You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would say that is an unfair comparison. Sample size is too small as the author states.
In addition, the single autopilot failure was not a normal crash. Autopilot isn't intended to be a self-driving system - just driver assistance like autopilot on an airplane. If the driver was looking at the road they would have hit the brakes before it hit the truck.
If a pilot of airplane left a plane unattended would you say the crash was the fault of the autopilot system or the pilot?
This is interesting. Reading many threads in many forums, there seem to be two types of AP owners -I would say it's entirely plausible largely because of owners disregarding the caveats.
With statistics involving one (1) sample, you can do a lot of fun things. Think of all that the new U.S. President-Elect has said or done which no candidate before him had ever said or done. So it is since yesterday statistically 100% certain that you will win the U.S. presidential elections if you .... (insert according to inspiration) . That's not how statistics work (or at least not how they become of any interest).
It's a calculated risk. He's only trying to demonstrate it's still safer than your average car and doesn't deserve the amount of media attention it gets (relative to the thousands of other accidents that happen). Elon's statistic also has another nuance in that he's including the autopilot safety features (which are always on even if you didn't activate autopilot itself), not just the autopilot mode. Comparing cars with autopilot hardware and without autopilot hardware may also skew this.Elon should not be announcing how statistics indicate Autopilot Teslas are more safe than human-driven cars then. He can't have his cake and eat it too.
Now you are going with even more arbitrary statistics. If you do that you have to split the "non-AP" driving into "traffic related" driving and "non-traffic related" driving (the miles traveled during suicides, stolen car incidences, high speed pursuits, and any other arbitrary criteria you put).I believe the fatality rate for AP is worse than this article concludes, simply because the number of non-autopilot fatalities includes "non traffic" related deaths, such as suicides, stolen car chases, and high speed pursuits. By my reckoning, there are three non-AP fatalities that occurred in the course of normal driving, and two AP fatalities (one in China) that occurred in the course of normal driving. That makes the per-mile AP fatality rate 9x higher than the non-AP rate.
Perhaps sample size is the wrong term (not a statistician, an actual statitician should speak up about this), but with a single incident the likelihood of it being an outlier is quite high.Furthermore, the samples are statistically valid, because the "sample size" is way more than two or three. Imagine you had a biased, trick coin which turned up heads (a fatality) only one in a million times. A news article comes out which claims that the coin came up heads. Does that mean it was flipped only once? Was the sample size only one? No; it was probably flipped around a million times, for a sample size of one million. It's the same with fatalities: there are many chances to have a fatality, but most of the time they are avoided (the coin comes up tails). But just because a fatality was avoided doesn't mean the coin wasn't flipped.
Let's say a chance to make a fatal mistake comes up every thousand miles of driving: bad weather, a multi-car accident, sunlight, driver health problems, blown tire, road debris, slick road, aggressive driving, sleepy truck driver, etc. That's 3.2 million chances for a fatality over all Tesla miles driven (3.2 billion). That's a lot of coin flips, and the observed fatality rate can tell you a lot about the "real" fatality rate.