4 ms·

I fail to see what the issue is? Tesla said it will continue providing technical help and they are still mandated by law. What is the real loss for them to bein

I fail to see what the issue is? Tesla said it will continue providing technical help and they are still mandated by law. What is the real loss for them to being out of the investigation committee? What does the NTSB lose?

justicezyx 8y ago
Lets imagine your software shows constant malfunction and one day stops working, and the engineer who wrote the whole critical piece decided that he will officially leave the investigation group but said he will cooperate. What will happen?
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Let's say the pilot walks out of the cockpit to pee, doesn't notice the co-pilot is narc'd out for his knee and back pain, and the plane rolls into a banking spiral. Is it the software's fault? The guy hadn't touched the wheel for six seconds, in traffic. WTF.
  - sjm-lbm 8y ago
    A better real life example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965 Basically, distracted/lost pilots accidentally used an autopilot/flight management system to program a flight path that took a jet into the side of the mountain. They did receive a warning in the cockpit, but attempted to recover too late. Now, to your question (from the Wikipeida article linked above): "American Airlines settled numerous lawsuits brought against it by the families of the victims of the accident. American Airlines filed a "third-party complaint" lawsuit for contribution against Jeppesen and Honeywell, which made the navigation computer database and failed to include the coordinates of Rozo under the identifier "R"; the case went to trial in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. At the trial, American Airlines admitted that it bore some legal responsibility for the accident. Honeywell and Jeppesen each contended that they had no legal responsibility for the accident. In June 2000, the jury found that Jeppesen was 30 percent at fault for the crash, Honeywell was 10 percent at fault, and American Airlines was 60 percent at fault." So, yes - even in a situation where the automation system in question was much more rigorously tested and the users had much more specialized training, the automation system was found to be partially at fault.
    - jklinger410 8y ago
      >automation system Tesla autopilot is driver assist, not automated driving. If you want to put someone on trial, you first have to establish a crime. If the crime is a bug in autopilot, then yes, Tesla is guilty. If the crime is killing the driver of a vehicle because of an accident, then Tesla is not guilty. We can talk about bugs in software outside of a manslaughter case.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        First and foremost, Tesla itself sells, and still sells, Autopilot as a self-driving system. Not all trials are criminal trials. Some are civil trials, meaning generally that a tort occurred and one person is suing another to recover damages. That is the most likely trial in this situation. If the crime is a bug in Autopilot, then an engineer at Tesla might be guilty of any number of crimes. How the driver dies doesn't particularly matter if the bug causes his death. But more likely, Tesla is liable for product defect resulting in the death of one customer and the near-death experiences of at least 3 other drivers. This isn't a manslaughter case. But it is a product liability case+negligence+libel+invasion of privacy+intentional infliction of emotional distress case when it didn't have to be, and those additional claims will likely destroy Tesla financially. Trial experts have been quoted as saying a verdict in excess of $100 million is likely if Tesla were stupid enough to go to trial (and right now, Musk is definitely being that stupid).
  - dbt00 8y ago
    > The guy hadn't touched the wheel for six seconds This phrasing is Tesla spin, and I recommend being a bit more cautious about accepting what they say about this at face value. A Tesla motors car cannot detect whether or not your hands are on the wheel -- it can only detect torque on the steering column from the driver if it exceeds a specific threshold. Regular Tesla drivers have documented getting frequent false positives on this alert.
    - Robotbeat 8y ago
      That is the correct behavior. If your hands are not required to impart measurable torque, then it'd be easy to spoof and would lead to more false negatives. So you're suggesting this was a false negative, i.e. that the driver did have his hands on the wheel?
    - annerajb 8y ago
      Torque is the correct measure to be used. If the person is touching the wheel but not applying torque how do I know it's actually not resting his hand at the bottom? I wanna know that the person is there and moving the steering wheel. Since in case of anything happening I need them to move the wheel not rest their hand somewhere.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    It is indisputable at this point that Autopilot happily steers cars into the concrete barrier. If Tesla does not share some responsibility (in a legal sense) for this crash, then under what circumstances would they share responsibility?
- sabareesh 8y ago
  Problem is was it malfunction ? Driver is always required to pay full attention and it is just a driver assist.
  - Alain-lf 8y ago
    Was it a malfunction? Are you serious? The car decided to turn and hit a divider at 60mph without ever attempting to brake. The reason the driver is required to pay full attention is because the software malfunctions in some cases.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    If the car drove itself into a barrier because of malfunction, it's a manufacturing defect. If the car drove itself into a barrier without a malfunction, it's a design defect. If the car didn't drive itself into a barrier, well, that's a different story.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    In your worldview, can Autopilot ever malfunction? Because Driver is always supposed to be vigilant. Clearly, by your definition Autopilot cannot malfunction ever. Then why go on raising the point that Autopilot didn't malfunction, when you think it will always be a perfect system, even if it decided to mow down pedestrians
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      The autopilot can (and probably did) malfunction, but the responsibility rests with the driver.
- amirmc 8y ago
  Except that’s not what happened here. In this analogy, that engineer made public statements before the investigation was completed and then the investgating group told them to leave.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > What will happen? If you happen to have subpoena power or can otherwise legally compel the engineer to cooperate, then what will happen is that they lose their seat at the table and get downgraded to a code-monkey that gets called in as needed. "What that this widget do?", "It increments the frobbs. The thinking at the -" "That is all we need to know, thank you for your time. You are free to leave." And not to mention, you are the engineering board and your report on this project will have a direct impact on whether they can continue to practice as an engineer.
shkkmo 8y ago
> What is the real loss for them to being out of the investigation committee? What does the NTSB lose? According to a former NTSB director, there are downsides for Tesla, but none are mentioned for NTSB. > Companies that no longer have formal status as a party to an NTSB investigation can lose access to information uncovered in the probe and the ability to shape the official record of the incident, said Peter Goelz, a former managing director at the NTSB who is now senior vice president at O’Neill & Associates, a Washington lobbying and public relations firm. He then explicitly states that: "It will by no means stop the investigation, and it will by no means hinder the investigation." I suspect it does make more work for the NTSB though.

justicezyx 8y ago

Lets imagine your software shows constant malfunction and one day stops working, and the engineer who wrote the whole critical piece decided that he will officially leave the investigation group but said he will cooperate. What will happen?

killjoywashere 8y ago
Let's say the pilot walks out of the cockpit to pee, doesn't notice the co-pilot is narc'd out for his knee and back pain, and the plane rolls into a banking spiral. Is it the software's fault? The guy hadn't touched the wheel for six seconds, in traffic. WTF.
- sjm-lbm 8y ago
  A better real life example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965 Basically, distracted/lost pilots accidentally used an autopilot/flight management system to program a flight path that took a jet into the side of the mountain. They did receive a warning in the cockpit, but attempted to recover too late. Now, to your question (from the Wikipeida article linked above): "American Airlines settled numerous lawsuits brought against it by the families of the victims of the accident. American Airlines filed a "third-party complaint" lawsuit for contribution against Jeppesen and Honeywell, which made the navigation computer database and failed to include the coordinates of Rozo under the identifier "R"; the case went to trial in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. At the trial, American Airlines admitted that it bore some legal responsibility for the accident. Honeywell and Jeppesen each contended that they had no legal responsibility for the accident. In June 2000, the jury found that Jeppesen was 30 percent at fault for the crash, Honeywell was 10 percent at fault, and American Airlines was 60 percent at fault." So, yes - even in a situation where the automation system in question was much more rigorously tested and the users had much more specialized training, the automation system was found to be partially at fault.
  - jklinger410 8y ago
    >automation system Tesla autopilot is driver assist, not automated driving. If you want to put someone on trial, you first have to establish a crime. If the crime is a bug in autopilot, then yes, Tesla is guilty. If the crime is killing the driver of a vehicle because of an accident, then Tesla is not guilty. We can talk about bugs in software outside of a manslaughter case.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      First and foremost, Tesla itself sells, and still sells, Autopilot as a self-driving system. Not all trials are criminal trials. Some are civil trials, meaning generally that a tort occurred and one person is suing another to recover damages. That is the most likely trial in this situation. If the crime is a bug in Autopilot, then an engineer at Tesla might be guilty of any number of crimes. How the driver dies doesn't particularly matter if the bug causes his death. But more likely, Tesla is liable for product defect resulting in the death of one customer and the near-death experiences of at least 3 other drivers. This isn't a manslaughter case. But it is a product liability case+negligence+libel+invasion of privacy+intentional infliction of emotional distress case when it didn't have to be, and those additional claims will likely destroy Tesla financially. Trial experts have been quoted as saying a verdict in excess of $100 million is likely if Tesla were stupid enough to go to trial (and right now, Musk is definitely being that stupid).
- dbt00 8y ago
  > The guy hadn't touched the wheel for six seconds This phrasing is Tesla spin, and I recommend being a bit more cautious about accepting what they say about this at face value. A Tesla motors car cannot detect whether or not your hands are on the wheel -- it can only detect torque on the steering column from the driver if it exceeds a specific threshold. Regular Tesla drivers have documented getting frequent false positives on this alert.
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    That is the correct behavior. If your hands are not required to impart measurable torque, then it'd be easy to spoof and would lead to more false negatives. So you're suggesting this was a false negative, i.e. that the driver did have his hands on the wheel?
  - annerajb 8y ago
    Torque is the correct measure to be used. If the person is touching the wheel but not applying torque how do I know it's actually not resting his hand at the bottom? I wanna know that the person is there and moving the steering wheel. Since in case of anything happening I need them to move the wheel not rest their hand somewhere.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  It is indisputable at this point that Autopilot happily steers cars into the concrete barrier. If Tesla does not share some responsibility (in a legal sense) for this crash, then under what circumstances would they share responsibility?
sabareesh 8y ago
Problem is was it malfunction ? Driver is always required to pay full attention and it is just a driver assist.
- Alain-lf 8y ago
  Was it a malfunction? Are you serious? The car decided to turn and hit a divider at 60mph without ever attempting to brake. The reason the driver is required to pay full attention is because the software malfunctions in some cases.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  If the car drove itself into a barrier because of malfunction, it's a manufacturing defect. If the car drove itself into a barrier without a malfunction, it's a design defect. If the car didn't drive itself into a barrier, well, that's a different story.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  In your worldview, can Autopilot ever malfunction? Because Driver is always supposed to be vigilant. Clearly, by your definition Autopilot cannot malfunction ever. Then why go on raising the point that Autopilot didn't malfunction, when you think it will always be a perfect system, even if it decided to mow down pedestrians
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    The autopilot can (and probably did) malfunction, but the responsibility rests with the driver.
amirmc 8y ago
Except that’s not what happened here. In this analogy, that engineer made public statements before the investigation was completed and then the investgating group told them to leave.
sangnoir 8y ago
> What will happen? If you happen to have subpoena power or can otherwise legally compel the engineer to cooperate, then what will happen is that they lose their seat at the table and get downgraded to a code-monkey that gets called in as needed. "What that this widget do?", "It increments the frobbs. The thinking at the -" "That is all we need to know, thank you for your time. You are free to leave." And not to mention, you are the engineering board and your report on this project will have a direct impact on whether they can continue to practice as an engineer.

shkkmo 8y ago

> What is the real loss for them to being out of the investigation committee? What does the NTSB lose? According to a former NTSB director, there are downsides for Tesla, but none are mentioned for NTSB. > Companies that no longer have formal status as a party to an NTSB investigation can lose access to information uncovered in the probe and the ability to shape the official record of the incident, said Peter Goelz, a former managing director at the NTSB who is now senior vice president at O’Neill & Associates, a Washington lobbying and public relations firm. He then explicitly states that: "It will by no means stop the investigation, and it will by no means hinder the investigation." I suspect it does make more work for the NTSB though.