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

Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#131

Post by WalterBright »

breve wrote: post #109
WalterBright wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this extreme judgement causes Tesla to abandon autodrive, there will be more deaths on the road. It just isn't rational. Besides, nobody makes you turn on the autodrive.

You haven't established that it has saved any lives beyond vague, hand waving anecdotes. What is autodrive? Are you talking about basic autopilot, enhanced autopilot, or full self-driving? They are separate modes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Driving_featur... Which revision of the hardware and software is the "good one"? Remember that Tesla claimed in 2016 that all Teslas in production "have the har…

googling "how many lives has tesla autopilot saved?" produces:

It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify, but Tesla reports that its vehicles with Autopilot engaged are significantly safer than the U.S. average, with one crash recorded for every 6.69 million miles driven in Q2 2025. Conversely, independent trackers have identified over 65 deaths involving Autopilot or FSD as of October 2025.

Key Safety Data and Context:

Safety Claim: Tesla's Q3 2025 Safety Report indicates that Autopilot technology results in an accident frequency nine times lower than the US national average.

Fatalities: Data compiled by TeslaDeaths.com reported 65 fatalities linked to Autopilot through October 2025, with federal investigators having verified dozens of these cases.

Comparison: As of Q2 2025, Tesla recorded one crash for every 6.69 million miles with Autopilot, compared to 1.26 million miles without it, and a U.S. national average of one crash every 702,000 miles.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#132

Post by netsharc »

coredog64 wrote: post #36
1970-01-01 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fight Club 2.0: You pay to retrain it only if the AI will kill more people than our settlement fund can pay out.

You're already downvoted, but this quote from Fight Club always annoyed me as it misunderstands how recalls work. 1. Insurance companies price in the risk, and insurance pricing absolutely influences manufacturers (see the absolute crap that the Big 3 sold in the 70s) 2. The government can force a recall based on a flaw whether or not the manufacturer agrees

> this quote from Fight Club always annoyed me as it misunderstands how recalls work.

How excusable is it that maybe it's the narrator misunderstanding it, or making stuff up while talking to the lady?

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#133

Post by tim-tday »

nitinreddy88 wrote: post #67
jrjeksjd8d wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person does not know how to fly a plane or what a plane autopilot does. It's a ridiculous superficial comparison. Planes have professional pilots who understand the capabilities and limits of aviation autopilot technology. Tesla has had it both ways for ages - their stock price was based on "self-driving cars" and their liability was based on "asterisk asterisk the car cannot drive itself".

According to your analogy. Certified pilot = Certified driving license holder. Its not like Tesla is advertising non driving license or in eligible person can drive using Autopilot. I wonder how can you even justify your statement

“Full Self Driving”

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#134

Post by breve »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
breve wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't established that it has saved any lives beyond vague, hand waving anecdotes. What is autodrive? Are you talking about basic autopilot, enhanced autopilot, or full self-driving? They are separate modes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Driving_featur... Which revision of the hardware and software is the "good one"? Remember that Tesla claimed in 2016 that all Teslas in production "have the har…

googling "how many lives has tesla autopilot saved?" produces: It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify, but Tesla reports that its vehicles with Autopilot engaged are significantly safer than the U.S. average, with one crash recorded for every 6.69 million miles driven in Q2 2025. Conversely, independent trackers have identifie…

> It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify

Then you agree your claims have no merit. Don't be suckered by advertising.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#135

Post by robotnikman »

mmooss wrote: post #65
robotnikman wrote: post #58

Will this have any effect on other companies developing self driving tech? It sets a very high precedent for fines, and may discourage companies from further working on such tech.

That's an old argument by corporations against liability. Should they not be fully liable? It should discourage them from making unsafe products. If it's not economical for them to make safe products, it's good that they go bankrupt and the economic resources - talent, money - go to someone else. Bankruptcy and business failure are just as fundamental to capitalism as profit.

My thought when it comes to self driving vehicles though, is how do you determine what is considered unsafe here. I'm not sure about Tesla's autopilot, but Waymo for example has an excellent safety record that is better than most drivers when you compare the statistics. And yet, they are still entirely unable to avoid accidents, as mistakes and unpredictable situations happen. Maybe we should be considering a self driving vehicle safe if it has been proven to drive more safely than the average driver? It is something I think that should be considered.

Should they compensate the victims of such accidents? Of course. Should they pay out the equivalent of winning the lottery? That seems a bit much.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#136

Post by WalterBright »

breve wrote: post #134
WalterBright wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

googling "how many lives has tesla autopilot saved?" produces: It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify, but Tesla reports that its vehicles with Autopilot engaged are significantly safer than the U.S. average, with one crash recorded for every 6.69 million miles driven in Q2 2025. Conversely, independent trackers have identifie…

> It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify Then you agree your claims have no merit. Don't be suckered by advertising.

I mentioned that upthread.

But there's strong related evidence: "Tesla recorded one crash for every 6.69 million miles with Autopilot, compared to 1.26 million miles without it"

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#137

Post by breve »

WalterBright wrote: post #136
breve wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is impossible to determine the exact number of lives saved by Tesla Autopilot, as "avoided accidents" are difficult to quantify Then you agree your claims have no merit. Don't be suckered by advertising.

I mentioned that upthread. But there's strong related evidence: "Tesla recorded one crash for every 6.69 million miles with Autopilot, compared to 1.26 million miles without it"

Dude. That's not evidence, that's advertising. You're taking at face value a claim made by a company that has lied continuously for over a decade about the self-driving capabilities of their cars:

https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

Remember how there were supposed to be 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...

Lying is part of the company culture at Tesla. They even lie about dumb things there's simply no need to lie about, but they go ahead and lie anyway:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0AJmLvKjxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE

It's not rational to swallow Tesla's lies hook, line, and sinker. If you can't produce independent verification of Tesla's claims then there's nothing to talk about.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#138

Post by mr_00ff00 »

bigyabai wrote: post #48
Almondsetat wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By which metrics has Tesla been left in the dust wrt autonomous driving? Right now they are the only brand where you can buy a car and have it do basically 90% (or sometimes 100%) of your daily driving. Sure, it's supervised, but the alternatives are literally extremely geogated taxis

It's not free, is it? You buy the car, subscribe to their arbitrarily-priced subscription service, and then it does 90% of your driving. That's like paying for a "self-juicing juicer" that only works with proprietary juice packages sold through an overpriced subscription. Edit: Mostly a criticism. I have no bone to pick with Elon, but subscription slopware is the reason why Chinese EVs are more desirable to average J…

You could argue though Tesla isn’t targeting the average Joe, since they basically still haven’t made a affordable EV that they have mentioned they are working on (I think the new affordable cyber truck is still above the 40k promise, and they hinted the price will likely rise).

For luxury car owners or people who want the statement, subscriptions are good way to capture additional payment. Since if customers wanted to pick the cheapest option, they would have already picked something else.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#139

Post by philistine »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #126
jrjeksjd8d wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person does not know how to fly a plane or what a plane autopilot does. It's a ridiculous superficial comparison. Planes have professional pilots who understand the capabilities and limits of aviation autopilot technology. Tesla has had it both ways for ages - their stock price was based on "self-driving cars" and their liability was based on "asterisk asterisk the car cannot drive itself".

Autopilots in airplanes are kind of dumb (keep heading, speed, and altitude, they won’t do much anything else), which is why Tesla doesn’t use the name as branding for its full self driving software. People at least know that much. But then again even on HN people like parent think that autopilot is the same as full self driving, when it is and always has been just smarter cruise control. The payout was for autopilot…

> keep heading, speed, and altitude, they won’t do much anything else

That is absolutely not true. A plane on autopilot can land itself except for applying the brakes.

Re: Tesla has to pay historic $243M judgement over Autopilot crash, judge says

#140

Post by judahmeek »

nickff wrote: post #129
judahmeek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable. But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?

I've owned and used two of the affected models (for ~6 years in total), and also read the version of events presented by the plaintiffs (in their claims), as well as the judges' view of what happened. I originally read the documents to understand whether the unit I own is safe, and believed in its safety strongly enough that I have continued to use it.

So you've never actually tried to bypass the safety mechanism to determine the difficulty of doing so?

Because I'd bet you that the jury certainly did.

Post reply on HN