3 ms·
While some (elsewhere) are arguing the system could have gracefully handed back control by slowing down to an eventual stop, it's pretty clear the driver was at
by lancewiggs 9y ago
While some (elsewhere) are arguing the system could have gracefully handed back control by slowing down to an eventual stop, it's pretty clear the driver was at fault. It's also not clear how the autopilot could have done better - is slowing down on a high speed road any less dangerous? It needed a human in the loop.
The evidence was that the driver was wilfully ignoring the safety warnings, just like ignoring a fence or sign above a steep cliff. That increased the fatal risk to him and other road users. Any other (less litigious) country would immediately place the fault where it clearly lies.
- Steko 9y ago> , it's pretty clear the driver was at fault It's pretty clear both the driver is primarily at fault and Tesla's poorly designed system (as it existed at the time) compounded the driver error. > is slowing down on a high speed road any less dangerous Yes, slowing down gradually and pulling over is safer than careening down the road with zero input the human driver which as you admit "needs to be in the loop".
- legolas2412 9y agoLet's forget the monthly musk talks of self driving cars or Tesla claims of "fully self driving hardware". Let's assume that Tesla didn't even have the misleading name of autopilot and merely advertised the assistive technology separately. Would you be fine if a car with collision avoidance ran full speed into a collision? Would you be fine with a company selling an incapable system as a safety feature and face no responsibility because they mentioned somewhere that the system can fail?