18 ms·

Did anyone in Tesla's Legal Department review the rolling stop feature? This should have screamed illegal. Heck, I'm no legal expert but it screams illegal to m

Did anyone in Tesla's Legal Department review the rolling stop feature? This should have screamed illegal. Heck, I'm no legal expert but it screams illegal to me.

duxup 5y ago
I gotta think there are some emails with some engineer "guies wut?" out there. I always wonder how this plays out on a granular level. Some folks have to be thinking / asking if this is a good idea or not.
loceng 5y ago
This should initiate a conversation into following the spirit of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without nuance. In high school there was only a handful of things I learned that were actually useful, outside of social experiences. One of them was a teacher who taught business and law classes. In a business class he shared with us, first saying he could probably get fired for telling us this, but that if we had good ideas, new we had a good idea for a business, then instead of going to university and getting $40,000+ into debt over 4 years - get a job and/or apprenticeship and work on your idea. At the end of that 4 years he suggested you'd be in a much better position than those who went into higher education; of course it depends on what someone's goals are. In law class he gave an example: in some states in the US there are very long stretches of road where you won't see anyone for awhile, and sometimes there are traffic lights on a straight road - with no intersection. He put forward to the question of what do you do if that traffic light is red when you come up to it? There's zero vehicles near you in either direction, there's no intersection to worry about cross-traffic, and so do you stop and wait for the light to go green, or do you go again even though it's red? I think every reasonable person would answer that they would go. E.g. A rolling stop in some circumstances isn't dangerous for anyone; and I also see police doing it all the time. Of course AI deciding when to do it when it may not yet be accounting for the whole or an adequate enough of environment does add questions, and because it's not critical to self-driving, I believe it's a good idea to not allow it until that conversation can be thoroughly hashed out, as well as the technology much more thoroughly tested and evolved. Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do with your time, or some other form of entertainment.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  Similarly airplane pilots should not wait for instructions from the tower if they can clearly see that the way is clear. Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    > Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage There is nuance. Pilots are the final authority when it comes to the safety of the craft, and you're in the clear if your actions were justified. With self driving cars, we're discussing where the boundaries are and when the vehicle's decision can take precedence over coarse legal code (as occurs with human drivers every day). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 (14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.) (private pilot who has deviated from ATC commands in GA aircraft and had to fill out a written report over a cup of coffee)
    - gpderetta 5y ago
      Of course! And you should definitely run a red light if staying were you are would put you or other in dangers. I'm commenting about running a red light just because the road seems otherwise clear.
    - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
      Is "it saved me five seconds" sufficient justification for disregarding ATC commands? That's the only justification we have here for making rolling stops.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    Bad analogy. When driving, there is no "Tower" with an overarching view of your situation.
    - loceng 5y ago
nickthegreek 5y ago
Agreed. In Ohio, I got a ticket for this exact behavior a decade ago.
- asdff 5y ago
  They ticket everything in ohio. Drive too fast? Ticket. Drive too slow? Ticket. Lights not on after the legal definition of dusk? Ticket. Hanging out in the left lane? Ticket. Not using the blinker? Ticket. Leaving the blinker on? Also ticket. The sucky part is when you are a teenager they sometimes couple this with throwing all your belongings on the side of the road in search of the weed that you must have.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    > Drive too slow? Ticket. At least when I grew up in Australia, part of the road laws was a statement, very close to this effect: "You are required to drive at the maximum speed that is 1) within the speed limit, 2) is appropriate for the conditions, and 3) within your ability to control the vehicle". And that was the rationale for ticketing 'too slow' drivers. Within those constraints, there was no reason for you to go more slowly, and posed unnecessary risk to those who were within those criteria.
modeless 5y ago
It's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit. If self driving cars aren't given the same leniency as humans to break the traffic laws that 99% of humans break then they will be a nuisance on the road. Ideally the traffic laws should be updated to be more realistic.
- cmurf 5y ago
  They're not equivalent illegalities. Speeding involves a much higher energy state than rolling stop. If there's an accident, very clearly one is much worse.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I feel like a Unicorn, but I obey the speed limit as closely as I can. My speedometer says a perfect 60 on the highway in my area, and I am always being passed like crazy. I've never received a speeding ticket. I'm not a "nuisance" for not going faster and breaking the speed limit. Everyone else is the "nuisance" and I vote for stronger enforcement where possible.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      One of the most frustrating things I deal with is people driving too fast on the main street that is (basically) just outside my cul-de-sac. It's a 35 mph limit but people drive 40-45. That makes it harder to see them coming, making the road less safe. Too many people seem to believe that the only thing that matters is the road in front of them, they don't consider the side roads at all. The city is talking about narrowing the lanes on the main street to reduce speed and add bike lanes, and it can't happen soon enough.
      - asdff 5y ago
        Also your chance of surviving an impact at like 50mph is next to zero as a pedestrian. You have a higher chance surviving an impact at 35mph even though its still pretty small.
    - 5y ago
NelsonMinar 5y ago
Pretty sure Tesla's legal department isn't calling the shots on stuff like this.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  This. Elon is all "move fast and break things"; "things" in this case being Teslas and the people inside them. And why wouldn't he? The federal government barely pays attention to wanting to audit self-driving technologies as it is.
rini17 5y ago
Maybe Legal is next on chopping block after QA.
bdamm 5y ago
The responsibility for following the law is still on the driver. If I'm responsible, then I can choose to have the car break the law on my behalf, and accept the consequences.

Did anyone in Tesla's Legal Department review the rolling stop feature? This should have screamed illegal. Heck, I'm no legal expert but it screams illegal to me.

duxup 5y ago

I gotta think there are some emails with some engineer "guies wut?" out there. I always wonder how this plays out on a granular level. Some folks have to be thinking / asking if this is a good idea or not.

loceng 5y ago

This should initiate a conversation into following the spirit of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without nuance. In high school there was only a handful of things I learned that were actually useful, outside of social experiences. One of them was a teacher who taught business and law classes. In a business class he shared with us, first saying he could probably get fired for telling us this, but that if we had good ideas, new we had a good idea for a business, then instead of going to university and getting $40,000+ into debt over 4 years - get a job and/or apprenticeship and work on your idea. At the end of that 4 years he suggested you'd be in a much better position than those who went into higher education; of course it depends on what someone's goals are. In law class he gave an example: in some states in the US there are very long stretches of road where you won't see anyone for awhile, and sometimes there are traffic lights on a straight road - with no intersection. He put forward to the question of what do you do if that traffic light is red when you come up to it? There's zero vehicles near you in either direction, there's no intersection to worry about cross-traffic, and so do you stop and wait for the light to go green, or do you go again even though it's red? I think every reasonable person would answer that they would go. E.g. A rolling stop in some circumstances isn't dangerous for anyone; and I also see police doing it all the time. Of course AI deciding when to do it when it may not yet be accounting for the whole or an adequate enough of environment does add questions, and because it's not critical to self-driving, I believe it's a good idea to not allow it until that conversation can be thoroughly hashed out, as well as the technology much more thoroughly tested and evolved. Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do with your time, or some other form of entertainment.

gpderetta 5y ago
Similarly airplane pilots should not wait for instructions from the tower if they can clearly see that the way is clear. Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  > Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage There is nuance. Pilots are the final authority when it comes to the safety of the craft, and you're in the clear if your actions were justified. With self driving cars, we're discussing where the boundaries are and when the vehicle's decision can take precedence over coarse legal code (as occurs with human drivers every day). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 (14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.) (private pilot who has deviated from ATC commands in GA aircraft and had to fill out a written report over a cup of coffee)
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    Of course! And you should definitely run a red light if staying were you are would put you or other in dangers. I'm commenting about running a red light just because the road seems otherwise clear.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    Is "it saved me five seconds" sufficient justification for disregarding ATC commands? That's the only justification we have here for making rolling stops.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Bad analogy. When driving, there is no "Tower" with an overarching view of your situation.
  - loceng 5y ago

nickthegreek 5y ago

Agreed. In Ohio, I got a ticket for this exact behavior a decade ago.

asdff 5y ago
They ticket everything in ohio. Drive too fast? Ticket. Drive too slow? Ticket. Lights not on after the legal definition of dusk? Ticket. Hanging out in the left lane? Ticket. Not using the blinker? Ticket. Leaving the blinker on? Also ticket. The sucky part is when you are a teenager they sometimes couple this with throwing all your belongings on the side of the road in search of the weed that you must have.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  > Drive too slow? Ticket. At least when I grew up in Australia, part of the road laws was a statement, very close to this effect: "You are required to drive at the maximum speed that is 1) within the speed limit, 2) is appropriate for the conditions, and 3) within your ability to control the vehicle". And that was the rationale for ticketing 'too slow' drivers. Within those constraints, there was no reason for you to go more slowly, and posed unnecessary risk to those who were within those criteria.

modeless 5y ago

It's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit. If self driving cars aren't given the same leniency as humans to break the traffic laws that 99% of humans break then they will be a nuisance on the road. Ideally the traffic laws should be updated to be more realistic.

cmurf 5y ago
They're not equivalent illegalities. Speeding involves a much higher energy state than rolling stop. If there's an accident, very clearly one is much worse.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I feel like a Unicorn, but I obey the speed limit as closely as I can. My speedometer says a perfect 60 on the highway in my area, and I am always being passed like crazy. I've never received a speeding ticket. I'm not a "nuisance" for not going faster and breaking the speed limit. Everyone else is the "nuisance" and I vote for stronger enforcement where possible.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    One of the most frustrating things I deal with is people driving too fast on the main street that is (basically) just outside my cul-de-sac. It's a 35 mph limit but people drive 40-45. That makes it harder to see them coming, making the road less safe. Too many people seem to believe that the only thing that matters is the road in front of them, they don't consider the side roads at all. The city is talking about narrowing the lanes on the main street to reduce speed and add bike lanes, and it can't happen soon enough.
    - asdff 5y ago
      Also your chance of surviving an impact at like 50mph is next to zero as a pedestrian. You have a higher chance surviving an impact at 35mph even though its still pretty small.
  - 5y ago

NelsonMinar 5y ago

Pretty sure Tesla's legal department isn't calling the shots on stuff like this.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
This. Elon is all "move fast and break things"; "things" in this case being Teslas and the people inside them. And why wouldn't he? The federal government barely pays attention to wanting to audit self-driving technologies as it is.

rini17 5y ago

Maybe Legal is next on chopping block after QA.

bdamm 5y ago

The responsibility for following the law is still on the driver. If I'm responsible, then I can choose to have the car break the law on my behalf, and accept the consequences.