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

Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 286 posts

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#251

Post by dzhiurgis »

MBCook wrote: post #166
juancampa wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot in an aircraft is basically cruise control, not full self flying.

This is such a pointless talking point, it amazes me how pro-Tesla people have latched onto it. It doesn’t matter what it means. It matters what people think it means. This is discussed tons of other places in these comments, and every previous story about Autopilot and FSD here on HN.

It’s anti tesla people that bring this whole argument up.

Anyone who drives on autopilot for few hours learns immediately of it’s limitations, it’s not an enigma like some try to purport.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#252

Post by Dylan16807 »

mantas wrote: post #245
Dylan16807 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’d still have massive metal boxes passing you. With more distance. > On top of that, that’d likely mean highways torn up and replaced by narrow streets. Which would mean more traffic closer to people on sidewalks. I'm not suggesting that. You can leave the limited access roads alone for now.

Why more distance? Streets wouldn’t get wider. Rather if you try to dense-up the city, streets will go narrower. Besides complete hellholes like 80s US from the famous parking lot pictures, when trying to dense up the city, wide major streets would go first being built up. At least here there massive parking lots to just build on exist mostly on the outskirts. There’s no point in building on them. Going closer to dow…

> Why more distance? Streets wouldn’t get wider. Rather if you try to dense-up the city, streets will go narrower.

......yes?

You make the paved street narrower, allowing more distance between the lanes and the sidewalk.

And I didn't say anything about changing the density of the overall city. I'm talking about places where people are already walking but they're next to tons of cars.

> If you remove street parking, there won’t be space to fit in anything meaningful without rebuilding stuff around it.

The original complaint was people being within arms length of high speed cars. The meaningful thing you do is make that stop being the case.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#253

Post by AngryData »

dmix wrote: post #74
mcrk wrote: post #20

I bet most of the prosecution time was spent "explaining" the meaning of autopilot to the jury. Easy money.

Airplanes have autopilots too but pilots are still sitting there on the controls and have to be paying attention. A brand or technical name doesn't remove responsibility.

An airplane using autopilot isn't seconds away from suddenly crashing.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#254

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

tzs wrote: post #248
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot launched in 2014. "Full Self Driving" has been offered as an upgrade since 2016. Musk has been saying that fully autonomous driving is just around the corner (1-3 years away) since 2015.

He's been saying it was just around the corner for a long time, but it wasn't until 2020 that FSD they actually made it available to a limited number of customers in beta.

They were selling FSD as an option all the way back in 2016. They were telling customers that it would launch imminently.

The pattern here is constantly hyping self-driving as something that is basically ready, and at the dealership I went to, they went a step further and claimed full self-driving was already a reality.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#255

Post by MBCook »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #251
MBCook wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a pointless talking point, it amazes me how pro-Tesla people have latched onto it. It doesn’t matter what it means. It matters what people think it means. This is discussed tons of other places in these comments, and every previous story about Autopilot and FSD here on HN.

It’s anti tesla people that bring this whole argument up. Anyone who drives on autopilot for few hours learns immediately of it’s limitations, it’s not an enigma like some try to purport.

Nothing in the article says he had just bought the car. Seems likely he had had it long enough to learn its limitations.

Didn’t stop him.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#256

Post by sgustard »

MBCook wrote: post #155
dzhiurgis wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FSD wasn’t even released at that time.

Substitute Autopilot then. No other auto maker uses similar language. Ford and GM use BlueCruise and SuperCruise, clearly implying an improved kind of cruise control.

Do you honestly think a negligent driver who blows through a stop sign at 62 mph would have acted differently in a car marketed to have "SuperCruise" rather than "Autopilot"? I have no strong belief either way, and I shed no tears for Tesla, but I do worry about any chilling effect on technologies that will make driving safer than the bloodbath we currently suffer on the roads every day.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#258

Post by aziaziazi »

For those not aware of the circonstances (as me), here’s Tesla defence:

> this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road

There’s lots to blame in auto makers « security marketing » and phone addiction but it seems obvious that driving a 1ton+ vehicle while not constantly looking at the road can lead to bad outcomes.

I’m all in for (mass surveillance) onboard eye tracking. Make it optional with 50% bonus on your car insurance and driving state tax. I see many, many drivers every day that are looking at their phone in very inappropriate moments like intersections and line changes.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#259

Post by bryant »

This is by far the correct outcome. Given how long Tesla has been giving users the impression that the software would be superhuman (since 2013 with "Autopilot", and unrelatedly since 2016 with "full self driving"), they're overdue for the consequences, even if in this case they were only found partially liable.

The driver took the fair share of the blame for actually making the decision, but the driver's defense that a feature called "autopilot" would supposedly intervene is exactly the kind of marketing gimmick that needs to be penalized.

It shouldn't have taken injury and death to get to this point.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#260

Post by Lionga »

aziaziazi wrote: post #258

For those not aware of the circonstances (as me), here’s Tesla defence: > this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road There’s lots to blame in auto makers « security marketing » and phone addiction but it seems obvious that driving a 1ton+ vehicle while not constantly looking at the…

maybe do not call it Autopilot if it is well not auto piloting dangerous situations?
Post reply on HN