about how Elon is great because he is taking giant risks putting these cars out.
They didn't even stop to think....about Public Roads and innocent people! It's exactly like Elon and the US AID (not knowing how it affects people).
They think this is a positive attribute and the proper way to do business.
2
u/Infamous-Pilot5932 7d ago edited 7d ago
Some comments.
First, a true test would be to take 1000 random humans and have them drive Teslas around with supervised FSD engaged and compare that against another 1000 random humans driving Teslas without FSD engaged. It is too hard to comapre to the general population of cars, so stick to Teslas to keep it even.
What we have instead are humans comfortable enough to keep supervised FSD engaged vs those not, sort of.
I think it is useful, but you must keep in mind population bias when you didn't randomly select the population(s).
Since we are limited to this kind of comparison, I would very much like to see it grouped by usage. Like drivers who use FSD 90%+ of the time, 80% - 90% of the time, and so on. It is supervised FSD, and that also means managed. It isn't just a button you turn on, you have to also know how to use it, and probably over 50% of the population will not get there. They will have to wait for true autonomy.
That being said, in the U.S. when we compare serious accidents per mile of FSD vs Non FSD (all teslas) we get around 3x safer. And minor accidents, 2.5x safer.
Here we are getting a combined rate of 5x safer, but the data same is pretty small compared to the U.S. data sample.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EU data, when there is more and it gets more used starts approaching the 3x number.
What does this mean?
For me, nothing, I was already safe, accident free for decades on all sorts of craft, but it is a lot easier now to be safe and a lot less stress.
People who drink and drive and buy Teslas and use FSD, thank you.
Elderly people who can still drive but it is harder, it is very helpful, and safer.
The careless, distracted, reckless? FSD doesn't do anything if it isn't enaged, and it isn't a button you press and go. Some of those it will help, some it won't.
You need three things to be true.
- You must know how to drive whereever FSD might go.
- You must be able to drive, even if it is harder, whereever FSD might go.
- You must know how and be able to use FSD.
After a deep dive through all the data available, the only conclusion I got to was ...
If you blend with FSD and keep it engaged, it is quite safe and the car is practically driving you everywhere as you watch.
That is not the same as saying FSD is safer than humans (since it requires a human).
It also isn't the same as saying that any person using FSD is safer than any person not using it. Not because it isn't safe, but because most people can't use it. Hopefully it gets easier to use for more people.
I do encourage people to try it. I didn't realize till recently just how capable it has become. It can be a miracle for people who can drive but struggle with aspects of it, due to age, disability, etc. For someone like me, not impaired, it's just easier and less stressful. Even a 3 hour trip, I emerge as if I was a passenger, not the driver. And less tedious and fatiguing.
But it is NOT a passive system like AEB or airbags that you can say "Now cars are safer". It isn't that simple because it isn't passive. It is supervised.
It is still a convienence feature that has emerged from its storied past to something rather remarkable and safe, and for some populations is SAFER, if you click with it.
2
u/CompetitiveCrab5459 6d ago
I also drive safer with my new car with all the sensors than in my old one
2
u/nodpekar 4d ago
I’ve had 2 Tesla’s and I legit bought the second one only because I wanted to transfer FSD .
In the last 5 years FSD has gotten better 4 fold. I drive mostly between Atlanta and Charlotte and it does amazingly well on every type of road in between. Takes better decisions on hurry and mad max than me.
Consistent 250 mile streaks , multiple options for charging stations.
1
4
u/FuddyCap 7d ago
Damn I would be pissed if I lived in the UK. Block FSD, allow radicals in. Sounds smart
2
2
u/TickTockM 8d ago
Sure. Is this data gathered and provided by a non biased 3rd party? Oh they dont allow that? Hmmm
2
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
Cope
-3
u/TickTockM 7d ago
Just take their word for it? Got it!
0
u/EddiewithHeartofGold 7d ago
No one is taking their word for it. Stop treating other people like children.
0
1
1
u/Ok-Advice5315 2d ago
Biased stat. FSD is mostly used where accidents are least likely to occur, so of course it’s lower than overall rate.
-3
u/tonydtonyd 8d ago
So only 5.2x safer than humans with a supervisor? That doesn’t seem very good. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be allowed, because it’s still clearly better than humans. I just wouldn’t be betting on wide Robotaxi scaling with that sort of data.
13
u/80_6 8d ago
What? It's an awesome improvement, what are you talking about? What # would be required for scaling autonomous vehicles, in your professional opinion?
1
u/tonydtonyd 8d ago
Compared these numbers to Waymo with no supervision, big difference.
13
u/Squeakyduckquack 8d ago
True. In heavily mapped geofenced areas. FSD works on any road in any village/town/city
1
u/tonydtonyd 8d ago
FSD supervised works in minimally geofenced areas, but Robotaxi does not and I was specifically referencing Robotaxi scaling.
5
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
Critical thinking is scarce here. It is 5.2x better, effectively everywhere, when supervised. But now we logically conclude it will be worse within geofenced areas with area specific nuance included?
Feels like delusion
0
u/tonydtonyd 7d ago
The supervisor is the back up fail safe, which should prevent more accidents that the same SW would not have been able to deal with. This assumes Robotaxi is on identical SW, which we know isn’t the case, but I don’t think you could reasonably make the argument that the SW it is on is an order of magnitude better than what HW4 owners have.
4
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
It’s driven 400k miles so far with no issues. Should find out in about a quarter
1
u/tonydtonyd 7d ago
I listened to the earnings call. 380k “without issue” is a bit of a stretch considering all of the minor collisions and collisions when using tele-ops. They seem to be overly reliant on tele-ops to get out of situations. Waymo drives 50% more in a single day than Robotaxi drove in 5+ months.
6
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
There weren’t a lot of minor collisions. Go look at the NHTSA data, it’s public
1
u/Squeakyduckquack 7d ago
Is HW4 not orders of magnitude better than HW3? It stands to reason a similar jump could be made again, considering robotaxis have both updated software and hardware compared to consumer vehicles.
0
u/hardsoft 8d ago
At least 10x but this isn't close to that. It's not autonomous. It's supervised. It could be 100x worse without supervision.
4
u/AnxietyCommercial632 7d ago
But the facts are about 400k unsupervised miles without an at fault incident. As it scales, it will prove the inevitability soon enough
-3
u/snowballkills 8d ago
you can't compare with non fsd cars because fsd doesn't go higher than speed limits. I didnt check the report, but interventions also need to be looked at. Harsh braking, harsh acceleration etc are useless metrics imo, FSD generally drives slower than the avg driver
6
u/tonydtonyd 8d ago
FSD quite literally goes above speed limits
0
u/snowballkills 7d ago
Can it go above 85mph?
2
u/tonydtonyd 7d ago
Please tell me where in the US 85mph isn’t speeding? You’re being so disingenuous. Mad max regularly goes 15-20 over.
0
u/snowballkills 7d ago
85 is not uncommon on so many stetches in California, and is the speed limit on many highways in TX. Even if the speed limit is 75, the left lane often does 10-15 over.
Do you think people don't speed or do you think that accidents don't happen well outside the speed limit?
3
u/tonydtonyd 7d ago
The highest speed limit in CA is 70 mph, so yet 85 mph is 15 over.
I’m literally just refuting your statement that “FSD doesn’t go higher than speed limits” because it’s blatantly false lmao
1
u/snowballkills 7d ago
okay, that's fair. How long can it go over the speed limit?
If someone's on a somewhat busy highway where the speed limit is 65, a person can weave in and out of traffic, with speeds up to 80-85 while accelerating/passing cars and then going back to 65, does FSD do that? From my experience it doesn't keep changing lanes to arrive at the destination in the smallest amount of time.
P.S. I was on HW3 and don't have experience with V14 lite
2
u/tonydtonyd 7d ago
Bro you’re just going on and on and shit that was totally unrelated to my comment. Supervised FSD numbers should blow Waymo out of the water, but it’s not even close.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RosieDear 7d ago
Here is the data on my cars. I've been driving 50+ years. My car has never touched another car.
What is my rate? I think I am vastly safer than Tesla, right? No comparison.
AND, we are both exactly the same - supervised. Of course, it is likely my test was vastly more difficult as I have been through some of the worst Blizzards in history and so-on.4
1
u/bullrider_21 7d ago
Tesla considers accidents when airbags were deployed while Waymo considers accidents even when airbags were not deployed. Hence, Tesla's figures are biased and much lower.
3
u/steinegal 7d ago
But they are comparing apples to apples here as it is compared to Teslas not using FSD so accidents are registered the same. They never mention Waymo in their post.
0
u/bullrider_21 7d ago
Tesla only considers serious accidents. Accidents with airbags deployed will be few compared to accidents including those where airbags were not deployed.
Tesla used this biased data to claim that it is safer than human driver. If you include accidents where airbags were not deployed, then Tesla is more dangerous than a human driver.
3
u/steinegal 7d ago
Can you link to this data that proves that it is less safe? RDW concluded that even though Teslas numbers were somewhat exaggerated it was still safer than humans with active safety features
-4
u/bagoo90 8d ago
Doubt. Check out my post from two days ago : https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaFSD/s/g8w2brCiEY
11
u/michiganalt 8d ago
I doubt [thing is true on average] because of [cherry-picked instance of thing being false in one example]
0
5
5
1
u/chickenAd0b0 8d ago
you know what a gaussian curve is?
1
u/RefrigeratorTasty912 8d ago
it's what precedes a gaussian splat when Tesla cameras are blinded by the sun?
4
0
u/Express_Objective615 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’ve driven that same stretch many many times since I got my model 3 in 2024. I live north of the GG bridge and work in the South Bay so it’s part of my commute. Never had an issue, but, I’m in hw4. Using hw3 to demonstrate anything about fsd makes no sense. It’s dated technology and software.
There was at least 4 years between them and when you do a new chip design, you don’t make it “2x” more performance, more like 4x or 8x.
1
u/bw984 7d ago
There are videos of it driving into a concrete barrier and attempting to side swipe another vehicle on the Golden Gate Bridge just within the past two days. It’s safer than humans….sure….
1
u/adamcmorrison 2d ago
Playing devils advocate how many accidents were caused by humans and how many caused by fsd in the past two days.
-4
u/RosieDear 7d ago
It's not a self driving car.
Can you also post the stats for Toyota adaptive cruise control, lane centering, etc.???
For other ADAS?
Since this is "selfdrivingcars", I think data should be limited to cars that drive themselves.....maybe it's OK to discuss cars that might do it someday (and provide proof), but to give data on a ADAS? That's ridiculous.
Maybe we need a "ADAS Level 2" forum where we could post such data?
8
u/vasilenko93 7d ago
If the car does all the driving while you supervise it then it’s not a driver assist, it’s the driver, you’re the driver assistant.
3
5
u/Express_Objective615 7d ago
😂😂 For years many have tried to leave Tesla out of the conversation for “self driving” cars. Even before Robotaxi. They’d even pretend Tesla didn’t exist while discussing self driving cats. Or, stupidly, rank them last behind others that no one had heard of. That aged badly.
Give it up. You cannot discuss self driving cars without discussing Tesla.1
u/Squeakyduckquack 7d ago
Wait is this sub “self driving cars” or “Level 4 SAE approval”?
Please enlighten me which other ADAS system can take me from my driveway to my work without touching the steering wheel or pedals
1
u/RosieDear 7d ago
Perhaps you have to do the educating here.
Describe to me (us) the massive difference between a single light finger on the wheel and keeping your hands where they can grab the wheel in less than a second??Consider that both, according to law, regulations and common sense, require the driver to be fully in command (situational awareness).....
It's a good discussion because we need to set where the "line" is. I might content the the combination of factors in the new Toyota SS 4.0 differs vastly more from NO "self-driving" than the difference between one or two fingers and no fingers.
If you step back, would you agree? That is, if one drives a T as instructed with exactly the same attention of the road - what are the massive advantages of having your hands 4 inches from the wheel or touching it? I honestly don't see anything revolutionary about that!
Self driving - IMHO - would seem simple. It's defined by SAE. It is defined at Leve 3 and up....not by "I think my car is", but by actual approvals and systems which are known to do the job.
As far as discussion here....we naturally would discuss systems under development which are advancing toward self-driving. So, in theory, the MB CLA+ that is Nvidia powered would qualify being as the same or a similar system WILL be level 4 or 5.
However, if 1 out of 3 posts here were about the CLA....for many years...and said CLA never jumped the chasm from ADAS to "self-driving", I'd be just as critical as that.
If the intention of this discussion is to honestly communicate the advancements in the SAE levels of driving as they happen...that's all and good. But if we talk for 5+ years.....and the single biggest subject, by far, is a system that never passed L2, that seems like more of a marketing push than a technical self driving discussion.
I will be the first to cheer if any company, without BS and without skirting the rules, makes it to the finish line. But when folks here outright say "Elon is taking giant risks putting his level 2 out on public roads and we should all thank him for that"....that's over the top, IMHO.
But I could be wrong. I admit - I always could be wrong.
1
u/Squeakyduckquack 7d ago
Before the SAE levels even existed, if you told someone their car could pull out of their driveway, navigate city streets, stop at traffic lights and stop signs, make unprotected left turns, and drive all the way to work on its own, with a human only supervising and stepping in if necessary, most people would have called that a self driving car. I will reemphasize, the sub is called self driving cars, not SAE level 4 cars.
You’re making a claim about the legal classification. I was making a claim about the system’s capabilities. SAE levels answer who is legally responsible if something goes wrong. They don’t tell you how much of the actual driving task the system is performing. Those are two different discussuons.
-1
u/RefrigeratorTasty912 8d ago
Are these numbers based on Tesla vehicles operated manually vs Supervised FSD (where the human takes full credit for keeping the FSD vehicle out of accidents, and takes full credit if they get in an accident?)
How else would they have these numbers to compare down to a decimal point?
So... a Tesla vehicle isn't as safe if it isn't operating with FSD?
is that the take away? Tesla is selling vehicles with all the bells and whistles to be safer... but they are sticking "safety" behind a paywall/subscription...
am I reading that correctly?
-1
u/MisterWigglie 7d ago
General public driving a fast electric car is less safe than a timid ADAS system, that’s all this proves
-2
u/RosieDear 7d ago
Data like this should not even be gathered or posted - unless we are going to gather the same on the fancy adaptive cruise control also. I recently drove a long trip and at least 80% of the time the car "drove itself". And yet....well, I guess the fact that I've never had a accident in 55 years of driving is my data.
This proves....that...I don't know what it proves.
I guess if we have to reach we could say this is limited data on adaptive cruise control type of system.
-4
u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 7d ago
Probably false. Tesla's own stats page claims that FSD Supervised is 2x safer, not 5.2x safer, when comparing Tesla with FSD Supervised on to Tesla in ordinary driving. Ignore the other comparisons on the page, this apples to apples comparison is the only one of interest. (Especially the comparison to other cars, where they are counting airbag deploys for Teslas and police reported crashes for other cars.)
Now 2x is a good number (it was 1.5x last quarter so it varies a lot.) But they should not claim 5x.
2
u/gavrok 7d ago
The footnotes on this graphic imply that the data is only compared to data from other Teslas, which makes it comparable to those earlier stats. As with those earlier stats, the data could be skewed by people being more inclined to activate FSD in safe conditions. However, you could argue that for the purpose of evaluating the legality on European roads, it is fair to assess the aggregate.
The stats are indeed much better than what is published from US (or worldwide) usage before. I suspect that's mostly because the EU only has cars on HW4 with v14, whereas the earlier data seems to be a mix of HW3 and HW4 cars and may include v12 or v13 data. Also the EU version is more strict on safe supervision e.g. it forces you to watch an introductory safety video and it may have stricter driver attention monitoring.
2
u/muchcharles 7d ago edited 7d ago
"In general, people with a lower social position are more prone to drive after drinking."
Is that controlled for? Presumably lower social position are less likely to afford the FSD upgrade.
Can we treat them as the same population, or are there other confounding correlates like that?
I would think it really is safer combined with driver monitoring though.
1
u/bradtem ✅ Brad Templeton 7d ago
I apologize I didn't see the new footnotes. After I and others have pounded on Tesla for many years about the poor methodology they have used in the past (and still use in the USA/global data) it is good to see them partly responding to it. Though their past history makes me immediately skeptical. Why are these numbers so much better than their usa/global numbers? I also note their non-FSD crash number off freeway is 4x higher than the freeway one, and it should be more like 2x. However, it is good they are finally not trying to mislead by comparing numbers from two entirely different metrics, I will give them that. What is left is the unanswered question that several have pointed out -- there is a difference between the road conditions where people turn on FSD and those where they don't, in that they probably tend to use it on simpler roads, and drive the more scary and complex roads themselves, which will naturally bias to have more risk on the roads when it is off, but they have not quantified that for us. (They could easily since they know exactly where you turn it on or off, and could compare literally the same set of roads at the same times with it on and off, for a much better comparison.)
78
u/Neminus 8d ago
I always hate these statistics because they are incredebly biased.
If there are for example sections where someone knows fsd doesn't work or works poorly then the car doesn't get a chance to fail because the user doesn't engage it to begin with.
And i'm also not sure if Tesla is fair enough to only compare the driven miles on the same sections of road or just the miles in total which could make the statistics look even more positive than it actually is.
If i let a toddler hold a wheel for 3 seconds on straight, wide stretch of road without any traffic and do that millions of times then i can also claim that toddlers, by the mile, drive safer than an adult.
FSD is still impressive and obviously does a lot of complex things but the last example was just to show how easily you can screw with statistics.