-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'm not really sure where to put this as it could go in a few different threads. Please feel free to move if needed.
This was a slide from Autonomy Day, 2019. I want to focus on the miles....16mph x 16 hours / day or ~112 hours per week (let's ignore the logic that the demand for robotaxis is not constant for 24 hours/day, the vehicle will need time to charge, etc.).
Let's go to the latest Earnings Call (from yesterday):
Did Elon just *HALVE* the projected "utility hours" of a Tesla robotaxi or am I misunderstanding?
Additionally...
Level 4 does still allow for human override as an option, but does someone want to explain how a robotaxi network would work where a person has to sit in the driver seat to intervene? Who's assuming the risk in that scenario? Would Tesla even roll out robotaxis where a rider has to constantly monitor the vehicle?
This was a slide from Autonomy Day, 2019. I want to focus on the miles....16mph x 16 hours / day or ~112 hours per week (let's ignore the logic that the demand for robotaxis is not constant for 24 hours/day, the vehicle will need time to charge, etc.).
Let's go to the latest Earnings Call (from yesterday):
Did Elon just *HALVE* the projected "utility hours" of a Tesla robotaxi or am I misunderstanding?
Additionally...
If you assume that with no driver, an intervention or disengagement results in a crash....at ~10,000 miles per disengagement every single car in the fleet is crashing about once/year at "normal" 10k miles/year drive time. If Tesla is anticipating a robotaxi will drive more like 90k-100k miles...at 90k miles per disengagement that's still one crash per vehicle in the fleet per year. That's not remotely insurable. And Elon is touting "a very small number of interventions per mile" as good progress and evidence that level 4 FSD is close (this year). I mean, come on. Just do some math. On average, there is one vehicle crash in the U.S. for every ~530k miles (6m vehicle crashes per year, 3.2 trillion vehicle miles traveled).
Level 4 does still allow for human override as an option, but does someone want to explain how a robotaxi network would work where a person has to sit in the driver seat to intervene? Who's assuming the risk in that scenario? Would Tesla even roll out robotaxis where a rider has to constantly monitor the vehicle?
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(beta)
Disengagement numbers are only loosely related to the collision rate. For example in Waymo's autonomous testing they found that 99.9% of their disengagements would not have resulted in a collision had they not occurred (https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-...Waymo-Public-Road-Safety-Performance-Data.pdf). You have to go back and simulate what would have happened.
The Disengagement Myth
In a few weeks the California DMV will release disengagements data from Cruise and other companies who test AVs on public roads. This data…
medium.com
Or maybe FSD Beta would have swerved back had you not intervened?Of course there is zero chance that Tesla achieves human performance this year (1 severe collision (>12mph) per 2 million miles or so according to their safety report).
Obviously the manufacturer of the system will be responsible if the collision is caused by a fault in the system. A robotaxi can't required a driver!
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Over-reading might be more accurate than misunderstanding.
he just tossed out a number off the cuff to point out one RT would in terms of driving hours replace many human driven cars. Actual # of hours will vary modified by a bunch of factors.
Assuming owner doesn't need it for personal use, and demand were always there, that'd be more than either the 12 Elon cited or the 16 on the slide you mention- nearer 20 most likely if there's a supercharger in the area.
But some owners WILL want it for personal use some of the time...and some owners will live someplace demand isn't always 24/7, or a supercharger is less proximate at the moment- so they'd be running less than 20- how much less will vary.
After a certain point the difference isn't all that important for most discussion.... but obviously it could run for however many hours the owner wishes, modified by the demand in their specific area, minus time spent charging.
Level 4 allows for a driver to disengage, but Level 4 cannot require a driver to be in the driver's seat and alert. Level 4 must be capable of bringing the car to a safe stop in a safe place any time it cannot handle a situation by itself. A robotaxi must be able to operate entirely without a driver. It can be geofenced and therefore need not be Level 5, but within its area it cannot require a driver. Otherwise it's not a robotaxi: It's just a ride-share with driver-assist features.
By definition, a car that requires a driver to make the decision to disengage is Level 2 or lower.
Elon is just being Elon, promising Level 4 "real soon now" when in fact the technology for wide-area, non-geofenced Level 4 is years away.
Not every driver-initiated disengagement would have resulted in a crash. When I'm using EAP I disengage very pro-actively any time I'm not entirely confident of the car's ability to stay safe. Some of those times the car would probably do just fine. So the driver-initiated disengagement rate is not what the crash rate would be. But the numbers are still way far away from ready for L4.
That said, I do not believe Tesla will initiate Level 4 before it is safer than human. Or to put it another way: Elon's proclamations are total bull, but Tesla is, I believe, fully committed to safety.
Similar threads
