| ▲ | guywithahat a day ago |
| How were the accidents hidden? It sounds like they were reported to the NHTSA properly, which is how the article knows about them. I wouldn't expect them to email a journalist every time there's an accident |
|
| ▲ | ModernMech a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| According to the article, at first the accidents were "hidden" from the reporting system just because Tesla systems were not autonomous enough to qualify under the law. But now that Tesla is trying to be more autonomous robotaxi service, they're required to report more details about their accidents. According to the article, Tesla's competitors (like Waymo) are very forthcoming about the incidents. They are probably following the long tradition in engineering of learning from your mistakes by investigating them thoroughly and doing root-cause analysis. Tesla cannot do this, because if they do a thorough root-cause analysis of why their system fails more than others, they will inevitably arrive at the conclusion it's due to the sensor stack being camera-only. And Tesla cannot admit that because Musk can't admit he was wrong. So instead they're going down the path of being cagey about the details of their accidents. I don't know how long these reports take to generate but there are 2.5 months worth of reports that have not yet been released. Meanwhile, Musk has committed to ditching the safety monitors by the end of the year, and he's not going to be able to do that if Tesla's robotaxi service is unreliable. But he's also not willing to do what it takes to make the service more reliable, which is add LiDAR to the system. So... it will be interesting to see what happens at the end of the year. |
| |
| ▲ | pitpatagain a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's already clear that there is no possible timeline in which they actually remove safety drivers by the end of the year, it's such a joke. The weird thing is that between the extremely underwhelming tiny supervised test they run in Austin and the nonsensical permitting games they want to play in California, they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi. Here is a prediction: when they don't actually get to remove the safety drivers, Elon will blame regulators and rage quit the Robo taxi game. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not a bad prediction, but that's the corner he's in; it's too late for anyone to buy that when Waymo shows how it can be done. |
| |
| ▲ | apothegm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The past 5 years or so they’ve looked more like a pump-and-dump scheme masquerading as a car manufacturer, so that seems on brand. | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi. Because they can't. They don't have the technology to do so, despite promising for years it's right around the corner. Musk backed Tesla into a corner by promising dates and missing them several times, and this is just another instance of that. They're playing a shell game and they've been able to hide the ball so far by calling things "beta" or a "rollout" or "supervised", but when it comes to robot axis they have to actually be autonomous, and Tesla tech cannot deliver that. So all I'm wondering is where they're going to hide the ball next. I don't think they can push robotaxis any longer, which is why you see Musk preemptively suggesting robots and AI are the future of Tesla. Actually I think he's more likely to claim victory in self driving, ditch the entire car company saying it's so last century, and pivot Tesla into robotics than to actually release failure robotaxis. It's the only way he can keep the grift going; the self driving grift is done. |
| |
| ▲ | Animats a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And Tesla cannot admit that because Musk can't admit he was wrong. Führerprinzip [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip |
|
|
| ▲ | pitpatagain a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "As it does with its ADAS crash reporting, Tesla is hiding most details about the crashes. Unlike its competitors, which openly release narrative information about the incidents, Tesla is redacting all the narrative for all its crash reporting to NHTSA" |
|
| ▲ | josefritzishere a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TLDR the article clearly states that Tesla misclassifies the severity of the accidents and redacts the narratives and disengagement data. Key sentence "Tesla has never released any significant data to prove that its system is reliable." |
| |
| ▲ | guywithahat a day ago | parent [-] | | I read the article, it's just that the data was never, and is not, hidden. Data for vehicles that aren't fully autonomous isn't released, and they are releasing their fully autonomous data through the proper channels. At no point was tesla ever trying to "hide 3 robotaxi accidents", as the title claims (unless I'm missing something but I don't think I am) | | |
| ▲ | pitpatagain a day ago | parent [-] | | Read the table of examples in the article. Other companies report crashes with significant detail visible to the public that Tesla is redacting. Compare Waymo report: "On [XXX] at 10:31 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a scooterist on [XXX] at [XXX]. The Waymo AV was stopped at the curb facing north on [XXX] for a passenger drop-off when the passenger in the Waymo AV opened the rear right door. As the rear right door was being opened by the passenger, a scooter .... Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 2 of Standing General Order 2021-01. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available." Tesla reports is: "[REDACTED, MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION]" Tesla has consistently tried to have it both ways saying they are "not autonomous" and therefore don't have to report, but also then claiming in other contexts that they are driving huge numbers of "autonomous" miles. So now they finally do a handful of reports and it's all REDACTED? They are finally doing barely what's required but also not being forthcoming at all. | | |
| ▲ | guywithahat 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | So to be very clear, the title > Tesla is trying to hide 3 Robotaxi accidents is strictly false. They reported the accidents and have done everything properly, you just don't like the way its formatted. Got it. I think your definition of the word hide is too different to come to a consensus. | | |
| ▲ | pitpatagain 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Change it to "Tesla is trying to hide the details of 3 Robotaxi accidents" then. They have reported that accidents happened, and redacted all of what actually happened. It's very clear what the complaint is in the article despite how hung up on the headline you are. | | |
| ▲ | guywithahat 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trying to hide, in this context, meaning "releasing public information about accidents according to NHTSA guidelines". If they had been more impactful accidents there would be more public information. If you think this isn't enough information for this kind of accident, blame the NHTSA | | |
| ▲ | pitpatagain 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They reported 3 accidents up to July 25 on a fleet of, at the time, 12 cars, doing barely any miles. No data is yet reported for August. The requirement is to report within 5 days, why are the reports happening now? It's actually quite shocking they had 3 to report so quickly of any severity with such a tiny program in Austin. The NHTSA has an active probe into Tesla for not following the reporting guidelines for their level 2 systems: https://apnews.com/article/tesla-crashes-self-driving-robota... Specifically that they haven't been reporting on time, months instead of the required days. "If they had been more impactful accidents there would be more public information." does not track with Tesla's history of reporting thus far. You can make excuses all you want for them but late reports + redacting information other companies do not reads loud and clear as "trying to hide something" to me, not "legit autonomous vehicle company that wants to establish reliability and safety to the public". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | umeshunni a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
