← Back to context

Comment by sktb

11 hours ago

Hmmm. The source for the "FSD is safer" claim might not be wholly independent: "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving"

I would be surprised if that was what they were actually looking at. They are an established insurance company with their own data and the actuaries to analyze it. I can't imagine them doing this without at least validating a substantial drop in claims relating to FSD capable cars.

Now that they are offering this program, they should start getting much better data by being able to correlate claims with actual FSD usage. They might be viewing this program partially as a data acquisition project to help them insure autonomous vehicles more broadly in the future.

  • > They might be viewing this program partially as a data acquisition project to help them insure autonomous vehicles more broadly in the future

    What do you mean?

It doesn't really matter because the insurance company itself will learn if that is correct or not when the claims start coming in

Its their own bet to make

> "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving"

Teslas only do FSD on motorways where you tend to have far fewer accidents per mile.

Also, they switch to manual driving if they can't cope, and because the driver isn't paying attention this usually results in a crash. But hey, it's in manual driving, not FSD, so they get to claim FSD is safer.

FSD is not and never will be safer than a human driver.