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.

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 days ago

    the cybertruck is sharp enough to cut a deer in half, surely a biker is just as vulnerable.

  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’s because the system has to rely on visual cues, since Tesla’s have no radar. The system looks at the tail light when it’s dark to gauge the distance from the vehicle. And since some bikes have a double light the system thinks it’s a car in front of them that is far away, when in reality it’s a bike up close. Also remember the ai is trained on human driving behavior which Tesla records from their customers. And we all know how well the average human drives around two wheeled vehicles.

  • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I imagine bicyclists must be æffected 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.

    • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      this makes me never want to bike in the US again.

      I live close enough to work for it to be a very reasonable biking distance. But there is no safe route. A high-speed “stroad” with a narrow little bike lane. It would only be a matter of time before some asshole with their face in their phone drifts into me.

      I am deeply resentful of our automobile-centric infrastructure in the U.S. It’s bad for the environment, bad for our wallets, bad for our waistlines, and bad for physical safety.

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      human driving cars still target bicyclists on purpose so i don’t know see how teslas could be any worse…

      p.s. painting a couple lines on the side of the road does not make a safe bike lane… they need a physical barrier separating the road from them… like how curbs separate the road from sidewalks…

      • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean yeah, I just said above that someone almost killed me. They were probably a human driver. But that’s a “might happen, never know.” If self driving cars are rear-ending people, that’s an inherent artifact of it’s programming, even though it’s not intentionally programmed to do that.

        So it’s like, things were already bad. I already do not feel safe doing any biking anymore. But as self driving cars become more prevalent, that threat upgrades to a kind of defacto, “Oh, these vast stretches of land are places where only cars and trucks are allowed. Everything else is roadkill waiting to happen.”

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 days ago

    Cuz other self driving cars use LIDAR so it’s basically impossible for them to not realise that a bike is there.

        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          Bahaha, that one is new to me.

          Back when I worked on an ambulance, we called the no helmet guys organ donors.

          This comment was brought to you by PTSD, and has been redacted in a rare moment of sobriety.

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

            I also rammed 10cc spikes at the back of the bus, the world needs organ donors and motorcycles provide a great service for that. Hope your EMT career was short lived but rewarding.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          I remember finding a motorcycle community on reddit that called themselves “squids” or “squiddies” or something like that.

          Their whole thing was putting road tyres on dirtbikes and riding urban environments like they were offroad obstacles. You know, ramping things, except on concrete.

          They loved to talk about how dumb & short-lived they were. I couldn’t ever find that group again, so maybe I misremembered the “squid” name, but I wanted to find them again, not to ever try it - fuck that - but because the bikes looked super cool. I just have a thing for gender-bent vehicles.

          • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 days ago

            Calamari Racing Team. It’s mostly a counter-movement to r/Motorcycles, where most of the posters are seen as anti-fun. Their whole thing is that, not just a specific way to ride, they also have a legendary commenter that pays money for pics in full leather.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              That’s the one! Thanks, that was un-googleable for me.

              I guess the road-tyres-on-dirt-bikes thing was maybe a trend when I saw the sub.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      As someone who likes the open sky feeling, this is why I drive a convertible instead.

    • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      They call it the Model 3 because the Tesla Organ-Harvester didn’t translate well to Chinese

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      I already do. Flip a coin: Heads, the car is operating itself and is therefore being operated by a moron. Tails, the owner is driving it manually and therefore it is being operated by a moron.

      Just be sure to carefully watch your six when you’re sitting at a stoplight. I’ve gotten out of the habit of sitting right in the center of the lane, because the odds are getting ever higher that I’ll have to scoot out of the way of some imbecile who’s coming in hot. That’s hard to do when your front tire is 24" away from the license plate of the car in front of you.

      • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        For me it depends which bike I’m riding. If it’s my 49cc scooter, I’ll sit to the very right side of the lane for a quick escape while watching my mirrors like a hawk. On my XR500, I’ll just filter to the front (legal in Utah).

        • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I filter to the front on my leg powered bike, most traffic light setups here have a region for bikes at the front of the cars.

  • sfu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Self driving vehicles should be against the law.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      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

    • Lumbardo@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Shouldn’t be an issue if drivers used it as a more advanced cruise control. Unless there is catastrophic mechanical or override failure, these things will always be the driver’s fault.

  • spacesatan@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 days ago

    Unless it’s a higher rate than human drivers per mile or hours driven I do not care. Article doesn’t have those stats so it’s clickbait as far as I’m concerned

    • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Thanks, 'Satan.

      Do you know the number of miles driven by Tesla’s self-driving tech? Because I don’t, Tesla won’t say, they’re a remarkably non-transparent company where their tech is concerned. Near as I can tell, nobody does (other than folks locked up tight with NDAs). If the ratio of accidents-per-mile-driven looked good, you know as a flat fact that Elon would be Tweeting all about it.

      Sorry you didn’t find the death of 5 Americans newsworthy. I’ll try harder for the next one.

      • spacesatan@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You’re right, 5 deaths isn’t newsworthy in the context of tens of thousands killed by human drivers each year.

        Is it worse than human drivers is the only relevant point of comparison, which the article doesn’t make.

    • chetradley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      The fact that the other self driving brands logged zero motorcyclist fatalities means the technology exists to prevent more deaths. Tesla has chosen to allow more people to die in order to reduce cost. The families of those five dead motorcyclists certainly care.

      • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        [Edit: oh, my bad, I replied to you very cattily when I meant to reply to Satan. Sorry! Friendly fire! XD ]

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Same goes for the other vehicles. They didn’t even try to cover miles driven and it’s quite likely Tesla has far more miles of self-driving than anyone else.

      I’d even go so far as to speculate the zero accidents of other self-driving vehicles could just be zero information because we don’t have enough information to call it zero

      • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        No, the zero accidents for other self-driving vehicles is actually zero :) You may have heard of this little boutique automotive manufacturer, Ford Motor Company. They’re one of the primary competitors, and they are far above the mileage where you would expect a fatal accident if they were as safe as a human.

        Ford has reported self-driving crashes (many of them!). Just no fatal crashes involving motorcycles, because I guess they don’t fucking suck at making self-driving software.

        I linked the data, it’s all public governmental data, and only the Tesla crashes are heavily redacted. You could… IDK… read it, and then share your opinion about it?

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          And how did it compare self-driving time or miles? Because on the surface if Tesla is responsible for 5 such accidents and Ford zero, but Tesla has significantly more than five times the self-driving time or miles, then we just don’t have data yet …… and I see an announcement that Ford expects full self driving in 2026, so it can’t have been used much yet

          • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t think anyone has reliable public data on miles travelled. If it existed, I would use it. The fact that it doesn’t exist tells you what you need to know about Level 2 ADAS system safety ;)

            The only folks who are being real open with their data, near as I can tell, is Waymo. And Waymo has zero motorcycle fatalities, operating mostly in California, where the motorcycle driving culture is… absolutely fucking nuts uniquely risk-accepting.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    For what it’s worth, it really isn’t clear if this is FSD or AP based on the constant mention of self driving even when it’s older collisions when it would definitely been AP, and is even listed as AP if you click on the links to the crash.

    So these may all be AP, or one or two might be FSD, it’s unclear.

    Every Tesla has AP as well, so the likelihood of that being the case is higher.

    • psivchaz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s not good though, right? “We have the technology to save lives, it works on all of our cars, and we have the ability to push it to every car in the fleet. But these people haven’t paid extra for it, so…”

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

        Well, only 1 or 2 of those were in a time frame where I’d consider FSD superior to AP, it’s a more recent development where that’s likely the case.

        But to your point, at some point I expect Tesla to use the FSD software for AP for the exact reasons you mentioned. My guess is they’d just do something like disable making left/right turns , so you wouldn’t be able to use it outside of straight stretches like AP today.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      In this case, does it matter? Both are supposed to follow a vehicle at a safe distance

      I’d be more interested in how it changes over time, as new software is pushed. While it’s important that know it had problems judging distance to a motorcycle, it’s more important to know whether it still does

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

        In this case, does it matter? Both are supposed to follow a vehicle at a safe distance

        I think it does matter, while both are supposed to follow at safe distances, the FSD stack is doing it in a completely different way. They haven’t really been making any major updates to AP for many years now, all focus has been on FSD. I think the only real changes it’s had for quite awhile have been around making sure people are paying attention better.

        AP is looking at the world frame by frame, each individual camera on it’s own, while FSD is taking the input of all cameras, turning into 3d vector space, and then driving based off that. Doing that on city streets and highways is only a pretty recent development. Updates for doing it this way on highway and streets only went out to all cars with FSD in the past few months. For a long time it was on city streets only.

        I’d be more interested in how it changes over time, as new software is pushed.

        I think that’s why it’s important to make a real distinction between AP and FSD today (and specifically which FSD versions)

        They’re wholly different systems, one that gets older every day, and one that keeps getting better every few months. Making an article like this that groups them together over the span of years muddies the water on what / if any progress has been made.

        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Fair enough!

          At least one of the fatalities is Full-Self Driving (it was cited by name in the police reports). The remainder are Autopilot. So, both systems kill motorcyclists. Tesla requests this data redacted from their NHTSA reporting, which specifically makes it difficult for consumers to measure which system is safer or if incremental safety improvements are actually being made.

          You’re placing a lot if faith that the incremental updates are improvements without equivalent regressions. That data is specifically being concealed from you, and I think you should probably ask why. If there was good news behind those redactions, they wouldn’t be redactions.

          I didn’t publish the software version data point because I agree with AA5B, it doesn’t matter. I honestly don’t care how it works. I care that it works well enough to safely cohabit the road with my manual transmission cromagnon self.

          I’m not a “Tesla reporter,” I’m not trying to cover the incremental changes in their software versions. Plenty of Tesla fans doing that already. It only has my attention at all because it’s killing vulnerable road users, and for that analysis we don’t actually need to know which self-driving system version is killing people, just the make of car it is installed on.

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

            I’d say it’s a pretty important distinction to know if one or both systems have a problem and the level of how bad that problem is.

            Also are you referencing the one in Seattle in 2024 for FSD? The CNBC article says FSD, but the driver said AP.

            And especially back then, there’s also an important distinction of how they work.

            FSD on highways wasn’t released until November 2024, and even then not everyone got it right away. So even if FSD was enabled, the crash may have been under AP.

            Edit: Also if it was FSD for real (that 2024 crash would have had to happen on city streets, not a highway) then thats 1 motorcycle fatality in 3.6 billion miles. The other 4 happened over 10 billion miles. Is that not an improvement? (edit again: I should say we can’t tell it’s an improvement yet as we’d have to pass 5 billion, so the jury is still out I guess IF that crash was really on FSD)

            Edit: I will cede though that as a motorcyclist, you can’t know what the Tesla is using, so you’d have to assume the worst.

            Edit: Just correcting myself that I was wrong about FSD in 2024. The change over to neural nets happened in November, but FSD was still FSD on highways when this accident happened. It was even earlier than that when FSD became AP when you transitioned to higways

            • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Police report for 2024 case attached, it is also linked in the original article: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/01/15/tesla-may-face-less-accountability-for-crashes-under-trump/

              It was Full Self Driving, according to the police. They know because they downloaded the data off the vehicle’s computer. The motorcyclist was killed on a freeway merge ramp.

              All the rest is beyond my brief. Thought you might like the data to chew on, though.

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

                The motorcyclist was killed on a freeway merge ramp.

                I’d say that means it’s a very good chance that yes, while FSD was enabled, the crash happened under the older AP mode of driving, as it wasn’t until November 2024 that it was moved over to the new FSD neural net driving code.. I was wrong here, it actually was FSD then, it just wasn’t end to end neural nets then like it is now.

                Also yikes… the report says the AEB kicked in, and the driver overrode it by pressing on the accelerator!

                • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  No shit on that yikes. That blew my fucking mind.

                  Half the time when your AEB activates, you are unconscious or dazed and you’re just flailing around your cabin like a rag doll, because you’ve crashed. If your foot happens to flail into the accelerator, get ready for a very exciting (if short-lived) application of that impressive 0 to 60 time.

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

                Okay, so I’m going to edit my earlier replies but replying again so you see, as I was wrong.

                Version 11/12 in 2023/2024 wasn’t using the AP code, it just wasn’t using the neural nets. So it was legitimately FSD, but it was running different code on the freeways (non neural net) vs on city streets (neural net)

                But it was indeed FSD. Version 11.x was the change where it stopped using AP when you left city streets.

  • captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 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).

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

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

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days 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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 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

    • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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
        64
        ·
        7 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
          ·
          7 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
            7 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
                ·
                7 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
                  6 days 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
                ·
                7 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
          ·
          7 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
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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
          ·
          7 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
            ·
            7 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
              ·
              7 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
                  ·
                  7 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.

    • ascense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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
        25
        ·
        7 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
          11
          ·
          7 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
          5
          ·
          7 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
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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
              2
              ·
              7 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
              2
              ·
              7 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
            ·
            7 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
              ·
              7 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.