3 ms·
The headline alone should show, what is odd with this case. * Tesla clearly states, that the autopilot is a driving aid and should not be used unobserved. * T
by _ph_ 7y ago
The headline alone should show, what is odd with this case.
* Tesla clearly states, that the autopilot is a driving aid and should not be used unobserved.
* The engineer complained about the autopilot not working perfectly at the very place of crash. (Quite understandeable when seeing the state of the road and mostly absence of line markings in videos of the crash site).
* Evidence seems to show that prior to the crash he did not pay attention while driving on autopilot at this very part of the road.
So I really don't get why anyone whould trust their life to a driving assist by not paying attention and closely supervising the system.
Where I think the lawsuit should have a merit and a good chance of succeeding is the state of road and the maintenance by Caltrans. They are in my eyes liable for the deadly outcome of the crash and that there was a crash at all:
* Left exits by themselves are a safety issue and should not exist (extremely rare here in Europe).
* The line markings were almost non-existant. Potentially dangerous sections of roads should have very good line-markings.
* As a consequence, it seems to be common that cars crash into this divider. That there was a "reusable" crash protection at it, should show the dangers of this section clearly.
* The crash protection was not active which lead to the deadly nature of the crash, as a car had crashed into it a week before. No other protections were in place (traffic cones, barrels)
So this section is shown as being very dangerous as human drivers regularly crash into the divider, there are no traffic cones (or have been destroyed by people almost crashing into the divider) and it was not secured after the last crash. The exit and the left lane should have been closed for traffic as long as the crash bareer is not in place.
- ardit33 7y agoNice, blaming the victim there..... Bad pavement markings and "work in progress" sections, exist in almost every major highway... it is not an exceptional case, and it should not be treat such. The expectations is that the technology should work, or give you enough advance warning for you to take control... There have been plenty of videos, where the tesla autopilot seems to just steer straight towards a side wall, with no warning whatsoever... A Lidar would/might have prevented it... it would have served as a warning that the car is going to smash straight ahead into a solid wall and that the visual cues (lines in the pavement) are misleading.... I don't think just a camera system is good enough for automated driving.... I feel Elon is beta testing with people's lives...
- _ph_ 7y agoConsidering the victim has complained that the system does not work well at this very spot, the question stands, why did the victim use the system unobserved at this very spot? And independently who was in control of the car, I showed why this section was in a miserable state of maintenance and dangerous by its setup, as humans regularly crash into this very section. So this section is dangerous and should not exist in such a dangerous form, especially, as the installed safeties were not active at the time of accident.
- heavyset_go 7y ago> Tesla clearly states, that the autopilot is a driving aid and should not be used unobserved. From Tesla's own promotional video[1]: > The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself. [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware-neighborhood-long?redirect=no https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
- _ph_ 7y agoThis is not demonstrating the system as it is sold in current cars. It is using hardware, which was not present in the crashed car (the hardware is standard now with all current cars sold) and it is using software, which has never released to the public. This is solely a demonstration of what the cars can do in the "lab".
- Traster 7y ago> the autopilot is a driving aid and should not be used unobserved. That's not an autopilot is it. It's driver assist. Like every other car manufacturer calls it (and incidentally, they don't have these problems).
- _ph_ 7y agoMercedes called their cars even "self driving" for a while until this was struck down. And show me the vehicle, where the term autopilot is used with a system which does not require the supervision by the pilot or helmsman. In any case, while one might ask Tesla not to use the term "autopilot", they always clearly stress the requirement of supervision by the driver, including giving warnings and eventually stopping the vehicle, if not having hands on the wheel.