6 ms·

> A hit-and-run incident in Melbourne yesterday could set a legal precedent for the use of autonomous driving technologies in Australia. There is no precedent

> A hit-and-run incident in Melbourne yesterday could set a legal precedent for the use of autonomous driving technologies in Australia. There is no precedent to be set. If you are behind the wheel of a car you are responsible for it's operation. 'Autopilot' or not. And hard to say it was the autopilot's fault for driving off and returning to the police station two hours later.

deepsun 5y ago
Well, Mercedes takes legal responsibility for its Autopilot, unlike Tesla.
- natch 5y ago
  Mercedes says they will only take legal responsibility "while the system is active." The system will deactivate and hand control (and liability) right back to the human just in the nick of time if it encounters any marginal conditions (stormy weather, presence of emergency vehicles, etc…). So it looks like just an attempt to one-up Tesla with a marketing gimmick.
  - deepsun 5y ago
    Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others, so I naturally believe others more.
    - natch 5y ago
      Tesla doesn't advertise. Tesla doesn't even have a PR department… they closed it. >Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others link? waiting…
      - deepsun 5y ago
        Sure, just one example: Tesla Truck presentation, by Elon: [1] With unbreakable windows (forbidden for safety, otherwise there would not be carjackings anymore). [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7atGkba-Z8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7atGkba-Z8
        natch 5y ago
        We shall see whether that was BS or not. The unbreakable windows part, yeah probably a bit of BS, but it doesn't rise nearly to the level of what other car companies put out. I mean… VW… And Mercedes promised self driving taxis "in three years from now" back in 2017 so… Tesla is not alone is delivering this later than expected. https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving-taxis-just-three-years/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving...
        deepsun 5y ago
        Elon Musk: Tesla’s Autonomous Car Will Drive Coast-To-Coast by 2018 (2017) https://futurism.com/elon-musk-teslas-autonomous-car-will-drive-coast-to-coast-by-2018 https://futurism.com/elon-musk-teslas-autonomous-car-will-dr... (spoiler: it didn't as of 2022)
        clouddrover 5y ago
        > The unbreakable windows part, yeah probably a bit of BS, but it doesn't rise nearly to the level of what other car companies put out. I mean… VW Sure! Let's test the glass on a Volkswagen Golf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzUh53H_VU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzUh53H_VU
      - clouddrover 5y ago
        Here are some of Tesla's advertised lies about full self-driving: - https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... - https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-next-year-for-th-1848432496 https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...
        natch 5y ago
        - Nothing BS about the first link. - The second one has been debunked repeatedly. Elon has predicted self driving dates (wrongly), not promised them. A prediction is not a promise. Mercedes is two years late on this "promise" too if we're doing that. Sure, Elon has been making his wrong predictions for more years, but now Mercedes is copying him: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving-taxis-just-three-years/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving...
        clouddrover 5y ago
        > Nothing BS about the first link. So your claim is that Teslas had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" five years ago, conveniently ignoring the fact that the hardware has changed multiple times since then and even more conveniently ignoring the fact that Tesla still doesn't have a full self-driving product. Sorry, but that's bullshit. > The second one has been debunked repeatedly So your claim is that there are 1 million Tesla robotaxis operating on the roads right now. This too is plainly bullshit. Clearly Tesla's advertising has worked on you. The advertising has worked so well that you're fully bought into the bullshit to the point of irrationality.
        natch 5y ago
        It’s not about me, it’s more about overinterpreting statements. News flash: Elon can be wrong, has been wrong, will be wrong. This is not news, even to his fans. Taxi timeline was a prediction, not a promise. Elon. Can. Be. Wrong. Hardware is not software. The hardware working depends on software that is not done yet. Some hardware has been upgraded to be sure. The jury is still out on whether that old claim will pan out, pending future software updates. I doubt it will, but I think it was made in earnestness, not as “BS”.
      - paranoidrobot 5y ago
        There's an important distinction to be made: Tesla may not pay for advertising, but they do advertise. They also engage in marketing, too. It might not look like your usual company's advertising or marketing, but it's there. Their Youtube channel[1] is full of it. Watch this[2] and tell me that's not an ad. It's a perfect example of an advertisement. They might not have a department that is called a PR department, but they do PR. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5WjFrtBdufl6CZojX3D8dQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5WjFrtBdufl6CZojX3D8dQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9id7BSPttGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9id7BSPttGs
        natch 5y ago
        Fair enough on the distinction between paid advertising and their own YouTube ad pieces. I don't see how this channel is "BS" as the OP's accusation, but I take your point on it being advertising.
  - amelius 5y ago
    It takes at least a few seconds for humans to take over; any judge will assume that much.
    - herbstein 5y ago
      In fact, Mercedes give the driver a full 10 seconds of buffer from first alert to relinquishing liability.
      - natch 5y ago
        That means they must have to alert the driver an awful lot, if you think about it, because that's an eternity.
- mnd999 5y ago
  That’s meaningless if the law specifically says the driver is responsible. If you’re behind the wheel you’re responsible for where the car goes. It’s that simple. If you choose to use some kind of driver assist to get you there that’s a decision you as the driver made and you are responsible for the consequences of that.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Very different systems. First of all, the Tesla Autopilot is not full self driving. The Autopilot is an assistant system combining distance aware cruise control with lane keeping (autosteer) and lane changing. It always requires full driver attention. The Mercedes system has gotten legally recognized as a level 3 system, which allows the driver to stop paying attention when the system is active and for that Mercedes takes legal responsibility. There is even an european law allowing for that. However, the Mercedes system has one big catch: it can be only activated on selected, mapped roads (interstate equivalents with lane dividers) and only up to 40mph speed. Tesla FSD (full self driving) is a completely new system for autonomous driving. It is currently in a beta testing phase. Currently it also requires full driver attention and is available only to a subset of the customers as part of the testing. It is however designed to handle any traffic situation on any road.
stubish 5y ago
The precedent the article discusses is that use of autonomous driving may void comprehensive insurance, making the driver fully liable for any compensation. Not mentioned is if this might also affect compulsory 3rd party insurance, which would make this tech effectively illegal in Australia. Quoting the article: "David McCarthy – a former journalist and current consultant for automotive manufacturers – told Drive the incident and upcoming court case will be significant for two reasons: It will set a precedent for driver culpability in the eyes of the law, and will set a precedent for insurance companies paying out claims based on 'driver responsibility'. “The comprehensive insurance on the car is unlikely to pay for the damage if she says she wasn’t in control of the vehicle … Further, to my knowledge there hasn't been a case in Australia involving the use of autonomous technology in an accident and it will be up to the court to determine liability here."

deepsun 5y ago

Well, Mercedes takes legal responsibility for its Autopilot, unlike Tesla.

natch 5y ago
Mercedes says they will only take legal responsibility "while the system is active." The system will deactivate and hand control (and liability) right back to the human just in the nick of time if it encounters any marginal conditions (stormy weather, presence of emergency vehicles, etc…). So it looks like just an attempt to one-up Tesla with a marketing gimmick.
- deepsun 5y ago
  Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others, so I naturally believe others more.
  - natch 5y ago
    Tesla doesn't advertise. Tesla doesn't even have a PR department… they closed it. >Tesla puts way more marketing BS than others link? waiting…
    - deepsun 5y ago
      Sure, just one example: Tesla Truck presentation, by Elon: [1] With unbreakable windows (forbidden for safety, otherwise there would not be carjackings anymore). [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7atGkba-Z8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7atGkba-Z8
      - natch 5y ago
        We shall see whether that was BS or not. The unbreakable windows part, yeah probably a bit of BS, but it doesn't rise nearly to the level of what other car companies put out. I mean… VW… And Mercedes promised self driving taxis "in three years from now" back in 2017 so… Tesla is not alone is delivering this later than expected. https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving-taxis-just-three-years/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving...
        deepsun 5y ago
        Elon Musk: Tesla’s Autonomous Car Will Drive Coast-To-Coast by 2018 (2017) https://futurism.com/elon-musk-teslas-autonomous-car-will-drive-coast-to-coast-by-2018 https://futurism.com/elon-musk-teslas-autonomous-car-will-dr... (spoiler: it didn't as of 2022)
        clouddrover 5y ago
        > The unbreakable windows part, yeah probably a bit of BS, but it doesn't rise nearly to the level of what other car companies put out. I mean… VW Sure! Let's test the glass on a Volkswagen Golf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzUh53H_VU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzUh53H_VU
    - clouddrover 5y ago
      Here are some of Tesla's advertised lies about full self-driving: - https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... - https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-next-year-for-th-1848432496 https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...
      - natch 5y ago
        - Nothing BS about the first link. - The second one has been debunked repeatedly. Elon has predicted self driving dates (wrongly), not promised them. A prediction is not a promise. Mercedes is two years late on this "promise" too if we're doing that. Sure, Elon has been making his wrong predictions for more years, but now Mercedes is copying him: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving-taxis-just-three-years/ https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving...
        clouddrover 5y ago
        > Nothing BS about the first link. So your claim is that Teslas had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" five years ago, conveniently ignoring the fact that the hardware has changed multiple times since then and even more conveniently ignoring the fact that Tesla still doesn't have a full self-driving product. Sorry, but that's bullshit. > The second one has been debunked repeatedly So your claim is that there are 1 million Tesla robotaxis operating on the roads right now. This too is plainly bullshit. Clearly Tesla's advertising has worked on you. The advertising has worked so well that you're fully bought into the bullshit to the point of irrationality.
        natch 5y ago
        It’s not about me, it’s more about overinterpreting statements. News flash: Elon can be wrong, has been wrong, will be wrong. This is not news, even to his fans. Taxi timeline was a prediction, not a promise. Elon. Can. Be. Wrong. Hardware is not software. The hardware working depends on software that is not done yet. Some hardware has been upgraded to be sure. The jury is still out on whether that old claim will pan out, pending future software updates. I doubt it will, but I think it was made in earnestness, not as “BS”.
    - paranoidrobot 5y ago
      There's an important distinction to be made: Tesla may not pay for advertising, but they do advertise. They also engage in marketing, too. It might not look like your usual company's advertising or marketing, but it's there. Their Youtube channel[1] is full of it. Watch this[2] and tell me that's not an ad. It's a perfect example of an advertisement. They might not have a department that is called a PR department, but they do PR. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5WjFrtBdufl6CZojX3D8dQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5WjFrtBdufl6CZojX3D8dQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9id7BSPttGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9id7BSPttGs
      - natch 5y ago
        Fair enough on the distinction between paid advertising and their own YouTube ad pieces. I don't see how this channel is "BS" as the OP's accusation, but I take your point on it being advertising.
- amelius 5y ago
  It takes at least a few seconds for humans to take over; any judge will assume that much.
  - herbstein 5y ago
    In fact, Mercedes give the driver a full 10 seconds of buffer from first alert to relinquishing liability.
    - natch 5y ago
      That means they must have to alert the driver an awful lot, if you think about it, because that's an eternity.
mnd999 5y ago
That’s meaningless if the law specifically says the driver is responsible. If you’re behind the wheel you’re responsible for where the car goes. It’s that simple. If you choose to use some kind of driver assist to get you there that’s a decision you as the driver made and you are responsible for the consequences of that.
_ph_ 5y ago
Very different systems. First of all, the Tesla Autopilot is not full self driving. The Autopilot is an assistant system combining distance aware cruise control with lane keeping (autosteer) and lane changing. It always requires full driver attention. The Mercedes system has gotten legally recognized as a level 3 system, which allows the driver to stop paying attention when the system is active and for that Mercedes takes legal responsibility. There is even an european law allowing for that. However, the Mercedes system has one big catch: it can be only activated on selected, mapped roads (interstate equivalents with lane dividers) and only up to 40mph speed. Tesla FSD (full self driving) is a completely new system for autonomous driving. It is currently in a beta testing phase. Currently it also requires full driver attention and is available only to a subset of the customers as part of the testing. It is however designed to handle any traffic situation on any road.

stubish 5y ago

The precedent the article discusses is that use of autonomous driving may void comprehensive insurance, making the driver fully liable for any compensation. Not mentioned is if this might also affect compulsory 3rd party insurance, which would make this tech effectively illegal in Australia. Quoting the article: "David McCarthy – a former journalist and current consultant for automotive manufacturers – told Drive the incident and upcoming court case will be significant for two reasons: It will set a precedent for driver culpability in the eyes of the law, and will set a precedent for insurance companies paying out claims based on 'driver responsibility'. “The comprehensive insurance on the car is unlikely to pay for the damage if she says she wasn’t in control of the vehicle … Further, to my knowledge there hasn't been a case in Australia involving the use of autonomous technology in an accident and it will be up to the court to determine liability here."