18 ms·

I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this

I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this response, I've completely lost respect for the company, for Musk, and I don't think I'll ever buy one or advocate for someone buying one. The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times that there was an issue with autopilot, but Tesla told him "no there is no issue". There is also video evidence of this same issue happening in other parts of the world, but with similar road conditions. But again, Tesla's response has been "there is no issue." And now their response is "the driver knew there was an issue but he used autopilot anyway"? Seriously? Either there is an issue or there isn't, Tesla. At first you said there is no issue, and now you're saying there is an issue? And as the cherry on top, you're blaming the driver for continuing to use the feature even after you told him repeatedly that it's okay to use? For shame, Tesla. For shame.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
slg 9y ago
At the heart of this issue is the fact Teslas are the first car that can have its functionality changed drastically from day to day (this "drive into a median" bug is believed to be a recent issue introduced within the last few months of autopilot updates). I think that ability to update is one of the most exciting things about Teslas compared to other cars, but it presents a huge organizational problem. How does Tesla communicate out those changes to their customers, mechanics, sales staff, and customer service people? I think the reporting of this specific issue and the original "there is no issue" response is simply from a company failing to communicate in multiple directions rather than any type of sinister motive that some people seem to be implying (Hanlon's razor and all).
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightest error in this update could result in bodily harm to someone". There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    > There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features. They do and I'm largely glad they do but I think you can go too far the other way, delaying advances that can save lives can result in more lives been lost because of the delay. There has to be a middle point, you want new drugs (for example) reaching the market but with the risk minimised to a degree that is acceptable, you simply can't reduce the risk to 0. All that said I'd be fascinated to read the assurance approaches that Tesla uses before pushing out updates to what is essentially a computer on wheels attached to batteries.
  - slg 9y ago
    It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or moral decision is something that can be debated forever, but Musk and in turn Tesla have made it very clear where they stands on it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.
      - slg 9y ago
        The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.
- username223 9y ago
  > functionality changed drastically from day to day Is this a daily thing? Weekly? Forced-updating software is almost always bad, but it would be a nightmare in my car. "Good morning! The buttons on your steering wheel have been remapped, and the auto-nav now has a different set of quirks. Have a nice day, and we are not liable!"
greglindahl 9y ago
If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted auto-pilot, or even if it was just some lame GPS navigation, is completely irrelevant. The bottom line is: there was an issue that was reported, Tesla denied it, the man died because of that issue, and now Tesla is contradicting themselves by saying there is an issue, but are deflecting blame. At this point, Tesla is eroding the ability for anyone to put trust in their cars. What if you have a Model X and one day it unsafely opens the doors while you are driving on the highway, so you take it to the dealer but they say "nope, can't replicate the issue, your car is safe to use". Are you going to believe them? Why, when they've just confirmed that they have a track record of being wrong? Oh wait, that already happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6giiao/my_model_x_90d_driver_side_falcon_door_opened_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6giiao/my_mode...
  - dewski 9y ago
    You can't just blanket say everything is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative. If he reported the system wasn't working, why would he continue using it especially in a known problematic area?
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong. As for the relevance: sure I can. My post about Tesla's contradiction has no relevance on what kind of autopilot it was. Tesla denied there was an issue, contradicted themselves by then saying there is an issue, and now is casting blame on the user for that issue. That's not acceptable. It would be unacceptable if we were talking about windshield wipers, or tires, or door locks, or the fucking clock on the dashboard. It is all about Tesla's denial of the issue and contradiction of themselves, and the type of autopilot is completely irrelevant.
whistlerbrk 9y ago
> The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times I understand this is not a popular opinion on news forums anywhere nor do I write this to absolve in my view Tesla of their poor response nor of their poor choice in naming the system 'autopilot' to start. But at what point does corporate or government responsibility end and personal responsibility start? If I knew something didn't work and that something could kill me and had reported the issue 7 to 10 times, I would be watching, like a hawk for the issue to recur, or more likely just not using it at all. People have this insane idea that just because something isn't their fault they don't have to take corrective action in order to avoid the consequences. It is better to be alive than to be correct.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised. If they don't, generally strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller, and all middleman (in this case, they're all Tesla), regardless of whether the customer-victim was misusing the product. In this case, there is no evidence that the driver was misusing the car. But there is a carload of evidence that Autopilot failed. At this point, the only thing Tesla is accomplishing with these public statements is adding more zeros to the eventual settlement/damage award.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The driver was required to remain alert.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.
      - ricardobeat 9y ago
        It does! Just not after 5 seconds.
andrei_says_ 9y ago
I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means. If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred. Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s family but for everyone listening, including everyone who owns a Tesla. It’s not an “autopilot”, it’s a lane assist. I see this as a naming failure more than anything else.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  > they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. That hasn't even been definitively established yet (regardless of what Tesla says), as the multiple videos of post-update Teslas steering directly toward crash barriers demonstrate.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    ... in a Level 2 system, that's a fine thing.
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      No, it is absolutely not. I'm not sure why you keep posting this as if it is definitive. Let me put it very clearly for you: it is not acceptable, in any shape or manner, to expect your users to have to "save themselves" from your product killing them every 5 seconds. If your product requires that, it is a bad product. Furthermore, your entire argument of "it's just a level 2 system..." falls apart when you consider that Tesla jumps through several marketing hoops to deceive people and make them believe it isn't just a level 2 system. When you visit Tesla's webpage on autopilot [1], the first and only thing you see at the top of the page are the following words in big, bold text: >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. It is not until you get to nearly the very bottom of the page that Tesla displays a disclaimer that "when we say 'full self-driving', we don't actually mean full self-driving, because that would be illegal and isn't available yet." There is only one single sentence, buried within a paragraph mid-page, that says drivers must remain alert and prepare to take over. The rest of the page is also filled with language indicating that autopilot is capable of turning itself, switching lanes itself, speeding itself up/slowing itself down, etc. It is not unreasonable whatsoever for someone to read this webpage and assume that autopilot will magically take them whereever they need to go. This webpage is in stark contrast to the reality, where autopilot will actively steer you into a concrete barrier and kill you if you do not babysit it. And to make things worse, Tesla apparently considers this to be a "feature". According to your Twitter, you own a Tesla, so it seems you have a little bit of fanboy-ist bias going on here. I'd suggest you take off the Tesla fanboy ballcap and consider how you would feel if this were a different product. If someone sold you a smartphone, but told you "this phone never requires charging because it has a mini nuclear reactor in it. Be careful though, because if you don't keep your eyes on the phone at all times and press the 'please don't explode and kill me' button every 5 minutes, you'll die!" would you be defending that phone in the same way you're defending Tesla? 1: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
agumonkey 9y ago
I didn't know Tesla had an exchange with that person over previous occurences of the problem. I believe Tesla should take responsibilities for this. But I think they fear this could just kill their entire company if they make a PA regarding safety being their fault. All in all, it's not right, not long ago they were claiming to have the highest safety ratings, now they're in denial over a death.
gkya 9y ago
Tesla was one of the best tech I've ever watched happen, up until when they decided to introduce the Autopilot. I guess they found out they can't easily improve on the range, which was the feature, up until this mess of a branding and PR. They were the good, benevolent techies, but they became angry and arrogant rich guys just in a flash under the slightest of criticism, and when they were to blame. What I hope now is that there come a new fresh enterprise that prioritises the range variable, and can produce serious electric alternatives to conventional buses and scooters (e.g. Vespa) too.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

slg 9y ago

At the heart of this issue is the fact Teslas are the first car that can have its functionality changed drastically from day to day (this "drive into a median" bug is believed to be a recent issue introduced within the last few months of autopilot updates). I think that ability to update is one of the most exciting things about Teslas compared to other cars, but it presents a huge organizational problem. How does Tesla communicate out those changes to their customers, mechanics, sales staff, and customer service people? I think the reporting of this specific issue and the original "there is no issue" response is simply from a company failing to communicate in multiple directions rather than any type of sinister motive that some people seem to be implying (Hanlon's razor and all).

txcwpalpha 9y ago
As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightest error in this update could result in bodily harm to someone". There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  > There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features. They do and I'm largely glad they do but I think you can go too far the other way, delaying advances that can save lives can result in more lives been lost because of the delay. There has to be a middle point, you want new drugs (for example) reaching the market but with the risk minimised to a degree that is acceptable, you simply can't reduce the risk to 0. All that said I'd be fascinated to read the assurance approaches that Tesla uses before pushing out updates to what is essentially a computer on wheels attached to batteries.
- slg 9y ago
  It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or moral decision is something that can be debated forever, but Musk and in turn Tesla have made it very clear where they stands on it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.
    - slg 9y ago
      The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.
username223 9y ago
> functionality changed drastically from day to day Is this a daily thing? Weekly? Forced-updating software is almost always bad, but it would be a nightmare in my car. "Good morning! The buttons on your steering wheel have been remapped, and the auto-nav now has a different set of quirks. Have a nice day, and we are not liable!"

greglindahl 9y ago

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

txcwpalpha 9y ago
This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted auto-pilot, or even if it was just some lame GPS navigation, is completely irrelevant. The bottom line is: there was an issue that was reported, Tesla denied it, the man died because of that issue, and now Tesla is contradicting themselves by saying there is an issue, but are deflecting blame. At this point, Tesla is eroding the ability for anyone to put trust in their cars. What if you have a Model X and one day it unsafely opens the doors while you are driving on the highway, so you take it to the dealer but they say "nope, can't replicate the issue, your car is safe to use". Are you going to believe them? Why, when they've just confirmed that they have a track record of being wrong? Oh wait, that already happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6giiao/my_model_x_90d_driver_side_falcon_door_opened_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6giiao/my_mode...
- dewski 9y ago
  You can't just blanket say everything is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative. If he reported the system wasn't working, why would he continue using it especially in a known problematic area?
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong. As for the relevance: sure I can. My post about Tesla's contradiction has no relevance on what kind of autopilot it was. Tesla denied there was an issue, contradicted themselves by then saying there is an issue, and now is casting blame on the user for that issue. That's not acceptable. It would be unacceptable if we were talking about windshield wipers, or tires, or door locks, or the fucking clock on the dashboard. It is all about Tesla's denial of the issue and contradiction of themselves, and the type of autopilot is completely irrelevant.

whistlerbrk 9y ago

> The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times I understand this is not a popular opinion on news forums anywhere nor do I write this to absolve in my view Tesla of their poor response nor of their poor choice in naming the system 'autopilot' to start. But at what point does corporate or government responsibility end and personal responsibility start? If I knew something didn't work and that something could kill me and had reported the issue 7 to 10 times, I would be watching, like a hawk for the issue to recur, or more likely just not using it at all. People have this insane idea that just because something isn't their fault they don't have to take corrective action in order to avoid the consequences. It is better to be alive than to be correct.

gamblor956 9y ago
In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised. If they don't, generally strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller, and all middleman (in this case, they're all Tesla), regardless of whether the customer-victim was misusing the product. In this case, there is no evidence that the driver was misusing the car. But there is a carload of evidence that Autopilot failed. At this point, the only thing Tesla is accomplishing with these public statements is adding more zeros to the eventual settlement/damage award.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The driver was required to remain alert.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.
    - ricardobeat 9y ago
      It does! Just not after 5 seconds.

andrei_says_ 9y ago

I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means. If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred. Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s family but for everyone listening, including everyone who owns a Tesla. It’s not an “autopilot”, it’s a lane assist. I see this as a naming failure more than anything else.

Analemma_ 9y ago
> they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. That hasn't even been definitively established yet (regardless of what Tesla says), as the multiple videos of post-update Teslas steering directly toward crash barriers demonstrate.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  ... in a Level 2 system, that's a fine thing.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    No, it is absolutely not. I'm not sure why you keep posting this as if it is definitive. Let me put it very clearly for you: it is not acceptable, in any shape or manner, to expect your users to have to "save themselves" from your product killing them every 5 seconds. If your product requires that, it is a bad product. Furthermore, your entire argument of "it's just a level 2 system..." falls apart when you consider that Tesla jumps through several marketing hoops to deceive people and make them believe it isn't just a level 2 system. When you visit Tesla's webpage on autopilot [1], the first and only thing you see at the top of the page are the following words in big, bold text: >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. It is not until you get to nearly the very bottom of the page that Tesla displays a disclaimer that "when we say 'full self-driving', we don't actually mean full self-driving, because that would be illegal and isn't available yet." There is only one single sentence, buried within a paragraph mid-page, that says drivers must remain alert and prepare to take over. The rest of the page is also filled with language indicating that autopilot is capable of turning itself, switching lanes itself, speeding itself up/slowing itself down, etc. It is not unreasonable whatsoever for someone to read this webpage and assume that autopilot will magically take them whereever they need to go. This webpage is in stark contrast to the reality, where autopilot will actively steer you into a concrete barrier and kill you if you do not babysit it. And to make things worse, Tesla apparently considers this to be a "feature". According to your Twitter, you own a Tesla, so it seems you have a little bit of fanboy-ist bias going on here. I'd suggest you take off the Tesla fanboy ballcap and consider how you would feel if this were a different product. If someone sold you a smartphone, but told you "this phone never requires charging because it has a mini nuclear reactor in it. Be careful though, because if you don't keep your eyes on the phone at all times and press the 'please don't explode and kill me' button every 5 minutes, you'll die!" would you be defending that phone in the same way you're defending Tesla? 1: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

agumonkey 9y ago

I didn't know Tesla had an exchange with that person over previous occurences of the problem. I believe Tesla should take responsibilities for this. But I think they fear this could just kill their entire company if they make a PA regarding safety being their fault. All in all, it's not right, not long ago they were claiming to have the highest safety ratings, now they're in denial over a death.

gkya 9y ago

Tesla was one of the best tech I've ever watched happen, up until when they decided to introduce the Autopilot. I guess they found out they can't easily improve on the range, which was the feature, up until this mess of a branding and PR. They were the good, benevolent techies, but they became angry and arrogant rich guys just in a flash under the slightest of criticism, and when they were to blame. What I hope now is that there come a new fresh enterprise that prioritises the range variable, and can produce serious electric alternatives to conventional buses and scooters (e.g. Vespa) too.