Tesla Talk 2

listermint · 29-05-2026 09:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510045#Comment_124510045

I'm making it on the basis specifically related to the statement you quoted by them. That statement shows that they monitored it in accordance with their own tests for a year and a half . Exactly what I said. That statement does not say that they had access to any of Teslas own large multi-year FSD huge dataset infact arguably they don't need access to it as it has little to do with the monitoring against the RDWs testing protocols.

Again your using words that don't exist to back up an argument you're making on behalf of Unkel.

Tesla doesn't release their full data set and are at pains not to.

This is what basis I'm making my statement , (not claim).

listermint · 29-05-2026 09:58PM

Actually, I'd go one additional step forward btw. I find this portion of the statement actually slightly concerning from a government independent agency. It's not the type of thing that is convention and may actually be construed as favouring a solution or advertising. It's fairly abnormal language unless this is a real mistranslation. You wouldn't see this language for example from NCAP .

I'd assume it's poorly translated Dutch to English.

You have to admit it's suspect.

the system is safer than other driver assistance systems. We have thoroughly examined and verified this system

JOL1 · 29-05-2026 10:21PM

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

Its very clear from Liams comments that the use of numbers was purely as an example to illustrate additional benefit as opposed to not using it. "Using driver assistance systems correctly makes a positive contribution to road safety because the driver is supported in their driving tasks; it is a supplement to the driver" , is what the regulatory authority RDW determined after an 18 month period reviewing. It does appear as though you are trying to wind people up in a passive aggressive way.

JOL1 · 29-05-2026 10:29PM

Humans + Supervised FSD> Humans without FSD

The RDW wording makes clear that when used correctly it assists the driver and makes a positive contribution to road safety…and yes I agree that that is slightly different to saying that FSD is safer than humans

listermint · 29-05-2026 10:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510165#Comment_124510165

This is not true, that's your opinion. I have no intention to wind people up passively or non passively.

As kcross pointed out adding figures did not enhance the argument it merely dented it. And manifested nothing additional to what the RDW statement said. It was simply misdirection. And no I don't appreciate saying I'm winding anyone up. It's an unfair claim.

Nothing 'very clear' about that point at all.

Why do I care? I remain unimpressed by these systems in relation to safer roads. I think it encourages risky behavior, I don't believe this solution is up to task, and I don't feel we should be sharing the roads with it or any others that implement similar.

listermint · 29-05-2026 10:36PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510190#Comment_124510190

In this comment you are also adding language. Did the RDW say 'when used correctly'. They did not.

This is why wording remains important. Data remains important and as I said saying things like "this safer than other driving assistance systems" is very questionable behavior and brings into question both the agency and the tester that wrote it.

Unless, as can be possible. It's a just simply a **** dutch to English copy and paste translation.

Agencies shouldn't ever be making opinions with that sort of language. They should state plainly something passed or did not and why .

It's not very Dutch actually. If you know the Dutch well. This is unusual.

JOL1 · 29-05-2026 11:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510206#Comment_124510206

The RDW wording does emphasise "when used correctly" and is posted in English on their website/press release 10th April

liamog · 29-05-2026 11:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510206#Comment_124510206

It's in the statement that was linked, and I quoted.
I'm surprised you didn't spot given how thoughly you've investigated the RDW approval process and Article 39 Exemptions.

Contribution to safety
Safety is RDW’s top priority. Tesla’s driver controlled assistance system supports the driver more than other systems because, when enabled, it takes over multiple driving tasks. Using driver assistance systems correctly makes a positive contribution to road safety because the driver is supported in their driving tasks; it is a supplement to the driver. 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. Driver assistance systems are also vehicle components that we assess. You can find more about this in our file on Type Approval (in Dutch).

Were you ever able to put together that evidence for why the RDW testing and monitoring process were deficient?
I'm assuming you don't want to share it with us due to working with your own countries licensing authority to address the very serious concerns you have that the RDW (and Estonia/Lithuania) have breached the directives on vehicle type approval?

listermint · 29-05-2026 11:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510276#Comment_124510276

Thanks for the context. It wasnt in your original quotes. Granted that is what was stated.

listermint · 29-05-2026 11:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510278#Comment_124510278

Once again liam can you kindly stop saying things I never stated. You stated I said Tesla lied to RDW. I didn't . Now you've said I stated RDW was deficient. I did not.

So I won't respond to this particular post other than to say I never said either thing. You're trying to redirect the conversation by using language never mentioned out of my fingers.

Why are you doing this ?

liamog · 29-05-2026 11:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510298#Comment_124510298

Ok so you agree with their statement that using FSD as a driver aid correctly increases road safety.

And that they claim to have tested the system to ensure that operating FSD in Europe on HW4 cars meets or exceeds all safety and environmental standards as required as part of the article 39 exemption process?

Your previous posts make it seem like you don't?

listermint · 29-05-2026 11:24PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510316#Comment_124510316

I never disagreed that it passed all of their protocols and tests though.

I disagree with the statement 'ireland are laggards'

I disagree with the statement that this is 'safer than human drivers'

And I still disagree with the type of technology direction to implement this type of assisted driving. I think it's poorly thought out and short sighted. Making it more risky and making drivers more distracted .

I would love for Tesla to come clean with their incident data all of it. If it was as good as represented they would do so.

I'm still highly confused as to why with fsd in its latest form doesn't have massive volumes of vehicles delivering robot taxi services. It remains a dichotomy that expansion isn't massive given the success presented. On paper it's a gaping hole.

unkel · 29-05-2026 11:24PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510285#Comment_124510285

It was in my very first post this evening telling you that you were wrong. I quoted RDW and I included the direct link to it from their website

So in its most basic form, from the statement of the RDW: a car with FSD supervised enabled and used correctly, is safer than that same car with FSD supervised not enabled

Logic dictates that FSD supervised is safer than not FSD supervised

listermint · 29-05-2026 11:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510339#Comment_124510339

It dictates it passed their tests.

liamog · 29-05-2026 11:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510336#Comment_124510336

I'm less surprised than you are, I think we're still a long way from robotaxi type services being generally available everywhere.

It's notable to me how cautious Tesla act with robotaxi expansion where they don't get to fall back on the "driver was in control of the vehicle" to avoid any liability for any incidents.

The other big challenge I foresee is pushback from the existing operators. I don't imagine the Dublin Taxi drivers staying quite the day Tesla ask for a licence to make them redundant.

liamog · 29-05-2026 11:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510346#Comment_124510346

The tests which are required to prove that system operates in a way that meets or exceeds existing safety and environmental standards to be shared with the Commission before being granted an EU Type approval

listermint · 29-05-2026 11:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510375#Comment_124510375

Based on what they're presenting they should be able to toe to toe expansion with the likes of waymo or other players. Even in Texas for example they're 4th in the market behind players youve never heard of. That's less cautious more , why ? It does indicate the tech isn't primetime, and these are in supervised vehicles too.

liamog · 29-05-2026 11:53PM

Who's the others, I'm only aware of Waymo (Google), and Zoox (Amazon). I'd be betting on a Chinese company doing a better job but never being allowed on US roads for political reasons.

And no @unkel I'm not going to actual put money on that ;)

listermint · 30-05-2026 12:02AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510388#Comment_124510388

Waymo zoox cruise

And AV Ride

JOL1 · 30-05-2026 12:09AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510382#Comment_124510382

I think they are presenting positive progress, are most likely learning, addressing issues in this test phase, using this phase to iron out bugs before taking any decision to scale up for a bigger roll out, given the "importance" of getting it right. Failure with a full scale launch before it is ready would be a disaster and hence the caution. I think most people would consider this prudent and an unsurprising strategy.

listermint · 30-05-2026 12:17AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510423#Comment_124510423

Tesla has been doing fsd for years. They launched robotaxi a year ago. AV ride launched in dec in texas and still has over 300 units versus Teslas 40.

It doesn't add up, cautious versus problematic.

Cyrus · 30-05-2026 12:49AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510346#Comment_124510346

You have a problem with their tests ?

listermint · 30-05-2026 08:50AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510452#Comment_124510452

Where did you read that ?

Cyrus · 30-05-2026 12:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124510644#Comment_124510644

You are denigrating their findings at every turn.

listermint · 30-05-2026 12:40PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511077#Comment_124511077

I'm not though. I've said it passed their tests.

With every post. You're reading something else Cyrus because you want to.

I've been extremely consistent on this technology in terms of its long term future, and your aware of all of that.

And yet I've still said. It's passed all their test.

One thing I did say that I don't think is a suitable thing is their wording or at least the translation of their name wording of an opinion on their tests. That's beyond the scope of a public body in any country. I don't think anyone should disagree with that. If you do disagree with that then it breaks down the barriers of regulatory bodies and private business for all sorts of things.

liamog · 30-05-2026 01:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511093#Comment_124511093

RDW's statement doesn't read to me like a commercial endorsement, it's a straightforward expression of a safety principle. If driver assistance systems improve safety, then a system that takes over more tasks supports a driver more than a system that takes over less.

Safety is RDW’s top priority. Tesla’s driver controlled assistance system supports the driver more than other systems because, when enabled, it takes over multiple driving tasks. Using driver assistance systems correctly makes a positive contribution to road safety because the driver is supported in their driving tasks; it is a supplement to the driver.

If you compare a 2017 Ioniq with LKAS, AEB, and Smart Cruise with a current VW ID with Travel Assist. VW's current system support a driver more because it's handling steering and speed, but it's also using GPS and navigation data to anticipate upcoming road conditions to allow it to slow down when approaching a roundabout.

They're justifying why an exemption to the current technical regulations is warranted, a system that is safer because it does more is in their eyes a valid reason to pursue an exemption until the technical regulations catch up.

Cyrus · 30-05-2026 01:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511093#Comment_124511093

You're reading things into statements of fact because you don't like what they are saying. They have said it enhances safety, you can't take that at face value so instead say it's passed their tests, but their tests are testing safety, your carry on for the last two pages is a thesis in obstinance and word play, and nothing is in good faith.

listermint · 30-05-2026 02:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511291#Comment_124511291

It's unusual Liam that you are now using a different quote to the quote you posted yesterday. The quote that I responded directly about which contained the language endorsing their system above others. Which does actually display a commercial preference above and objectiveness from a public authority.

This is you're quote which you posted yesterday. It does not match the quote you posted today. I'm unclear why you are not responding to that exact one that I responded to multiple times. Why the new quote ? Let's discuss this one which was the basis for my point.

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

listermint · 30-05-2026 02:32PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511320#Comment_124511320

Please see above.

I don't think you'll read it objectively though, because you didn't read it the first time or my response to it (yesterday) the new quote by Liam though. That's changing goalposts and has no bearing on the original conversation.

The purpose of a public regulatory body is to make statements of fact such as. This system passed our stringent testing or did not.

You're well aware of this. How would you react for example if it didn't pass and they said the system was the worst system they tested ? I'd garner you'd have objections. It's the point of the authority they are not meant to express a commercial opinion.

You guys know this. It doesn't take me to point it out. Frankly.

liamog · 30-05-2026 02:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124511456#Comment_124511456

Exactly the same as the other part.

There are driver assistance systems that monitor the driver through the use of a torque sensor on the steering wheel. There are systems that monitor the driver through a combination of torque sensor and through gaze detection to ensure the driver has eyes up and is facing the road.

Systems that have better driver monitoring are in the opinion of RDW better than systems that monitor the driver less.

Your really stretching to twist the statement "better than other systems" which would be a valid justification for the exemption process into RDW is claiming the system is the best of all systems.

If I say that the EV section of boards.ie is better than other subforums, it is not the same as saying it is the best subforum.

Tesla Talk 2

Comments