Live data from Hacker News

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

121–130 of 850 posts

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#121

I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this response, I've completely lost respect for the company, for Musk, and I don't think I'll ever buy one or advocate for someone buying one. The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times that there was an issue with autopilot, but Tesla told him "no t…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#123
post #8

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the…

They double down on it because they are shipping a system that is unsafe by design. Their engineers know it, their lawyers know it, and Elon Musk knows it.

Blaming the user and pointing to the ToS is their fig leaf against liability. When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless. When it is used as advertised, it is dangerous. They know better, and they don't give a damn. First to market, and all that.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is…

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.

This comparison really only works if you mean engaging autopilot with a bunch of other planes flying in close formation and if clouds were made of steel and concrete. Most of the time that autopilot is engaged on a flight there is next to zero risk of a collision. Commercial pilots also get a lot of training specifically related to what autopilot is and isn’t appropriate for.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#126
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly believe that a technology deployed in a potentially life-threatening context like a car or plane or pacemaker deserves a much more conservative development approach. "Move fast and break things" isn't appropriate when human lives are at stake. Waymo is applying the appropriate conservatism; Tesla and Uber are playing fast and loose by comparison.

The dilemma is that slow development costs lives as well :-/

Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives.

The reality is that careful development is expensive. If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing the utility of available resources.

They only need to be safe enough to not get shut down or lose substantial market share (ongoing capital).

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#127
post #10

This is a very upsetting response. Yes, the driver could have paid more attention, and yes, he shouldn't have activated Autopilot in an area where he knew Tesla's autopilot was not working correctly. However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. It's clear that it is most certainly not that, and customers are not treating this feature in a careful and cautious fashion, and I do believe that's due…

I see your point on calling it "Autopilot", but if you think about the application of the term in terms of aviation, I think it makes more sense. Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. It basically will just keep you at a certain elevation and direction. I think that Tesla's Autopilot function is comparable to planes. That's probably how they will justify it. However there might be a legitimate point in th…

Actually autopilots in airliners, and some military jets ARE capable of landing aircraft.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirement that the driver stay attentive does not excuse any and all potential faults with the system.

All safety systems have faults. That’s why the human is ultimately responsible. If you don’t agree, do not engage the safety system. As the operator, you have final authority.

> All safety systems have faults.

And faults in safety systems can leave their manufacturers liable, just like faults in any other system. The fact that it is a safety system doesn't mean anything changes.

> If you don’t agree, do not engage the safety system. As the operator, you have final authority.

"Don't like, don't use" has never been an acceptable answer in discussions of product safety-- in neither the court of law nor the court of public opinion-- and that's not going to change now.

Post reply on HN