Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 850 posts

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

#141

Post by chrisper »

slavik81 wrote: post #57
supreme_sublime wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. For unmanned aircraft, autoland is an safety feature. After loss of link, an autopilot might be configured to land at a designated location, rather than just circling until it runs out of fuel and drops out of the sky. Though admittedly, crashing in a safe place is less serious when the vehicle has no people in it. The Tesla autopilot needs much closer supervision t…

Autoland is also a safety feature for manned aircraft because it allows you to land in bad visibility or avoid accidents like the one at SFO a couple of years ago.

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

#142

Post by semi-extrinsic »

Retric wrote: post #72
berg01 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the crux here is the naming of the not-really-self-driving feature. This is not an Autopilot for cars. It "requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel". That's a driving assist. Call it the world's best driving assist or whatever, but not Autopilot. (I have seen the usual reply from Tesla apologists that it's a good name because of its aircraft analogy. From a usability perspective that is just so.…

Aircraft autopilot still require actual pilots to pay attention when flying. So really autopilot is the correct term, people are simply assuming it means a level 5 self driving car when it does not. “And really there’s a sweet spot you have to find where you use automation to relieve the pilot of some amount of workload.” http://nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilot-how... 10 years ago airlines could have…

> "And really there’s a sweet spot you have to find where you use automation to relieve the pilot of some amount of workload"

... and that sweetspot, for highway driving, looks to be around the 1998 level of having automatic transmission + cruise control.

As we've seen examples in two recent fatal accidents, a driver with too little to do is dangerous.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

SilasX wrote: post #134
tc wrote: post #18

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time. ---- We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affecte…

"And furthermore, here is why we don't see fit to stop using the name Autopilot, even as we recognize that false sense of security it implies to the average person: ..."

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by SilasX »

BeetleB wrote: post #87
tshannon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16814565 Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow.

>Doesn't your statement admit that Tesla is at least partially at fault? Something their lawyers would probably never allow. IANAL so take with a grain of salt. I once talked to a lawyer who used to work for a big hospital and handled the malpractice lawsuits against them. Three takeaways from the discussion: 1. Implying that a possibility exists that the hospital was at fault has no legal ramifications whatsoever. 2…

Yes, professionals often times equate domain expertise with expertise outside the domain, and don't pay attention to the boundary. e.g., a doctor:

"Don't smoke, ever."

'Oh, really? How did you model the benefits to me? By what margin did the costs exceed the benefits?'

"There are no benefits to smoking."

'You mean, no health benefits?'

"What's the difference?"

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

#145

Post by Johnny555 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #120
Gerardo1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off

Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect...

I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.

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

#146

Post by chrisper »

mrb wrote: post #135
vkou wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

« When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless » Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?

A safety feature is useless if you can't rely on it all the time.

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

#147

Post by BlueGh0st »

>Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel...

No it doesn't. Maybe the agreement when you use that feature does but if they really wanted to/cared enough they would make it so it only works while your hands are on the wheel.

I'm still on the fence and think commercially releasing this very experimental technology as a product to the public is incredibly irresponsible.

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

#148

Post by greglindahl »

Dwolb wrote: post #117
tc wrote: post #18

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time. ---- We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affecte…

Tesla need to stop calling it 'Autopilot'. The name implies drivers don't need to drive and is most likely a big reason drivers are lured into a false sense of security.

Is there any evidence that the name is the problem?

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

#149

Post by Johnny555 »

mjamesaustin wrote: post #32
tc wrote: post #18

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time. ---- We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affecte…

What a stark difference in tone this kind of statement would have made. Tesla's statement reeks of a desire to protect themselves from liability or a potential lawsuit. It's very sad to see them adopting such language in the face of such a tragedy.

What company can afford to embrace a wrongful-death lawsuit?

And it's not just this one, it's all the others that they'll suddenly be accepting liability for.

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

#150

Post by yborg »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #19

I am a huge fan of Elon Musk and a small TSLA share holder, but there is something about Tesla and Musk’s response to this that feels so wrong. It seems two faced. On the one hand, they shout about how great and safe their technology is, and on the other hand they blame someone for dying when they chose to rely on that technology. Is it safe or unsafe? I know it’s not that simple, but this response still saddens me.…

"Move fast and break things."

This is a sad situation because a man died, but a Valley engineer being killed by the (current) Valley mindset is also kind of ironic. Tesla is getting a lot of heat here for hubris and insensitivity to the human cost of their actions, but doesn't this define almost every company in that place? Certainly the money backing most of these firms.

Post reply on HN