Re:Tesla must pay $329M in damages in fatal Autopilot case, ...
by bko on Friday August 01, 2025 @03:48PM
(#44761562)
Right, this is the frustrating thing about court room activism and general anger towards Tesla. By any stretch of the imagination, this technology is reasonably safe. It has over 3.6 billion miles, currently about 8m miles per day. By all reasonable measures, this technology is safe and useful. I could see why plaintiffs go after Tesla. They have a big target on their back for whatever reason, and activist judges go along. But I don't get how someone on the outside can look at this and think that this technology or marketing over the last 10 years is somehow deceptive or dangerous.
https://teslanorth.com/2025/03/28/teslas-full-self-driving-s...
Re:Tesla must pay $329M in damages in fatal Autopilot case, ...
by dmoy on Friday August 01, 2025 @04:15PM
(#44761951)
> activist judges
Wait what? What activism is the judge doing here? The jury is the one that comes up with the verdict and damage award, no?
Re:Tesla must pay $329M in damages in fatal Autopilot case, ...
by cosmicgadget on Friday August 01, 2025 @03:50PM
(#44761591)
If it was called "comprehensive collision avoidance system" then yes.
Re:Tesla must pay $329M in damages in fatal Autopilot case, ...
by panarky on Friday August 01, 2025 @04:40PM
(#44762240)
There are plenty of accurate names Tesla could have selected.
They could have named it "adaptive cruise control with assisted lane-keeping".
Instead their customers are intentionally led to believe it's as safe and autonomous as an airliner's autopilot.
Disclaimers don't compensate for a deceptive name, endless false promises and nonstop marketing hype.
In practice, they are not, because the fine print always clarifies that the feature works only under specific conditions and that the driver remains responsible. Tesla's Autopilot and FSD come with the same kind of disclaimers. The underlying principle is the same.