To be fair to Tesla and other self driving taxis, urban and shorter journeys usually have worse collision rates than the average journey - and FSD is likely to be owners driving themselves to work etc.

▲

Veserv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Great, we can use Tesla's own numbers once again by selecting non-highway. Average human is 178,000 non-highway miles per minor collision resulting in "Professional Driver + Most Advanced 'Robotaxi' FSD version under test with careful scrutiny" at 3x worse than the average non-professional driver alone.

They advertise and market a safety claim of 986,000 non-highway miles per minor collision. They are claiming, risking the lives of their customers and the public, that their objectively inferior product with objectively worse deployment controls is 1,700% better than their most advanced product under careful controls and scrutiny when there are no penalties for incorrect reporting.

	▲	jmcgough an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Would be nice if we had a functioning legislative body that did more than pass a single "give billionaires more tax breaks" bill each term.

▲

foxyv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is kind of comparing apples to oranges. The more appropriate would be to compare it with other Taxis.

https://www.rubensteinandrynecki.com/brooklyn/taxi-accident-...

Generally about 1 accident per 217k miles. Which still means that Tesla is having accidents at a 4x rate. However, there may be underreporting and that could be the source of the difference. Also, the safety drivers may have prevented a lot of accidents too.

▲

philistine 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm sure insurers will love your arguments and simply insure Tesla at the exact same rate they insure everyone else.

I think Tesla's egg is cooked. They need a full suite of sensors ASAP. Get rid of Elon and you'll see an announcement in weeks.

	▲	bragr an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Large fleet operators tend to self insure rather than having traditional auto insurance for what it's worth. If you have a large fleet, say getting in 5-10 accidents a year, you can't buy a policy that's going to consistently pay out more than the premium, at least not one that the insurance company will be willing to renew. So economically it makes sense to set that money aside and pay out directly, perhaps covering disastrous losses with some kind of policy.
	▲	harmmonica 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Always comes up but think it's worth repeating: if he's not there the stock will take a massive haircut and no Tesla investor wants that regardless of whether it would improve Tesla's car sales or its self-driving. Elon is the stock price for the most part. And just to muse on the current reason, it's not Optimus or self driving, but an eventual merger with SpaceX. My very-not-hot take is that they'll merge within months of the SpaceX IPO. A lot of folks say it ain't happening, but I think that's entirely dependent on how well Elon and Trump are getting along at the moment the merger is proposed (i.e., whether Trump gives his blessing in advance of any announcement).

▲

flutas 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yup as context, in the same time Waymo had 101 collisions according to the same NHTSA dataset.

	▲	ra7 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Waymo drives 4 million miles every week (500k+ miles each day). Vast majority of those collisions are when Waymos were stationary (they don’t redact narrative in crash reports like Tesla does, so you know what happened). That is an incredible safety record.
	▲	harmmonica 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is this the same time or the same miles driven? I think the former, and of course I get that's what you wrote, but I'm trying to understand what to take away from your comment.