Advertisement
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Tesla Talk 2

1…114115117119120…127

Comments

  • #3482
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508760#Comment_124508760

    Ireland is a tiny, insignificant country in the scheme of things, I grant you that.

    But there should be near zero effort getting it approved. And zero cost to the tax payer as it is all done by civil servants who are paid anyway. And every single Tesla sold today has HW4. The FSD sub uptake might be low initially, but everyone gets a free month and the vast majority of people have been raving about it in NL. Uptake might well be higher than estimated

    And of course FSD is already safer than humans. And where there is zero improvement in humans - some argue they are getting worse - there is continuous improvement in FSD

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • #3483
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508973#Comment_124508973

    Again no serious proof of being 'safer than humans' . Weve covered this, it's got no discernable benefit to anyone other than the owner.



  • #3484
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508978#Comment_124508978

    RDW says safer than humans. Or are we adding that to the very long list of proven things that you will deny forever?

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • #3485
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508987#Comment_124508987

    RDW haven't said that. They said it passed their standardised testing.

    They are not the same thing.



  • #3486
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508996#Comment_124508996

    Wrong. RDW have said exactly that.

    From their website

    https://www.rdw.nl/en/news/2026/rdw-explanation-of-european-type-approval-tesla-with-provisional-validity-in-the-netherlands

    "Using this driver assistance system correctly makes a positive contribution to road safety"

    So it is safer than not using it. QED. Unless of course you reckon that the RDW are lying or delusional, or corrupted or something. Wouldn't put it past you to believe any of that 😂

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • Advertisement
  • #3487
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509268#Comment_124509268

    Hold on .

    They literally didn't say it's safer than human drivers. This is exactly what you said.

    So no, you're wrong. Your quote doesn't say. 'FSD is safer than human drivers'

    Why would you post this if the point wasn't to pretend they said something that they didnt?



  • #3488
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    More clouds…..

    More old lad stuck in their hatred bubble…..

    More shouting……

    You’ve got one thing right…..we’ve been here before…..



  • #3489
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509390#Comment_124509390

    Gumbo, no one's shouting. You've tried all this before. Maybe just a thought , don't pretend people are as emotional as you?

    Statingly plainly factual information like the RDW didn't say what he is saying they said is just plain reality my man.

    Do all cab men have the penchant for the hyperbole?



  • #3490
    John arse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭John arse


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509390#Comment_124509390

    Is this guy just on the wind-up I wonder?🤔



  • #3491
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508996#Comment_124508996

    You are right, RDW did not say directly it's safer than human drivers.

    They did however say that correctly using driver aid systems makes a positive contribution to road safety.

    Given that the requirements for an article 39 exemption are that regulatory authority must be satisfied that the system under test must perform in a manner that meets or exceeds safety and environmental standards.

    So if granting an exemption allows the usage of a better driver aid system, and driver aid systems provide a positive contribution to road safety.

    Then we can say that at least in the eyes of RDW (and Lithuania, and Estonia) that allowing the use of FSD on public roads will improve road safety compared to blocking it and only allowing manual operation of the vehicle, or the use of the more limited pre FSD driver aids.



  • Advertisement
  • #3492
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509457#Comment_124509457

    Assertions made. Data unclear. Passing set tests doesn't indicate safer than human drivers.

    I'm very open to reading data on this though rather than having my head eaten off and poor attempts at wind ups. These threads end up being just people's opinions thrown back and forth no data and countries being called laggards for not getting in behind the share price of a private business.



  • #3493
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509426#Comment_124509426

    Must be emotional. You brought it up.
    I guess you only get emotional when we put down BYD. Sorry about that. It’s only a car lad.



  • #3494
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509482#Comment_124509482

    You going to present some study's on this or just have pops ?

    Thought so.

    I don't own a byd horse. Ive a Renault btw. 😂🤣😂🤣



  • #3495
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509490#Comment_124509490

    More hypocrite shite from you.
    Moaning about someone having pops while having pops yourself.

    Last time I showed you the official stats you claimed they were wrong 😂😂😂😂

    I guess that’s the pattern here…..thought so.

    Hopefully our leaders step up here and allow FSD into the game.



  • #3496
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509498#Comment_124509498

    You've never shown any stats on fsd versus other road usage. Get up the yard lol.



  • #3497
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509471#Comment_124509471

    That's a requirement for an article 39 exemption, are you suggesting that RDW have lied about properly used driver aids improving road safety, or are you suggesting that RDW were incompetent in their assessment of that the performance of FSD on HW4, and that it was not shown to meet or exceed the safety and environmental standards that would have applied if an exemption was not sought?

    I'd love to see your detailed analysis on why either of those cases may be.



  • #3498
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509457#Comment_124509457

    Positive means greater than zero, right? So using it makes a greater than zero contribution to road safety than not using it. Using is is safer than not using it.

    Or is there something wrong with my logic here?

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • #3499
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509596#Comment_124509596

    I suggested that they lied ?what are you on about. I said they passed the set list of tests the RDW have to get approved.

    Once again that does not make it safer than a human doing equivalent mileage.

    Where did I once say that they lied ? ( I didn't ).

    The simple reality is if Tesla wanted to show their data of fsd versus driver intervention they could do it in the morning first thing. They don't. Elon has cases against him right now related to this stuff and he continues to make claims of 10 times safer driving without publishing their data stats to back it up. No one here is publishing that information because Tesla won't publish it. They release sample sets of data every year to show a form of narrative but don't actually release anything else.

    So , yes I think it's perfectly fine for me or anyone to be highly skeptical of their claims given their own track record in the space.

    Passing a set of metrics in the RDW does not as someone said 'shows better than a human'

    We may see data come out from the court cases that they are facing. Remains to be seen in 2026.



  • #3500
    JOL1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭JOL1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124508655#Comment_124508655

    I can understand that many on this thread (myself included) are enthusiastic about the developments but I suspect that the majority of the public would approach self drive with a degree of caution and I don't think it unsual that the government doesnt rush in …its barely 6 weeks since the 1st European country (Netherlands) granted approval so "laggards" or "blood on their hands" is a little dramatic…lets keep perspective.



  • #3501
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509669#Comment_124509669

    Sure they are a bit dramatic, picked for dramatic effect😂

    But many EU governments normally accept RDW type approvals without even looking at the details. RDW is highly regarded, if they have rigorously tested something for 18 months and concluded using it increases safety, why would anyone argue? Unless they have an agenda to delay…

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • Advertisement
  • #3502
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509669#Comment_124509669

    Reasonable commentary. I see these 'advancements' more in the realm of additional distracted driving along with all the flat screens in all manor of vehicles now.

    There's push backs happening now oddly driven by China and then Europe on button less controls. Overdue but the pushing 'the boat out on tech advancements' in vehicles has to be stemmed somewhat. We need more proof that systems are actually safe. The regulations and the tests are not keeping up with the pressure from the providers. It may never catch up though either.



  • #3503
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509613#Comment_124509613

    Passing a set of metrics in the RDW does not as someone said 'shows better than a human'

    The RDW Statements says "Using this driver assistance system correctly makes a positive contribution to road safety."

    If you test the opposite of this statement, not using this driving assistance system, or using it incorrectly does not have a positive contribution to road safety.
    If a car is being driven without using this driving assistance system, then who's driving it?

    If we put a human driver safety score at 100. Then we can say the following, RDW didn't put a factor on it.

    Scenario

    Score

    Human

    100

    Human + FSD HW4

    >100

    Back to the point @unkel, now ask yourself is >100 larger than 100. The answer is yes, therefore his assertion that RDW said that FSD when used properly is safer than a human driver is correct.

    If you do not agree with their statement you only really have two options. Their statement is incorrect (i.e. a lie) or you believe their test methodology was not competent enough. We'll know at the end of June as to how many other countries feel that way after reviewing the data provided by RDW.



  • #3504
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509694#Comment_124509694

    I thought the option to accept or not a type approval only applies in a limited scenario when an exemption from standard regulations has been obtained and in that small window of time before the exemption is brought to the commission for a vote.

    I've been trying to find any details on other article 39 exemptions but can't find any info.



  • #3505
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509725#Comment_124509725

    Sorry I'm unclear on this did you just put mathematics to a statement that they made?

    Is your point to take a statement of positive contribution and then add math to that statement yourself?

    There's no metric that makes sense , I'm confused why you would assume this makes the case , text to random made up numbers.

    The problem here is exactly that. Made up numbers , text statements, Twitter proclamations. But zero 'real cold hard data' . No one can provide this on the thread because it doesn't exist. Tesla won't release it.

    We can infer from that specifically that their own statistics do not actually show that it's X times safer, they may actually show that it encourages unsafe driver behavior. But we can't see the data can we. Why wouldn't they want to market this with hard data'? It begs belief when you think about it for a moment . Why hold it back ?



  • #3506
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509776#Comment_124509776

    I was hoping it would make it easier for you to understand what the words they used mean (positive contribution).

    The problem here is exactly that. Made up numbers , text statements, Twitter proclamations. But zero 'real cold hard data' . No one can provide this on the thread because it doesn't exist. Tesla won't release it.

    The data has been captured by Tesla and RDW, and has been shared with other competent licensing authorities and was clearly enough to satisfy both the Lithuanian and Estonian authorities.

    Just because boards.ie is not on the list of type approval authorities that are given the data, does not mean it doesn't exist.



  • #3507
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,076 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509725#Comment_124509725

    Thanks Liam, appreciate you are confirming that by logic, the RDW have indeed stated that the cars are safer with FSD

    "Make no mistake. The days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered" - Quentin Willson, 1997



  • #3508
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,672 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509803#Comment_124509803

    The data has not been captured though. What was captured was data pursuent to tests set out by the RDW and their requirements.

    No one, RDW included has access to Teslas extensive FSD data for the last few years. Tesla holds it back. Just last month musk again tweeted that fsd is 10 times safer than human drivers. This despite tesla releasing data earlier showing only 4 times safer than humans. And within that data set they don't even show anything related to driver interventions. So he contradicts his own company releases

    The reason people like myself are highly suspicious of all of this is because they make it suspicious. The holding back of information from the NHTSA, the dumps of data they release then revise when the questioned. The active court cases about the claims of the tech.

    No RDW did not get Teslas FSD information. That's not a factual statement.

    And once again. If any of it clearly demonstrated it was 10 times safer I wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. We'd be pouring over that instead of this back and forth. They'd be singing it from the roof tops pointing at the beautiful statistics . I suspect Unkel would be hanging them from the rafters too pointing at how beautiful they are .



  • #3509
    KCross
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭KCross


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509818#Comment_124509818

    Thanks Liam, appreciate you are confirming that by logic, the RDW have indeed stated that the cars are safer with FSD

    Im not one for typically backing listermint up unkel but your moving the goalpost there. "safer with FSD" is not what you said… you said "safer than humans" and you put words into RDW's mouth by saying they said it…. you have been proven wrong on that. They said "makes a positive contribution to road safety"… thats not at all the same as "safer than humans".

    Liam's mathematical analogy is nonsense too. Its no different to saying "human=100, human+blindspot detection>100, therefore BSD is safer than humans"…. clearly thats nonsense.

    All RDW are saying is that FSD contributes positively to road safety, like all the other safety systems that cars have. It doesnt mean you can then make the massive leap to saying FSD on its own can travel everywhere and be safer than humans.

    You can, of course, have that personal opinion based on your own experience of it but you cant use RDW to support your narrative and you should admit that to be honest.

    FSD may very well prove to be safer than humans in time, but all listermint is saying is show the data. Not unreasonable.

    The data has been captured by Tesla and RDW, and has been shared with other competent licensing authorities and was clearly enough to satisfy both the Lithuanian and Estonian authorities.

    Liam, those authorities have, I believe, approved FSD (Supervised). They havent approved a system that is "safer than humans" which would be FSD (Unsupervised). No? I dont think their approval proves your point at all.



  • #3510
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509843#Comment_124509843

    Through continuous strict monitoring of the driver in the vehicle, the system is safer than other driver assistance systems. We have thoroughly examined and verified this system for more than one and a half years. Each year we issue about 50,000 type approvals for complete vehicles or vehicle components.

    On what basis are you making the claim that RDW did not have access to data on the testing that was conducted as part of their approval process? Their own statement says they examined and reviewed the operation of FSD as it applies to the operating conditions that the type approval applies to.

    If you are correct that they did such an incompetent job, the we should know at the end of June when the vote is held by the commission to approve the exemption.

    I'm not sure why you arguing about the claims made by Tesla as an argument against the statements made by RDW. I generally agree with you that Tesla are grandiose and should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I have no reason to believe the same is true of the Dutch Vehicle licensing authority.

    I operate on an assumption that a competent authorities is competent until presented with counter evidence. Especially in this particular space where there are 26 other authorities who are in a position to challenge them if they do such a bad job.



  • Advertisement
  • #3511
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 6,595 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124509974#Comment_124509974


    Isn't this more a symptom of two sides arguing about different things.

    Are we talking about FSD as a driver aid system for HW4 cars (I am).
    Are we talking about Tesla's fully autonomous driving system as used in the robotaxi trials.
    Are we talking about the aspirational goal of FSD as outlined by Tesla in 2019 or probably earlier.

    I appreciate it's as clear as mud.



Advertisement
Advertisement