4 ms·

When I read the headline, I thought the operators of the FSD tech were being charged: Tesla or Uber. To literally slam the brakes on this, hold the companies ac

When I read the headline, I thought the operators of the FSD tech were being charged: Tesla or Uber. To literally slam the brakes on this, hold the companies accountable rather than individuals who believed that the products would work as advertised. If the supposed FSD still requires an individual to fully man the vehicle, what is the point of having it? It seems like bloatware surveilling you with little benefit to the user similar to what modern phones do.

varelse 5y ago
To give your car a devil tempting you to do something stupid like let down your guard and trust it to do the right thing which it will usually do right up to the point it doesn't?
azinman2 5y ago
Exactly, what is the point? It’s also clearly misnamed. Level 5 or bust.
dml2135 5y ago
Unfortunately, I think that holding the driver responsible is more legally feasible route to take. If you are successful with that, consumer confidence in these features will drop to 0 and the companies will be forced to put up or shut up with their advertising claims.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  That’s ridiculous. Ruin multiple lives for a product that failed. But now that I say that. Was it Auto-pilot which legal is cruise control? Or was it Full-Self Driving and the car made a decision? Legally it’s a matter of man vs machine of it is FSD. Is man wrong if there was even the slightest attempt to correct the machine’s decision after the fact? If it is in fact legal to allow said machine to act while supervised. It could also be a matter of arguing current training and regulation for FSD, is regulation of drivers sufficient for what now is a new mode of private transportation? Should autonomous vehicles be allowed to be owned yet, do they really fit under the same umbrella as normal license? Or should they be special like a CDL or MJ licenses?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> When I read the headline, I thought the operators of the FSD tech were being charged: Tesla or Uber. It would be harder to charge them with criminal violations, but civil charges are possible against them (and the manufacturer) even if the driver is criminally culpable.
lupire 5y ago
FSD is not involved in this case.

varelse 5y ago

To give your car a devil tempting you to do something stupid like let down your guard and trust it to do the right thing which it will usually do right up to the point it doesn't?

azinman2 5y ago

Exactly, what is the point? It’s also clearly misnamed. Level 5 or bust.

dml2135 5y ago

Unfortunately, I think that holding the driver responsible is more legally feasible route to take. If you are successful with that, consumer confidence in these features will drop to 0 and the companies will be forced to put up or shut up with their advertising claims.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aiisjustanif 5y ago
That’s ridiculous. Ruin multiple lives for a product that failed. But now that I say that. Was it Auto-pilot which legal is cruise control? Or was it Full-Self Driving and the car made a decision? Legally it’s a matter of man vs machine of it is FSD. Is man wrong if there was even the slightest attempt to correct the machine’s decision after the fact? If it is in fact legal to allow said machine to act while supervised. It could also be a matter of arguing current training and regulation for FSD, is regulation of drivers sufficient for what now is a new mode of private transportation? Should autonomous vehicles be allowed to be owned yet, do they really fit under the same umbrella as normal license? Or should they be special like a CDL or MJ licenses?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> When I read the headline, I thought the operators of the FSD tech were being charged: Tesla or Uber. It would be harder to charge them with criminal violations, but civil charges are possible against them (and the manufacturer) even if the driver is criminally culpable.

lupire 5y ago

FSD is not involved in this case.