4 ms·

I'm not sure it should be called level 5 autonomy until Tesla is willing to take responsibility for any accidents it causes.

sjwright 6y ago
This is correct. The driver is responsible when their actions—in contravention of the road rules—cause an accident. If a vehicle is L5, the only "driver" is software. This software would need to attain a driver license just like a human would. Thus software becomes the vehicle's legal driver for the purpose of accountability in an accident. Tesla is absolutely willing to take responsibility. You'll have to use Tesla as your car insurance provider, but it'll be cheaper than anyone else's insurance so that's fine. Why would it be cheaper? Because they're insuring a driver that never gets angry, never gets distracted, doesn't drink and has high resolution dash cams pointing in every direction and capturing every moment. Even as the software is imperfect, it's going to have so many fewer accidents that the statistical risk of insuring the entire fleet is going to be minuscule compared to random humans.
H8crilA 6y ago
Not sure about that, but I'm sure it's not "full self driving capability". It has not been the case ever since they started advertising in 2016.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  I mean looking at it it would be a good litmus test for how confident any automaker is in their tech, if the driver is still liable for crashes it implies the driver isn't fully out of the loop which is what I'd expect to be true if we're actually living up to the Autopilot name.
- fluffything 6y ago
  When a plane auto-pilot fails (e.g. Boeing 737-MAX), the manufacturer is responsible for the failure and its consequences. That has always been the definition of auto-pilot. Tesla might be able to redefine the term in the US, but this ruling is proof that other countries disagree with that. Whatever Tesla is shipping isn't an autopilot, and calling it that is just deceptive marketing.

sjwright 6y ago

This is correct. The driver is responsible when their actions—in contravention of the road rules—cause an accident. If a vehicle is L5, the only "driver" is software. This software would need to attain a driver license just like a human would. Thus software becomes the vehicle's legal driver for the purpose of accountability in an accident. Tesla is absolutely willing to take responsibility. You'll have to use Tesla as your car insurance provider, but it'll be cheaper than anyone else's insurance so that's fine. Why would it be cheaper? Because they're insuring a driver that never gets angry, never gets distracted, doesn't drink and has high resolution dash cams pointing in every direction and capturing every moment. Even as the software is imperfect, it's going to have so many fewer accidents that the statistical risk of insuring the entire fleet is going to be minuscule compared to random humans.

H8crilA 6y ago

Not sure about that, but I'm sure it's not "full self driving capability". It has not been the case ever since they started advertising in 2016.

rtkwe 6y ago
I mean looking at it it would be a good litmus test for how confident any automaker is in their tech, if the driver is still liable for crashes it implies the driver isn't fully out of the loop which is what I'd expect to be true if we're actually living up to the Autopilot name.
fluffything 6y ago
When a plane auto-pilot fails (e.g. Boeing 737-MAX), the manufacturer is responsible for the failure and its consequences. That has always been the definition of auto-pilot. Tesla might be able to redefine the term in the US, but this ruling is proof that other countries disagree with that. Whatever Tesla is shipping isn't an autopilot, and calling it that is just deceptive marketing.