[microtherion]

I'm quite skeptical of Tesla's reliability claims. But for exactly that reason, I welcome a company like Lemonade betting actual money on those claims. Either way, this is bound to generate some visibility into the actual accident rates.

[sfblah]

One thing that was unclear to me from the stats cited on the website is whether the quoted 52% reduction in crashes is when FSD is in use, or overall. This matters because people are much more likely to use FSD in situations where driving is easier. So, if the reduction is just during those times, I'm not even sure that would be better than a human driver.

As an example, let's say most people use FSD on straight US Interstate driving, which is very easy. That could artificially make FSD seem safer than it really is.

My prior on this is supervised FSD ought to be safer, so the 52% number kind of surprised me, however it's computed. I would have expected more like a 90-95% reduction in accidents.

[wrsh07]

I think this might be right, but it does two interesting things:

1) it let's lemonade reward you for taking safer driving routes (or living in a safer area to drive, whatever that means)

2) it (for better or worse) encourages drivers to use it more. This will improve Tesla's training data but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)

[paulryanrogers]

> ...but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)

As a father of kids in a neighborhood with a lot of Teslas, how do I opt out of this experiment?

[pfannkuchen]

Do your kids randomly run into the road? I was worried about that but then mine just don’t run into the road for some reason, they are quite careful about it seemingly by default after having “getting bumped into by a car” explained to them. I’m not sure if this is something people are just paranoid about because the consequences are so bad or if some kids really do just run out into the road randomly.

[dragonwriter]

Some kids really do just run into the road seemingly randomly. Other kids run in with a clear purpose, not at all randomly, and sometimes (perhaps very rarely, but it only takes once and bad luck) forget to look both ways. Kids are not cookie cutter copies that all behave the same way in the same circumstances (even with the same training).

[dctoedt]

> Some kids really do just run into the road seemingly randomly. ... sometimes (perhaps very rarely, but it only takes once and bad luck) forget to look both ways.

Just this week I was telling my law school contract-drafting class that part of our job as lawyers and drafters is to try to to "child-proof" our contracts, because sometimes clients' staff understandably don't fully appreciate the possible consequences of 'running into the street,' no matter how good an idea it might seem at the time.

[paulryanrogers]

I'm more worried about the Teslas hitting my kids when they're on bicycles or Teslas swerving off the road into the yards. Regardless, it sure would be nice if technology controlling multi-ton vehicles on public roads were subject to regulations, or at least had clearly define liability.

[wcrossbow]

Kids will randomly run into the road. They might run behind a ball or a dog so that it doesn’t end up on the other side or runned over or are simply too excited to remember your stern road safety talk.

The first thing I was taught when I picked up a car was: if you see a ball on the road you stop immediately. This valuable lesson has saved one kid (and my sanity) with me on the wheel.

[netsharc]

This guy couldn't follow that rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E_FtC1BLH0

[tbossanova]

Yes it does happen. Otherwise smart kids will do dumb stuff sometimes. Like see their friend across the road, but at that moment someone on a motorcycle is accelerating out of their driveway, kid runs across, dead

[almosthere]

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/?searchQueryState=%7B%...

[fragmede]

Same way you opt out of having drunk drivers drive home along your street and pass out while driving, or drivers getting a stroke or other blood clot while driving and crashing into parked cars.

[DaedalusII]

The insurance industry is a commercial prediction market.

It is often an indicator of true honesty, providing there is no government intervention. Governments intervene in insurance/risk markets when they do not like the truth.

I tried to arrange insurance for an obese western expatriate several years ago in an Asian country, and the (western) insurance company wrote a letter back saying the client was morbidly obese and statistically likely to die within 10 years, and they should lose x weight before they could consider having insurance.

[croddin]

I could see prediction markets handing insurance in the future, it could probably get fairer prices but would have to be done right to avoid bad incentives, interesting to think about how that might work.

[cucumber3732842]

> providing there is no government intervention.

You mean like forcing people to buy it ad then shaping what product can ad cant be offered with a spiderweb of complex rules?

[DaedalusII]

The clearest example is the state of California preventing insurance companies from increasing annual premium when risks increase. Please understand I have no political opinion about this. As a result, a lot of insurers have completely withdrawn and now its not possible to insure houses properly for many people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/27/state-farm-h...

With no government intervention, the price of all fire insurance in California would increase materially to reflect the genuine risk of wildfire damage.

[JumpCrisscross]

> quite skeptical of Tesla's reliability claims

I'm sceptical of Robotaxi/Cybercab. I'm less sceptical that FSD, supervised, is safer than fully-manual control.

[panopticon]

Where I live isn't particularly challenging to drive (rural Washington), but I'm constantly disengaging FSD for doing silly and dangerous things.

Most notably my driveway meets the road at a blind y intersection, and my Model 3 just blasts out into the road even though you cannot see cross traffic.

FSD stresses me out. It's like I'm monitoring a teenager with their learners permit. I can probably count the number trips where I haven't had to take over on one hand.

[parpfish]

> I'm constantly disengaging FSD for doing silly and dangerous things.

You meant “I disable FSD because it does silly things”

I read “I disable FSD so I can do silly things”

[horns4lyfe]

Exactly. Every bad situation I’ve been in with FSD was when I misread the situation and disengaged it during a maneuver that it was handling safely

[protimewaster]

It feels unlikely that blindly entering cross traffic, as described in the previous post, is going to be a safe maneuver, though.

[horns4lyfe]

I use it for 90% of my driving in Austin and it’s incredible

[apearson]

Do you have HW3 or HW4?

[lotsofpulp]

The newest FSD on HW4 was very good in my opinion. Multiple 45min+ drives where I don’t need to touch the controls.

Still not paying $8k for it. Or $100 per month. Maybe $50 per month.

[fragmede]

It's your sanity (and money) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[panopticon]

HW3, unfortunately. Missed the HW4 refresh by a couple of months.

[elif]

it's edging into the intersection to get a better view on the camera. it's further than you would normally pull out, but it will NOT pull into traffic.

[panopticon]

It's not edging; it enters the street going a consistent speed (usually >10mph) from my driveway. The area is heavily wooded, and I don't think it "sees" the cross direction until it's already in the road. Or perhaps the lack of signage or curb make it think it has the right of way.

My neighbor joked that I should install a stop sign at the end of my driveway to make it safer.

[cucumber3732842]

Or just manually drive in your own driveway.

The fact that it does't handle some specific person's driveway well is far from a condemnation of the system. I'm far more concerned about it mishandling things on "proper" roads at speed.

[seanmcdirmid]

The software probably has a better idea of their car’s dimensions than a human driver, so will be able to get a better view of traffic by pulling out at just the right distance.

[madsmith]

Having handed over control of my vehicles to FSD many times, I’ve yet to come away from the experience feeling that my vehicle was operating in a safer regime for the general public than within my own control.

[smileysteve]

Keeping a 1-2 car's length stopping distance is likely over a 50% reduction in at fault damages.

[protimewaster]

You can get this with just a fairly dumb radar cruise control system, though.

[Rover222]

I think you greatly overestimate humans

[ihaveajob]

The problem IMO is the transition period. A mostly safe system will make the driver feel at ease, but when an emergency occurs and the driver must take over, it's likely that they won't be paying full attention.

[Retric]

We aren’t talking about the average human here.

On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful.

But you can know most of those adverse conditions don’t apply when you engage FSD on a given trip. As such the standard needs to be extremely high to avoid increased risks when you’re sober, wide awake, the conditions are good, and you have no need to speed.

[izacus]

> On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful.

Are those people also able to suprevise FSD like the law and Tesla expects them to? That's also a question.

[fragmede]

FSD will pull over and stop if it detects the driver has passed out. Can the law do that automatically?

[JumpCrisscross]

> you greatly overestimate humans

Tesla's FSD still goes full-throttle dumbfuck from time to time. Like, randomly deciding it wants to speed into an intersection despite the red light having done absolutely nothing. Or swerving because of glare that you can't see, and a Toyota Corolla could discern with its radars, but which hits the cameras and so fires up the orange cat it's simulating on its CPU.

[fragmede]

Yeah even corollas have better sensors than a Tesla for driving in fog. It's embarrassing.

[bayarearefugee]

> I'm less sceptical that FSD, supervised, is safer than fully-manual control.

I'm very skeptical that the average human driver properly supervises FSD or any other "full" self driving system.

[microtherion]

Supervised FSD — automating 99.9% of driving and expecting drivers to be fully alert for the other .1% — appears to go against everything we know about human attention.

[misiti3780]

this ^^

[benatkin]

> betting actual money on those claims

Insurance companies can let marketing influence rates to some degree, with programs that tend to be tacked on after the initial rate is set. This self driving car program sounds an awful lot like safe driver programs like GEICO Clean Driving Record, State Farm Good Driver Discount, and Progressive Safe Driver, Progressive Snapshot, and Allstate Drivewise. The risk assessment seems to be less thorough than the general underwriting process, and to fall within some sort of risk margin, so to me it seems gimmicky and not a true innovation at this point.

[rubyfan]

Lemonade will have some actual claim data to support this already, not relying on the word of Tesla.

[sMarsIntruder]

They don’t bet money on just “I’m quite skeptical because I hate the man”, but on actual data provided by the company.

That’s the difference.

[microtherion]

The skepticism and hate is based on observing decades of shameless dishonesty, which is itself a form of data provided by the company: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

[sMarsIntruder]

Still doesn’t change my point: as of today being skeptic because relying on outdated data or historical series is just nonsense. I mean, insurance quotes work in a totally different way.

[thegreatpeter]

Do you drive a HW4? I’m 90% FSD on my total car miles