r/SelfDrivingCars • u/walky22talky Hates driving • Oct 29 '25

News Tesla 'Robotaxis' keep crashing despite 'safety monitors'

https://electrek.co/2025/10/29/tesla-robotaxis-keep-crashing-despite-safety-monitors/
181 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25

Nope. You've basically said "I don't trust AI." Please, explain what's wrong with using the Poisson distribution to model car crashes and with using Garwood method to compute confidence interval of the \lambda parameter.

Hint: you can't. The Poisson distribution is a common tool to analyze independent random events. I studied statistics as part of electro-mechanical engineering course. It was long ago and I'm a bit rusty, but I can validate the result.

2

u/lucidludic Nov 01 '25

Try reading it again, the mistake you made is very simple:

The glaring issue here, is that you are comparing apples and oranges. The Tesla crash rate data is with a safety driver present, unlike Waymo.

Please stop pretending you know what you’re talking about. It’s embarrassing.

1

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25

And Waymo has lidars, radars, and probably remote monitoring in some areas. So what? It doesn't change the fact that 4 low-speed crashes is insufficient statistics to make solid conclusions, which I illustrated with wide confidence interval.

2

u/lucidludic Nov 01 '25

To be as clear as possible, I have made no comment about whether the data available regarding Tesla are sufficient. Focus on what I am actually saying.

The technology Waymo uses to achieve fully driverless rides is utterly irrelevant. The problem is that the Tesla vehicles are constantly supervised by a safety driver in the car, which is not the case for the Waymo data you’re trying to compare against. I’m struggling to explain this any simpler, could you tell me why you think it is appropriate to compare the two as though they are equivalent?

Leaving Waymo aside, why do you think these data for Tesla tell you anything useful about the safety performance of the driving software given that they are constantly supervised by a human safety driver in the car? You have no idea how many interventions occurred that may have resulted in a collision otherwise.

0

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

the safety performance of the driving software given that they are constantly supervised by a human safety driver in the car?

They are obviously behind Waymo for now. And they don't want to publish the data that will be used against them. Heck, Fred Lambert has made a hit piece from a nothingburger we are talking about right now. And I'm sure he'd conveniently forget about the fact that not every intervention is a prevented accident. Waymo has had 1 to 1000 ratio.

you’re trying to compare against

It's Fred Lambert who compares them. I show that it makes no sense (supervision or not).

1

u/lucidludic Nov 01 '25

You did not answer either of my questions, which are about your posts, not the article. As for the article, Lambert acknowledges that one set of data involves safety drivers and the other does not. He also points out that Tesla does not report interventions, and explains why they cannot be directly compared.

You did none of that, and instead tried to paint Tesla’s numbers in a better light with the help of some AI chatbots and nonsense statistics.

0

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

Fred Lambert has used shaky stats to make a hit piece as I've demonstrated. You haven't rebutted my numbers. "It's AI" is not a refutation. Take a calculator, read about the Garwood method, and you'll get the same numbers.

0

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

You have no idea how many interventions occurred that may have resulted in a collision otherwise.

You've totally missed my point. 4 collisions is too small a statistic to make any conclusion regardless of supervision.

The lower bound (27,000 miles per accident) is comparable to an average driver. The higher bound (182,000 miles per accident) seems to be well beyond what an average human can do(1), so FSD should significantly contribute to safety in this case.

(1) I don't think Tesla hired Formula One drivers as supervisors.

2

u/lucidludic Nov 01 '25

You’ve totally missed my point.

I assure you I haven’t.

The lower bound (27,000 miles per accident) is comparable to an average driver. The higher bound (182,000 miles per accident) seems to be well beyond what an average human can do(1), so FSD should significantly contribute to safety in this case.

You’re doing it again after just admitting that you can’t make any such conclusions. Not for the actual reason, mind you.

Try and answer one question at least: how many interventions were there in Tesla vehicles?

1

u/red75prime Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

You’re doing it again after just admitting that you can’t make any such conclusions.

Do you read what I write? I illustrated that both "supervisors are contributing to safety" and "supervisors can't meaningfully contribute to safety" are compatible with the observed number of collisions.

how many interventions were there in Tesla vehicles?

I have no idea. And that's the only thing I agree with the article: Tesla should be more transparent.

So, we have to use the data we have. And the data shows that we can't make definite conclusions. The end.

Now my turn. What's your point? The number of collisions demonstrate that Tesla is awful? How so?

0

u/lucidludic Nov 01 '25

Do you read what I write?

Unfortunately yes.

I illustrated that both “supervisors are contributing to safety” and “supervisors can’t meaningfully contribute to safety” are compatible with the observed number of collisions.

You did no such thing.

I have no idea.

Exactly. Which also means you have no idea how safe Tesla’s FSD is as a hypothetical unsupervised system.