Bloomberg’s recent report on the self-driving sector has sparked controversy with its assertion that Tesla holds an advantage over Waymo, potentially misleading readers through inaccurate information.
The spotlight is fixated on Austin, Texas, as Tesla prepares to unveil its highly anticipated “robotaxi” service.
We’ve released a scathing report that debunks the hype surrounding Tesla’s latest self-driving announcement, exposing it as a cynical ploy to manipulate public perception after years of broken promises on autonomous driving technology.
While Bloomberg Intelligence simultaneously published a report stating Tesla leads in self-driving technology, the firm allegedly distorted facts to support its claim.
A comparative analysis of Tesla’s and Waymo’s autonomous driving initiatives suggests that “Tesla may be closer to achieving automobile autonomy than its peers.”
Notably, two key visualizations were disseminated by Bloomberg in conjunction with the report.
The problem lies in the report’s inaccuracies, as it assesses entirely disparate information.
According to Bloomberg Intelligence, Steve Man, a senior analyst, drew conclusions from Tesla’s own quarterly “Autopilot Safety Report,” which he deemed potentially misleading.
The report’s credibility is compromised by several key factors, including:
- Tesla aggregates miles driven by its vehicles equipped with Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities, which are classified as level 2 advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) that necessitate constant driver attention. Drivers consistently practice safe driving techniques to prevent accidents.
- Tesla’s Autopilot technology, standard-equipped on all its vehicles, is designed for use primarily on highways where crashes occur at a significantly lower rate per mile compared to urban driving scenarios.
- Tesla only tallies incidents where an airbag or seatbelt pretensioner is deployed. Despite the prevalence of fender-benders, curb strikes, and other non-reportable incidents involving advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), official crash counts remain artificially low.
- Compared to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) more comprehensive data set, which encompasses all types of collisions, including minor fender benders, Tesla’s handpicked knowledge appears narrower in scope.
Despite the commingling of information, the comparability between Tesla’s accident costs using “Autopilot technology” and NHTSA’s US average remains fully inconclusive?
Accordingly, Bloomberg endeavored not only to verify the claim but also to compare it with Waymo’s data to substantiate its assertion: “Tesla is 10 times safer”.
The key challenge lies in comparing this data to US averages, as Waymo’s dataset comprises all police-reported incidents, casting a much broader net than Tesla’s information, which has been previously discussed.
Notwithstanding the potential for significant inconsistencies in knowledge, a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report highlighted the disparity by underscoring that Tesla is often unaware of many crashes involving its Autopilot technology, and further noted that only 18% of police-reported crashes result in airbag deployment.
Uncertainty surrounds the exact cost of accidents involving Teslas utilizing Autopilot technology, partly due to gaps in the company’s telematics data. Although Tesla is unaware of every accident involving its Autopilot technology, including severe ones, this lack of knowledge stems from the gaps that exist within its telemetry reporting system. When mobile connectivity is available and the antenna remains intact following a crash, Tesla’s vehicles transmit telematic data to facilitate crash notifications and aggregate fleet vehicle mileage. While Tesla does experience some crashes involving pyrotechnic deployments, this is a relatively small percentage of the total number of accidents reported to the authorities. According to an analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2021 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS), a staggering 82% of police-reported crashes do not involve airbag deployments, as only approximately 18% of such incidents do.
The supposed comparative analysis is fundamentally flawed, grossly misrepresenting the situation. It’s disheartening to see widespread enthusiasm for a misleading report from Tesla enthusiasts and even CEO Elon Musk perpetuating this inaccurate information on X extensively sharing Bloomberg’s misleading piece.
Electrek’s Take
That is embarrassing for Bloomberg. This egregious mistake is so transparently inaccurate that it raises eyebrows with its obvious dishonesty. They must address the correction immediately.
Amidst growing concerns over safety, Tesla enthusiasts are fervently advocating for the launch of the company’s robotaxi service, allegedly as a means to demonstrate the technology’s security despite efforts by Tesla to conceal information about its self-driving crashes prior to the unveiling. This appears to be an incomplete or unclear statement. Here is a revised version: Is this report from Bloomberg potentially damaging or hazardous in nature?
Furthermore, the initial estimate of the accident’s cost is far from accurate, with multiple hidden expenses waiting to be uncovered. The report unfortunately includes several noticeable mistakes.
According to Bloomberg, Tesla has accumulated a staggering 3 billion miles of driving data since its inception.
The data seems to indicate that regulators are relying solely on Tesla’s cumulative mileage driven under supervised FSD conditions, where human drivers correct any mistakes made by the technology.
Compared to other major players in the autonomous driving market, Waymo’s fleet has clocked up an impressive 22 million miles of self-driven routes. According to reports, Bloomberg reportedly relied solely on Waymo’s San Francisco-based rider-only mileage data, standing at 22 million miles. However, when considering the company’s overall mileage across various markets, Waymo has logged an impressive total of over 71 million miles.
Why would Waymo exclusively rely on San Francisco mileage when it previously utilized Tesla’s global FSD mileage for Tesla?
These additional “rider-only” miles mean that only riders are present inside Waymo vehicles, contrasting with Tesla’s mileage which is consistently monitored by customer-drivers at all times.
Since Tesla’s production in Austin started only recently, we lack concrete data on the exact number of “rider-only” miles driven, as the initial fleet consisted of just a handful of vehicles over the past few weeks. It’s highly unlikely that something would travel hundreds or thousands of miles without variation.
Despite the claim, it’s unreasonable to suggest that Tesla is leading the pack in self-driving technology, especially when compared to Waymo, without concrete evidence.
Tesla is currently trying to replicate what Waymo has been accomplishing successfully for years by launching a self-driving technology.
While the report attempts to counterpose that Tesla’s self-driving cars are approximately seven times more affordable than those offered by Waymo,
Despite earlier claims, Tesla’s vehicles are not yet capable of fully autonomous driving. Tesla must demonstrate its capabilities, which is why it’s employing extensive teleoperation on this production launch in Austin. Mapping, optimizing for geo-fenced spaces, and teleoperations emerge as the primary constraints in this context. The cost of cars isn’t the issue.
Tesla reportedly boasts a remarkably low vehicle-to-teleoperator ratio of less than one hundred to one. As currently configured, the system’s lack of scalability makes it unlikely to operate efficiently or sustain long-term growth, potentially stuck in a 1-to-1 ratio unless significant hardware upgrades are made.
