| ▲ | gkfasdfasdf 4 hours ago |
| > And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”. Do you have any sources for that claim? I can attest that current iteration of FSD is very, very good, and very likely is a safer driver than I am. At least one major insurance company agrees [0]. I don't have any experience with Super Cruise though. [0] - https://www.lemonade.com/fsd |
|
| ▲ | root_axis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Do you have any sources for that claim? I can attest that current iteration of FSD is very, very good, and very likely is a safer driver than I am. That's a damning statement about your driving skills, and probably not true or you'd have had your license revoked by now. I've had FSD for five years, and even today it regularly makes dangerous mistakes. For example, left turns and roundabouts are the equivalent of Russian roulette, but just last week my FSD started driving through a red light because it interpreted a green left-arrow as a sign that it could proceed forward. If you need to do 50 miles on the interstate it's pretty solid though. |
| |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you need to do 50 miles on the interstate it's pretty solid though. So L2 is great, the issue is calling L2 "Full Self Driving" | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If your Tesla is 5 years old aren't you getting a degraded FSD model due to weak hardware? | | |
| ▲ | root_axis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I took it in for a HW update in 2023. I do believe there is an even newer hardware stack since then, but as far as I'm aware the HW doesn't impact the supported capabilities. | | |
| ▲ | iknowstuff 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re wrong. Your fsd12 is a very different beast from the current fsd14, so stop talking authoritatively about the latest fsd. | |
| ▲ | gkfasdfasdf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Congrats on the upgrade - what exactly did they upgrade and what version of FSD are you running? Hardware and software definitely matters. My FSD experience applies to 2026 Model Y, latest FSD (v14.x). |
| |
| ▲ | pibaker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "The computer is not beefy enough" is not an acceptable excuse for blowing a red. If your model cannot comply with the most basic law of traffic, it should not be sold to consumers as "full self driving." |
| |
| ▲ | memish 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think your anecdote is more likely to be true than an insurance company putting its money where its mouth is? "Tesla Full Self-Driving is twice as safe, so Lemonade takes 50% off every mile driven with FSD." | | |
| ▲ | root_axis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know anything about Lemonade, so I can't comment on the logic behind that business strategy, but by definition all the dangerous behavior of FSD is excluded from the analysis since you have to shut it off to avoid the danger. Beyond that, the effect size of my anecdotes assures me that it is not safer than a human driver. It's just obvious. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | enragedcacti 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lemonade doesn't support your claim that FSD is a safer driver than you are. It just says that, most charitably, they believe FSD and a human operator are safer than just a human operator (The co-founder said exactly this to Reuters [0]). Further, the program has only been around for a week and their marketing copy specifically cites "Tesla's data" as the source for the 50% reduction rather than any sort of independent analysis. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lemona... |
| |
| ▲ | digiown 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They are putting their money behind their words, unless there is some backroom deal we don't know about. If a human operator + FSD is twice safer than human operator alone, then FSD is still a large safety improvement. Considering how human operators behave with these systems, I'd also wager having the human operator (many don't even look at the road!) makes only a small difference. | | |
| ▲ | enragedcacti an hour ago | parent [-] | | > They are putting their money behind their words, unless there is some backroom deal we don't know about. Their product is dynamically priced and individualized, and there is no guarantee of what the base rate will be. I don't see any reason they can't keep offering the 50% discount and then adjust the base rates to reverse engineer a sustainable price regardless of FSDs real safety. > Considering how human operators behave with these systems, I'd also wager having the human operator (many don't even look at the road!) makes only a small difference. Lemonade will likely be getting driver monitoring telemetry and calculating rates accordingly, but in either case I'm convinced that we are still on the left hand side of the Valley of Degraded Supervision [0]. Operators may not pay full attention at all times but they likely still have pretty good heuristics for what situations are difficult for FSD and adjust their monitoring behavior accordingly. Tesla could of course release detailed crash and disengagement data to prove FSD safety. That they do not is itself a form of evidence, and in lieu of that we have to rely on crowdsourced data which says FSD 14.x still has a very long way to go to be safer than the average driver [1]. [0] https://www.eetimes.com/disengagements-wrong-metric-for-av-t... [1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main |
|
|
|
| ▲ | xnx 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > At least one major insurance company agrees Lemonade has <1% market share |
|
| ▲ | sjsdaiuasgdia 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > At least one major insurance company agrees You mean the insurance company that has only existed for 10 years and I never heard of before this Tesla tie-in marketing gimmick? |
| |
| ▲ | antiframe an hour ago | parent [-] | | Also an insurance company that A.M. Best rates B+. Which is fine, but when buying insurance I want to make sure that my company can weather major catastrophes. |
|
