6 ms·

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who can’t defend themselves. I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. I don’t expect them to accept responsibility if indeed their technology was not to blame, but frankly that isn’t for them to decide. Until the authorities have done their jobs, why not show remorse, regardless of culpability, as any decent human would?

zethraeus 9y ago
Could you source the assertion that Uber (as opposed to the local police) has indicated the victim in the crash was homeless? (That would be an inexcusable and cynical deflection.)
- misun78 9y ago
  Uber never came out mentioning the homelessness of the person. The police did. This is typical HN banter on Uber, thanks for calling it out.
  - eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
    That's because Uber never released an official statement on the accident. At least, I can't find one on their website.
Donald 9y ago
This was clearly vetted (or written) by a lawyer who is interested in changing the narrative for his future wrongful death defense rather than exercising empathy.
- psychedelic 9y ago
  It reads like it was written by a company who has a lot of scientists working there is all. They are simply explaining what happened according the system log files before the incident and then reminding the public that it is still safer.
  - Someone1234 9y ago
    > They are simply explaining what happened according the system log files I must have missed the part where they explained why their autopilot system drove into a concrete divider at high speed. Please can you quote the explanation you're referring to.
barnabes 9y ago
Yeah, but it seems that they may be, statistically speaking, right. The fears that surround self driving cars may be unfounded, and if they are unfounded, then it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're right when they say we don't speak of the accidents that didn't happen, and I bet there's a ton of them. As someone who's been in multiple car crashes, as a passenger, I really on longer want to be at the mercy of human drivers. Brief reminder of the same discussion, in a different context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE Yet on one, and I really mean no one complains about computer assisted landings and takeoffs. I'm not sure why. Lots of passengers even sleep through them. I guess we've come to realise that the man machine symbiosis works well for flight. But it might take time for this to get engrained into our culture when it comes to driving.
- vizzah 9y ago
  Exactly. It's very important to ensure negative (and unjustified!) publicity do not affect technology perception, adoption and growth. There are so many Luddites who take every chance to hammer another nail.. It's understandable that any tech pioneer can easily sense being attacked and has to quiveringly rebuff any hysteria attempts.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present is still unclear but if the self driving car companies are successful in dodging most of it (and it appears they are trying) then self driving cars are going to kill a lot of people unnecessarily - quite possibly more than humans would.
    - exotree 9y ago
      If individual engineers and executives were made to be legally responsible for potential fatal accidents resulting from technology, progress would grind to a halt.
zeroxfe 9y ago
I agree with the lack of compassion bit -- I think the messaging could have been far more empathetic. However... > Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. I don't understand how you can equate those first two lines. Uber's observation is clearly irrelevant, but the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident seems very relevant to me.
- obeattie 9y ago
  > the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.
  - irq11 9y ago
    ”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.” This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.
    - heliodor 9y ago
      I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.
      - irq11 9y ago
        Even then, I fail to see how it’s relevant information. I’m supposed to trust an “autopilot” that warns me six seconds before it slams me into a wall?
pfarnsworth 9y ago
That is utter bullshit that Uber said the victim was homeless. It was the police chief, Uber never mentioned it once and their response was completely appropriate.
- ferongr 9y ago
  It's fashionable to hate Uber now so people don't object to lies told against them.
sfifs 9y ago
> I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. I would venture a guess this is an outcome of the "sue for everything" legal environment in the US. Any statement that could be construed as anything other than "we did nothing wrong" could be seized on by shareholders suing the company for securities fraud and demanding class action status.
gfodor 9y ago
What you are saying here is: "I really wish the PR person who wrote this chose words that would cause readers to feel as though the company empathized more with the victim." Ultimately companies don't have feelings, their employees do. PR statements and the words chosen (unless written by an individual like the CEO) don't somehow make a company into a person and don't reflect the feelings of their employees: they are a crafted tool to create a certain outcome by instilling thoughts in the mind of the reader and/or providing legal cover.
intopieces 9y ago
>I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. Because humility requires you to admit wrongdoing, which from a legal standpoint is not advisable in a public statement.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

zethraeus 9y ago

Could you source the assertion that Uber (as opposed to the local police) has indicated the victim in the crash was homeless? (That would be an inexcusable and cynical deflection.)

misun78 9y ago
Uber never came out mentioning the homelessness of the person. The police did. This is typical HN banter on Uber, thanks for calling it out.
- eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
  That's because Uber never released an official statement on the accident. At least, I can't find one on their website.

Donald 9y ago

This was clearly vetted (or written) by a lawyer who is interested in changing the narrative for his future wrongful death defense rather than exercising empathy.

psychedelic 9y ago
It reads like it was written by a company who has a lot of scientists working there is all. They are simply explaining what happened according the system log files before the incident and then reminding the public that it is still safer.
- Someone1234 9y ago
  > They are simply explaining what happened according the system log files I must have missed the part where they explained why their autopilot system drove into a concrete divider at high speed. Please can you quote the explanation you're referring to.

barnabes 9y ago

Yeah, but it seems that they may be, statistically speaking, right. The fears that surround self driving cars may be unfounded, and if they are unfounded, then it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're right when they say we don't speak of the accidents that didn't happen, and I bet there's a ton of them. As someone who's been in multiple car crashes, as a passenger, I really on longer want to be at the mercy of human drivers. Brief reminder of the same discussion, in a different context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE Yet on one, and I really mean no one complains about computer assisted landings and takeoffs. I'm not sure why. Lots of passengers even sleep through them. I guess we've come to realise that the man machine symbiosis works well for flight. But it might take time for this to get engrained into our culture when it comes to driving.

vizzah 9y ago
Exactly. It's very important to ensure negative (and unjustified!) publicity do not affect technology perception, adoption and growth. There are so many Luddites who take every chance to hammer another nail.. It's understandable that any tech pioneer can easily sense being attacked and has to quiveringly rebuff any hysteria attempts.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present is still unclear but if the self driving car companies are successful in dodging most of it (and it appears they are trying) then self driving cars are going to kill a lot of people unnecessarily - quite possibly more than humans would.
  - exotree 9y ago
    If individual engineers and executives were made to be legally responsible for potential fatal accidents resulting from technology, progress would grind to a halt.

zeroxfe 9y ago

I agree with the lack of compassion bit -- I think the messaging could have been far more empathetic. However... > Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. I don't understand how you can equate those first two lines. Uber's observation is clearly irrelevant, but the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident seems very relevant to me.

obeattie 9y ago
> the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.
- irq11 9y ago
  ”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.” This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.
  - heliodor 9y ago
    I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.
    - irq11 9y ago
      Even then, I fail to see how it’s relevant information. I’m supposed to trust an “autopilot” that warns me six seconds before it slams me into a wall?

pfarnsworth 9y ago

That is utter bullshit that Uber said the victim was homeless. It was the police chief, Uber never mentioned it once and their response was completely appropriate.

ferongr 9y ago
It's fashionable to hate Uber now so people don't object to lies told against them.

sfifs 9y ago

> I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. I would venture a guess this is an outcome of the "sue for everything" legal environment in the US. Any statement that could be construed as anything other than "we did nothing wrong" could be seized on by shareholders suing the company for securities fraud and demanding class action status.

gfodor 9y ago

What you are saying here is: "I really wish the PR person who wrote this chose words that would cause readers to feel as though the company empathized more with the victim." Ultimately companies don't have feelings, their employees do. PR statements and the words chosen (unless written by an individual like the CEO) don't somehow make a company into a person and don't reflect the feelings of their employees: they are a crafted tool to create a certain outcome by instilling thoughts in the mind of the reader and/or providing legal cover.

intopieces 9y ago

>I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. Because humility requires you to admit wrongdoing, which from a legal standpoint is not advisable in a public statement.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]