TL;DR: Self-Driving Teslas Rear-End Motorcyclists, Killing at Least 5

Brevity is the spirit of wit, and I am just not that witty. This is a long article, here is the gist of it:

  • The NHTSA’s self-driving crash data reveals that Tesla’s self-driving technology is, by far, the most dangerous for motorcyclists, with five fatal crashes that we know of.
  • This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities with the NHTSA in the same time frame.
  • The crashes are overwhelmingly Teslas rear-ending motorcyclists.

Read our full analysis as we go case-by-case and connect the heavily redacted government data to news reports and police documents.

Oh, and read our thoughts about what this means for the robotaxi launch that is slated for Austin in less than 60 days.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Hey guys relax! It’s all part of the learning experience of Tesla FSD.
    Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.

    Regards
    Elon Musk
    CEO of Tesla

    • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      +1 for you. However, replace “Regards” with the more appropriate words from the German language. The first with an S, and the second an H. I will not type that shit, fuck Leon and I hope the fucking Nazi owned Tesla factory outside of Berlin closes.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Yes I’m not writing that shit, even in a sarcastic post. Bu I get your drift.
        On the other hand, since you are from Germany, VW group is absolutely killing it on EV recently IMO.
        They totally dominate top 10 EV here in Denmark, with 7 out of 10 top selling models!!
        They are competitively priced, and they are the best combination of quality and range in their price ranges.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    17 days ago

    Lidar needs to be a mandated requirement for these systems.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Or at least something other than just cameras. Even just adding ultrasonic senses to the front would be an improvement.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      Honestly, emergency braking with LIDAR is mature and cheap enough at this point that is should be mandated for all new cars.

      • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        No, emergency braking with radar is mature and cheap. Lidar is very expensive and relatively nascent

    • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 days ago

      How about we disallow it completely, until it’s proven to be SAFER than a human driver. Because, why even allow it if it’s only as safe?

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        As an engineer, I strongly agree with requirements based on empirical results rather than requiring a specific technology. The latter never ages well. Thank you.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          It’s hardly either / or though. What we have here is empirical data showing that cars without lidar perform worse. So it’s based in empirical results to mandate lidar. You can build a clear, robust requirement around a tech spec. You cannot build a clear, robust law around fatality statistics targets.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            We frequently build clear, robust laws around mandatory testing. Like that recent YouTube video where the Tesla crashed through a wall, but with crash test dummies.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Those are ways to gather empirical results, though they rely on artificial, staged situations.

              I think it’s fine to have both. Seat belts save lives. I see no problem mandating them. That kind of thing can still be well founded in data.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        This sounds good until you realize how unsafe human drivers are. People won’t accept a self-driving system that’s only 50% safer than humans, because that will still be a self-driving car that kills 20,000 Americans a year. Look at the outrage right here, and we’re nowhere near those numbers. I also don’t see anyone comparing these numbers to human drivers on any per-mile basis. Waymos compared favorably to human drivers in their most recently released data. Does anyone even know where Teslas stand compared to human drivers?

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          There’s been 54 reported fatalities involving their software over the years in the US.

          That’s around 10 billion AP miles (9 billion at end of 2024), and around 3.6 billion on the various version of FSD (beta / supervised). Most of the fatal accidents happened on AP though not FSD.

          Lets just double those fatal accidents to 108 to make it for the world, but that probably skews high. Most of the fatal stuff I’ve seen is always in the US.

          That equates to 1 fatal accident every 125.9 million miles.

          The USA average per 100 million miles is 1.33 deaths, so even doubling the deaths it’s less than the current national average. That’s the equivalent of 1.33 deaths every 167 million miles with Tesla’s software.

          Edit: I couldn’t math, fixed it. Also for FSD specifically, very few places have it. Mainly North America, and just recently, China. I wish we had fatalities for FSD specifically.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    This is news? Fortnine talked about it two years ago.
    TL;DR Tesla removed LIDAR to save a buck and the cameras see two red dots that the 'puter thinks it’s a far away car at night when indeed it’s a close motorcycle.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 days ago

      It’s helpful to remember that not everyone has seen the same stories you have. If we want something to change, like regulators not allowing dangerous products, then raising public awareness is important. Expressing surprise that not everyone knows about something can be counterproductive.

      Going beyond that, wouldn’t the new information here be the statistics?

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        like regulators not allowing dangerous products,

        I include human drivers in the list of dangerous products I don’t want allowed. The question is self driving safer overall (despite possible regressions like this). I don’t want regulators to pick favorites. I want them to find “the truth”

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Sure, we’re in agreement as far as that goes. My point was just the commenter above me was indicating it should be common knowledge that Tesla self driving hits motorcycles more than other self driving cars. And whether their comment was about this or some other subject, I think it’s counterproductive to be like “everyone knows that.”

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        Why not? It’s got multiple cameras so could judge distances the same way humans do.

        However there have been both hardware and software updates since most of those, so the critical question is how much of a problem is it still? The article had no info or speculation on that

  • lnxtx (xe/xem/xyr)@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    Stop dehumanizing drivers who killed people.
    Feature, wrongly called, Full Self-Driving, shall be supervised at any time.

    • SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      17 days ago

      If you’re going to say your car has “full self driving”, it should have that, not “full self driving (but needs monitoring.)” or “full self driving (but it disconnects 2 seconds before impact.)”.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Because muh freedum, EU are a bunch of commies for not allowing this awesome innovation on their roads

      (I fucking love living in the EU)

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 days ago

      Humans are terrible drivers. The open question is are self driving cars overall safer than human driven cars. So far the only people talking either don’t have data, or have reason cherry pick only parts of the data that make self driving look good. This is the one exception where someone seemingly independent has done analysis - the question is are they unbiased, or are they cherry picking data to make self driving look bad (I’m not familiar with the source so I can’t answer that)

      Either way more study is needed.

      • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 days ago

        I am absolutely biased. It’s me, I’m the source :)

        I’m a motorcyclist, and I don’t want to die. Also just generally, motorcyclists deserve to get where they are going safely.

        I agree with you. Self-driving cars will overall greatly improve highway safety.

        I disagree with you when you suggest that pointing out flaws in the technology is evidence of bias, or “cherry picking to make self driving look bad.” I think we can improve on the technology by pointing out its systemic defects. If it hits motorcyclists, take it off the road, fix it, and then save lives by putting it back on the road.

        That’s the intention of the coverage, at least: I am hoping to apply pressure to improve rather than remove. Read my Waymo coverage, I’m actually a big automation enthusiast, because fewer crashes is a good thing.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 days ago

          I wasn’t trying to suggest that you are biased, only that I have no clue and so it is possible you are somehow unfairly doing something.

          • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            Perfectly fair. Sorry, I jumped the gun! Good on you for being incredulous and inspecting the piece for manipulation, that’s smart.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 days ago

        Humans are terrible. The human eyes and brain are good at detecting certain things though that allow a reaction where computer vision, especially only using one method of detection, fails often. There are times when an automated system will prevent a problem before a human could even see it. So far neither is the clear winner, human driving just has a legacy that automation has to beat by a great length and not just be good enough.

        On the topic of human drivers, I think most on the road drive reactively and not based on prediction and anticipation. Given the speed and possible detection methods, a well designed automated system should be excelling at this. It costs more and it more complex to design such a thing, so we’re getting the bare bones of the best minimum tech can give us right now, which again is not a replacement for all cases.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Because the march of technological advancement is inevitable?

      In light of recent (and let’s face it, long ago cases) Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” needs to be downgraded to level 2 at best.

      Level 2: Partial Automation

      The vehicle can handle both steering and acceleration/deceleration, but the driver must remain engaged and ready to take control.

      Pretty much the same level as other brands self driving feature.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 days ago

        The other brands, such as Audi and VW, work much better than Tesla’s system. Their LIDAR systems aren’t blinded by fog, and rain the way the Tesla is. Someone recently tested an Audi with its system against a Tesla with its system. The Tesla failed either 3/5 or 4/5 tests. The Audi passed 3/5 or 4/5. Neither system is perfect, but the one that doesn’t rely on just cameras is clearly superior.

        Edit: it was Mark Rober.

        https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 days ago

          It’s hard to tell, but from about 15 minutes of searching, I was unable to locate any consumer vehicles that include a LIDAR system. Lots of cars include RADAR, for object detection, even multiple RADAR systems for parking. There may be some which includes a TimeOfFlight sensor, which is like LIDAR, but static and lacks the resolution/fidelity. My Mach-E which has level 2 automation uses a combination of computer vision, RADAR and GPS. I was unable to locate a LIDAR sensor for the vehicle.

          The LIDAR system in Mark’s video is quite clearly a pre-production device that is not affiliated with the vehicle manufacturer it was being tested on.

          Adding, after more searching, it looks like the polestar 3, some trim levels of the Audi A8 and the Volvo EX90 include a LiDAR sensor. Curious to see how the consumer grade tech works out in real world.

          Please do not mistake this comment as “AI/computer vision” evangelisim. I currently have a car that uses those technologies for automation, and I would not and do not trust my life or anyone else’s to that system.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            The way I understand it, is that Audi, Volvo, and VW have had the hardware in place for a few years. They are collecting real world data about how we drive before they allow the systems to be used at all. There are also legal issues with liability.

          • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 days ago

            Mercedes uses LiDAR. They also operate the sole Level 3 driver automation system in the USA. Two models only, the new S-Class and EQS sedans.

            Tesla alleges they’ll be Level 4+ in Austin in 60 days, and just skip Level 3 altogether. We’ll see.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              16 days ago

              Yeah, keep in mind that Elon couldn’t get level 3 working in a closed, pre-mapped circuit. The robotaxis were just remotely operated.

  • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    I imagine bicyclists must be æffected as well if they’re on the road (as we should be, technically). As somebody who has already been literally inches away from being rear-ended, this makes me never want to bike in the US again.

    Time to go to Netherlands.

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    16 days ago

    the cybertruck is sharp enough to cut a deer in half, surely a biker is just as vulnerable.

  • keesrif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    17 days ago

    On a quick read, I didn’t see the struck motorcycles listed. Last I heard, a few years ago, was that this mainly affected motorcycles with two rear lights that are spaced apart and fairly low to the ground. I believe this is mostly true for Harleys.

    The theory I recall was that this rear light configuration made the Tesla assume it was looking (remember, only cameras without depth data) at a car that was further down the road - and acceleration was safe as a result. It miscategorised the motorcycle so badly that it misjudged it’s position entirely.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      17 days ago

      Whatever it is, it’s unacceptable and they should really ban Tesla’s implementation until they fix some fundamental issues.

    • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      17 days ago

      I also saw that theory! That’s in the first link in the article.

      The only problem with the theory: Many of the crashes are in broad daylight. No lights on at all.

      I didn’t include the motorcycle make and model, but I did find it. Because I do journalism, and sometimes I even do good journalism!

      The models I found are: Kawasaki Vulcan (a cruiser bike, just like the Harleys you describe), Yamaha YZF-R6 (a racing-style sport bike with high-mount lights), and a Yamaha V-Star (a “standard” bike, fairly low lights, and generally a low-slung bike). Weirdly, the bike models run the full gamut of the different motorcycles people ride on highways, every type is represented (sadly) in the fatalities.

      I think you’re onto something with the faulty depth sensors. Sensing distance is difficult with optical sensors. That’s why Tesla would be alone in the motorcycle fatality bracket, and that’s why it would always be rear-end crashes by the Tesla.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 days ago

        Because I do journalism, and sometimes I even do good journalism!

        In that case, you wouldn’t happen to know whether or not Teslas are unusually dangerous to bicycles too, would you?

        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 days ago

          Surprisingly, there is a data bucket for accidents with bicyclists, but hardly any bicycle crashes are reported.

          That either means that they are not occurring (woohoo!), or that means they are being lumped in as one of the multiple pedestrian buckets (not woohoo!), or they are in the absolutely fucking vast collection of “severity: unknown” accidents where we have no details and Tesla requested redaction to make finding the details very difficult.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      Still probably a good idea to keep an eye on that Tesla behind you. Or just let them past.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’m on mine far more often than I’m in a car. I think Tesla found out that I point and laugh at any cyber trucks I see at red lights while I’m out and is trying to kill me.

    • GoodLuckToFriends@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      You’re not wrong, but good luck watching out for a vehicle approaching you at a 30 mph differential (which is what I recall from fortnine covering the topic years ago) from behind.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Every captcha…can you see the motorcycle? I would be afraid if they wanted all the squares with small babies or maybe just regular folk…can you pick all the hottie’s? Which of these are body parts?

  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    16 days ago

    It’s because the system has to rely on visual cues, since Tesla’s have no radar. The system looks at the tail light when it’s dark to gauge the distance from the vehicle. And since some bikes have a double light the system thinks it’s a car in front of them that is far away, when in reality it’s a bike up close. Also remember the ai is trained on human driving behavior which Tesla records from their customers. And we all know how well the average human drives around two wheeled vehicles.