5 ms·

Pay $200/mo for some software to endanger your life with no liability towards it's creator. Must be the worst deal of the century.

yellow_lead 5y ago
I'm not sure I would accept $200/mo. to drive this thing on the highway or roads with speed limits above ~30mph.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Conversely, we’ve bought several Teslas and have covered tens of thousands of miles on Autopilot, usually at 70mph (sometimes faster if the speed limit allows for it [Texas]). No issues.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    In fairness, survivorship bias would apply to your anecdote - quite literally.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      There are over a million Teslas on the road (and close to that amount being sold annually at current run rate) and only 7 Autopilot related deaths. Regulation and oversight is important (crucial even considering life safety), but the naysayers are crying that the sky is falling based on the statistics. Ignore my anecdote, the data speaks for itself. GM ignition switch deficiencies GM covered up killed orders of magnitude more people (124). https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
      - Aeronwen 5y ago
        GM recalled almost 30 million cars with those ignition switches. You're 1.5x more likely to die using Autopilot than one of them.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I still like those odds! As the saying goes, “I’d rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona.” I’ll take my chances in a Tesla over a legacy automaker.
        yellow_lead 5y ago
        More power to you but how do you feel about endangering others around you?
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I believe the risk is reasonable compared to your average human being. Software doesn’t get tired or distracted, and I would not use Tesla self driving features if it would put others at an unreasonable level of risk.
        sifar 5y ago
        >> Software doesn’t get tired or distracted It just has a lot of corner cases, untested even. This blind trust in SW and by extension, technology, is really exasperating. Really curious, how would you quantify the reasonabl risk ? Should the risk be based on number of fatalities or on the number of potential fatalities that were averted ? The data that you point to is about fatal crashes that made the news. What about all the cases that the SW malfunctioned and had a potential to be fatal ? Only tesla has that data or perhaps even they may not.
  - reureu 5y ago
    Bought a Tesla last year and have driven it on two 4k mile road trips, often on autopilot for large portions of rural America. I've had multiple incidents of autopilot doing crazy things, particularly in areas where (I assume) not as many Tesla drivers go (Wyoming, Dakotas). My car abruptly tried to drive itself off the road, pushed me towards construction cones and concrete barrier, have come very close to weaving semis, phantom braking, etc. 99% of the time it's great, and road trips on autopilot are so much more relaxing than in my previous ICE car. But that 1% is eventually gonna kill me via car crash or via heart attack.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      I do not recommend using driver assistance features you do not feel comfortable and confident in supervising. I appreciate the data point regardless. I have not experienced these issues out West or the Southwest US.
      - jmpman 5y ago
        I took my Tesla on a road trip from AZ to the Texas panhandle recently. On the 2000 mile trip, autopilot disengaged four times. Once during sunrise on a curvy section of highway with very distinct shadows. Once during sunset, driving into the sun. Twice more when close to semis. Had I not been paying attention, each could have resulted in an accident. I really only feel comfortable on autopilot during rush hour bumper to bumper traffic. Only when Tesla can be sued by my insurance company if the car gets into a crash while on self-driving, will I trust that the appropriate due diligence was applied.
    - plebianRube 5y ago
      That 99% goes down using it in northen winter climate, or rural areas.
effingwewt 5y ago
Uber Eats just started allowing for alcohol delivery. In the opt-in, Uber indemnifies itself while notifying you that you are responsible for age verification, whether the ID is legit, whether the person is 'too intoxicated to serve' etc and you can be criminally liable for any- and everything. Un. Fucking. Believable. As long as companies can use legalese to indemnify themselves this shit will continue ad infinitum.
- fuzxi 5y ago
  Ridiculous of them. How could that possibly fly without requiring that drivers have liquor licenses? Either they're individually culpable and need licenses or it's not their responsibility, no?
- senectus1 5y ago
  I suspect that wouldn't be allowed in Australia.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Like many things from companies this size, clear legality has little bearing on their plans. Uber’s business model has been to cheat the system since day one, sidestepping the established laws covering commercial taxi and transportation services. They had enough time to establish their turf and revenues to fund their needed war chest, when they finally got sued by assorted municipality and governments. Then they drag things through the courts for as long as they can, lengthening their runway. I would bet they are planning a similar strategy here. They likely have already done the math to show that it will be profitable any which way the wind blows. At their scale of capitalization, legality is either entirely irrelevant or can be bought as a minor cost of doing business.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  During the pandemic last year another delivery service (I don't think it was Uber Eats, I want to say it was Favor, not sure) made the same requirements of the driver, except it was for contactless delivery. Somehow the driver was supposed to know if the person in the house matched the ID, and was not too intoxicated, without ever seeing them. It was the pinnacle of absurdity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lamontcg 5y ago
And its $200/mo for the privilege of feeding them the data they want.

yellow_lead 5y ago

I'm not sure I would accept $200/mo. to drive this thing on the highway or roads with speed limits above ~30mph.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Conversely, we’ve bought several Teslas and have covered tens of thousands of miles on Autopilot, usually at 70mph (sometimes faster if the speed limit allows for it [Texas]). No issues.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  In fairness, survivorship bias would apply to your anecdote - quite literally.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    There are over a million Teslas on the road (and close to that amount being sold annually at current run rate) and only 7 Autopilot related deaths. Regulation and oversight is important (crucial even considering life safety), but the naysayers are crying that the sky is falling based on the statistics. Ignore my anecdote, the data speaks for itself. GM ignition switch deficiencies GM covered up killed orders of magnitude more people (124). https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
    - Aeronwen 5y ago
      GM recalled almost 30 million cars with those ignition switches. You're 1.5x more likely to die using Autopilot than one of them.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I still like those odds! As the saying goes, “I’d rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona.” I’ll take my chances in a Tesla over a legacy automaker.
        yellow_lead 5y ago
        More power to you but how do you feel about endangering others around you?
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I believe the risk is reasonable compared to your average human being. Software doesn’t get tired or distracted, and I would not use Tesla self driving features if it would put others at an unreasonable level of risk.
        sifar 5y ago
        >> Software doesn’t get tired or distracted It just has a lot of corner cases, untested even. This blind trust in SW and by extension, technology, is really exasperating. Really curious, how would you quantify the reasonabl risk ? Should the risk be based on number of fatalities or on the number of potential fatalities that were averted ? The data that you point to is about fatal crashes that made the news. What about all the cases that the SW malfunctioned and had a potential to be fatal ? Only tesla has that data or perhaps even they may not.
- reureu 5y ago
  Bought a Tesla last year and have driven it on two 4k mile road trips, often on autopilot for large portions of rural America. I've had multiple incidents of autopilot doing crazy things, particularly in areas where (I assume) not as many Tesla drivers go (Wyoming, Dakotas). My car abruptly tried to drive itself off the road, pushed me towards construction cones and concrete barrier, have come very close to weaving semis, phantom braking, etc. 99% of the time it's great, and road trips on autopilot are so much more relaxing than in my previous ICE car. But that 1% is eventually gonna kill me via car crash or via heart attack.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I do not recommend using driver assistance features you do not feel comfortable and confident in supervising. I appreciate the data point regardless. I have not experienced these issues out West or the Southwest US.
    - jmpman 5y ago
      I took my Tesla on a road trip from AZ to the Texas panhandle recently. On the 2000 mile trip, autopilot disengaged four times. Once during sunrise on a curvy section of highway with very distinct shadows. Once during sunset, driving into the sun. Twice more when close to semis. Had I not been paying attention, each could have resulted in an accident. I really only feel comfortable on autopilot during rush hour bumper to bumper traffic. Only when Tesla can be sued by my insurance company if the car gets into a crash while on self-driving, will I trust that the appropriate due diligence was applied.
  - plebianRube 5y ago
    That 99% goes down using it in northen winter climate, or rural areas.

effingwewt 5y ago

Uber Eats just started allowing for alcohol delivery. In the opt-in, Uber indemnifies itself while notifying you that you are responsible for age verification, whether the ID is legit, whether the person is 'too intoxicated to serve' etc and you can be criminally liable for any- and everything. Un. Fucking. Believable. As long as companies can use legalese to indemnify themselves this shit will continue ad infinitum.

fuzxi 5y ago
Ridiculous of them. How could that possibly fly without requiring that drivers have liquor licenses? Either they're individually culpable and need licenses or it's not their responsibility, no?
senectus1 5y ago
I suspect that wouldn't be allowed in Australia.
voakbasda 5y ago
Like many things from companies this size, clear legality has little bearing on their plans. Uber’s business model has been to cheat the system since day one, sidestepping the established laws covering commercial taxi and transportation services. They had enough time to establish their turf and revenues to fund their needed war chest, when they finally got sued by assorted municipality and governments. Then they drag things through the courts for as long as they can, lengthening their runway. I would bet they are planning a similar strategy here. They likely have already done the math to show that it will be profitable any which way the wind blows. At their scale of capitalization, legality is either entirely irrelevant or can be bought as a minor cost of doing business.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
During the pandemic last year another delivery service (I don't think it was Uber Eats, I want to say it was Favor, not sure) made the same requirements of the driver, except it was for contactless delivery. Somehow the driver was supposed to know if the person in the house matched the ID, and was not too intoxicated, without ever seeing them. It was the pinnacle of absurdity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lamontcg 5y ago

And its $200/mo for the privilege of feeding them the data they want.