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

101–110 of 850 posts

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

#101

Post by jijojv »

dragonwriter wrote: post #68
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.…

> So the crux here is the naming of the not-really-self-driving feature It should be called, ”I’m Feeling Lucky.”

All their amazing technology is ”I’m Feeling Lucky.” https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/autopark-fail-dont-use...

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

#102

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxerickson wrote: post #94
toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is exerting and reinforcing that it is not liable for poor driver decisions. If you use any vehicle safety aid while not paying attention, and you die or kill someone while in control of the vehicle, that is your liability. Whether they call their system "Autopilot" is immaterial. You are the responsibly party as the driver, and this is made clear both at purchase time and during vehicle use.

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.

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

#103

Post by etjossem »

bllguo wrote: post #98
etjossem wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch. To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

I don't know about legality, but imo there is an argument to be made that it's very unethical to feign ignorance as to what the vast majority associates "autopilot" with.

I do have a problem with some of their marketing material - which describes the car as having "Fully Self-Driving Capability." No, the Model S doesn't have the capability to drive itself fully right now, and it's unethical to lead consumers to believe it does.

But in my view, the name "autopilot" itself describes a device for pilots, providing a very similar level of partial assistance to Tesla's current feature. It is accurate. The problem arises when it's sold beyond its traditional meaning.

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

#104

Post by jimrandomh »

jijojv wrote: post #85
NickM wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that thes…

> Tesla is extremely clear Oct'16 video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot says Driver is only there for legal reasons https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823632597284691969 " Yes, safety should improve significantly due to autonomy features, even if regs disallow no driver present 23 Jan 2017"

The system shown in that video is making autonomous turns and doing other things that the in-the-hands-of-consumers autopilot definitely can't do.

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

#105

Post by cpt1138 »

timewarrior wrote: post #43

I own a Model X. I love the car in many ways. However, I also think the automation is stupider than a 2 year old. Would you trust a 2 year old to drive your car or to decide when to close your Garage door? I use the Auto-Steer, only when road is empty, is in a reasonably straight line and I am in the middle lane of at least 3 lane road. Otherwise I don't use it. It might also be fine to use it in stop and go on a div…

If the usage is so subjective, I can't even understand why its allowed. You seem to be saying its no better than a two year old driving. You create a situation in which its "ok" for a two year old to drive? We have laws that state no 2yo's are allowed to be behind the wheel. Why is this 2yo allowed at all?

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

#106

Post by tathastu »

eridius wrote: 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…

Tesla's autopilot page (https://www.tesla.com/autopilot) says (as of today):

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

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

#107

Post by patcheudor »

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…

>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 enough to cause my mind to wander. If I'm not in control of the accelerator and steering while simultaneously focused on threats including friendly officers attempting to remind me of the speed limit I space out fairly quickly. In observing how others drive, I don't think I'm alone. It's part of our nature. So then, how is it that you can have a car driving for you while simultaneously being attentive? I believe they are so mutually exclusive as to make it ridiculous to claim that such a thing is possible.

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

#108

Post by BeetleB »

saagarjha wrote: post #76
jhall1468 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot is a marketing term here. It's correct if we think of Autopilot = autonomous but it isn't. The thing alarms at you (visually and via sound) when you take your hands off the wheel. The fact that drivers ignore that isn't Tesla's fault, and saying it's "not enough" is kind of absurd. What the hell are they going to do if you take your hands off the wheel? Stop the car in the middle of a freeway? I could use y…

The biggest issue here is 90% autonomous has been shown to not work. People invariably let down their guard and go "hey, this works" and promptly stop paying attention because there's nothing for them to do .

>People invariably let down their guard and go "hey, this works" and promptly stop paying attention because there's nothing for them to do.

This is not specific to Tesla.

Trivial example: A coworker has a car that has blind spot detection. She knows the manufacturer says "you should still check, it is not 100% accurate". And she admitted that despite knowing this, she does not check her blind spots and relies solely on blind spot detection.

More serious example:

I have a car that has adaptive cruise control. You can get on the highway, set the CC to 60 mph, but if traffic slows down, it automatically slows down and maintains a distance to the next car. It speeds up to 60 mph when the traffic picks up again.

I love it, but for the inexperienced driver, this is dangerous. It requires one to be more vigilant than regular CC. Every so often (rare, but has happened a few times), it will not detect that the vehicle in front of me is a vehicle, and will not slow down. The more you rely on it, the more vigilant you need to be. My wife has never used CC before, and this would be too much for her to handle, compared to simpler CC.

It's a general problem. Tesla is just a convenient target.

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

#109

Post by Analemma_ »

etjossem wrote: post #75
redial wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!

Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch. To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

This fails the Reasonable Person test. Most people on the street are not aviators, and their assumption is that "autopilot = full autonomy", which is entirely understandable.

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

#110

Post by fmihaila »

jijojv wrote: post #85
NickM wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that thes…

> Tesla is extremely clear Oct'16 video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot says Driver is only there for legal reasons https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823632597284691969 " Yes, safety should improve significantly due to autonomy features, even if regs disallow no driver present 23 Jan 2017"

> Oct'16 video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot says Driver is only there for legal reasons

That may come back to haunt them. For those not clicking it, the above link goes to a video showing the Autopilot in action. The white-on-black, full-screen text prefacing the demo is not doing them any favours in the debate about their messaging (all-caps are in the original):

"THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS."

"HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF."

Post reply on HN