Even if what you argue is true, it doesn't follow from this report. Why is the accident rate of Tesla with Autopilot and all safety features off 2x better than the national average? Because there is a difference in the demographics - Tesla drivers are probably younger and more enthusiastic about driving than the average driver.
Now, if you do the same statistics on the same demographics for all non Tesla cars, you could actually get less accidents than Tesla - here are where the hidden accidents went. Again, I don't have the data about this and I don't claim it is true, but without knowing this, you cannot make the conclusion you are making as well.
Otherwise I agree with you - I also believe that Autopilot+human is safer than just human. Unfortunately, the usual way that people interpret these numbers is that Autopilot is safer than human...
I agree that the demographic skew probably accounts for some of the difference. Probably also that Teslas need less maintenance (esp brakes, due to regenerative braking), so are less likely to fail for mechanical reasons — although I don't think most crashes are due to mechanical failure, it should show up to some degree in the stats.
I think the argument that the Autopilot numbers are essentially fake because the true crashes are concentrated in the Autopilot-off scenarios is hard to make a case for though, given the stats on Autopilot-off driving being so comparatively good. You would need incredibly good demographic skew to account for that if the crash rate is concentrated — you don't need to just equal the average after correcting for demographic skew, you need to be considerably worse than it. So while it's not a perfect metric, I would be much more surprised if Autopilot+human was more dangerous than human alone.
I 100% agree with you that this is only an argument for Autopilot+human though. Current Autopilot without humans, at least anecdotally (I have a Model 3 with Autopilot), does not seem safe. However, I think the concern among some that Autopilot is unsafe as it currently is typically operated — i.e. with a human in the loop — is largely contradicted by the evidence.
My personal anecdote is that I feel much less fatigued by driving with Autopilot, especially on longer drives. It's imperfect, but it actually generally helps improve my alertness because I don't have to constantly fiddle cruise control settings based on which car is in front of me or make micro wheel adjustments to stay centered in a lane; I usually take over proactively whenever there looks like a sketchy situation is coming up like multi-lane merges with trucks for example. And when those situations happen, I'm able to stay more alert and focused because I haven't been spending my energy on the simple stuff that Autopilot is good at, so I think I end up being safer overall even when it's disengaged. I notice a pretty large cognitive difference — which was unexpected for me when I first got it, because I thought I probably wouldn't use or like Autopilot, and initially was quite mistrustful of it.
Obviously this is just a personal anecdote, and not data! But what data we have, while imperfect, seems to support that conclusion much more than it supports the opposite.
Expanding upon your personal anecdote: Is there scientific research on this matter? (Measuring alertness/fatigue on non-assisted vs assisted driving) It could be valuable.
Personally, I think driving is nearly always a waste of my time, so I avoid it when possible. Plus, I don't think of myself as a very good driver. Reading your anecdote made me think about how I feel after a long drive vs a long train ride. I cannot put a finger on it, but fatigue from constant required adjustments when driving /might/ be a factor.
More likely: I like how I can spend my free time when riding a train vs driving a car -- which is somewhat limited to passive listening: radio/music/audiobook/podcast/etc.
Don't younger (hence less experienced) drivers generally have more accidents? If this is true, isn't it more evidence that Tesla's safety features are helpful?
I think "younger" here is meant more as "not old." 16 year olds are less safe drivers, yes, but on account of the price they're not going to be a big part of Tesla's demographic.
Since there's no affordable model, and they're a newfangled gadget with strange refueling infrastructure and a giant touchscreen for a console, Tesla owners probably skew toward middle aged. So they'll have fewer drivers in the less safe age ranges at both ends of the spectrum.
That depends on how you define younger. Not many teenagers can afford a Tesla though so in this case younger probably means mid 30s to early 40s. That largely removes very inexperienced drivers and the elderly.
Your last paragraph is the most important one. Autopilot is driver assistance, and it shouldn't be a surprise that it helps. But these results are comparing human + computer vs human, and does not in anyway indicate that the computer alone is better than a human, let alone a human + computer, which should be the benchmark.
I agree these numbers only argue for human+computer vs human, and not computer vs human.
I'm curious why you think the benchmark should be computer vs human, though. Autopilot is very clearly a human+computer system; it states you need to be alert, and it forces you to keep your hands on the wheel and apply wheel torque occasionally to make sure you're actually paying attention. Why would Tesla benchmark something they don't ship (and how could they even do that)? The question for the general public, and for Tesla owners, is whether the current system is safe. It appears to be.
Theae stats are often quoted by Musk and Tesla to suggest that driverless cars are here and safer than human drivers, and the only thing preventing them are regulators. They are never quoted to imply that driver assistance makes driving safer, which i believe they would.
So, one has to compare computer vs human. In fact, more than that. One cannot compare modern technology to one from the previous century. So one must compare computer to the best passive driver assistance that one can develop for humans. So Tesla must compare a driverless solution to their own driver assistance solutions aiding drivers, and not the "average car on the road"
> Theae stats are often quoted by Musk and Tesla to suggest that driverless cars are here and safer than human drivers, and the only thing preventing them are regulators.
That's surprising, I hadn't seen that. Could you link to an example?
Yeah, and in the part of that second link that directly addresses the question:
> *Will the FSD Computer make my car fully autonomous?*
> Not yet. All Tesla cars require active driver supervision and are not autonomous. With the FSD Computer, we expect to achieve a new level of autonomy as we gain billions of miles of experience using our features. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.
That clearly states that there is still a technical challenge to overcome which is prior to any regulatory issues.
Now, if you do the same statistics on the same demographics for all non Tesla cars, you could actually get less accidents than Tesla - here are where the hidden accidents went. Again, I don't have the data about this and I don't claim it is true, but without knowing this, you cannot make the conclusion you are making as well.
Otherwise I agree with you - I also believe that Autopilot+human is safer than just human. Unfortunately, the usual way that people interpret these numbers is that Autopilot is safer than human...