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

A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 150 posts

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#91

Post by me_me_me »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
_aavaa_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla markets their software as "full self-driving". Their page on their own website[1] for the autopilot has a video which starts with the words "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." Followed by a video of a tesla driving itself on public roads with other cars around while the person's hands are not on the wheel. While they have those…

They market the vehicles as being capable of full self driving at some point in the future. They don't market them as being capable of such today. It's in the very copy you cite at the end of your comment. > Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. (Control-F of this quote gets you there) EDIT: You must also acknowledge that you remain in control of the vehi…

Hello sir would you like to buy our Car (tm)

on pg 39 of purchase contract its clearly stated its a bicycle for now as we are still developing our Car (tm) to be a car.

Tell me how is that different to calling a driver assist a Autopilot as it aspires to be an autopilot but for now its just a driver assist called Autopilot*.

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#92

Post by dghughes »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #22
lettergram wrote: post #2

Short answer is “yes”. It’s the same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. The ultimate responsibility is the person behind the wheel. That said, I’d argue Tesla is also liable. To what extent I don’t know, but it was clearly a contributing factor.

Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don…

Another example is "launch control" pointless and dangerous on public roads. Any injuries or deaths from that I'd argue liability is 50/50 driver and manufacturer. Maybe even 33/33/33 driver, manufacturer, and driver's insurance company for not voiding or denying insurance over having such a "feature".

It's not only Tesla that has launch control some other models of other vehicle manufacturers also offer it.

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#93

Post by dividuum »

computerex wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don…

Tesla should be liable for misleading consumers. They released videos demo'ing autopilot and ignoring their own guidelines of always having hands on the wheel. They call their feature "autopilot"/"FSD" and Elon has been personally promising real FSD next year every year for the past 5 years. When people's lives are in danger, there should be greater accountability over the marketing that companies are trying to pass…

> Elon has been personally promising real FSD next year every year for the past 5 years.

Even funnier in video format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7oZ-AQszEI

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#94

Post by _aavaa_ »

f0xJtpvHYTVQ88B wrote: post #89
_aavaa_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla markets their software as "full self-driving". Their page on their own website[1] for the autopilot has a video which starts with the words "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." Followed by a video of a tesla driving itself on public roads with other cars around while the person's hands are not on the wheel. While they have those…

All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat. The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as…

Are you a bot?

This literally reads like Tesla PR.

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#95

Post by jozvolskyef »

blowski wrote: post #27
breakingcups wrote: post #3

Yes. > Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Duh. There's plenty of warnings, you are still responsible and your attention is required at all times to intervene when needed. Of course, there are going to be plenty of situations where it will be too late for a human to intervene. Those a…

If you're reversing with the help of a sensor that's always worked before, but this time the sensor fails and you hit someone, it is still your responsibility. On the other hand, if your brakes fail despite you having had a recent service, that wouldn't be your fault. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between those two issues.

The sensor isn't supposed to be a replacement for looking where you're reversing. It merely tells you the distance so that you can park more accurately. Vehicles that don't have a rear view sound an alarm and flash warning lights while reversing*.

* In Europe

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#96

Post by [deleted] »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #46
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don…

Tesla markets their software as "full self-driving". Their page on their own website[1] for the autopilot has a video which starts with the words "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." Followed by a video of a tesla driving itself on public roads with other cars around while the person's hands are not on the wheel. While they have those…

[deleted]

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#97

Post by KennyBlanken »

razemio wrote: post #52

I think the real problem is the driver monitoring system. Openpilot nailed it with their eye camera monitoring. There is no need to touch the wheel which makes it more relaxing but you can not take your eyes of the road, which is far more important then keeping your hand on the wheel. Both would even be better. Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents.

> Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents.

Because automotive industry lobbying has led to driver assistance and "self driving" features largely being self-regulated.

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#98

Post by analog31 »

blowski wrote: post #27
breakingcups wrote: post #3

Yes. > Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Duh. There's plenty of warnings, you are still responsible and your attention is required at all times to intervene when needed. Of course, there are going to be plenty of situations where it will be too late for a human to intervene. Those a…

If you're reversing with the help of a sensor that's always worked before, but this time the sensor fails and you hit someone, it is still your responsibility. On the other hand, if your brakes fail despite you having had a recent service, that wouldn't be your fault. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between those two issues.

One thought is that "always worked before" isn't good enough for engineering. Most engineers are reluctant to approve a design that is based solely on testing.

The brakes are highly engineered, known to be of exceptional reliability, have redundancy, and a dashboard indicator for some known failure modes. In the two cases of brake failure I've experienced, the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree, and the car was still tolerably manageable. We do adapt our driving habits to the possibility of brake failure, e.g., maintaining a safe following distance, and taking extra care when there's ice.

The backup sensor is designed with the expectation that you are the backup. You were probably told that.

Regulators and insurance companies constantly analyze crash data, so a conclusion of "always worked before" based on widespread stats analyzed by engineers is possibly OK, but not "always worked before" according to the consumer.

Granted, there may be a gray area in between full driver responsibility, and full engineering responsibility. There was a HN thread just yesterday that debated what engineering actually consists of, so there's no pat answer. And no formula for deciding, which is part of the reason why we ultimately have humans deciding, through the court system in the US.

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#99

Post by creckic »

melenaboija wrote: post #86
toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They market the vehicles as being capable of full self driving at some point in the future. They don't market them as being capable of such today. It's in the very copy you cite at the end of your comment. > Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. (Control-F of this quote gets you there) EDIT: You must also acknowledge that you remain in control of the vehi…

Then maybe change the name Autopilot to something else. Cars are not publicized with Autobrake systems that you have to press the pedal to stop. That would be confusing.

No, the name is accurate.

Wikipedia: "An autopilot is a system used to control the path of an aircraft, car, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems)."

Re: A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

#100

Post by creckic »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #84
toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They market the vehicles as being capable of full self driving at some point in the future. They don't market them as being capable of such today. It's in the very copy you cite at the end of your comment. > Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. (Control-F of this quote gets you there) EDIT: You must also acknowledge that you remain in control of the vehi…

Again, same thing. That's not there for customers, that's there so they can tell regulators "Look! See. We told them to be careful."

It clearly states what it is when you actually purchase the vehicle, and also constantly reminds you while driving.
Post reply on HN