20 ms·

A Tesla on autopilot killed two people. Is the driver guilty of manslaughter?

52 points by areoform 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago
Short answer is “yes”. It’s the same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. The ultimate responsibility is the person behind the wheel. That said, I’d argue Tesla is also liable. To what extent I don’t know, but it was clearly a contributing factor.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Short answer is “yes” same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. There's a lot of gray area in those kinds of cases. The idea that one is negligent because one could have done something differently tends to permeate internet circle jerks about legal responsibility but these sorts of things tend to be very specific to the facts in question and the burdens of proof differ greatly between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. In this case the driver will probably be probably be financially responsible for the outcome but being found guilty of manslaughter is a much higher bar. However, many states have various vehicular <type of crime> statutes with lower requirements or "but if driving a vehicle then X" type qualifiers on the definitions of normal crimes so that may complicate things.
- CPLX 5y ago
  That's an opinion not a statement of current policy or reality. In the real world we have pretty extensive precedents about consumer product safety, and manufacturers are very often liable for design decisions that lead to harm, even if nominally speaking the user was supposed to be ultimately responsible.
- ct0 5y ago
  Do we hold pilots accountable when the plane in on autopilot? Genuinely curious.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Yes
  - chopin 5y ago
    I would think generally yes. It's the Pilot's job to supervise the autopilot.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    Yes, Pilots are responsible for the plane. Even if the autopilot messes up, there is a reason there are multiple pilots in the cockpit, they are supposed to take control.
  - hwers 5y ago
    It's probably evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on how much the investigation determines it was caused by technical issues and pilot negligence.
  - daniel-thompson 5y ago
    Yes. The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. See https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_1.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... for more information. Having said that, aircraft pilots are very highly trained relative to automobile drivers and must pass periodic medical and proficiency exams to maintain their flight status. Whereas anyone (loosely speaking) can buy a Tesla and just start driving it.
  - WA 5y ago
    Do autopilots in planes "fly themselves no human input at all"? Because that's what Teslas are doing since 2016, according to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729
    - neurobashing 5y ago
      The very short story is, one member of the crew maintains control of the aircraft (hands on yoke and throttles, maintains general situational awareness) while the other enters the data into the autopilot (set altitude to X, bearing Y, at speed Z). The aircraft then executes the maneuver(s) entered, while under supervision of a human.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is a huge difference between criminal guilt (as in the article) versus civil liability (as in your example). Those are not at all equivalent. After the criminal case is resolved, the victims or their next-of-kin will probably try to sue the driver and Tesla in civil court for wrongful death.
  - simplicio 5y ago
    According to the article, they already have. The articles kinda vague on why exactly the driver is being charged, though. Reading between the lines, I suspect its not just because he had the autopilot engaged, but was engaged in some form of gross negligence at the same time (sleeping, playing videogames on his phone, etc).
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      Failing to actively supervising the driving of the vehicle while autopilot is engaged is probably enough to sustain the mens rea for criminally negligent homicide.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Isn't blowing through a red light directly resulting in the deaths of two people typically going to result in vehicular manslaughter charges? In other words, blowing through a red light is a sufficient amount of negligence in my mind for vehicular manslaughter.
      - simplicio 5y ago
        I don't think so, though I'm not positive. The cases I see in the news usually involve some extra piece of wrong doing (being under the influence, almost exclusively).
  - justhisonce99 5y ago
    The example the parent gives is potentially a criminal liability as well. If you know the railing on your balcony is wobbly and a guest leaning on it falls to their death, you're definitely open to criminal negligence charges coming your way.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don't stop the car for an obstacle or traffic signal? Probably, but that's because America is highly litigious and has lost the concept of personal responsibility. The odds of winning are low. (disclosure: tesla owner with >50k miles of Autopilot [EAP] use)
  - catillac 5y ago
    Have you ever seen those signs on the back of dump trucks on the highway that state something like, “Stay Back: Truck Driver Not Responsible for Cracked Windshields”?
    - tyingq 5y ago
      That's complete bullshit though. It does not dissolve liability for things like improperly covered loads.
      - catillac 5y ago
        Precisely. It has no legal effect.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bumby 5y ago
    It may come down to deeper analysis that looks at both root and proximate causes. If Tesla's design was considered faulty from a safety standpoint and substantially contributed to the accident, I would imagine they will have some portion of responsibility. I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less testing/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).
- tantalor 5y ago
  > some issues on their property Nah, it's more like how you are responsible for a loose animal that leaves your property and causes harm. /ianal
- pjc50 5y ago
  I think we need a new distinction: not "self-driving" but "self-liable". A lot of the FSD hype implies applications in which there isn't an active driver; cars going off and parking themselves, Uber replacing human drivers, working while commuting, etc. Whether those applications can be realized is not so much a question of technology as liability. Conversely, if the human remains liable, this needs to be kept clear in the marketing material.
breakingcups 5y ago
Yes. > Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Duh. There's plenty of warnings, you are still responsible and your attention is required at all times to intervene when needed. Of course, there are going to be plenty of situations where it will be too late for a human to intervene. Those are going to look harder, but purely from a legal standpoint you are not (yet) allowed to hand off responsibility to some algorithm just because it's baked into the car you buy.
- blowski 5y ago
  If you're reversing with the help of a sensor that's always worked before, but this time the sensor fails and you hit someone, it is still your responsibility. On the other hand, if your brakes fail despite you having had a recent service, that wouldn't be your fault. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between those two issues.
  - jozvolskyef 5y ago
    The sensor isn't supposed to be a replacement for looking where you're reversing. It merely tells you the distance so that you can park more accurately. Vehicles that don't have a rear view sound an alarm and flash warning lights while reversing*. * In Europe
  - analog31 5y ago
    One thought is that "always worked before" isn't good enough for engineering. Most engineers are reluctant to approve a design that is based solely on testing. The brakes are highly engineered, known to be of exceptional reliability, have redundancy, and a dashboard indicator for some known failure modes. In the two cases of brake failure I've experienced, the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree, and the car was still tolerably manageable. We do adapt our driving habits to the possibility of brake failure, e.g., maintaining a safe following distance, and taking extra care when there's ice. The backup sensor is designed with the expectation that you are the backup. You were probably told that. Regulators and insurance companies constantly analyze crash data, so a conclusion of "always worked before" based on widespread stats analyzed by engineers is possibly OK, but not "always worked before" according to the consumer. Granted, there may be a gray area in between full driver responsibility, and full engineering responsibility. There was a HN thread just yesterday that debated what engineering actually consists of, so there's no pat answer. And no formula for deciding, which is part of the reason why we ultimately have humans deciding, through the court system in the US.
Zigurd 5y ago
“It’s a wake-up call for drivers,” Well played.
JPKab 5y ago
Autopilot is a free feature on Teslas, and is a simple lane assist system, akin to cruise control. It is not Full Self Driving. FSD is an expensive upgrade, and is supposed to do things like stop at lights. Driver was on autopilot, which explicitly warns you upon activation that it doesn't stop. Clickbait from a once great, now awful newspaper.
- vardump 5y ago
  This is factually completely correct.
- fortran77 5y ago
  Oh come on. I own two Teslas (a new P100D with the FSD paid for and a new "plaid") and even I'm not this big a fanboy-apologist. Elon has promised the moon. If it's a "lane assist", call it a "lane assist." I think the driver is primarily responsible, but Tesla is also culpable. I've never used the "self-driving" features -- even the smart lane-assist/cruise control --- other than a few minutes on a clear road to try them out. Too scary for me.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    I'm not a fan boy. I have endless criticism of Tesla, especially on the service front. And let's not even get into the build quality issues, particularly with the body panels. I'm a fan boy of truth, reason, logic, and individual responsibility. All of which are in extremely short supply at the LA Times. On this specific topic, truth is being shaded deliberately to drive clicks. There is an obvious motivation to make people think that a self-driving car killed people, when it was really a dipshit abusing cruise control. It can happen with my wife's Audi, and probably has happened, but without Tesla in the headline, it's not ideal clickbait. Regarding Elon "promising the moon", I simply don't understand how FSD relates to Autopilot in this case. If you can read, any misunderstanding someone has about Autopilot being FSD is cleared up immediately upon activation. Alert after alert after message flashes on the screen. I grew up spending a lot of time on boats, and even worked on a crab boat as a teenager. Autopilot on boats is never mistaken for a self-driving feature. It maintains a compass heading, and nobody is dumb enough to think it does anything else. So if the marketing team has purposefully called it autopilot to hype it up, I'm in agreement the name should be changed. BUT, and this is an important BUT, I don't think it would have changed the outcome of this situation. Dipshits have caused accidents abusing cruise control since cruise control came out. The lane assist version has increased the confidence of dipshits to look at their phones while driving, and that's a conversation worth having as to what should be done about it. But that's not specific to one car company.
avar 5y ago
The premise of this article is that a trial involving a crash with a level 2 system[1] is fundamentally different than one involving a level 1, without making the case for that. In both cases the driver is responsible, and expected to monitor the road. Why would someone crashing while using e.g. a lane-keeping system be in a different position legally than someone using cruise control? Level 1 driving assistance has been in use for decades, and there's surely legal precedence to draw from. 1. https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...
- bluGill 5y ago
  Tesla is marketing it as a level 5 system. They don't directly say that of course, but they are implying strongly it is level 5 and that is enough.
jeroenhd 5y ago
Yes. Tesla cars are not self-driving cars, despite their marketing. They probably won't be for years to come. I don't think anyone who has read up on the current state of self driving would come to any other conclusion. At best the convicted drivers could sue Tesla for damages because of their advertising after conviction, because Tesla puts a lot of effort into their marketing materials to convince people that the car drives for you, but on the paperwork you sign you're reminded that it doesn't, and the software features that force you to keep your hands on the wheel at all times are a constant reminder of that.
- juanani 5y ago
- bluGill 5y ago
  Tesla's marketing is admissible in court as evidence, and probably will carry more weight than any warnings. Marketing is designed to be clear and easy to understand, so courts tend to assume that people understand the marketing intent more than the letter of the legalese warnings. I have no idea what courts will do. It tends to take a lot of cases going opposite ways in slightly different situations before they settle down to something where anyone will attempt a prediction. We are still in the early days of this.
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    You have to put in a conscious effort to stop the car from telling you to hold on to the damn steering wheel. People install mods to their cars to disable these features, but that too requires conscious effort to do. Tesla owners might sue Tesla for not fulfilling their promises, but I don't think they'll get out of the responsibility for autopilot accidents so easily. Unless the court rules that Tesla's cars don't pass the minimum road safety tests and are immediately banned from accessing the public road, I don't think any court will accept "the ads told me it was fine" as an excuse for killing two people. You're expected to know the law, and the law says you're responsible for your car while you're on the road. The subject of who's responsible for self driving cars is an interesting one, and it'll take years for real, clear decisions will be made, but that's completely irrelevant here.
sokoloff 5y ago
> realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Kornhauser said. “Just like when I was driving a ’55 Chevy” Um, no shit the driver’s responsible. This seems like a weird question to be confused about prior to level 5, which Tesla’s 2022 “full self-driving” isn’t and 2019 wasn’t either.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  > which Tesla’s 2022 “full self-driving” isn’t and 2019 wasn’t either And yet, since 2017, there's a video on the Tesla website that says "The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself."
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That would only lead to a possible cause of action for the driver (or regulators) against Tesla, but of the two cars in that crash, I doubt there's any way the outcome will be other than "the operator of the Tesla is the one legally responsible for the crash" (which I think is the correct outcome as well as the most likely outcome).
Mikeb85 5y ago
Of course he's liable. He should have been driving. Fully autonomous cars aren't yet legal for anyone to drive autonomously, the driver still is responsible.
frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
>“Whether a [Level 2] automated driving system is engaged or not, every available vehicle requires the human driver to be in control at all times, and all state laws hold the human driver responsible for the operation of their vehicles,” a NHTSA spokesperson said. This is going to be the interesting part. To my mind this is where partial automated driving systems are basically incompatible with people and cars. There is just no way a person who is behind the wheel but who isn't driving can be in control and highly attentive in the same way as a person who is actually driving.
vngzs 5y ago
In my experience driving Teslas on autopilot (a few dozen hours), you need to keep watching the road. The whole time. Especially on on/off ramps and around traffic lights. I almost watched a Tesla I was operating drive into a meridian on a highway off-ramp because the concrete was approximately the same color as the road. I slowed down to see how long it would take to detect the coming collision ... and if I hadn't been watching carefully, it would have been too late. Yes, drivers must still pay attention in self-driving cars. Probably a future exists where that is no longer necessary, but that's not today.
- pawelmurias 5y ago
  We should use stop using the word self-driving cars for cars that just have some drive-assist instead of being self-driving..
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Basically you're a voluntary data labeller for their deep learning algorithms. If you take the wheel it means they need to train more on similar situations. Are they hoping to eventually experience so many different situations that out of sample data becomes unlikely? Sounds like a pipe dream to me?
uptown 5y ago
Legislators that are allowing these things on the road are culpable too.
juanani 5y ago
raesene9 5y ago
I think the answer's yes, and it's something that would make me leary of relying on a car's automated systems for anything safety related. Ultimately if I'm going to be criminally liable in a crash caused by my car, I'd like to retain control of what's going on. The idea that a software bug could land me in jail for manslaughter, is not one I'm a fan of.
rvz 5y ago
> “It certainly makes us, all of a sudden, not become so complacent in the use of these things that we forget about the fact that we’re the ones that are responsible — not only for our own safety but for the safety of others.” Well that is the thing here. There is not proper driver monitoring on these cars and it allows both autopilot and FSD systems to be open to abuse to cause crashes like this given that the drivers have become too complacent and convinced that these cars drive themselves which Tesla's falsely advertises. So yes. Guilty as charged. Both features of autopilot and FSD allow drivers like this one to become complacent with the system.
learc83 5y ago
Does Tesla’s autopilot normally stop at red lights? My Subaru’s equivalent doesn’t (Unless there’s a car in front of me that also stops at the light).
- speedgoose 5y ago
  Yes but it's an option (the incorrectly named full self driving package). https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot
- Rygian 5y ago
  Not in 2019. That feature was added in 2020.
nemacol 5y ago
Yes. Also, I think Tesla should be on the hook for some of that guilt for their misleading marketing around the "autopilot" feature.
101008 5y ago
If the drivers must be always in control of the vehicle (according to the manual and the activation of Autopilot), what's good in this feature? Couldn't the driver sue Tesla for bad marketing? They are selling a feature which is a lie, aren't they? PD: I don't own any car and I have nothing against Tesla.
- bluGill 5y ago
  It would be a bad lawyer who didn't try to drag Tesla into court for this. Tesla has more money than whoever was driving (well I didn't look into the background, maybe the driver is filthy rich, but odds are against it), and lawyers always look for the deepest pockets. The victim's lawyer and the driver's lawyers (more likely his insurance company's lawyers) both have incentive to pin this on Tesla as much as they can, and marketing is admissible in court.
makach 5y ago
Ultimately yes. You are the driver of the car. It is involuntary manslaughter. Even if it is a software error, even if the brakes stop working, even if x, y or z (etc) It is always the responsibility of the driver to accept the consequences of any forseen or unforseen actions of any kind of outcome. Depending on the unfortunate event, any mitigating events might be taken into account.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  This is a very interesting opinion, however, I don't think it works like that in any jurisdiction.
  - pc86 5y ago
    It works like this in just about every US jurisdiction, it's just that most of the time the DA declines to prosecute if your brakes fail. But there's no legal protection, you're still possibly going to be charges.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      If you kill someone with a car in a way that's neither negligent nor reckless I don't see how it could fulfill the criteria for involuntary manslaughter which are exactly those things.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  > even if the brakes stop working Some quick googling brings up some US results that this only makes you liable if you were speeding or doing something else considered slightly dangerous, or you didn’t properly maintain your brakes.
jose-cl 5y ago
if isnt regulated, the politians are guilty. they have to create laws and regulations on time (sorry my poor english)
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Killing people and causing property damage are already thoroughly regulated.
kamranjon 5y ago
Here is an interesting question I recently came upon, does the driver of a Tesla need consent from their passengers before turning on FSD? I would argue yes, because I don’t want to unknowingly beta test software with my life, but I am curious what others think.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  As a kid, do you even have consent when your parents tell you to hop in the car cause you're going somewhere? As a passenger, isn't consent of trusting the driver inherent when you get in the car willfully ride somewhere? Could a passenger not interject and say, hey I don't feel comfortable riding with you if you enable autopilot?
  - kamranjon 5y ago
    These are good questions. The first example I think is same in a Tesla or a Toyota. Still interesting to ponder, I think there is still some ethical questions left. The second example requires a bit of nuance, I trust the driver to operate a vehicle, not necessarily the vehicle itself. Does my trust extend to their decision whether or not to turn on autopilot? You might argue yes, but you also might not be informed enough to make that decision as a passenger. The last example assumes the passenger has knowledge of the car and FSD which they may not.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      In the last example, if you're riding with a driver and not paying attention and they are texting or reading a newspaper and get into a crash, then the liability would be on the driver. Not the cell phone company or newpaper company. I think the same for autopilot. If a warning displays to the driver that they are still liable for controlling the vehicle, and they ignore it then the driver would be liable to the passenger, not the car.
razemio 5y ago
I think the real problem is the driver monitoring system. Openpilot nailed it with their eye camera monitoring. There is no need to touch the wheel which makes it more relaxing but you can not take your eyes of the road, which is far more important then keeping your hand on the wheel. Both would even be better. Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  > Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents. Because automotive industry lobbying has led to driver assistance and "self driving" features largely being self-regulated.
  - razemio 5y ago
    In Germany it is highly (over)regulated, to a point where it isn't usable. Torque on wheel for e.g. is to low even for some wide curves. Still eye tracking isn't mandatory.
- srmarm 5y ago
  Out of interest where do you put your hands if not on the wheel? There's always going to be latency if you need to take evasive action and your body isn't immediately ready to react.
  - razemio 5y ago
    I would prefer both. Hands on the wheel and eye tracking for level 2-4. Eye tracking is however much more important imo.
post_break 5y ago
This might not be a hot take, but I think some of the blame should be shifted onto the Tesla. This guy killed people, and it should not have happened on his watch, however the car should not have blown through a red light. For instance my car has lane keep assist and you can drive while pretty much not touching the wheel but still paying attention. It has almost pulled me into the car next to me due to a random construction line fading on the highway. I'm not saying this guy isn't guilty, all I'm saying is maybe Tesla should shoulder some of the blame here. I'm probably a very small minority in this thinking however.
sebow 5y ago
Yes.At the end of the day the car is the tool and just like with guns or knives, whoever uses the tool as an instrument for harm is at fault.I used to think one could argue: "but X made guarantees, software might be guilty, etc" yet at the same time that argument is not logical and ironically the legal framework explains it the best. We almost never give a pass to criminals even when they're not lucid and under the influence of factors that impair their judgement, how come we debate whether or not the human who used the car is at fault? I also don't think Tesla is necessarily liable here, an unpopular opinion which i also changed over time considering that one needs to prove the car misbehaved.But even then, assuming the car truly misbehaved, making the case that the person is not liable is a big stretch.The title is still clickbait
sidibe 5y ago
I feel like with all the tech advantage Tesla claims to have it should have some way to turn off autopilot in situations where it's not applicable instead of always saying "you're not supposed to use it like that". Just start beeping or something when you're not on the highway and then shut off the autopilot
tomxor 5y ago
No. It's easy to blame the driver, until you consider whether or not the premise of a "partially automated self driving car" is fit for the road. It is not possible to both "stay alert" to anywhere near the same degree required for manual driving, and let an automated navigation system take control. If you sell something inherently dangerous to people under the premise that it is not dangerous provided you do something that is impossible (but not obviously impossible to most people) - bad things are significantly more likely to happen, in other words, it is not only dangerous but misleading.
- bartread 5y ago
  > It's easy to blame the driver, until you consider whether or not the premise of a "partially automated self driving car" is fit for the road. It is not possible to both "stay alert" to anywhere near the same degree required for manual driving, and let an automated navigation system take control. This is a poor argument. Aeroplane autopilots were "partial automation" for decades - possibly still are for all I know - and yet have been considered fit for purpose. But the responsibility lies with the driver to ensure the vehicle is travelling safely, same as it does with the pilot of a plane.
  - tomxor 5y ago
    That's a poor comparison, autopilot is a borrowed name. Planes are not cars, there are no intersections in the air, collision avoidance is a slower game unlike in a car. Additionally, in aviation automation has been around for a long time even though the challenges are more primitive... and they recognised early on that it is instinctual for the pilot to mentally disengage when systems become more automated, as a result this is an integral part of pilot training - it's not part of driving tests or learning to drive despite being an instinct you have to unintuitively fight against, and yet manoeuvring decisions and hazard awareness and response happens at a lot faster rate in a car than in an airliner. In other words, automation does affect the pilot in aviation, but arguably less... and even then, they explicitly train for it to fight the instinct to disengage.
ck2 5y ago
How about the coder? The person who reviewed the code? The person who assembled the sensor and has some kind of defect? Or steering/braking mechanism? Remember Toyota's accelerator-by-wire spaghetti code? No oversight by any third party on that code, what has changed today (nothing except even more complex code doing more complex/dangerous things) At some point people are going to start victim blaming pedestrians/cyclists for just "being there" when their car mows them over. I guess it already happens but it will become far more common.
giorgioz 5y ago
I think we should immediately prohibit the use of the term Autopilot for level 2 autonomous vehicles like the current Tesla. The name is terribly misleading far past gray area marketing into factfully lying. Pilot assist would be a better term.
throwaway2016a 5y ago
> Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Doesn't send shivers up my spine. I know I'm responsible, that's why I keep a constant eye on the road and am prepared to take control at any time. Though the more recent software is very good at stopping at red lights, I never trusted autopilot anywhere but the highway where Tesla themselves says it should be used. Now that I'm in the "Full Self Driving" beta I trust it on regular roads a bit more but I still 100% understand I need to be watching the road. It augments my driving not replaces it (in its current state).

52 points by areoform 5y ago

Short answer is “yes”. It’s the same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. The ultimate responsibility is the person behind the wheel. That said, I’d argue Tesla is also liable. To what extent I don’t know, but it was clearly a contributing factor.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Short answer is “yes” same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. There's a lot of gray area in those kinds of cases. The idea that one is negligent because one could have done something differently tends to permeate internet circle jerks about legal responsibility but these sorts of things tend to be very specific to the facts in question and the burdens of proof differ greatly between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. In this case the driver will probably be probably be financially responsible for the outcome but being found guilty of manslaughter is a much higher bar. However, many states have various vehicular <type of crime> statutes with lower requirements or "but if driving a vehicle then X" type qualifiers on the definitions of normal crimes so that may complicate things.
CPLX 5y ago
That's an opinion not a statement of current policy or reality. In the real world we have pretty extensive precedents about consumer product safety, and manufacturers are very often liable for design decisions that lead to harm, even if nominally speaking the user was supposed to be ultimately responsible.
ct0 5y ago
Do we hold pilots accountable when the plane in on autopilot? Genuinely curious.
- nradov 5y ago
  Yes
- chopin 5y ago
  I would think generally yes. It's the Pilot's job to supervise the autopilot.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Yes, Pilots are responsible for the plane. Even if the autopilot messes up, there is a reason there are multiple pilots in the cockpit, they are supposed to take control.
- hwers 5y ago
  It's probably evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on how much the investigation determines it was caused by technical issues and pilot negligence.
- daniel-thompson 5y ago
  Yes. The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. See https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_1.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... for more information. Having said that, aircraft pilots are very highly trained relative to automobile drivers and must pass periodic medical and proficiency exams to maintain their flight status. Whereas anyone (loosely speaking) can buy a Tesla and just start driving it.
- WA 5y ago
  Do autopilots in planes "fly themselves no human input at all"? Because that's what Teslas are doing since 2016, according to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729
  - neurobashing 5y ago
    The very short story is, one member of the crew maintains control of the aircraft (hands on yoke and throttles, maintains general situational awareness) while the other enters the data into the autopilot (set altitude to X, bearing Y, at speed Z). The aircraft then executes the maneuver(s) entered, while under supervision of a human.
nradov 5y ago
There is a huge difference between criminal guilt (as in the article) versus civil liability (as in your example). Those are not at all equivalent. After the criminal case is resolved, the victims or their next-of-kin will probably try to sue the driver and Tesla in civil court for wrongful death.
- simplicio 5y ago
  According to the article, they already have. The articles kinda vague on why exactly the driver is being charged, though. Reading between the lines, I suspect its not just because he had the autopilot engaged, but was engaged in some form of gross negligence at the same time (sleeping, playing videogames on his phone, etc).
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    Failing to actively supervising the driving of the vehicle while autopilot is engaged is probably enough to sustain the mens rea for criminally negligent homicide.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Isn't blowing through a red light directly resulting in the deaths of two people typically going to result in vehicular manslaughter charges? In other words, blowing through a red light is a sufficient amount of negligence in my mind for vehicular manslaughter.
    - simplicio 5y ago
      I don't think so, though I'm not positive. The cases I see in the news usually involve some extra piece of wrong doing (being under the influence, almost exclusively).
- justhisonce99 5y ago
  The example the parent gives is potentially a criminal liability as well. If you know the railing on your balcony is wobbly and a guest leaning on it falls to their death, you're definitely open to criminal negligence charges coming your way.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don't stop the car for an obstacle or traffic signal? Probably, but that's because America is highly litigious and has lost the concept of personal responsibility. The odds of winning are low. (disclosure: tesla owner with >50k miles of Autopilot [EAP] use)
- catillac 5y ago
  Have you ever seen those signs on the back of dump trucks on the highway that state something like, “Stay Back: Truck Driver Not Responsible for Cracked Windshields”?
  - tyingq 5y ago
    That's complete bullshit though. It does not dissolve liability for things like improperly covered loads.
    - catillac 5y ago
      Precisely. It has no legal effect.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bumby 5y ago
  It may come down to deeper analysis that looks at both root and proximate causes. If Tesla's design was considered faulty from a safety standpoint and substantially contributed to the accident, I would imagine they will have some portion of responsibility. I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less testing/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).
tantalor 5y ago
> some issues on their property Nah, it's more like how you are responsible for a loose animal that leaves your property and causes harm. /ianal
pjc50 5y ago
I think we need a new distinction: not "self-driving" but "self-liable". A lot of the FSD hype implies applications in which there isn't an active driver; cars going off and parking themselves, Uber replacing human drivers, working while commuting, etc. Whether those applications can be realized is not so much a question of technology as liability. Conversely, if the human remains liable, this needs to be kept clear in the marketing material.

breakingcups 5y ago

Yes. > Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Duh. There's plenty of warnings, you are still responsible and your attention is required at all times to intervene when needed. Of course, there are going to be plenty of situations where it will be too late for a human to intervene. Those are going to look harder, but purely from a legal standpoint you are not (yet) allowed to hand off responsibility to some algorithm just because it's baked into the car you buy.

blowski 5y ago
If you're reversing with the help of a sensor that's always worked before, but this time the sensor fails and you hit someone, it is still your responsibility. On the other hand, if your brakes fail despite you having had a recent service, that wouldn't be your fault. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between those two issues.
- jozvolskyef 5y ago
  The sensor isn't supposed to be a replacement for looking where you're reversing. It merely tells you the distance so that you can park more accurately. Vehicles that don't have a rear view sound an alarm and flash warning lights while reversing*. * In Europe
- analog31 5y ago
  One thought is that "always worked before" isn't good enough for engineering. Most engineers are reluctant to approve a design that is based solely on testing. The brakes are highly engineered, known to be of exceptional reliability, have redundancy, and a dashboard indicator for some known failure modes. In the two cases of brake failure I've experienced, the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree, and the car was still tolerably manageable. We do adapt our driving habits to the possibility of brake failure, e.g., maintaining a safe following distance, and taking extra care when there's ice. The backup sensor is designed with the expectation that you are the backup. You were probably told that. Regulators and insurance companies constantly analyze crash data, so a conclusion of "always worked before" based on widespread stats analyzed by engineers is possibly OK, but not "always worked before" according to the consumer. Granted, there may be a gray area in between full driver responsibility, and full engineering responsibility. There was a HN thread just yesterday that debated what engineering actually consists of, so there's no pat answer. And no formula for deciding, which is part of the reason why we ultimately have humans deciding, through the court system in the US.

Zigurd 5y ago

“It’s a wake-up call for drivers,” Well played.

JPKab 5y ago

Autopilot is a free feature on Teslas, and is a simple lane assist system, akin to cruise control. It is not Full Self Driving. FSD is an expensive upgrade, and is supposed to do things like stop at lights. Driver was on autopilot, which explicitly warns you upon activation that it doesn't stop. Clickbait from a once great, now awful newspaper.

vardump 5y ago
This is factually completely correct.
fortran77 5y ago
Oh come on. I own two Teslas (a new P100D with the FSD paid for and a new "plaid") and even I'm not this big a fanboy-apologist. Elon has promised the moon. If it's a "lane assist", call it a "lane assist." I think the driver is primarily responsible, but Tesla is also culpable. I've never used the "self-driving" features -- even the smart lane-assist/cruise control --- other than a few minutes on a clear road to try them out. Too scary for me.
- JPKab 5y ago
  I'm not a fan boy. I have endless criticism of Tesla, especially on the service front. And let's not even get into the build quality issues, particularly with the body panels. I'm a fan boy of truth, reason, logic, and individual responsibility. All of which are in extremely short supply at the LA Times. On this specific topic, truth is being shaded deliberately to drive clicks. There is an obvious motivation to make people think that a self-driving car killed people, when it was really a dipshit abusing cruise control. It can happen with my wife's Audi, and probably has happened, but without Tesla in the headline, it's not ideal clickbait. Regarding Elon "promising the moon", I simply don't understand how FSD relates to Autopilot in this case. If you can read, any misunderstanding someone has about Autopilot being FSD is cleared up immediately upon activation. Alert after alert after message flashes on the screen. I grew up spending a lot of time on boats, and even worked on a crab boat as a teenager. Autopilot on boats is never mistaken for a self-driving feature. It maintains a compass heading, and nobody is dumb enough to think it does anything else. So if the marketing team has purposefully called it autopilot to hype it up, I'm in agreement the name should be changed. BUT, and this is an important BUT, I don't think it would have changed the outcome of this situation. Dipshits have caused accidents abusing cruise control since cruise control came out. The lane assist version has increased the confidence of dipshits to look at their phones while driving, and that's a conversation worth having as to what should be done about it. But that's not specific to one car company.

avar 5y ago

The premise of this article is that a trial involving a crash with a level 2 system[1] is fundamentally different than one involving a level 1, without making the case for that. In both cases the driver is responsible, and expected to monitor the road. Why would someone crashing while using e.g. a lane-keeping system be in a different position legally than someone using cruise control? Level 1 driving assistance has been in use for decades, and there's surely legal precedence to draw from. 1. https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...

bluGill 5y ago
Tesla is marketing it as a level 5 system. They don't directly say that of course, but they are implying strongly it is level 5 and that is enough.

jeroenhd 5y ago

Yes. Tesla cars are not self-driving cars, despite their marketing. They probably won't be for years to come. I don't think anyone who has read up on the current state of self driving would come to any other conclusion. At best the convicted drivers could sue Tesla for damages because of their advertising after conviction, because Tesla puts a lot of effort into their marketing materials to convince people that the car drives for you, but on the paperwork you sign you're reminded that it doesn't, and the software features that force you to keep your hands on the wheel at all times are a constant reminder of that.

juanani 5y ago
bluGill 5y ago
Tesla's marketing is admissible in court as evidence, and probably will carry more weight than any warnings. Marketing is designed to be clear and easy to understand, so courts tend to assume that people understand the marketing intent more than the letter of the legalese warnings. I have no idea what courts will do. It tends to take a lot of cases going opposite ways in slightly different situations before they settle down to something where anyone will attempt a prediction. We are still in the early days of this.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  You have to put in a conscious effort to stop the car from telling you to hold on to the damn steering wheel. People install mods to their cars to disable these features, but that too requires conscious effort to do. Tesla owners might sue Tesla for not fulfilling their promises, but I don't think they'll get out of the responsibility for autopilot accidents so easily. Unless the court rules that Tesla's cars don't pass the minimum road safety tests and are immediately banned from accessing the public road, I don't think any court will accept "the ads told me it was fine" as an excuse for killing two people. You're expected to know the law, and the law says you're responsible for your car while you're on the road. The subject of who's responsible for self driving cars is an interesting one, and it'll take years for real, clear decisions will be made, but that's completely irrelevant here.

sokoloff 5y ago

> realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Kornhauser said. “Just like when I was driving a ’55 Chevy” Um, no shit the driver’s responsible. This seems like a weird question to be confused about prior to level 5, which Tesla’s 2022 “full self-driving” isn’t and 2019 wasn’t either.

FireBeyond 5y ago
> which Tesla’s 2022 “full self-driving” isn’t and 2019 wasn’t either And yet, since 2017, there's a video on the Tesla website that says "The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself."
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That would only lead to a possible cause of action for the driver (or regulators) against Tesla, but of the two cars in that crash, I doubt there's any way the outcome will be other than "the operator of the Tesla is the one legally responsible for the crash" (which I think is the correct outcome as well as the most likely outcome).

Mikeb85 5y ago

Of course he's liable. He should have been driving. Fully autonomous cars aren't yet legal for anyone to drive autonomously, the driver still is responsible.

frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago

>“Whether a [Level 2] automated driving system is engaged or not, every available vehicle requires the human driver to be in control at all times, and all state laws hold the human driver responsible for the operation of their vehicles,” a NHTSA spokesperson said. This is going to be the interesting part. To my mind this is where partial automated driving systems are basically incompatible with people and cars. There is just no way a person who is behind the wheel but who isn't driving can be in control and highly attentive in the same way as a person who is actually driving.

vngzs 5y ago

In my experience driving Teslas on autopilot (a few dozen hours), you need to keep watching the road. The whole time. Especially on on/off ramps and around traffic lights. I almost watched a Tesla I was operating drive into a meridian on a highway off-ramp because the concrete was approximately the same color as the road. I slowed down to see how long it would take to detect the coming collision ... and if I hadn't been watching carefully, it would have been too late. Yes, drivers must still pay attention in self-driving cars. Probably a future exists where that is no longer necessary, but that's not today.

pawelmurias 5y ago
We should use stop using the word self-driving cars for cars that just have some drive-assist instead of being self-driving..
cinntaile 5y ago
Basically you're a voluntary data labeller for their deep learning algorithms. If you take the wheel it means they need to train more on similar situations. Are they hoping to eventually experience so many different situations that out of sample data becomes unlikely? Sounds like a pipe dream to me?

uptown 5y ago

Legislators that are allowing these things on the road are culpable too.

juanani 5y ago

raesene9 5y ago

I think the answer's yes, and it's something that would make me leary of relying on a car's automated systems for anything safety related. Ultimately if I'm going to be criminally liable in a crash caused by my car, I'd like to retain control of what's going on. The idea that a software bug could land me in jail for manslaughter, is not one I'm a fan of.

rvz 5y ago

> “It certainly makes us, all of a sudden, not become so complacent in the use of these things that we forget about the fact that we’re the ones that are responsible — not only for our own safety but for the safety of others.” Well that is the thing here. There is not proper driver monitoring on these cars and it allows both autopilot and FSD systems to be open to abuse to cause crashes like this given that the drivers have become too complacent and convinced that these cars drive themselves which Tesla's falsely advertises. So yes. Guilty as charged. Both features of autopilot and FSD allow drivers like this one to become complacent with the system.

learc83 5y ago

Does Tesla’s autopilot normally stop at red lights? My Subaru’s equivalent doesn’t (Unless there’s a car in front of me that also stops at the light).

speedgoose 5y ago
Yes but it's an option (the incorrectly named full self driving package). https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot
Rygian 5y ago
Not in 2019. That feature was added in 2020.

nemacol 5y ago

Yes. Also, I think Tesla should be on the hook for some of that guilt for their misleading marketing around the "autopilot" feature.

101008 5y ago

If the drivers must be always in control of the vehicle (according to the manual and the activation of Autopilot), what's good in this feature? Couldn't the driver sue Tesla for bad marketing? They are selling a feature which is a lie, aren't they? PD: I don't own any car and I have nothing against Tesla.

bluGill 5y ago
It would be a bad lawyer who didn't try to drag Tesla into court for this. Tesla has more money than whoever was driving (well I didn't look into the background, maybe the driver is filthy rich, but odds are against it), and lawyers always look for the deepest pockets. The victim's lawyer and the driver's lawyers (more likely his insurance company's lawyers) both have incentive to pin this on Tesla as much as they can, and marketing is admissible in court.

makach 5y ago

Ultimately yes. You are the driver of the car. It is involuntary manslaughter. Even if it is a software error, even if the brakes stop working, even if x, y or z (etc) It is always the responsibility of the driver to accept the consequences of any forseen or unforseen actions of any kind of outcome. Depending on the unfortunate event, any mitigating events might be taken into account.

formerly_proven 5y ago
This is a very interesting opinion, however, I don't think it works like that in any jurisdiction.
- pc86 5y ago
  It works like this in just about every US jurisdiction, it's just that most of the time the DA declines to prosecute if your brakes fail. But there's no legal protection, you're still possibly going to be charges.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    If you kill someone with a car in a way that's neither negligent nor reckless I don't see how it could fulfill the criteria for involuntary manslaughter which are exactly those things.
Semaphor 5y ago
> even if the brakes stop working Some quick googling brings up some US results that this only makes you liable if you were speeding or doing something else considered slightly dangerous, or you didn’t properly maintain your brakes.

jose-cl 5y ago

if isnt regulated, the politians are guilty. they have to create laws and regulations on time (sorry my poor english)

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Killing people and causing property damage are already thoroughly regulated.

kamranjon 5y ago

Here is an interesting question I recently came upon, does the driver of a Tesla need consent from their passengers before turning on FSD? I would argue yes, because I don’t want to unknowingly beta test software with my life, but I am curious what others think.

encryptluks2 5y ago
As a kid, do you even have consent when your parents tell you to hop in the car cause you're going somewhere? As a passenger, isn't consent of trusting the driver inherent when you get in the car willfully ride somewhere? Could a passenger not interject and say, hey I don't feel comfortable riding with you if you enable autopilot?
- kamranjon 5y ago
  These are good questions. The first example I think is same in a Tesla or a Toyota. Still interesting to ponder, I think there is still some ethical questions left. The second example requires a bit of nuance, I trust the driver to operate a vehicle, not necessarily the vehicle itself. Does my trust extend to their decision whether or not to turn on autopilot? You might argue yes, but you also might not be informed enough to make that decision as a passenger. The last example assumes the passenger has knowledge of the car and FSD which they may not.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    In the last example, if you're riding with a driver and not paying attention and they are texting or reading a newspaper and get into a crash, then the liability would be on the driver. Not the cell phone company or newpaper company. I think the same for autopilot. If a warning displays to the driver that they are still liable for controlling the vehicle, and they ignore it then the driver would be liable to the passenger, not the car.

razemio 5y ago

I think the real problem is the driver monitoring system. Openpilot nailed it with their eye camera monitoring. There is no need to touch the wheel which makes it more relaxing but you can not take your eyes of the road, which is far more important then keeping your hand on the wheel. Both would even be better. Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
> Still trying to figure out why this is not mandatory for all lane keeping assistents. Because automotive industry lobbying has led to driver assistance and "self driving" features largely being self-regulated.
- razemio 5y ago
  In Germany it is highly (over)regulated, to a point where it isn't usable. Torque on wheel for e.g. is to low even for some wide curves. Still eye tracking isn't mandatory.
srmarm 5y ago
Out of interest where do you put your hands if not on the wheel? There's always going to be latency if you need to take evasive action and your body isn't immediately ready to react.
- razemio 5y ago
  I would prefer both. Hands on the wheel and eye tracking for level 2-4. Eye tracking is however much more important imo.

post_break 5y ago

This might not be a hot take, but I think some of the blame should be shifted onto the Tesla. This guy killed people, and it should not have happened on his watch, however the car should not have blown through a red light. For instance my car has lane keep assist and you can drive while pretty much not touching the wheel but still paying attention. It has almost pulled me into the car next to me due to a random construction line fading on the highway. I'm not saying this guy isn't guilty, all I'm saying is maybe Tesla should shoulder some of the blame here. I'm probably a very small minority in this thinking however.

sebow 5y ago

Yes.At the end of the day the car is the tool and just like with guns or knives, whoever uses the tool as an instrument for harm is at fault.I used to think one could argue: "but X made guarantees, software might be guilty, etc" yet at the same time that argument is not logical and ironically the legal framework explains it the best. We almost never give a pass to criminals even when they're not lucid and under the influence of factors that impair their judgement, how come we debate whether or not the human who used the car is at fault? I also don't think Tesla is necessarily liable here, an unpopular opinion which i also changed over time considering that one needs to prove the car misbehaved.But even then, assuming the car truly misbehaved, making the case that the person is not liable is a big stretch.The title is still clickbait

sidibe 5y ago

I feel like with all the tech advantage Tesla claims to have it should have some way to turn off autopilot in situations where it's not applicable instead of always saying "you're not supposed to use it like that". Just start beeping or something when you're not on the highway and then shut off the autopilot

tomxor 5y ago

No. It's easy to blame the driver, until you consider whether or not the premise of a "partially automated self driving car" is fit for the road. It is not possible to both "stay alert" to anywhere near the same degree required for manual driving, and let an automated navigation system take control. If you sell something inherently dangerous to people under the premise that it is not dangerous provided you do something that is impossible (but not obviously impossible to most people) - bad things are significantly more likely to happen, in other words, it is not only dangerous but misleading.

bartread 5y ago
> It's easy to blame the driver, until you consider whether or not the premise of a "partially automated self driving car" is fit for the road. It is not possible to both "stay alert" to anywhere near the same degree required for manual driving, and let an automated navigation system take control. This is a poor argument. Aeroplane autopilots were "partial automation" for decades - possibly still are for all I know - and yet have been considered fit for purpose. But the responsibility lies with the driver to ensure the vehicle is travelling safely, same as it does with the pilot of a plane.
- tomxor 5y ago
  That's a poor comparison, autopilot is a borrowed name. Planes are not cars, there are no intersections in the air, collision avoidance is a slower game unlike in a car. Additionally, in aviation automation has been around for a long time even though the challenges are more primitive... and they recognised early on that it is instinctual for the pilot to mentally disengage when systems become more automated, as a result this is an integral part of pilot training - it's not part of driving tests or learning to drive despite being an instinct you have to unintuitively fight against, and yet manoeuvring decisions and hazard awareness and response happens at a lot faster rate in a car than in an airliner. In other words, automation does affect the pilot in aviation, but arguably less... and even then, they explicitly train for it to fight the instinct to disengage.

ck2 5y ago

How about the coder? The person who reviewed the code? The person who assembled the sensor and has some kind of defect? Or steering/braking mechanism? Remember Toyota's accelerator-by-wire spaghetti code? No oversight by any third party on that code, what has changed today (nothing except even more complex code doing more complex/dangerous things) At some point people are going to start victim blaming pedestrians/cyclists for just "being there" when their car mows them over. I guess it already happens but it will become far more common.

giorgioz 5y ago

I think we should immediately prohibit the use of the term Autopilot for level 2 autonomous vehicles like the current Tesla. The name is terribly misleading far past gray area marketing into factfully lying. Pilot assist would be a better term.

throwaway2016a 5y ago

> Should Riad be found guilty, “it’s going to send shivers up and down everybody’s spine who has one of these vehicles and realizes, ‘Hey, I’m the one that’s responsible,’” Doesn't send shivers up my spine. I know I'm responsible, that's why I keep a constant eye on the road and am prepared to take control at any time. Though the more recent software is very good at stopping at red lights, I never trusted autopilot anywhere but the highway where Tesla themselves says it should be used. Now that I'm in the "Full Self Driving" beta I trust it on regular roads a bit more but I still 100% understand I need to be watching the road. It augments my driving not replaces it (in its current state).