7 ms·

will be fascinating to follow this one and see how responsibility for the death is apportioned. I can see the argument for indicting the driver. He could be se

will be fascinating to follow this one and see how responsibility for the death is apportioned. I can see the argument for indicting the driver. He could be seen as negligent for choosing to unleash this car, known to be buggy, on a public street, leading to two deaths. His counterargument is obvious too, that the manufacturer assured him of its safety, and its therefore the manufacturer's fault. Which then begs the question - if it is Tesla's fault, does that mean manslaughter charges will be brought against a corporation? What would that even mean?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quickthrowman 5y ago
IANAL, but corporations have been successfully charged and convicted of felonies in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_of_felony_offenses_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_...
bryanlarsen 5y ago
At the time, Autopilot did not stop at red lights. It was (and mostly still is) a lane-following cruise control. How could it be Tesla's fault?
Johnny555 5y ago
Tesla does not promote FSD as being autonomous, the driver is going to have a hard time blaming Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscriptions https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscription... Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.
- modzu 5y ago
  if the car automatically “suddenly and unintentionally accelerated to an excessive, unsafe and uncontrollable speed", even an attentive driver could find themselves unable to prevent the crash. it strikes me as more akin to a car with faulty brakes. such a car would not be certified as fit for the road. perhaps self driving should not be either.
- belkinpower 5y ago
  Calling it “full self-driving” is promoting it as being autonomous, regardless of what the disclaimers say. If it’s not capable of that, they should call it something else.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Right? You can't have a label say X, and then in small print say that it absolutely is not X. It's equivalent to a product saying "Contains absolutely no nuts!" and then in small print saying "may contain nuts".
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      Full Self Driving means that the car is capable of driving itself, not that it can handle all situations autonomously. A counter example, the package of Cheezits says "made with 100% real cheese", even though they are not 100% cheese, cheese is the 3rd ingredient, below flour and oil, but of the cheese used in the product, it's 100% real cheese. (so it makes it a meaningless statement, I guess they mean "no artificial cheese flavoring")
      - koyote 5y ago
        That's not a very good argument: "made with" implies that it is one of several ingredients. If Cheezits said "made entirely of" then the consumer would be understandably confused if there are other ingredients. Think about what you would answer to the questions "Did you make this pizza WITH sourdough?" vs "Is this cake made entirely OF lego?". If the car can't "fully" self drive, then it shouldn't be marketed as such. Call it "partially self driving", "assisted self driving" or whatever.
        Johnny555 5y ago
        That depends on your definition of driving, for example, take the dictionary definition: "To guide, control, or direct (a vehicle)." My car has driver assistance features, it can do basic lane keeping, keep a set distance behind the car in front (even in stop and go traffic), and has emergency braking assistance. But no one would say that it's self-driving. Tesla FSD can control the car from entering the highway to taking your exit (plus some support for driving on smaller streets). But it's not autonomous, hands-free driving.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toqy 5y ago
  That sounds harder than just driving
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The driver wasn't using FSD, so that's irrelevant. He was using Autopilot, a much less capable system that doesn't cost an extra $12k.
dml2135 5y ago
I think both Tesla and the driver need to be held responsible separately, through legal means. It's the FTC's (or some other gov agency) responsibility to enforce that marketing claims make sense. They should go after Tesla. At the same time, it's on a consumer to control their vehicle. It's on them to know this. The government should help consumers not get into legal trouble by enforcing accurate marketing claims, but if it shirks its responsibility there, consumers do not get a free pass. So, manslaughter for the driver, fraud for Tesla.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
What is the bug that lead to the deaths, and what assurances of safety were given by the manufacturer?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quickthrowman 5y ago

IANAL, but corporations have been successfully charged and convicted of felonies in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_of_felony_offenses_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_...

bryanlarsen 5y ago

At the time, Autopilot did not stop at red lights. It was (and mostly still is) a lane-following cruise control. How could it be Tesla's fault?

Johnny555 5y ago

Tesla does not promote FSD as being autonomous, the driver is going to have a hard time blaming Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscriptions https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscription... Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.

modzu 5y ago
if the car automatically “suddenly and unintentionally accelerated to an excessive, unsafe and uncontrollable speed", even an attentive driver could find themselves unable to prevent the crash. it strikes me as more akin to a car with faulty brakes. such a car would not be certified as fit for the road. perhaps self driving should not be either.
belkinpower 5y ago
Calling it “full self-driving” is promoting it as being autonomous, regardless of what the disclaimers say. If it’s not capable of that, they should call it something else.
- olliej 5y ago
  Right? You can't have a label say X, and then in small print say that it absolutely is not X. It's equivalent to a product saying "Contains absolutely no nuts!" and then in small print saying "may contain nuts".
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    Full Self Driving means that the car is capable of driving itself, not that it can handle all situations autonomously. A counter example, the package of Cheezits says "made with 100% real cheese", even though they are not 100% cheese, cheese is the 3rd ingredient, below flour and oil, but of the cheese used in the product, it's 100% real cheese. (so it makes it a meaningless statement, I guess they mean "no artificial cheese flavoring")
    - koyote 5y ago
      That's not a very good argument: "made with" implies that it is one of several ingredients. If Cheezits said "made entirely of" then the consumer would be understandably confused if there are other ingredients. Think about what you would answer to the questions "Did you make this pizza WITH sourdough?" vs "Is this cake made entirely OF lego?". If the car can't "fully" self drive, then it shouldn't be marketed as such. Call it "partially self driving", "assisted self driving" or whatever.
      - Johnny555 5y ago
        That depends on your definition of driving, for example, take the dictionary definition: "To guide, control, or direct (a vehicle)." My car has driver assistance features, it can do basic lane keeping, keep a set distance behind the car in front (even in stop and go traffic), and has emergency braking assistance. But no one would say that it's self-driving. Tesla FSD can control the car from entering the highway to taking your exit (plus some support for driving on smaller streets). But it's not autonomous, hands-free driving.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toqy 5y ago
That sounds harder than just driving
bryanlarsen 5y ago
The driver wasn't using FSD, so that's irrelevant. He was using Autopilot, a much less capable system that doesn't cost an extra $12k.

dml2135 5y ago

I think both Tesla and the driver need to be held responsible separately, through legal means. It's the FTC's (or some other gov agency) responsibility to enforce that marketing claims make sense. They should go after Tesla. At the same time, it's on a consumer to control their vehicle. It's on them to know this. The government should help consumers not get into legal trouble by enforcing accurate marketing claims, but if it shirks its responsibility there, consumers do not get a free pass. So, manslaughter for the driver, fraud for Tesla.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

What is the bug that lead to the deaths, and what assurances of safety were given by the manufacturer?