alt Hacker NewsYes on one side Tesla is not transparent but on the other side the author of the article is an hypocrite given they went with the click-bait title "Tesla’s own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor" Tesla secrecy is likely due to avoid journalists taking any chance they can to sell more news by writing an autonomous vehicles horror story. Given the secrecy we don't know what happened, yet the journalist did choose to go with the worse scenario title.
Replies
Secrecy clearly doesn't avoid that kind of story though. The question is if their numbers were really good, or at least as good as Waymo, why wouldn't they share them for the positive press? Waymo doesn't get as many negative pieces like this.
It's a pretty logical conclusion to say that numbers they won't share must make them look bad in some way.
While the title is slightly biased, it's completely fair to analyze all of the public data a company provides about a very public problem (how safe their autonomous cars are), and show what the risks are. If Tesla wants us to believe their robotaxis are safe (which they implicitly do by putting these on public roads), it's entirely on them to publish data that supports that claim. If the data they themselves publish suggests that they are much worse than human drivers, then I want journalists to report on that.
It's also extremely implausible that Tesla has data that their cars are very safe, but choose to instead publish vague data that makes them seem much worse. It's for example much more likely that these 9 incidents reported are just the bad incidents that they think they won't be able to hide, rather than assuming these are all or mostly minor incidents like lightly bumping into a static object.