this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
1120 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

68305 readers
6099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1120
Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Striking Motorcyclists More Than Any Other Brand: New Analysis (fuelarc.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
217 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (7 children)

How about we disallow it completely, until it's proven to be SAFER than a human driver. Because, why even allow it if it's only as safe?

[–] explodicle 4 points 2 days ago (4 children)

As an engineer, I strongly agree with requirements based on empirical results rather than requiring a specific technology. The latter never ages well. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

It’s hardly either / or though. What we have here is empirical data showing that cars without lidar perform worse. So it’s based in empirical results to mandate lidar. You can build a clear, robust requirement around a tech spec. You cannot build a clear, robust law around fatality statistics targets.

[–] explodicle 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We frequently build clear, robust laws around mandatory testing. Like that recent YouTube video where the Tesla crashed through a wall, but with crash test dummies.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You mean like this Euro NCAP testing, where Tesla does stop and most others don't including some vehicles with lidar?

https://youtu.be/4Hsb-0v95R4

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Those are ways to gather empirical results, though they rely on artificial, staged situations.

I think it’s fine to have both. Seat belts save lives. I see no problem mandating them. That kind of thing can still be well founded in data.

load more comments (2 replies)