Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don't stop the car for an obstacle or traffic signal? Probably, but that's because America is highly litigious and has lost the concept of personal responsibility. The odds of winning are low.
(disclosure: tesla owner with >50k miles of Autopilot [EAP] use)
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 disclaimers, they are only there to try to protect themselves from liability. But their marketing, and especially the words from Elon's mouth, are 100% geared towards making the consumer believe that the system is capable of driving itself.
They can claim they told the driver to always be in charge, but there's no way (in my eyes) that they can do that with a straight face. "You gotta keep your hands on the wheel and always be in charge wink."
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.
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"
And Wikipedia: "Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle"
That's why I was careful to say the colloquial definition. IMO this is also why other companies deliberately name their systems something like "driver assist". It errs on the side of removing ambiguity.
The colloquial definition is generally much more aligned with "operating without having to focus on the task at hand." I don't think Tesla wants their drivers to operate the car without focusing on the act of driving because it has an "autopilot" feature.
And its solely tesla's fault for all mis-information for sake of PR, that muddied the water around issue of responsibility.
'Driver assist' leave very little to argue/interpret who is charge of driving.
> 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 vehicle when activating Autopilot within the vehicle: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/images/autosteer-e...
You're also reminded each and every time you activate Autosteer.
Most of the way down a long page, in faint small text in the middle of a blurb. Nothing could possibly scream "we don't want you to read this, but we're required to put it in so that we and our fans can continue to make bad-faith defenses of our marketing program" more.
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*.
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"
I am not interested in PR style discussions with technicalities being used as a scapegoat points.
Its entirely unproductive and should be strictly reserved to cable news programs.
If i buy strawberry ice-cream in strawberry ice-cream packaging I dont give a fuck that there is a sign on the back of package saying this is frozen broccoli.
Hiding behind legalese and specific wording is the textbook definition of misleading.
How would you feel if i sold you an "apple peeler" and made you sign a legal agreement where i stated that the "apple peeler" was not capable of peeling apples today but at some indeterminate point in the future? Is that not misleading?
Why are you arguing semantics for a scummy corporate?
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)."
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
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 well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
This literally reads like Tesla PR.
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 rest of their copy said:
> Have your car come to you while you deal with a fussy child.
Tesla and Musk (and remember, Tesla told the SEC Musk's Twitter is an "official company communication channel") have even linked and re-tweeted videos of people driving entirely hands-free.
Liability lies with the driver, but it would not be hard to argue that the company's under is "Bah. Pesky regulation. All this shit works, but we're just waiting on the law to catch up".
Tesla never said Autopilot is autonomous.
The Autopilot in Tesla is more like the one you'd find in an A-10C (three options: hold this current level vertical path; hold this heading and altitude, or hold this altitude) than how I guess most people perceive Autopilot to work (like in what Airbus is actually developing now, ie https://www.businessinsider.com.au/airbus-completes-autonomo... - that article talks to how people incorrectly perceive autopilot to do everything in a plane, for now at least ).
Ie it's a really useful tool, but it's in no way to be confused with FSD.
Wikipedia: "Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle"
No one is confused about Tesla's Autopilot because not only do you have to agree on how to use it before you can enable it, but it constantly nags and reminds you while driving.
Now, yes.
A couple of years ago? Every fifteen _minutes_.
When people's lives are in danger, there should be greater accountability over the marketing that companies are trying to pass off as hard truth.
You are aware that the car keeps nagging you if you don't keep your hands on the wheel, right?
And no, they don't call it "'autopilot'/'FSD'". They call FSD FSD, and Autopilot Autopilot.
Promising FSD has got nothing to do with Autopilot. FSD is a completely separate package you have to purchase.
You are lying about their marketing.
Even funnier in video format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7oZ-AQszEI
He’s made too many bs claims for it to be defensible in any way.
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/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).
> 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/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).
If the driver is not paying attention, that is the driver's fault. If you can't provide your attention, you shouldn't be in the driver's seat. And if you kill people, do not pass go, go directly to jail. Such are the consequences of being responsible for thousands of pounds of mobility moving at speed.
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.
Not necessarily. Automatic Emergency Braking systems across all automakers have serious constraints [1], and are still sold with broad legal disclaimers. They will attempt to stop you in the event an object is in the vehicle path, but importantly, there are no guarantees (and this is made clear in each vehicle's user manual). At the time of this accident, Tesla had no safety system for detecting red lights or stop signs, therefore no safety system to fail (when Autopilot is active, the vehicle has a "dead man switch" that commands you to torque the steering wheel and provide other input to ensure you're still alive and attentive every 10-30 seconds, depending on a variety of factors [speed, road curvature, visibility, path planning confidence, etc]).
This idea that these safety systems are foolproof and manufacturers are liable versus the driver are bizarre to say the least, but as I mention in another comment, it speaks to the broad lack of understanding and personal responsibility that has permeated society. People get in and drive, and it's someone else's problem if an adverse event occurs.
> 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.
I agree with this position, and that engineering in general should be held to a high standard. If manufacturers have built what the industry has determined is industry standard, and regulators sign off (NHTSA has made no attempt to instruct Tesla to disable Autopilot fleet wide with an OTA software update), I'm unsure there's much more to do when the human pushes beyond system limits.
[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...
> To understand the strengths and weaknesses of these systems and how they differ, we piloted a Cadillac CT6, a Subaru Impreza, a Tesla Model S, and a Toyota Camry through four tests at FT Techno of America's Fowlerville, Michigan, proving ground. The balloon car is built like a bounce house but with the radar reflectivity of a real car, along with a five-figure price and a Volkswagen wrapper. For the tests with a moving target, a heavy-duty pickup tows the balloon car on 42-foot rails, which allow it to slide forward after impact.
> The car companies don't hide the fact that today's AEB systems have blind spots. It's all there in the owner's manuals, typically covered by both an all-encompassing legal disclaimer and explicit examples of why the systems might fail to intervene. For instance, the Camry's AEB system may not work when you're driving on a hill. It might not spot vehicles with high ground clearance or those with low rear ends. It may not work if a wiper blade blocks the camera. Toyota says the system could also fail if the vehicle is wobbling, whatever that means. It may not function when the sun shines directly on the vehicle ahead or into the camera mounted near the rearview mirror.
> There's truth in these legal warnings. AEB isn't intended to address low-visibility conditions or a car that suddenly swerves into your path. These systems do their best work preventing the kind of crashes that are easily avoided by an attentive driver.
I guess they just weren't confident enough, and that I hadn't been behind behind the required number.
I was very impressed by that system, very simple yet solid. By always using radar cruise control you'd kind of take away the need to go into AEB territory, which never happened (activated) for me outside of when I tested the system using cardboard boxes.
(I want to know how my stuff works - 2/3 times came to a full stop from 30kmh just in time, third time it put 10cm into them ; I concluded this is extremely good technology that should be made mandatory everywhere).
I think it may ultimately come down to the way Tesla's marketing is perceived. If it's found that a reasonable person would insinuate that Tesla implied their system had capabilities it did not, that gets into ethical/legal trouble and speaks to what I meant about working "appropriately". But I think we agree on this based on your previous comment about creation of a regulatory framework for communication.
As far as the personal responsibility goes, I also agree on that point. But in an immensely complex and interconnected society, this has limits because humans don't have the bandwidth to make risk-informed decisions on everything. As I mentioned in a separate comment, there are certain professions (namely: engineer, lawyer, doctor) who have obligations/responsibilities to public safety. (Hence the term "profession" which comes from professing an oath of ethics). I think it's a bad precedent to push the responsibility away from these professions. The talking point about personal responsibility seems to only go one way, and it (unsurprisingly) is the direction that allows corporations to maximize profits while also absolving themselves of risk.
If you drive over a bridge and it collapses because of a bad design, I don't think this gets chalked up to "welp, you needed to take personal responsibility for deciding on that route". If you buy flooring for your home that makes your kids sick, I wouldn't blame you for not doing due diligence on the manufacturing or chemical process. In both cases, the end-user has a reasonable expectation of safety and the professional who designed it would usually be held responsible. Maybe, as you said, the AV world needs some more oversight and regulation to communicate those risks.
Now, whether that happened with Tesla will be for a judge or a jury to decide. In the past, Tesla certainly has made bold claims in their marketing material.
It would probably come down to the question what would have been ‘normal’ for the driver to assume about Tesla’s software.
I'm not saying necessarily that we should or should restrict that sort of limited autonomy, just that I think the tradeoffs and empirical questions aren't obvious and you could make an argument for it.
It's not only Tesla that has launch control some other models of other vehicle manufacturers also offer it.
A decent case can be made for making GM and Ford responsible, if you view tort law from an economic perspective rather than a moral perspective.
Under the moral perspective approach tort law's goal is to identify those whose negligence or wrongdoing are responsible for some harm and making them bear the cost of that harm.
That works fine when it is hard to have big torts that cause so much damage that the tortfeasor cannot cover it. You then start having to have insurance. Potential tortfeasors might have insurance that pays if their torts cause too much damage, and potential victims might have insurance that pays if they get harmed by an uninsured tortfeasor.
When an uninsured tortfeasor harms an uninsured victim and the victim needs expensive emergency medical treatment that they cannot afford they get it and the hospital pays or the taxpayers pay.
Under an approach to tort law based on an economic perspective it is not about blame. It is about putting responsibility where it can do the most to reduce the number and severity of similar future torts.
If Tesla and GM and Ford are responsible when their driver assist features are involved in an accident, regardless of whether it was user error or use stupidity or bad design or a manufacturing defect or whatever that causes, they will have good data on how often this happens, how much damage it causes, how those compare between their cars and the other cars, and can try to make changes to reduce frequency and severity if it turns out that their cars are having this issues at a higher rate than expected.
Under the insurance approach in the moral-based tort system, the insurance companies will have data on how often each company's cars have these problems so they can set premiums based on that. Drivers of higher risk cars will pay more to insure against accidents they are at fault in. All of us will pay more for coverage that covers us against accidents caused by underinsured drivers.
That might provide some incentive to the car companies to address the issue--if people know they are going to have to pay more for insurance if they buy one of your cars they might be more likely to choose a different car--but it isn't likely to be very much incentive.
With the approach in the economic-based tort system there are more incentives to actually improve safety instead of just raising prices for insurance.
After the criminal case is resolved, the victims or their next-of-kin will probably try to sue the driver and Tesla in civil court for wrongful death.
The articles kinda vague on why exactly the driver is being charged, though. Reading between the lines, I suspect its not just because he had the autopilot engaged, but was engaged in some form of gross negligence at the same time (sleeping, playing videogames on his phone, etc).
In the real world we have pretty extensive precedents about consumer product safety, and manufacturers are very often liable for design decisions that lead to harm, even if nominally speaking the user was supposed to be ultimately responsible.
There's a lot of gray area in those kinds of cases. The idea that one is negligent because one could have done something differently tends to permeate internet circle jerks about legal responsibility but these sorts of things tend to be very specific to the facts in question and the burdens of proof differ greatly between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
In this case the driver will probably be probably be financially responsible for the outcome but being found guilty of manslaughter is a much higher bar. However, many states have various vehicular <type of crime> statutes with lower requirements or "but if driving a vehicle then X" type qualifiers on the definitions of normal crimes so that may complicate things.
Having said that, aircraft pilots are very highly trained relative to automobile drivers and must pass periodic medical and proficiency exams to maintain their flight status. Whereas anyone (loosely speaking) can buy a Tesla and just start driving it.
That means PIC can delegate flying to their mom if they like but they are responsible. If they delegate to hardware and it misbehaves, they are still responsible.
[0]https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-93-FAR.shtml [1] https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_op...
Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at - telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record.
It's not moot because most occurrences don't result in death. Occurrences are investigated both to establish fault (which can and does sometimes result in pilots losing their flight status and/or jobs), and from a safety perspective to try to prevent or minimize future occurrences.
> Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at
This is not true. Most accidents and incidents are caused at least in part by pilot error.
- https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-accident/why-planes-...
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12136068_Factors_as...
- https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_...
> telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record.
This is not true at all, at least when it comes to aircraft pilots. As anyone who's been to flight school knows, about 90% of the curriculum could reasonably be described as "telling the pilot to do X or Y to mitigate risk". And it works! There are millions of flights every year, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are safe (because pilots actively & successfully mitigate risk).
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.
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.