345
Tesla Robotaxi Mows Down Bollards & Keeps Driving, After “Impeccable” Record Touted on Stock Call (fuelarc.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I mean, I guess "impeccable safety record" is in the eye of the beholder?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 4 weeks ago (12 children)

That’s bullshit, stop spreading lies. They clearly state they do that for safety and count it as engaged

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

    Source?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (10 children)

    Ok fine, I can’t find it but I know I read it ……

    But either way I’ll call both of us wrong. Out of all the accident reports involving self-driving, I did not see Tesla assigning the human blame for that.

    The closest I found was a cybertruck accident where the driver disengaged FSD 4 seconds before. The driver claims the truck was already unrecoverable, but there would be no simple yes/no in the logs on that, nor did Tesla claim there was. Seems like they ruled out the obvious and it needs to be escalated to a legal proceeding or accident reconstruction

    There was an ntsa investigation saying FSD sometimes disengaged just before a crash but it also said things like collision avoidance engaged. I could not find any result, including any action taken.

    Im not disagreeing that FSD can disengage just before a crash, just arguing that I’ve not seen them try to shift blame based on it and I remember reading somewhere that it’s intentional to try to mitigate the aftermath

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 weeks ago*

    Right. There was no denial, no attempt to shift blame, nor did that investigation produce any findings I was able to find.

    Note that when Tesla says it disengaged, they contend to give a time down to the second. I also could not find any outrage reports that they tried to shift blame this way and you know there are many haters who would jump on that chance

    Shifting to legal articles, I see several saying trying to shift blame this was would not work

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

    I have no facts but I must scream.

    Peak corporate bootlicking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

    Or maybe I can recognize nuance? Not once did I try to say Tesla was not at fault, only that there is no sign of anyone even arguing whether FSD disengaging immediately before a crash shifts blame. It does not, nor can I find any legal, regulatory, or actual news indicating that it ever did.

    There are plenty of real issues we should focus on rather than claiming something there is no evidence of

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 children)

    They clearly state they do that for safety and count it as engaged

    Or maybe provide citations and proof of your claim instead of going off strawmanning on a different topic.

    As for real issues, yeah we should focus on how we should never trust a for-profit corporation lead by a known liar to supply statistics on their own safety.

    https://electrek.co/2026/05/28/tesla-fsd-safety-stats-misleading-reuters-investigation/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    By “strawmanning on a different topic.” perhaps you mean sticking to the original topic while you go off strawmanning on a different topic?

    Teslas are programmed to turn off autopilot half a second before a crash so statistics can say “autopilot was off at the time of the crash”.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

    So OP provided a citation from the NSHTA report on how FSD disengages before a crash which has been in the news a lot when it first was revealed and I provided a journalistist investigation that found Tesla is potentially fudging their statistics with FSD.

    Plenty of citations there to make a case.

    Your turn to once again provide a citation to back up your case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    This whole chain is a response to

    Teslas are programmed to turn off autopilot half a second before a crash so statistics can say “autopilot was off at the time of the crash”.

    And no one has anything to support that.

    Please add a citation to support that before you insist on citations to support disagreeing with an unsupported claim

    Note my previous response (accidentally responded to the nhtsa thing in the past with an edit)

    Im not disagreeing that FSD can disengage just before a crash, just arguing that I’ve not seen them try to shift blame based on it and I remember reading somewhere that it’s intentional to try to mitigate the aftermath

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 weeks ago

    I do not see anything about your contention there. Perhaps you could support that since my entire point was that is wrong.

    And I used stronger language because if you wanted to claim FSD was unsafe you have all these well documented historical issues and do not need to spread the unsubstantiated claim that FSD disengages to shift blame

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent