5 ms·

Five cops sue Tesla over “severe injuries” caused by car on Autopilot

37 points by aw1621107 5y ago

aw1621107 5y ago
Title isn't totally accurate, since the officers also sued a restaurant owner whose restaurant allegedly served alcohol to the driver of the Tesla, but it's what Ars had. I'm curious to see where this goes. I'm not familiar enough with the laws involved to offer an informed opinion on how plausible this suit is, unfortunately.
- mey 5y ago
  How is the title not accurate? That is the novel part of the story.
  - aw1621107 5y ago
    Perhaps "complete" is a better adjective; I just wanted to mention that Tesla is not the only defendant, though as you point out Tesla's involvement here is the novel bit. Honestly not sure what the correct course is here. Including the restaurant owner better represents the whole picture, but isn't as focused.
    - phrz 5y ago
      Note how much ink is used to target Tesla as opposed to Pappa's. The real reason that Pappa's is being sued under the Dram Shop Act is to destroy complete diversity, so as to avoid removal to federal court. If they only sued Tesla, they might get taken to a less sympathetic federal court. By including a Texas defendant, Tesla can't take them out of a state court that may very well be far more sympathetic to local police, or simply more plaintiff-friendly in cases sounding in negligence or products liability.
ggm 5y ago
I think in hindsight "autopilot" was a terribly bad name. "assisted driving" might be less sexy, (sorry S3XY) but would have kept "driver in control" in the message. I'm a long-term skeptic of the autonomous vehicle on current roads. Special purpose highways, and future roads, could be different. As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  > As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies. Yeah if the trolley problem is kill 1 person for a 10% chance of saving 5 people in ten years. I think the ethics are actually against Tesla, especially since there are other alternatives to testing/developing self driving such as simulation or closed courses, instead of releasing it out into the wild with very irresponsible naming and marketing.
  - ggm 5y ago
    I was a little unfair. I think Tesla and others have argued they can demonstrate the aggregate millimort consequence of their stuff is already net-positive: You're arguably safer both inside and outside a Tesla, than cars in the hands of people. Especially people who drink.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Yes, the marketers behind the dishonest naming in the first place managed to come up with some numbers that can dishonestly be used to show that. Shocking, right?
- NamTaf 5y ago
  It needn't even be in hindsight. There were plenty of us arguing at the time that this was a terrible idea that would lead to problems. From a user interface point of view, it creates a grey zone where it kinda sorta works but not in a bunch of edge cases and that's where danger awaits. It's like having no input sanitisation then hoping users just follow the input requirements manually so that your program doesn't crash. It was immediately clear at release that it would be an issue and their initial promise of just making it better over time put end users in danger as beta testers. Applying those sort of 'move fast and break things' software engineering concepts to the real world where there's tonnes of metal hurtling around is manifestly irresponsible.
joelbondurant 5y ago
Three cheers for dead road pirates.

37 points by aw1621107 5y ago

Title isn't totally accurate, since the officers also sued a restaurant owner whose restaurant allegedly served alcohol to the driver of the Tesla, but it's what Ars had. I'm curious to see where this goes. I'm not familiar enough with the laws involved to offer an informed opinion on how plausible this suit is, unfortunately.

mey 5y ago
How is the title not accurate? That is the novel part of the story.
- aw1621107 5y ago
  Perhaps "complete" is a better adjective; I just wanted to mention that Tesla is not the only defendant, though as you point out Tesla's involvement here is the novel bit. Honestly not sure what the correct course is here. Including the restaurant owner better represents the whole picture, but isn't as focused.
  - phrz 5y ago
    Note how much ink is used to target Tesla as opposed to Pappa's. The real reason that Pappa's is being sued under the Dram Shop Act is to destroy complete diversity, so as to avoid removal to federal court. If they only sued Tesla, they might get taken to a less sympathetic federal court. By including a Texas defendant, Tesla can't take them out of a state court that may very well be far more sympathetic to local police, or simply more plaintiff-friendly in cases sounding in negligence or products liability.

ggm 5y ago

I think in hindsight "autopilot" was a terribly bad name. "assisted driving" might be less sexy, (sorry S3XY) but would have kept "driver in control" in the message. I'm a long-term skeptic of the autonomous vehicle on current roads. Special purpose highways, and future roads, could be different. As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies. Yeah if the trolley problem is kill 1 person for a 10% chance of saving 5 people in ten years. I think the ethics are actually against Tesla, especially since there are other alternatives to testing/developing self driving such as simulation or closed courses, instead of releasing it out into the wild with very irresponsible naming and marketing.
- ggm 5y ago
  I was a little unfair. I think Tesla and others have argued they can demonstrate the aggregate millimort consequence of their stuff is already net-positive: You're arguably safer both inside and outside a Tesla, than cars in the hands of people. Especially people who drink.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Yes, the marketers behind the dishonest naming in the first place managed to come up with some numbers that can dishonestly be used to show that. Shocking, right?
NamTaf 5y ago
It needn't even be in hindsight. There were plenty of us arguing at the time that this was a terrible idea that would lead to problems. From a user interface point of view, it creates a grey zone where it kinda sorta works but not in a bunch of edge cases and that's where danger awaits. It's like having no input sanitisation then hoping users just follow the input requirements manually so that your program doesn't crash. It was immediately clear at release that it would be an issue and their initial promise of just making it better over time put end users in danger as beta testers. Applying those sort of 'move fast and break things' software engineering concepts to the real world where there's tonnes of metal hurtling around is manifestly irresponsible.

joelbondurant 5y ago

Three cheers for dead road pirates.