Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other Brand: New Analysis - FuelArc News
fuelarc.com
Among motorcyclists, there is a persistent rumor that Teslas are dangerous to ride around in traffic. Whether it’s their silent electric drivetrain, extreme acceleration, or self-driving technology supposedly failing to see motorcycles, every biker seems to know someone who’s had a close call with a Tesla. Our new analysis of data from the NHTSA on […]

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.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      1 day ago

      They have remote drivers that CAN take control in very corner case situations that the software can’t handle. The vast majority of driving is don’t without humans in the loop.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        They don’t even do that, according to Waymo’s claims.

        They can suggest what the car should do, but they aren’t actually doing it. The car is in complete control.

        Its a nuanced difference, but it is a difference. A Waymo employee never takes control of or operates the vehicle.

        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          2·
          1 day ago

          Interesting! I did not know that - I assumed the teleoperators took direct control, but that makes much more sense for latency reasons (among others)

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            24 hours ago

            I always just assumed it was their way to ensure the vehicle was really autonomous. If you have someone remotely driving it, you could argue it isn’t actually an AV. Your latency idea makes a lot of sense as well though. Imagine taking over and causing an accident due to latency? This way even if the operator gives a bad suggestion, it was the car that ultimately did it.