3 ms·

> I thought the official dogma was that when self-driving cars were in "auto-mode" the manufacturers would be the parties held responsible/liable and pay for an

• throwawaycities 5y ago
  Obviously Tesla is just trying to side-step liability for yet another potentially dangerous self-driving feature. It might even sound reasonable reading the disclaimer, but its not like regular self-driving mode where the driver is supposed to be behind the wheel, alert and ready to take over/manually override the system. At least in that situation a driver has at least the minimal training to receive a license for the activity and probably has general familiarity with potential dangers and hazards. Whereas people aren’t trained/licensed to operate their vehicles remotely from outside the vehicle. Sure it might sound dumb, because any observer can reasonably see a potential accident, except that a reasonable person outside the vehicle probably expects the Tesla to also identify the same object the observer sees and avoid it. More specifically, as in this case, the driver probably had zero clue the Tesla was unable to “see” the plane engine because why wouldn’t a Tesla be able to see an object at the same level as the vehicle (a obvious “blind spot” that I’m sure Tesla was well aware of, but didn’t exactly go out of their way to advertise/warn their car owners).