Tesla Is Trying to Hide 3 Robotaxi Accidents

Read the table of examples in the article. Other companies report crashes with significant detail visible to the public that Tesla is redacting.

Compare Waymo report:

"On [XXX] at 10:31 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a scooterist on [XXX] at [XXX].

The Waymo AV was stopped at the curb facing north on [XXX] for a passenger drop-off when the passenger in the Waymo AV opened the rear right door. As the rear right door was being opened by the passenger, a scooter ....

Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 2 of Standing General Order 2021-01. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available."

Tesla reports is:

"[REDACTED, MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION]"

Tesla has consistently tried to have it both ways saying they are "not autonomous" and therefore don't have to report, but also then claiming in other contexts that they are driving huge numbers of "autonomous" miles.

So now they finally do a handful of reports and it's all REDACTED? They are finally doing barely what's required but also not being forthcoming at all.

> they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.

Here is a prediction: when they don't actually get to remove the safety drivers, Elon will blame regulators and rage quit the Robo taxi game.

The past 5 years or so they’ve looked more like a pump-and-dump scheme masquerading as a car manufacturer, so that seems on brand.

> they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.

Because they can't. They don't have the technology to do so, despite promising for years it's right around the corner. Musk backed Tesla into a corner by promising dates and missing them several times, and this is just another instance of that. They're playing a shell game and they've been able to hide the ball so far by calling things "beta" or a "rollout" or "supervised", but when it comes to robot axis they have to actually be autonomous, and Tesla tech cannot deliver that.

So all I'm wondering is where they're going to hide the ball next. I don't think they can push robotaxis any longer, which is why you see Musk preemptively suggesting robots and AI are the future of Tesla. Actually I think he's more likely to claim victory in self driving, ditch the entire car company saying it's so last century, and pivot Tesla into robotics than to actually release failure robotaxis. It's the only way he can keep the grift going; the self driving grift is done.

I had never even thought of that! I had just assumed that Tesla would be responsible, but you know what they say about "assume!" Holy Cow! Now you've got me thinking there's another reason to not utilize a Robotaxi, buried in the terms and conditions that nobody reads could be a statement where you take full responsibility for everything the Robotaxi does. Yikes!

Waymos stop in the middle of the street several times a day, behavior I've never seen or even heard of from FSD. And I'm not sure what it has to do with lane selection.

FSD goes around stopped vehicles without any problem too.

Waymo seems to do a lot of detailed mapping in the areas where they operate. They probably have the lanes all marked out in the cars memory.

TBF the Ford CEO, in an interview, said lidar is the difference. But I can't blame him for going with the sound bite in that context. No doubt he knows there are lots of differences. My favorite underappreciated difference is that Google has crazy amounts of geospatial data.

Well, there is the "my car has been disabled in an inconvenient time/location" problem for one. It would be nice to have more audibility but I use iOS/macOS/etc so it would be disingenuous to claim that as a show-stopper.

If by "vanguard cohort" you mean "in the first wave to test the new software," then yes; I don't want to be in that group.

My car/motorcycle/skateboard doesn't need over the air updates. It used to be, and still is in some cases, that a vehicle (electronic control modules and all) was sold as a finished product. Your engine control module or speed controller didn't need random firmware updates because it was a finished product that worked as intended upon delivery. Now people are clamoring to drive software licenses and I want no part of it. This isn't about auditing the code, this is about complexity creep and having ownership.