razorirr t1_jarg2c5 wrote

Its quite a bit more than that. It takes 55kwh to crack the water to get that h2 using hydrolosis

A question becomes then if planes are 10% of us transit emissions, all other large transit 10%, and our personal cars are 45% and semis are 35%. Should we be using energy to do this? That same solar would most likely reduce emissions more if you put it directly into cars / busses / semis as battery electric. You dont have the conversion loss, and BEV is 10-15% more efficent than FCEV


razorirr t1_jaak26s wrote

Not at all!

"Chang wrote that Hyundai was "in the process of divesting its ownership interest in SMART" but it would ensure "that the economically important jobs in the Luverne, Alabama community are preserved.""

Hundai is selling off their controlling share, but they are going to keep buying from the company like they always have. Basically they are just going "so when this happens again in 6 months, you can not blame us, we aren't in control"

You see the same thing over and over again in industries, the clothing sector is famous for this. They contract out to make the garments, get busted that that contractor was using child labor and then switch to another company, which surprise surprise, also child labor.


razorirr t1_j9an80n wrote

You would think that but no. If you consider anything in front of you not moving as reason to stop, if i put you on a hill, your radar is now pointing down the slope, so as you approach the bottom your vision will tell you "im ok to proceed, its just the hill slope leveling off." Radar will tell you "oh shit theres a stationary object, brake now". Stationary objects in path is a limitation of using radar, which cant tell what the object is.


razorirr t1_j98uvkc wrote

hahahaha. that report is a news article talking about the NHTSA report i got my 2 AP crashes from.

If you take the estimated miles driven for AP, and the estimated miles driven by everything else. AP has a crash rate of .0009 per 1,000,000 miles into all first responder vehicles, and that is assuming all 2 reported in that report were tesla. all cars overall broke out to .001 per 1,000,000 miles.

So forcing everyone to use AP would reduce crashes into parked firetrucks by 290 a year or 11.5%.

So if you want to use that article as a reason against ap, feel free, as its actually a reason to ban humans and use AP.


Its page 7 of nine, second chart, shows ADAS crashes per vehicle it crashed into. Further. the data in that report has the possibility of double counts, so if Tesla reported it and the police seperately reported it. its 2x times. It also does not mean "The tesla crashed into me" If you rear end a tesla, and the tesla was on AP, it goes in the report, even though it was not the teslas fault.


razorirr t1_j97dmf4 wrote

Did you ever think that they could be putting the radar in to augment all the other situations where radar is helpful, but due to the limitations of radar, this is not one of those situations?

Actually read and comprehend that article. The OG radar my car has was insufficient compared to just cameras. The one they are putting in has much better distance that it can see, but it still will have the issues I've explained above as that is a fundamental issue with radar.

So now instead of seeing the bottom of the valley at 200 feet, it sees it at 400 feet. All of the same problems occur and the car still can not proceed to the bottom of the hill if programmed to always stop based off a radar blockage or a radar vs camera divergence. Radar always will be not helpful for static objects in path, but it will be really helpful for letting the car know something is in motion 400 feet away.


razorirr t1_j978ckm wrote

No. This is a technical conversation about how a technical system works. You cant agree to disagree on those aspects else its impossible to come to an agreement at all. The only way to prove this would be for you to prove the car would not stop forever on the hill once the radar and the camera diverged if divergence = stop or in the case of pure radar = sees blockage = stop.

I agree augmenting is good. Like the radar can see the range of an object better than camera vision can guesstimate it. But what i was talking about is a known limitation to radar. You can not "Augment" around that, you have to throw the data out, and if you are throwing it out 100% of the time, you don't need it.


razorirr t1_j9731y8 wrote

>The Radar is used for ranging


>The bottom of the valley does not get close enough to warrant emergency intervention from the braking system.


You are driving down the hill, its a 1 mile slope from top to bottom, then it curves and goes up the next hill.

You are right that while its far away, you can ignore the read because the range is saying "yeah i see something, but its 3000 feet off, who cares" or it just sees nothing as its not looking that far out.

But since its not moving and you are, eventually you will be 200 feet from the bottom. Radar sees this as an object blocking your path, and its now close enough the car goes "Yeah I see something, its 200 feet away, lets stop."

Since the ground is never going to move, radar will always say stop. A camera with sufficient data labeling ability can overcome this as it can tell context, radar never can as it is a binary "block / clear"

Also, https://www.chevrolet.com/support/vehicle/driving-safety/brakes/front-pedestrian-braking heres Chevy explaining how they do their pedestrian braking. Its using cameras, not the radar.


razorirr t1_j96yztn wrote

That wouldn't do anything

Like I explained, the radar in this case would give "All clear"

The camera in this case should have gave "firetruck" but gave "all clear"

Erroneous camera All Clear + radar design all clear = all clear = crash.

Camera Firetruck + all clear = stop

The radar all clear in this case is unneeded, as it will never be not all clear, and the diverging car stop is not needed because the firetruck car stop would apply.

From a QA guy telling the probably Developer guy your logic is bad, you could program the radar to always return blocked if it sees any static object. but then that causes a problem.

  1. If the radar says blocked, and the camera sees something, That is a stop due to agreeing.
  2. If the radar says blocked but the camera does not see anything, that is a stop due to divergence.

Your car would never be able to go anywhere in the system you proposed other than on an unblocked flat surface.

Love all the instant downvotes all my posts are getting. Seems a lot of people don't know what they are talking about but think they do.


razorirr t1_j96xtfb wrote

So, we don't have all the offical numbers for things but we can take a crack at this

https://lexfridman.com/tesla-autopilot-miles-and-vehicles/ Lex Fridman, a MIT Research Scientist has sat down with the sales figures and the AP miles driven numbers tesla has occasionally given out, and at the last update he posted, there would have been roughly 1.8 billion miles driven between 4-22-2020 and 1-1-2021. For a full year this is 2.662 billion miles. or 221.9m per month.


NHSTA says over the course of 10 months, there have been two confirmed ADAS related accidents into first responder vehicles.


If you take the 12785 miles per driver 2020 average which they calculated by doing the math against the 2020 FHA report. There are 228m drivers, so this is 243b a month


This report shows that 2500 trucks a year parked as blockers get hit. 250 per month

250 accidents per month / 243000 million miles = .001

.2 accidents a month / 222 million miles = .0009

So if you take all the different reports in context of each other. Non tesla AP hits .001 fire trucks per million miles driven. Tesla AP hits .0009 firetrucks per million miles driven.

Tesla AP is slightly better than all humans + other AP systems. If we replaced everything else with Tesla AP, we would have reduced the accident count by 291.5


razorirr t1_j96oqwi wrote

Your statement shows you dont know how car radar works.

Cars are using the radar to measure doppler shift. This is how they tell if the car in front of you is moving faster, or slower than you. Because the speed of the signal is a known constant, it can also give you distance.

In the conditions you have driving, you have to throw out any measurement of something not moving, such as that parked firetruck and mark it as invalid. This sounds ridiculous but its for a simple reason

Pretend you are in a car with radar and you are driving down into a valley. The car will see the bottom of the valley where you would start driving up the other hill as a static object, and the car would stop. With radar, you cant tell this valley from a police car.


razorirr t1_j96c9l7 wrote

Nah. NHTSA requires reporting of all accidents up to 30 seconds after it turns off.

So if you think its turning off to not get counted, that means you think its not able to avoid crashing, but is able to realize its going to crash a half mile up the road, turn itself off, which it notifies you its doing, then the driver ignores the minority report self turn off, does not take over, and crashes.


razorirr t1_j9685bf wrote

Cant read, paywall.

how much of a minority, and how many miles do the others have? Like ford for example is all happy their has been active for 16 million miles recently, Tesla is around 3 billion since it came out adding about a billion a year. so every 1 tesla is worth 97 fords.


razorirr t1_j966747 wrote

There have from June 2021 through may 15th 2022 been 2 crashes with ADAS of any type, from any brand into emergency vehicles.


So you can either believe the government which is forcing the makers to publish this data that this is a non issue. Or you are just here talking about it cause you don't like autonomous vehicles and you are being dishonest with your comment anyways.


razorirr t1_j965fji wrote

Weird how you brought that up when this article does not even attempt to blame it on Autopilot / FSD.

Frankly, theres 2500 crashes like this a year across the whole vehicle fleet. 6.8 of them per day. So if that was 1 article, where are the other 5.8 articles? Oh wait it does not involve a tesla, so it wont make the news.


There were from Jul 2021 - May 2022, 2 crashes that were proven to have been ADAS of any brand's "fault". And by fault I mean the NHTSA's order of "if the system was off, but on up to even 30 seconds before hand, it counts"

Tesla does about a billion miles a year right now. Ford was happy to put out a press release about their cars having hit 16 million total. So even if both of the 2 in that report is tesla, and we find out that its a 1 in 500 million miles driven average. 16/500=3.2%. Ford simply has not had enough usage to have their 1:500,000,000 happen yet.


razorirr t1_j964ohq wrote


This report does. Manufacturers are required as of july 1 to have the cars monitor when the systems were on / off. If the car crashed with it either on, or on in the prior 30 seconds to the crash to report it.

From July 1 2021 - May 15 2022. Only 2 crashes total were into first responder vehicles. It does not specify which brand had it happen. but even if it was tesla for both, its probably inevitable. Tesla reports about 1 billion miles a year where the car is driving, Ford reported 16 million in a press release.

If we find that 1 crash in 500 million miles is the average, Fords 16 million miles is only 3.2% of that miles driven. Its not that ford never crashes, its that they have not done enough driving to hit the point at which it was statistically probable to have occurred yet.


razorirr t1_j963cf0 wrote

How much do you want to actually read? I can answer this.

NHTSA has a standing order on ADAS crashes. All manufacturers are required to provide telemetry and report if a crash occurred with ADAS either on, or had been on in the previous 30 seconds. This reporting started July of 2021 and is still current.

You can read their june 2022 findings here. next report will be next june

In that whole time period, only 2 crashes were confirmed into first responder vehicles total, for any brand.

So every other article you have seen since june 21 through may15th 2022, the cutoff date in that report, is bullshit. its the press going "oh its a tesla and a responder vehicle, lets accuse AP/FSD, get a shitload of clicks from people on reddit, then not release a retraction months later when its found not to have been the cause"

As to my significantly insignificant bit. yeah, both crashes might have been tesla (the report does not break it down to that detail) But their system works everywhere, and is on way way more cars than Fords or GM. Ford was happy when they hit 16 million miles driven total. Teslas system does north of a billion a year. If tesla was both crashes on 1b miles, ford will have 0, and you can claim that "well ford is perfect" no, ford just has not had enough time to be statistically relevant.

The only other brand to have a significant amount of vehicles is Honda, with about 5 million, Their system however does not function everywhere so theres the question of are they better at not crashing, or do they just not have the crashes per mile figure out there as they have not released miles of usage figures. I can't do apples to apples with them as tesla has shown their apple, and the others all have a black box they say may or may not have a fruit in it.


razorirr t1_j95x698 wrote

Are they though?

In 2019, an estimated 2,500 vehicles crashed into firetrucks parked as blockers (6.8 crashes every day or 16% of all firetruck collisions).


Tesla has had around a dozen but its over 5 years.

Theres around 2 million teslas, and they all have AP at this point. 248 million cars total. .8%. 2/2500 is .08%. So tesla is 10x better than everyone else.

Also i feel you dont hear about the others because their systems are in an insignificant amount of cars, and usable on an insignificant amount of places. Once they scale to "yeah it works everywhere" it will go up