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

101–110 of 150 posts

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

#101

Post by creckic »

_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…

Tesla does not market their software as "full self-driving". They are saying that the software will be FSD in the future.

The words from Elon's mouth make a clear separation between Autopilot as a driver assist system, and FSD as autonomy.

Furthermore, Autopilot constantly reminds you while driving. There is zero confusion.

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

#102

Post by creckic »

me_me_me wrote: post #91
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…

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*.

Except the purchase page clearly state that autonomous features are not avaiable today, and the car itself constantly reminds you to be in control.

Also, Autopilot on 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)."

Again: "Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle"

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

#103

Post by srmarm »

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.

Out of interest where do you put your hands if not on the wheel? There's always going to be latency if you need to take evasive action and your body isn't immediately ready to react.

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

#104

Post by creckic »

FireBeyond wrote: post #49
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 gives out conflicting messages. For years, and even today, there are Tesla-produced videos that say: > The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself. So while there is a disclaimer, there's also Tesla's not so subtle nudge nudge wink wink implications. They did the same with Summon. While the fine print said "Do not use while distracted. Pay attention to the vehicle at all times",…

The driver is still constantly reminded to stay in control, and you even have to agree this to before enabling Autopilot.

Tesla never said Autopilot is autonomous.

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

#105

Post by kamranjon »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #75
kamranjon wrote: post #50

Here is an interesting question I recently came upon, does the driver of a Tesla need consent from their passengers before turning on FSD? I would argue yes, because I don’t want to unknowingly beta test software with my life, but I am curious what others think.

As a kid, do you even have consent when your parents tell you to hop in the car cause you're going somewhere? As a passenger, isn't consent of trusting the driver inherent when you get in the car willfully ride somewhere? Could a passenger not interject and say, hey I don't feel comfortable riding with you if you enable autopilot?

These are good questions.

The first example I think is same in a Tesla or a Toyota. Still interesting to ponder, I think there is still some ethical questions left.

The second example requires a bit of nuance, I trust the driver to operate a vehicle, not necessarily the vehicle itself. Does my trust extend to their decision whether or not to turn on autopilot? You might argue yes, but you also might not be informed enough to make that decision as a passenger.

The last example assumes the passenger has knowledge of the car and FSD which they may not.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by pjc50 »

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.

I think we need a new distinction: not "self-driving" but "self-liable".

A lot of the FSD hype implies applications in which there isn't an active driver; cars going off and parking themselves, Uber replacing human drivers, working while commuting, etc. Whether those applications can be realized is not so much a question of technology as liability.

Conversely, if the human remains liable, this needs to be kept clear in the marketing material.

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

#108

Post by melenaboija »

creckic wrote: post #99
melenaboija wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wea…

Well the etymology is clear too. Which I would say is the intuition some people could be using. Not sure people visit Wikipedia to learn about levels of auto piloting.

Automatic: From Greek automatos, ‘acting of itself’

Pilot: early 16th century (denoting a person who steers a ship): from French pilote, from medieval Latin pilotus, an alteration of pedota, based on Greek pēdon ‘oar’, (plural) ‘rudder

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

#109

Post by bumby »

creckic wrote: post #101
_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…

Tesla does not market their software as "full self-driving". They are saying that the software will be FSD in the future. The words from Elon's mouth make a clear separation between Autopilot as a driver assist system, and FSD as autonomy. Furthermore, Autopilot constantly reminds you while driving. There is zero confusion.

>There is zero confusion.

I think for many general laypeople (not the HN tech-oriented), there IS confusion. It is also not helped by Tesla's marketing, such as naming the system "autopilot" which has a different colloquial meaning than may be understood in engineering circles. Note how most other manufacturers are generally prefer naming their systems some variant of "driver assist" or "cruise control"

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

#110

Post by bumby »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #59
bumby wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may come down to deeper analysis that looks at both root and proximate causes. If Tesla's design was considered faulty from a safety standpoint and substantially contributed to the accident, I would imagine they will have some portion of responsibility. I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less…

I think an industry wide analysis of driver assist systems is likely warranted by NHTSA to form a framework for liability and communications/marketing capabilities to consumers. Think EPA emissions stickers for autos, but for driver assist. > I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less testing/quali…

>If the driver is not paying attention, that is the driver's fault.

No doubt. But by extension, if a safety feature did not work appropriately, that would be Tesla's fault, no?

I deliberately put both root and proximate causes in my first post because there can be multiple contributors to the accident, and each may bear some responsibility.

My main issue with the OP was that it lays the groundwork for absolving the manufacturer of any responsibility whatsoever, which I don't feel is appropriate. Society generally requires professionals (engineers, lawyers, doctors) that work in areas of public safety/public good to bear some responsibility. I don't want a system where that professional standard is eroded because it's easier to push the risk down to the end user with a simple clause in a manual/contract that may never be read.

Post reply on HN