“Because it shows that the people who really claim to be working on full self-driving (which Tesla waffles on1) are having plenty of problems of their own.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Companies working on full (Level 5) self-driving are having plenty of problems, per NHTSA ADS data.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Will Tesla ever “Solve” Full Self Driving?, paragraph 31.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-will-tesla-ever-solve-full-self-driving-1d2f2b-a1
We recorded 12 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2022-06-15. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- the people who really claim to be working on full self-driving
- are having plenty of problems of their own
- Because it shows
Our interpretation
- The referenced graph makes this a claim about repeated reported crash involvement among ADS developers in NHTSA's initial June 2022 release.
- 'Problems' is read as repeated crash involvement requiring attention, without assuming that the ADS caused each crash or was less safe than human driving.
- The target period is July 2021 through May 15, 2022, the reporting window underlying the graph discussed in the post.
- ADS reporting covers Levels 3–5; it does not establish that the reported vehicles were operating at Level 5.
Counts as supported if: The initial release documents repeated crash involvement across ADS developers, including developers such as Waymo and Cruise.
Counts as contradicted if: The initial release shows no repeated crash involvement among those developers, or the apparent pattern results from a misreading of the data.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The initial data recorded 130 ADS-involved crashes, with repeated reports involving Waymo, Transdev and Cruise. That supports the contextual claim that these developers were experiencing repeated incidents. It does not establish that their systems caused the crashes, that they were unusually unsafe, or that Level 5 systems were being deployed.
Limitations
- Support is for repeated crash involvement, not technical fault or comparative danger.
- The original report was inaccessible to read_page; the assessment uses its TRB summary and contemporary AP reporting.
- The ADS category includes Levels 3–5.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: Transportation Research Board, summarizing NHTSA,
incident reports for 130 ADS-equipped vehicle crashes
Why it matters here: The record confirms repeated ADS crash involvement in the initial reporting period. Its abstract defines reportability by ADS use within 30 seconds of a crash, not by a finding of ADS fault.
- Publisher
- Transportation Research Board, summarizing NHTSA
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Associated Press, republished by New Hampshire Public Radio,
Waymo led with 62
Why it matters here: The developer counts establish repeated involvement rather than an isolated incident. The article also reports that most ADS crashes involved rear impacts and that 108 had no reported injuries, limiting any inference about severity or ADS fault.
- Publisher
- Associated Press, republished by New Hampshire Public Radio
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Will Tesla ever “Solve” Full Self Driving?
Because it shows that the people who really claim to be working on full self-driving (which Tesla waffles on1) are having plenty of problems of their own.
- Where
- paragraph 31
- Published
- 2022-06-15
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-will-tesla-ever-solve-full-self-driving-1d2f2b-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-will-tesla-ever-solve-full-self-driving-1d2f2b-a1.