It’s fairly rare for a driver to be involved in “a number of accidents” in just a few years. Most drivers go decades with zero collisions, so if you’re experiencing multiple per year, saved only by Tesla software, you might try to see if there are other avenues that you could explore to reduce your risk to be more like the population average.
I get what you're trying to say, but if anything, you're just making the case for Tesla software.
Consider that there is a range of drivers, from "good" to "bad". If most drivers go decades with zero collisions, that's great, and it probably puts me closer to the "bad" end of the spectrum. By your own admission drivers like me should explore avenues to reduce our risk. Why is Tesla software not a valid avenue?
If you're a "good" driver, you don't need it, and that's fine, you can get some other car or drive with autopilot off or whatever. But for us "bad" drivers, the software makes us safer (both personal risk and to others on the road) so why not use it? What other avenues would you suggest exploring?
I would say close calls are fairly common, especially in urban areas with lots of traffic. It’s not just your driving but the people around you. It takes two to get into an accident.
Right. I suspect that the net effect is that the Tesla software transforms these what would have been close calls into…still close calls where the Tesla software gets credit for a “save”.
If a Tesla “saved” a driver 5 times in 20K miles, my first question is always going to be “how many collisions did they have in the prior 20K miles in their other car?”
This effect has a large influence on the overall A/B analysis. If pre/post test analysis suggests that Tesla saved you from only 0 to 1x collisions vs a previously estimated 4x-5x collisions, your tolerance for newly introduced collisions would naturally be much lower.
