-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Safety Score
- Thread starter ScottNY
- Start date
So far I have never been dinged for backing out or pulling into my garage. And it’s a very tight fit to get my Tesla in. My guess is it’s because I go very slow and they don’t judge us for stuff at slow speeds.
To be surely safe, stop the car before entering the garage, put it in park, maybe exit the car and re-enter it, then pull it into the garage. The new trip from your driveway to garage will be less than 0.1 mile and will not be counted.
dduffey
Member
Same, I have a very tight garage, CM to the left, right, and front. The car goes crazy when I park, but never any dings related to going in and out of the garage for me.
srs5694
Active Member
I went through a fast-food drive-through yesterday. My car was giving me constant proximity warnings because I was driving so close to the building, but I got a 100 score for that drive. I get similar warnings when I pull into my driveway, next to my house, but I've gotten 100 scores on drives that end at my house. Low-speed proximity warnings are not among Tesla's stated criteria, either. Overall, I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing, unless the car is giving you false-alarm FCW alerts when you pull into the garage. (Maybe it's mistaking something for a pedestrian; I don't know how slow you have to be going before it'll shut off pedestrian alerts.)
HighZ
Member
Does anyone know how they are combining/averaging scores between the days?
I have been driving for four days and 335 miles with the safety score. On day 2 with 144 miles, I had an unsafe following ding at 43.7%. My current overall average for unsafe following has dropped to 14.1%. I haven't been able to calculate the 14.1. I come closer to 18.5% if I use a linear average based on miles. On day 2, the drive I got dinged 60% (max) was 61 miles and that was averaged to 43.7 for the remaining day.
The daily calculations match the app, just was hoping to be able to forecast the score based on predicted driving now that I know how I need to drive to keep the score up, but anticipating some dings along the way. I realize that Unsafe Following is the least I have to be concerned about for the score. I am trying to avoid any hard breaking. I did have a momentary lapse and exceeded 90 mph while on AP (!) trying to avoid an issue with a merging truck. I had to do a reboot to avoid the AP disengage. In hindsight, I would have slowed down instead (or manually disengage). IMO, this has made some of my driving a lot calmer. I just imagine I am driving on snow.
I have been driving for four days and 335 miles with the safety score. On day 2 with 144 miles, I had an unsafe following ding at 43.7%. My current overall average for unsafe following has dropped to 14.1%. I haven't been able to calculate the 14.1. I come closer to 18.5% if I use a linear average based on miles. On day 2, the drive I got dinged 60% (max) was 61 miles and that was averaged to 43.7 for the remaining day.
The daily calculations match the app, just was hoping to be able to forecast the score based on predicted driving now that I know how I need to drive to keep the score up, but anticipating some dings along the way. I realize that Unsafe Following is the least I have to be concerned about for the score. I am trying to avoid any hard breaking. I did have a momentary lapse and exceeded 90 mph while on AP (!) trying to avoid an issue with a merging truck. I had to do a reboot to avoid the AP disengage. In hindsight, I would have slowed down instead (or manually disengage). IMO, this has made some of my driving a lot calmer. I just imagine I am driving on snow.
follow.johnny
FSD Beta Tester
After driving for 5 days now, my score had fluctuated from 100 to 99 and back to 100. I got dinged for (1) Aggressive Turning and (1) Unsafe Following (I was driving manually) the rest of my score/driving was driven on Autopilot.
Total miles driven 60 (I'm still working from home and main driving has been to the gym, grocery shopping, and going out for food.
As most people recommend to try to drive on AP as much as possible and you should be able to get a perfect score each time. Good luck guys!
Total miles driven 60 (I'm still working from home and main driving has been to the gym, grocery shopping, and going out for food.
As most people recommend to try to drive on AP as much as possible and you should be able to get a perfect score each time. Good luck guys!
Attachments
It's not just the average of the individual trips, either.Interestingly enough, the overall score is not just an average of all the daily scores
You drive a different distance every day and every trip. If I were implementing the feature, I'd add up all the miles on all the days that met the appropriate criteria (for example, over a specific speed for FCW), and add up all the violations, and use those to calculate the overall score (FCW / 1000 miles). This makes it difficult for you to check Tesla's math, because they don't give you enough information to do so, but I'd assume that they do the math correctly.
it's a weighted average based on miles driven. Pretty sure this was explicitly stated on the safety score page on tesla's website.Interestingly enough, the overall score is not just an average of all the daily scores
"We combine your daily Safety Scores (up to 30 days) into a mileage-weighted average to calculate the aggregated Safety Score, which is displayed on the main ‘Safety Score’ screen of the Tesla app."
lampcord
Member
I've been driving exclusively on AP on the highway and I've been docked for aggressive turning on 2 of my five trips. Was at 100% yesterday but now I'm down to 96% because of alleged 9.6% aggressive turning. Makes no sense. I'm driving on the interstate with AP on at 5 over the speed limit. No way I'm pulling > 0.4 G's anywhere on that trip.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Answering in a different thread…
For sure on an individual day it includes applicable time (not miles) for braking, turning, and following, and calculate the % that way for each factor. So individual trip length does not matter for the overall score of the day.
As far as the multi-day score, I see some inconsistencies. They say they take a mileage-weighted average of the scores, and they might.
However, in the app they also provide overall "averages" of each of the components on the main score screen. Whether those components are just time-based composites of the daily components, or whether they are daily mileage-weighted, I do not know. I cannot get the math to work on my scores in the summary screen if I do daily mileage weighted calculations of each component.
It would make the most sense to calculate the overall component factors and plug them into the safety score, but that would remove the mileage weighting they claim they do, so they are probably not doing that.
I would assume they are just doing mileage weighting as they say - but even that is ambiguous. Do they mileage weight the overall score? Or do they mileage weight each daily component input to the score and then calculate the overall score?
However, I’ve calculated my score with the three different potential methods mentioned above and it makes a difference of just 0.02 (not 2). So it does not really matter much for normal driving, in most cases, I guess. Depends a bit on various factors of duration of events, etc. but if everything is homogeneous it won’t matter much.
They REALLY need to fix this bug. Can’t have people nulling their failures! It’s cheating! Hopefully they will fix it soon.
Correct. Let's say you drive:
100 miles day 1 at a score of 90
200 miles day 2 at a score of 50
50 miles day 3 at a score of 100
your average score shown will be = (100*90+200*50+50*100)/350 = 69 (68.5714)
edit: for me it has worked out like this
110 miles at 93 for day 1
72 miles at 100 for day 2
104 miles at 100 for day 3
85 miles at 100 for day 4
average score = (110*93+72*100+104*100+85*100)/(110+72+104+85) = 97.92 (which is rounded up to 98)
There might be some slight rounding errors because your day score is only shown at 2 significant digits but it isn't certain if they use that or a more precise number
Last edited:
TL;DR: The Safety Score is crap.
So, after having read half a dozen pages of this thread (not quite willing to read all 35 of them), I'm going to let off a bit of steam. Like 80% of Americans, I believe that my driving ability and safety is well above average. I know that I drive faster than the speed limit, but my comfortable and normal following distance is about 2 seconds, and I tend to not change lanes. I don't text when I drive, half a million miles on a motorcycle trained me to always be paying attention to all the cars around me, and I tend to be considerate of other drivers.
I'm really appreciative of the transparency of Tesla's calculation - Safety Score Beta tells you precisely what G-levels correspond to "extreme force" in braking, or turning. One of the problems that I personally have with most insurance efforts to put a transponder in vehicles is a lack of transparency - what are they measuring, and how are they judging? It's great that I can find that out.
But, let's talk. They don't apparently score hard accelerations. Doing 1+G accelerations in your M3P on the street doesn't impact your safety score, but 0.3G braking does - and in my vehicle, full regen is sufficient to ding me for hard braking. A 0.4G turn is a ding, and I do those everytime I make a 90 degree right turn out of a side street onto a main street and try to stay within the curb lane's boundaries. AP disengagements seems like it's trying to measure attentiveness - and a forced AP disengagement really does imply unattentiveness in my book - but a great proxy for non-AP attentiveness would seem to be Lane Departures (which wouldn't need Lane Departure Warnings enabled) which isn't measured. AP disengagements is obviously only a factor when on AP, LDW would measure on a finer time scale and when not on AP. I'm sorry, but if you regularly are ping-ponging off the lane lines when driving manually you're either not paying attention or your driving skills are so poor that you shouldn't be driving. Perhaps "lane changes per mile" would be a great criteria - I don't have the data that Tesla has, but it seems to me that those people slaloming traffic doing ten lane changes per mile are more likely to be in an accident than me driving two seconds behind the car in front of me in the middle lane for 10 miles.
It appears to me that Tesla made some decisions as to what their evaluation criteria should be, some of which (like acceleration) are questionable, then ran it through their big data statistical analysis to create their PCF function. That's great and all, but you could put in any criteria and crunch the data to determine it's impact on PCF - for example, you could use the color of the car, or the color of the driver's skin, and calculate the appropriate coefficients to add it into the PCF; that doesn't make it a great criteria.
I'd really hate to see what a weekend at the Autocross would do to my score, even though I believe that it makes me a better, safer driver.
So, after having read half a dozen pages of this thread (not quite willing to read all 35 of them), I'm going to let off a bit of steam. Like 80% of Americans, I believe that my driving ability and safety is well above average. I know that I drive faster than the speed limit, but my comfortable and normal following distance is about 2 seconds, and I tend to not change lanes. I don't text when I drive, half a million miles on a motorcycle trained me to always be paying attention to all the cars around me, and I tend to be considerate of other drivers.
I'm really appreciative of the transparency of Tesla's calculation - Safety Score Beta tells you precisely what G-levels correspond to "extreme force" in braking, or turning. One of the problems that I personally have with most insurance efforts to put a transponder in vehicles is a lack of transparency - what are they measuring, and how are they judging? It's great that I can find that out.
But, let's talk. They don't apparently score hard accelerations. Doing 1+G accelerations in your M3P on the street doesn't impact your safety score, but 0.3G braking does - and in my vehicle, full regen is sufficient to ding me for hard braking. A 0.4G turn is a ding, and I do those everytime I make a 90 degree right turn out of a side street onto a main street and try to stay within the curb lane's boundaries. AP disengagements seems like it's trying to measure attentiveness - and a forced AP disengagement really does imply unattentiveness in my book - but a great proxy for non-AP attentiveness would seem to be Lane Departures (which wouldn't need Lane Departure Warnings enabled) which isn't measured. AP disengagements is obviously only a factor when on AP, LDW would measure on a finer time scale and when not on AP. I'm sorry, but if you regularly are ping-ponging off the lane lines when driving manually you're either not paying attention or your driving skills are so poor that you shouldn't be driving. Perhaps "lane changes per mile" would be a great criteria - I don't have the data that Tesla has, but it seems to me that those people slaloming traffic doing ten lane changes per mile are more likely to be in an accident than me driving two seconds behind the car in front of me in the middle lane for 10 miles.
It appears to me that Tesla made some decisions as to what their evaluation criteria should be, some of which (like acceleration) are questionable, then ran it through their big data statistical analysis to create their PCF function. That's great and all, but you could put in any criteria and crunch the data to determine it's impact on PCF - for example, you could use the color of the car, or the color of the driver's skin, and calculate the appropriate coefficients to add it into the PCF; that doesn't make it a great criteria.
I'd really hate to see what a weekend at the Autocross would do to my score, even though I believe that it makes me a better, safer driver.
I'll be doing a test today on whether only regeneration will cause hard braking on a flat surface. i am going to do a 0-60 run and once i hit 60 I will let off the accelerator completely and let the car come to a complete stop and see if i get a ding for hard braking. If i don't get a ding on the first run, i will try it again and again for awhile to see what happens.
HighZ
Member
I have tried multiple ways to calculate the average and it isn't apparent what they are doing.
Since they seem to be averaging the individual factors, since those change each day, and not just averaging the day's numbers, we should be able to calculate it to the same preciseness they are using. In my case, if I went with one day at 43.7 and 144 miles, and that number dropped down to 14.1 at 335 miles with no other dings, we should be able to determine how the 14.1 is calculated.
Yes, they need to fix that loophole, but I don't think they can do that without a software fix which I don't think will happen at least for the next week.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
That is a joke, right ?
Reminds me of lake Wobegon.
Can you post your daily safety scores and daily miles and then what your average safety score is so someone can check your math?
Similar threads
