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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 148 points 2 years ago (33 children)

Tesla self driving is never going to work well enough without sensors - cameras are not enough. It’s fundamentally dangerous and should not be driving unsupervised (or maybe at all).

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] [S] 87 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    Accurate.

    Each fatality I found where a Tesla kills a motorcyclist is a cascade of 3 failures.

    1. The car's cameras don't detect the biker, or it just doesn't stop for some reason.
    2. The driver isn't paying attention to detect the system failure.
    3. The Tesla's driver alertness tech fails to detect that the driver isn't paying attention.

    Taking out the driver will make this already-unacceptably-lethal system even more lethal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago (10 children)
    1. Self-driving turns itself off seconds before a crash, giving the driver an impossibly short timespan to rectify the situation.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 64 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    ... Also accurate.

    God, it really is a nut punch. The system detects the crash is imminent.

    Rather than automatically try to evade... the self-driving tech turns off. I assume it is to reduce liability or make the stats look better. God.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    Yep, that one was purely about hitting a certain KPI of 'miles driven on autopilot without incident'. If it turns off before the accident, technically the driver was in control and to blame, so it won't show up in the stats and probably also won't be investigated by the NTSB.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    so it won't show up in the stats

    Hopefully they wised up by now and record these stats properly....?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    NHTSA collects data if self-driving tech was active within 30 seconds of the impact.

    The companies themselves do all sorts of wildcat shit with their numbers. Tesla's claimed safety factor right now is 8x human. So to drive with FSD is 8x safer than your average human driver, that's what they say on their stock earnings calls. Of course, that's not true, not based on any data I've seen, they haven't published data that makes it externally verifiable (unlike Waymo, who has excellent academic articles and insurance papers written about their 12x safer than human system).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Most frustrating thing is, as far as I can tell, Tesla doesn't even have binocular vision, which makes all the claims about humans being able to drive with vision only even more blatantly stupid. At least humans have depth perception. And supposedly their goal is to outperform humans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Tesla's argument of "well human eyes are like cameras therefore we shouldn't use LiDAR" is so fucking dumb.

    Human eyes have good depth perception and absolutely exceptional dynamic range and focusing ability. They also happen to be linked up to a rapid and highly efficient super computer far outclassing anything that humanity has ever devised, certainly more so than any computer added to a car.

    And even with all those advantages humans have, we still crash from time to time and make smaller mistakes regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 84 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    Hey guys relax! It's all part of the learning experience of Tesla FSD.
    Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

    Regards
    Elon Musk
    CEO of Tesla

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 70 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Lidar needs to be a mandated requirement for these systems.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 52 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    This is news? Fortnine talked about it two years ago.
    TL;DR Tesla removed LIDAR to save a buck and the cameras see two red dots that the 'puter thinks it's a far away car at night when indeed it's a close motorcycle.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's helpful to remember that not everyone has seen the same stories you have. If we want something to change, like regulators not allowing dangerous products, then raising public awareness is important. Expressing surprise that not everyone knows about something can be counterproductive.

    Going beyond that, wouldn't the new information here be the statistics?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Stop dehumanizing drivers who killed people.
    Feature, wrongly called, Full Self-Driving, shall be supervised at any time.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago

    If you’re going to say your car has “full self driving”, it should have that, not “full self driving (but needs monitoring.)” or “full self driving (but it disconnects 2 seconds before impact.)”.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sounds like NHTSA needs a visit from DOGE!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

    I imagine bicyclists must be æffected as well if they're on the road (as we should be, technically). As somebody who has already been literally inches away from being rear-ended, this makes me never want to bike in the US again.

    Time to go to Netherlands.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    Why is self-driving even allowed?

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (20 replies)
    [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Five years ago, you could not have brought this up without Musk simps defending it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    the cybertruck is sharp enough to cut a deer in half, surely a biker is just as vulnerable.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    On a quick read, I didn't see the struck motorcycles listed. Last I heard, a few years ago, was that this mainly affected motorcycles with two rear lights that are spaced apart and fairly low to the ground. I believe this is mostly true for Harleys.

    The theory I recall was that this rear light configuration made the Tesla assume it was looking (remember, only cameras without depth data) at a car that was further down the road - and acceleration was safe as a result. It miscategorised the motorcycle so badly that it misjudged it's position entirely.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 31 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I also saw that theory! That's in the first link in the article.

    The only problem with the theory: Many of the crashes are in broad daylight. No lights on at all.

    I didn't include the motorcycle make and model, but I did find it. Because I do journalism, and sometimes I even do good journalism!

    The models I found are: Kawasaki Vulcan (a cruiser bike, just like the Harleys you describe), Yamaha YZF-R6 (a racing-style sport bike with high-mount lights), and a Yamaha V-Star (a "standard" bike, fairly low lights, and generally a low-slung bike). Weirdly, the bike models run the full gamut of the different motorcycles people ride on highways, every type is represented (sadly) in the fatalities.

    I think you're onto something with the faulty depth sensors. Sensing distance is difficult with optical sensors. That's why Tesla would be alone in the motorcycle fatality bracket, and that's why it would always be rear-end crashes by the Tesla.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    The ridiculous thing is, it has 3 cameras pointing forward, you only need 2 to get stereoscopic depth perception with cameras...why the fuck are they not using that!?

    Edit: I mean, I know why, it's because it's cameras with three different lenses used for different things (normal, wide angle, and telescopic) so they're not suitable for it, but it just seems stupid to not utilise that concept when you insist on a camera only solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    as daily rider, i must add having a tesla behind to the list of road hazards to look out

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    Trucks in general have gotten so big they are pedestrian deathtraps

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Every captcha.....can you see the motorcycle? I would be afraid if they wanted all the squares with small babies or maybe just regular folk...can you pick all the hottie's? Which of these are body parts?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Remember, you have the right to self-defence, against both rogue robots and rogue humans.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    It’s because the system has to rely on visual cues, since Tesla’s have no radar. The system looks at the tail light when it’s dark to gauge the distance from the vehicle. And since some bikes have a double light the system thinks it’s a car in front of them that is far away, when in reality it’s a bike up close. Also remember the ai is trained on human driving behavior which Tesla records from their customers. And we all know how well the average human drives around two wheeled vehicles.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Elon needs to take responsibility for their death.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Cuz other self driving cars use LIDAR so it's basically impossible for them to not realise that a bike is there.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm wondering how that stacks up to human drivers. Since the data is redacted I'm guessing not well at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›