11 ms·

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the crash, but Tesla could also have avoided it, and the driver's biggest fault lies in trusting the "autopilot" more than they should. In the case of this particular crash, I certainly agree that the driver should have been paying more attention to the road, especially because they already knew the autopilot had issues at that particular point, and if they were paying attention they could have avoided the crash. However, the fact that autopilot can't handle that barrier correctly is a problem especially because the driver reported that exact issue to Tesla multiple times in the past (heck, Tesla probably should have blacklisted that particular GPS location to force the user to take control when approaching that point, if they can't handle the barrier correctly in autopilot). Similarly, Tesla allows drivers the most freedom to ignore the road of any of the "autopilot"-like systems, and they continue to call their system "autopilot"¹, both of which only serves to make this sort of crash much more likely. ¹Yes I know it's technically correct, but it doesn't match what the general public thinks when they hear the term "autopilot". It gives the wrong impression that the system is smarter and more reliable than it actually is.

bentruyman 9y ago
Where's your evidence that any of the people who've crashed in these Teslas were "victims"?
- recursive 9y ago
  A dictionary, which will define "victim" similar to > noun > a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Tesla is exerting and reinforcing that it is not liable for poor driver decisions. If you use any vehicle safety aid while not paying attention, and you die or kill someone while in control of the vehicle, that is your liability. Whether they call their system "Autopilot" is immaterial. You are the responsibly party as the driver, and this is made clear both at purchase time and during vehicle use.
- watwut 9y ago
  How they call the system drives user expectations and trust. They call it autopilot so that people buy it due to having these expectations. It is consequential and thus legitimate subject to critique.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bentruyman 9y ago
    Autopilot is the correct term here – seems like most folks unfortunately don't know what it actually means. So I wouldn't disagree with you.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Calling it autopilot implies you have to pay attention. It implies it's NOT self-driving or autonomous any more than airplanes (which virtually all have some sort of autopilot) are.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fricken 9y ago
      The name is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 56% of commercial pilots have admitted to falling asleep while flying[1]. People suck at remaining alert and attentive when doing boring shit. So when autopilot was all over the road and screwing up every 30 seconds, it wasn't much of a problem. Now that it can navigate highways for an hour or more without needing a safety critical intervention, we have a problem. [1]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544
NickM 9y ago
I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features, but people keep getting confused about it, so they keep doubling down on their message.
- redial 9y ago
  Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!
  - etjossem 9y ago
    Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch. To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
    - jijojv 9y ago
      Only licensed aviators know the difference... Also in that In 1947 a US Air Force C-54 made a transatlantic flight, including takeoff and landing, completely under the control of an autopilot.
      - etjossem 9y ago
        That's really cool - but just like driverless cars, it's the exception to the rule for what an autopilot system does.
    - fmihaila 9y ago
      > Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is [...] I strongly suspect that is a small minority of buyers.
tathastu 9y ago
Tesla's autopilot page (https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot) says (as of today): Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Compare that with the message displayed each time the driver turns on Autopilot. Is there any evidence that Tesla drivers are more influenced by marketing or by the message that they see every day?
  - debt 9y ago
    Also does Tesla have numbers to show that autopilot has actually been safer than a normal human driver?
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      I'm willing to bet that the NTSA report on this accident will explore that issue. The one number that Tesla has given included the effect of automatic emergency braking, so it's not a pure autopilot number.
    - hangonhn 9y ago
      Even if they do show the AP is safer than a human driver, the idea that a machine/software killing people is pretty unsettling to most of us. It's one thing to have a human driver make an error and kill himself and other and another to have a machine do it on a somewhat regular basis, even if in the long run less people die overall. There's something really uncomfortable for society. The justification for it feels very cold and calculated, even if it is right. We've arrived at Peter Singer's trolley car problem.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        The trolley problem doesn't have a human in the loop. Edit: Instead of downvoting me, can the downvoter please point out where the trolley problem involves a human in the loop? This is a level 2 system, where a human driver has to remain alert and ready to take over. That's not the trolley problem.
vkou 9y ago
They double down on it because they are shipping a system that is unsafe by design. Their engineers know it, their lawyers know it, and Elon Musk knows it. Blaming the user and pointing to the ToS is their fig leaf against liability. When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless. When it is used as advertised, it is dangerous. They know better, and they don't give a damn. First to market, and all that.
- mrb 9y ago
  «When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless» Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?
  - chrisper 9y ago
    A safety feature is useless if you can't rely on it all the time.
    - mrb 9y ago
      An imperfect safety feature is still better than no safety feature at all.
      - GhostVII 9y ago
        But if the safety feature works almost all the time, and occasionally fails catestrophically, I would argue that it is actually more dangerous than having no safety feature, since people will depend on it working and not catch it when it fails.
  - vkou 9y ago
    According to the TOS, and given Tesla's statements, the system needs to be supervised by a 100% attentive human 24/7. From what we know of human physiology, and what we have observed from previous self-driving crashes, this level of attentiveness is impossible to maintain... Without being the one actively driving the car.
dawnerd 9y ago
Might also be that they're afraid media might start pointing out that it's just fancy lane assist and not the "self driving" they've been subtly marketing. Don't get me wrong, I wish I had one in my driveway right now, but they really need to tone down the whole autopilot bit until they can make sure it doesn't kill people on very obvious obstacles.
kalleboo 9y ago
> heck, Tesla probably should have blacklisted that particular GPS location to force the user to take control when approaching that point, if they can't handle the barrier correctly in autopilot This is something they really ought to do. Also to proactively blacklist places where other drivers commonly disengage Autopilot because there might be something tricky there that it can't handle

bentruyman 9y ago

Where's your evidence that any of the people who've crashed in these Teslas were "victims"?

recursive 9y ago
A dictionary, which will define "victim" similar to > noun > a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Tesla is exerting and reinforcing that it is not liable for poor driver decisions. If you use any vehicle safety aid while not paying attention, and you die or kill someone while in control of the vehicle, that is your liability. Whether they call their system "Autopilot" is immaterial. You are the responsibly party as the driver, and this is made clear both at purchase time and during vehicle use.

watwut 9y ago
How they call the system drives user expectations and trust. They call it autopilot so that people buy it due to having these expectations. It is consequential and thus legitimate subject to critique.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bentruyman 9y ago
  Autopilot is the correct term here – seems like most folks unfortunately don't know what it actually means. So I wouldn't disagree with you.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Calling it autopilot implies you have to pay attention. It implies it's NOT self-driving or autonomous any more than airplanes (which virtually all have some sort of autopilot) are.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fricken 9y ago
    The name is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 56% of commercial pilots have admitted to falling asleep while flying[1]. People suck at remaining alert and attentive when doing boring shit. So when autopilot was all over the road and screwing up every 30 seconds, it wasn't much of a problem. Now that it can navigate highways for an hour or more without needing a safety critical intervention, we have a problem. [1]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544

NickM 9y ago

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features, but people keep getting confused about it, so they keep doubling down on their message.

redial 9y ago
Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!
- etjossem 9y ago
  Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch. To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
  - jijojv 9y ago
    Only licensed aviators know the difference... Also in that In 1947 a US Air Force C-54 made a transatlantic flight, including takeoff and landing, completely under the control of an autopilot.
    - etjossem 9y ago
      That's really cool - but just like driverless cars, it's the exception to the rule for what an autopilot system does.
  - fmihaila 9y ago
    > Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is [...] I strongly suspect that is a small minority of buyers.

tathastu 9y ago

Tesla's autopilot page (https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot) says (as of today): Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

greglindahl 9y ago
Compare that with the message displayed each time the driver turns on Autopilot. Is there any evidence that Tesla drivers are more influenced by marketing or by the message that they see every day?
- debt 9y ago
  Also does Tesla have numbers to show that autopilot has actually been safer than a normal human driver?
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    I'm willing to bet that the NTSA report on this accident will explore that issue. The one number that Tesla has given included the effect of automatic emergency braking, so it's not a pure autopilot number.
  - hangonhn 9y ago
    Even if they do show the AP is safer than a human driver, the idea that a machine/software killing people is pretty unsettling to most of us. It's one thing to have a human driver make an error and kill himself and other and another to have a machine do it on a somewhat regular basis, even if in the long run less people die overall. There's something really uncomfortable for society. The justification for it feels very cold and calculated, even if it is right. We've arrived at Peter Singer's trolley car problem.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      The trolley problem doesn't have a human in the loop. Edit: Instead of downvoting me, can the downvoter please point out where the trolley problem involves a human in the loop? This is a level 2 system, where a human driver has to remain alert and ready to take over. That's not the trolley problem.

vkou 9y ago

They double down on it because they are shipping a system that is unsafe by design. Their engineers know it, their lawyers know it, and Elon Musk knows it. Blaming the user and pointing to the ToS is their fig leaf against liability. When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless. When it is used as advertised, it is dangerous. They know better, and they don't give a damn. First to market, and all that.

mrb 9y ago
«When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless» Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?
- chrisper 9y ago
  A safety feature is useless if you can't rely on it all the time.
  - mrb 9y ago
    An imperfect safety feature is still better than no safety feature at all.
    - GhostVII 9y ago
      But if the safety feature works almost all the time, and occasionally fails catestrophically, I would argue that it is actually more dangerous than having no safety feature, since people will depend on it working and not catch it when it fails.
- vkou 9y ago
  According to the TOS, and given Tesla's statements, the system needs to be supervised by a 100% attentive human 24/7. From what we know of human physiology, and what we have observed from previous self-driving crashes, this level of attentiveness is impossible to maintain... Without being the one actively driving the car.

dawnerd 9y ago

Might also be that they're afraid media might start pointing out that it's just fancy lane assist and not the "self driving" they've been subtly marketing. Don't get me wrong, I wish I had one in my driveway right now, but they really need to tone down the whole autopilot bit until they can make sure it doesn't kill people on very obvious obstacles.

kalleboo 9y ago

> heck, Tesla probably should have blacklisted that particular GPS location to force the user to take control when approaching that point, if they can't handle the barrier correctly in autopilot This is something they really ought to do. Also to proactively blacklist places where other drivers commonly disengage Autopilot because there might be something tricky there that it can't handle