48 ms·

Judge orders trial in Tesla autopilot manslaughter case

• aaronblohowiak 4y ago
  The driver told the car to maintain a speed and it did, there’s nothing particularly “autopilot-centric” about this case; any other cruise control (adaptive or not) would operate the same way.
  • themitigating 4y ago
    The driver is charged with manslaughter. Maybe the title implies that Tesla is being sued or that autopilot is on trial but that's not the case
    • sojournerc 4y ago
      The families of the victims are sueing Tesla and the defendant in a separate civil case.
      • emteycz 4y ago
        Cool, then that should be in the title for that post. This is wrong.
        • sojournerc 4y ago
          You're misunderstanding. There's the criminal case covered by the article and a separate civil case filed by the families of the victims.
          • extropy 4y ago
            I'm confused - what allows the victims to sue Tesla directly? Legally the driver bears the responsibility, no? I can see driver suing tesla for a malfunction. Can my neighbor below sue my washer manufacturer if they got flooded?
            • macintux 4y ago
              > Legally the driver bears the responsibility, no? That’s the billion dollar question that will be relitigated for years as autonomous systems improve. No one knows.
              • emteycz 4y ago
                I thought the law is very specific in this case. The responsibility is driver's except in cases when it explicitly isn't - which definitely wasn't this case as no vehicle in EU had the necessary approval when it happened, and I'm not sure, but maybe there wasn't any law whatsoever about autonomous vehicles and transfer of responsibility back then - which makes the driver unquestionably responsible. Edit: I thought this is in Germany, so I'm wrong. My bad.
                • deleted 4y ago
                  [deleted]
                • amalcon 4y ago
                  The U.S. is a common law jurisdiction, which (among other things) means that when there is a novel factor involved, usually the courts are first to decide how much it matters. Autopilot was a very novel factor at this time, so the courts need to decide if it matters enough to reduce the criminal penalties. In the absence of an explicit law, that's just how it works. The driver doesn't become responsible -- responsibility becomes an open question. In civil law jurisdictions, this works differently.
                • danso 4y ago
                  The families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims sued Remington and settled for $73 million, even though Remington didn't directly sell the gun to the shooter, or violate any other laws regulating the sale of firearms: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil... The NYT describes the plaintiff's argument as focused on Remington's marketing strategy: > The families contended that Remington violated state law by promoting the weapon with an approach that appealed to so-called couch commandos and troubled young men like the gunman who committed the Sandy Hook massacre. > Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan was killed, said the documents included in the settlement were crucial — and “paint a picture of a company that lost its way, choosing more aggressive marketing campaigns for profit.”
  • pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The marketing of "autopilot" may end up being central to this case. It is indeed just adaptive cruise control, which is also present on many other cars, but the way it is advertised suggests otherwise. Additionally, Tesla has been selling people "Full Self-Driving Capability" when self driving beyond cruise control hasn't been figured out yet. This is false advertising, and apparently it may be involved in turning Tesla drivers who believe it into negligent killers. The driver may be able to argue that Tesla told him the car would stop, and so there is no negligence on his part.
    • sokoloff 4y ago
      If I program my Bendix-King autopilot to fly heading 270º at 4K feet and there's a 5K foot mountain directly west of me, the autopilot will do exactly what I told it to do and I will make a smudge on the side of the mountain.
      • sudosysgen 4y ago
        Did you pay for the full-self-flying version of the Bendix-King? More seriously though, collision avoidance system are now common in airplane autopilot system, so by that logic it should be reasonable for the Tesla to issue at least an overspeed warning.
      • xattt 4y ago
        The time and degree of training that is needed to operate a plane is vastly different than the level of training needed to operate a car.
        • dylan604 4y ago
          Should it be though? Obviously Joey Beercan and his soccermom wife with 4.5 kids are not ever going to do a pilot's level pre-flight walk around inspection of the s/aircraft/Chevy Tahoe/ to check that the tires are inflated and have proper tread. Nor would they ever spend the time to look at the indicator lights to ensure the equipment is operating correctly. No amount of tapping on the Check Engine light will ever make that indicator change value. However, we've made getting licensed to operate a vehicle way too easy. We should also make drivers get training on equipment type so switching from a mid-sized sedan to a gianormous SUV requires more than just being handed new keys.
  • ghaff 4y ago
    It seems pretty straightforward. He instructed the cruise control/autopilot to significantly speed, may have run a red light (question of fact for the jury), and is presumably guilty of something (matter of law for a judge). As others have noted, he can can try to shift blame to Tesla but, while I'm no fan of their autopilot marketing, I doubt he'll have much luck.
  • Hypocritelefty 4y ago
  • manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Autopilot try to slow down and/or swerve to avoid a crash? I thought that was the main selling point, otherwise this is just a fancy name for cruise control.
    • jasonlotito 4y ago
      Maybe now. But years ago, that's not how it was advertised. As shared by others in this thread: From Tesla: "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" followed by: "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control. That's from Tesla. Who has already faced consequences for lying in marketing.
      • manuelabeledo 4y ago
        Right. I believe that they did market it like a proper safety feature in the past, absolutely capable of avoiding crashes. Also, the name is already misleading, as "Autopilot" suggests that the car actually "drives" itself to some extent. Even if they weren't trying to mislead people in their marketing materials, these points seem enough to make a case.
      • soheil 4y ago
        > that's not how it was advertised What are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a Tesla advertisement? > Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control Having the hardware or the capacity to be a self-driving car is not equal to being a self-driving car. The hardware must be enabled, which in this case wasn't. The car only had Autopilot not FSD. Please learn the difference.
    • ModernMech 4y ago
      Depends on what's in front of the car. If it's a large, broad, stationary object like a firetruck or tractor trailer, then the sensors on the car aren't able to see those obstacles. Teslas have been known to frequently run into such things at top speed, completely blind to the fact they were there at all. It's so bad multiple people have been literally decapitated at this point, and Tesla has to date refused to fix the flaw (inadequate sensing) that caused the decapitations to occur. People say Teslas are safer than humans, but humans who can't see large broad stationary objects would never be granted a license. If you are a robot driver, no problem though apparently. In fact, if you have proven to be recklessly homicidal while driving, your license is taken away and you are likely put on trial. Not if you're a robot! They will clone your flawed sensors and robot brain, and ship it to thousands of people to be deployed on roads across the world. When your web service goes down you probably find the root cause, fix it, and issue a report about how it's not going to happen again due to your fix. Not Tesla! They are aware of the problem, know exactly how to fix it, and it seems like one man's ego is getting in the way of shipping actually safe autonomous cars. Tesla cars are not safe because Tesla as a company does not value safety as a priority. They value design, whizbang technologies, branding and image, while safety is a distant concern. Elon Musk put more effort into naming the line of cars SEXY than he did to actually producing reliably and predictably safe autonomous vehicles. Musk spent far more time lamenting over the fact he was forced to name his car the Model 3 than the fact it decapitated a human being due to his poor engineering choices. Teslas on AP are death machines (read: they are machines who have killed people) and we in the public are the unwitting beta testers for Tesla Inc.
  • danso 4y ago
    I know the TOS for Autopilot require that the driver be fully engaged while using it — i.e. the driver completely accepts liability for everything that happens while AP is on. But isn't one of AP's selling points is that it's sophisticated enough to mitigate if not outright prevent these kind of crashes? In previous fatal AP-involved accidents, Tesla drivers collided with stationary objects, which apparently are particularly difficult for AP to see. This case seems to involve one of the more common kind of serious head-on collisions: failing to yield to left-turning vehicle which has the right-of-way. I know AP != FSD, and that AP doesn't necessarily promise it can handle traffic lights. But if it can't detect or react to vehicles slowly moving into the driver's lane...What are the dangerous day-to-day situations that it can confidently and reliably handle? Is it basically just lane control?
    • tetsusaiga 4y ago
      Right? If it can't react, how is it any different than cruise control?
• Workaccount2 4y ago
  I don't think autopilot circa 2019 would detect and react to traffic lights? The case seems pretty clear cut anyway, the guy had cruise control on and wasn't paying attention to traffic lights. We'll see if he turns around and sues Tesla, pleading ignorance about what "autopilot" could do.
  • nikanj 4y ago
    In 2019 we were still 2-3 years away from a fully self-driving Tesla. In 2022 we are still 2-3 years away from it.
    • BurningFrog 4y ago
      It will be like that for a while, until, one day, we realize we've had fully self-driving Teslas for 2-3 years.
      • AlexandrB 4y ago
        More like: "we've had self-driving Waymos for years". Tesla might still be 2-3 years away at that point.
    • ntoskrnl 4y ago
      In 2022, we are less than a year away from full self driving: https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3109 https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3109 Just like we were in 2014: https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/2/6894875/elon-musk-says-next-years-tesla-cars-will-be-able-to-self-drive-90-percent-of-the-time https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/2/6894875/elon-musk-says-ne...
      • judge2020 4y ago
        > Just like we were in 2014 > . A Tesla car next year will probably be 90 percent capable of autopilot. Like, so 90 percent of your miles can be on auto. For sure highway travel. I don't see a reference to "full self-driving" and certainly not something that'd stop for stoplights and properly handle traffic signals.
• camjohnson26 4y ago
  The NY Times documentary investigating Autopilot deaths comes out tonight on FX/Hulu: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/insider/elon-musk-documentary.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/insider/elon-musk-documen...
  • belter 4y ago
    When recently asked about the deaths, this was the most recent comment from the Tesla CEO (correct time): https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3170 https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3170 I find the comment "...we also know we are going to be sued...": https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3325 https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=3325 interesting grounds, for a lawyer request for internal Tesla emails via a legal discovery process.
    • verve_rat 4y ago
      Wow, that interview is a train wreck.
      • plutonorm 4y ago
        we must have watched different interviews.
        • spiderice 4y ago
          Seriously. I thought those answers were great! He knows that even if Tesla does what is right, they're still going to get sued. So they're going to do what is right anyway. Super cool answer.
    • FartyMcFarter 4y ago
      The statement that Tesla is "doing the right thing" has a lot of optimistic assumptions behind it. To start with, Tesla assumes they will be able to accomplish self driving with the hardware they have. They also assume they need the system to drive on public roads (as opposed to simulations and private roads) to achieve this. They say that data collected from driving on public roads will get them there, even though this is a for-now-unsolved research problem in AI. Furthermore, Musk seems to claim every year that Level 4 autonomous driving is within 6-18 months, going back to almost 10 years ago. For now I feel there are too many people letting Tesla stick with their optimistic predictions and statements that they're "doing the right thing". Maybe the New York Times documentary that is about to come out will change this.
• ramesh31 4y ago
  How it started: "Hey this is really irresponsible marketing, and people will probably die" How it's going: People died.
  • sovnade 4y ago
    It's not quite that simple though. "autopilot" is a blah term, but it's also not possible to say whether or not it has saved lives with auto-avoidance and braking. The hard truth is that for things to get better, they need billions of miles of testing, and you can't do that in a lab.
    • ramesh31 4y ago
      The technology itself is fantastic. Autopilot is the most advanced ADAS system in the world. But the marketing was pure criminal negligence.
      • glitchc 4y ago
        [Citation needed]
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
• agomez314 4y ago
  Tesla is an awesome company with so much potential. However, it's infatuation with Autopilot/self-driving/whatyouwannacallit is an almost impossible problem to solve with potentially fatal consequences as this news shows, and it diverts unnecessary resources from the company in creating a truly great electric vehicle. It's a strategic mistake from management imo.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Mid term stuff like full self-driving and robot taxis keep the valuation up. So it is working, in a way. A risky way, sure, but for now it works.
  • manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Tesla is an awesome company with so much potential. I used to think the same, but after some years, I came to the realisation that Tesla is just the Silicon Valley's idea of a car company. They have been releasing unfinished products with glaring quality defects for a while now, and they have overpromised almost since the very beginning. I honestly can't wait for more car makers to go fully electric, so consumers have better choices.
    • ghaff 4y ago
      It's fair to say that Tesla turned the heat up on electric vehicles and the associated charging network. So, yes, over the coming years I expect we'll see much more innovation in this area from established manufacturers (or even other new ones). But not sure how Tesla itself will play out.
    • macinjosh 4y ago
      I think the quality issues might have something to do with US auto manufacturing as well. I bought a new Ford in 2020 and the thing has had so many quality issues I am never buying another American car again. I just don't think the culture values doing quality work and building quality things because it costs too much and takes too much time and the current fiscal quarter is always almost over.
    • 4y ago
• ajross 4y ago
  For those confused by the headline here: the trial is of the driver of the car. It's a routine vehicular manslaughter case. The involvement of Tesla is only that "the car was on AP so it's not my fault" is being (presumably) attempted as a defense.
  • glitchc 4y ago
    No one’s confused. From a technology perspective, the Autopilot was driving the car at the time of the crash. From a legal perspective, a human is always in charge of driving the car. It’s time Tesla claims were tested in court. No other manufacturer makes such grandiose claims, yet their systems are at par with what a Tesla can do.
    • ajross 4y ago
      > It’s time Tesla claims were tested in court. That is exactly what this case (a routine felony manslaughter trial) is not doing though.
• danso 4y ago
  FWIW, this case is considered to be notable because it is the first fatal car crash in which Tesla Autopilot was involved, and in which the driver faces felony charges. The charges were first announced in January [0]; today's news is that a judge is allowing it to go to trial. In the submitted article, it says a Tesla engineer testified that Autopilot was activated "about 20 minutes before the crash". I assume that means it was active 20 minutes before, and into the moment of impact. If this case does actually reach trial, I guess it'll be interesting howhat the jury will be instructed in weighing the use of Autopilot against the allegation of "gross negligence" [0] https://apnews.com/article/tesla-autopilot-fatal-crash-charges-91b4a0341e07244f3f03051b5c2462ae https://apnews.com/article/tesla-autopilot-fatal-crash-charg...
  • soheil 4y ago
    > howhat Did you just invent a new word or have I been living under a rock?
    • danso 4y ago
      LOL I originally typed "what" and then realized "how" would be better, and apparently my ADHD kicked in
      • the_only_law 4y ago
        Nowadays I just blame my phone keyboard, and it’s bad it enough that if often ends up true.
        • singlow 4y ago
          case in point?
          • the_only_law 4y ago
            Exactly :)
    • 4y ago
• macinjosh 4y ago
  I checked out this intersection on maps and street view. 1. The traffic lane the victims were turning into is in addition to the ending freeway's traffic lanes (i.e. it is one lane further to the right than the right-most through lane). So someone had to be crossing lanes one way or the other for the collision to occur in the first place. Maybe not, I am not a traffic expert or familiar with the area, but that is how it looks to me as an experienced driver. 2. If "Autopilot" was engaged why didn't the Tesla react to the obstruction? Perhaps the timing was too sudden and it didn't have time to reach before being smashed to pieces? 3. Was the victim driver tested for intoxication? Perhaps they were not following all traffic laws as well? Sometimes accidents are the culmination of multiple drivers' mistakes. Not trying to victim blame though. May they RIP. I think it is clear the Tesla driver was being reckless here because of the speeding. It is unclear if he ran the red light or not. I'd say at the very least revoke the guy's license permanently. Tesla is, to me, clearly reckless as well with their marketing tactics and their failure to tamp down unrealistic expectations and the hype-machine surrounding "FSD".
  • michael1999 4y ago
    Autopilot deliberately ignores stationary objects.
    • mlindner 4y ago
      That's simply false and is proven false by any number of videos on youtube.
      • passerby1 4y ago
        Both comments are false. Reality is more complex as _sometimes_ it ignores: [0] 0: https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/have-you-seen/2022/04/25/tesla-collides-private-jet-while-owner-using-smart-summon-mode/7439216001/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/have-you-seen/2022/04/2...
  • hwillis 4y ago
    > So someone had to be crossing lanes one way or the other for the collision to occur in the first place. Maybe not, I am not a traffic expert or familiar with the area, but that is how it looks to me as an experienced driver. The victims were making a left turn to get to the other side of the road to head east, the defendant was heading west. > Perhaps they were not following all traffic laws as well? They were the fourth car turning left. If the light was extremely short, maybe the light had turned red and they were late, in which case they were in the intersection illegally. NB that were that the case, they still would have right of way as they had entered the intersection before the Tesla. The defendant would still be fully culpable. I don't see any situation in which the defendant was not driving recklessly. He was almost certainly driving at 74 mph directly at a red light, unless all four cars ran a red light across multiple lanes. When the light turned green he had at most a second or two to have stopped, if it had not changed. He did not even touch the brake. Realistically, he was driving with his eyes closed because it was 1230 and he was tired. Emergency braking would not have saved the two people he killed. Evasive driving would have still caused a crash at that speed. The only thing that could have saved their lives was respecting the red light, and the car was not programmed to do that. Even if the car was fully self-driving, the "hands on steering wheel" thing is a very clear "pay attention" signal. There's a valid argument that complacency is a natural result regardless, but this was not complacency. He had zero awareness of what was happening outside the vehicle, and that is reckless.
• Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
  A compilation of Musk lies on autopilot through the years (starts 2014): Includes claims that you can "fall aleep" and "pay zero attention" , "watch movies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ILRTF_DRSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ILRTF_DRSc
  • onurcel 4y ago
    In my opinion Tesla has the largest part of the fault here. You can say "yeah we all know Elon Musk is lying and that is not a real auto-pilot", but I am having hard time to understand why the responsability of a blatantly lying company/CEO is not discussed.
  • mlindner 4y ago
    Don't conflate product predictions of eventual functionality with actual advertisements of current functionality.
    • happytoexplain 4y ago
      But "our product will be able to do X" followed later by "and here's our great product!" can be understandably confusing for consumers, even if you don't technically say "our product can currently do X".
    • mikkergp 4y ago
      In that video he says "A model S or Model X at this point can drive autonomously with better safety than a person right now"
      • pmoriarty 4y ago
        "a person" That person being the worst driver in the world.
    • Hamuko 4y ago
      The actual advertisements aren't that better considering the option is literally called "Full Self-Driving Capability".
• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The car was apparently going 74 MPH on a surface street, since the driver didn't reduce the speed on the cruise control after the freeway became a surface street. The driver may legitimately have been asleep at the wheel. The best argument Tesla has to isolate itself from liability is that there is no way that the car could have reacted to the oncoming car and stopped at that speed, even if its AI system were perfect. They would have to dodge criticism about not using LIDAR to detect obstacles early and also the criticism that the AI system didn't notice the obstruction _at all_ and could have slowed down earlier. All that said, this is not a good fact pattern for the people hoping to come after Tesla instead of the driver. However, the cracks are beginning to show.
  • pmoriarty 4y ago
    "there is no way that the car could have reacted to the oncoming car and stopped at that speed, even if its AI system were perfect." Then they shouldn't have been driving at that speed.
  • sandworm101 4y ago
    >> ... may legitimately have been asleep at the wheel. There is never a legitimate was to be asleep at the wheel. He was perhaps genuinely asleep, but short of being drugged against your will there is no non-negligent reason to be asleep at the wheel.
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      In this context, "legitimately" means "truthfully" not "rightfully." Edit: to clarify, the adverb "legitimately" modifies the verb "have been" in this context. You can tell because it is immediately before "have been." If I had said "he was legitimately asleep" that would mean that there was legitimate reason for him to be asleep, because the adverb "legitimately" was attached to the word "asleep." The phrase "he legitimately is asleep" says nothing about the legitimacy of the sleep, but emphasizes the legitimacy of the "is" (as in, he was so asleep that he wouldn't notice his car beeping at him to wake him up).
      • 4y ago
• drawingthesun 4y ago
  With peoples lives in the balance it is horrific to see Tesla be this reckless. But I guess it is a top down culture issue perhaps? Seeing how Elon Musk acts, and how he will chase the shiny thing when he wants attention, it’s all about ego right? Like what’s with the SpaceX always on demand massages for their executives? Seems like they are losing sight of what really matters, and I can’t help but wonder if this build up of failure is going to cascade into the Musk companies faltering, which would be a big loss as space flight and green transportation are very important (imo)
  • mulcahey 4y ago
    > on demand massages for their executives SpaceX has had onsite massages for a very long time as a comfort perk to all employees -- no different than FAANG perks https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/google-massages-return-to-work https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/google-massages-return-to... > losing sight of what really matters I wouldn't say so. If anything his companies are doing better than ever. Tesla is doubling revenue / deliveries YoY with insane gross margins and just opened 2 new factories on 2 continents. SpaceX is sending a new batch of Starlink satellites is going up literally every week, and they've sent over 20 people to LEO and back (could you imagine if we had to rely on Russia for this today?!). Not to mention that the autopilot program is full of a ton of really smart & hard working people who put their soul into their work, because the lives saved by bringing the product to fruition will be astronomical. They are making real practical progress on AI systems -- better than can be said of much of academia & industry.
    • micromacrofoot 4y ago
      I think they might be talking more specifically about the story about a SpaceX flight attendant being pressured to get her massage license, only for Musk to eventually expose himself to her and offer to buy her a horse in exchange for sex
• JoshTko 4y ago
  Relevant detail at the bottom "According to one of the complaints, Riad had been cited at least six times for moving violations in the three years before the crash."
  • ghaff 4y ago
    It may or may not be legally relevant--but it's certainly an almost astonishing amount.
• alex_young 4y ago
  > Riad was driving on the 91 freeway, heading west into Gardena. The freeway empties out into Artesia Boulevard at Vermont, but Riad, seemingly unaware of that transition, did not appear to react — and neither did his Tesla. While I don’t think the driver is without serious fault here, shouldn’t Tesla really be able to slow and stop a car coming off of a freeway and presented with a controlled intersection? Don’t get me wrong. I own a Tesla and use Autopilot. I also think that the combination of map and sensor data should clearly prevent incidents such as this one.
  • efitz 4y ago
    Also own a Tesla and use Autopilot regularly. Maps will always lag reality; I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect Tesla maps to have perfect accuracy. The bottom line is, the car is NOT self-driving. If you’re behind the wheel, you’re driving and you’re responsible, just like any other car.
    • dbeley 4y ago
      So why is Tesla calling that feature "autopilot"?
      • efitz 4y ago
        Autopilot is a great name for the feature. An aircraft autopilot controls speed and direction, within limits. The Tesla feature does the same. An autopilot in an airplane does not absolve the pilot of responsibility to maintain vigilance and avoid unsafe conditions. Same in the car.
        • blackoil 4y ago
          The result of lawsuit will tell how much is the driver or company absolved. Also would be interesting if you'll need special licence and 1000 hr training in simulator before allowed to drive Tesla.
          • 4y ago
• pmcollins 4y ago
  > Riad had been cited at least six times for moving violations in the three years before the crash. not an insignificant detail. sounds like the driver was a menace.
• mlindner 4y ago
  This is much ado about nothing. Driver is at fault, end of story.
• trgn 4y ago
  The key part for me was: > [Lawyer] argued that Riad’s actions — driving 74 mph on a surface street — did not rise to “gross negligence” and should not be considered a felony. At that speed, the driver's momentum was around 67.000 kg*m/s. That is an impact about 10 times bigger as getting thrown out of a plane and hitting the ground at terminal velocity. I'd say it's gross negligence to drive that fast at all on any surface street with sidewalks, traffic lights, intersections, stores, whether the driver is asleep at the wheel or not, autopilot or not, drugged or not.
  • iancmceachern 4y ago
    I agree, if the speed limit was below 74.
  • leereeves 4y ago
    > I'd say it's gross negligence to drive that fast at all on any surface street Agreed, but Riad set that speed when he was driving on a freeway, and Autopilot failed to slow down when the freeway became a surface street. I think Riad was negligent for not maintaining control of the car (Tesla even warns drivers to "pay extra attention to the road" when using Autopilot or FSD), but I wonder if Tesla has any liability for marketing Autopilot and FSD capabilities that don't always work.
    • parkingrift 4y ago
      This was autopilot, which is essentially just advanced cruise control. Full self driving is a completely separate product from Tesla.
      • Hamuko 4y ago
        But advanced cruise controls do slow down if the speed changes. https://youtu.be/LEqM2FqUIa8?t=204 https://youtu.be/LEqM2FqUIa8?t=204 Surely the speed limit would change if there's a light-controlled intersection?
        • 4y ago
• iancmceachern 4y ago
  The outcome here will tell us a lot. Mercedes with their entirely different, seemingly more responsible, approach to this, may end up on top in all this.
• Hamuko 4y ago
  >At the time of the crash, the car was going approximately 74 mph. That's an insane speed to go somewhere that isn't decisively apparent to be a highway.
• nunez 4y ago
  This is interesting. Autopilot (without FSD Beta) will not go over 5mph of a road's known speed limit. Moreover, Autopilot will brake to a stop when it detects a potential obstacle and/or collision. Riad hit and killed the couple after a left turn from exiting the freeway. So either speed limit data was missing (in which case the limitation doesn't apply), he had his foot on the pedal and didn't know it (during which Autopilot will not brake; the driver is notified of this if the pedal is pressed down for more than a few seconds), or he turned Autopilot off before the crash (unlikely given the data that's in this article).
  • oxplot 4y ago
    > Autopilot (without FSD Beta) will not go over 5mph of a road's known speed limit. I don't remember such a limit on my M3 but will check tomorrow. You can simply accelerate to any speed below AP's global limit (90mph in this case) and then engage AP. It'll keep at that speed. Meanwhile, Model S'es manual doesn't seem to mention anything in this regard. [1]: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-50331432-B914-400D-B93D-556EAD66FD0B.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-5033143...
    • nunez 4y ago
      If you do that on a road with a speed limit, the cruise speed will be set to a max of five over that limit
      • oxplot 4y ago
        Well, over here in Oz, all roads have speed limits which Tesla knows about and displays. Will have to try myself and will report. Although I'm fairly sure you're confusing engaging AP when under the speed limit at which point it will set it to the speed limit, minus or plus the amount you configure in the settings. So if you configured it to be +5 mph of the speed limit, that's what it gets set to. But if you were already driving at 30mph over the speed limit and engage AP, it will keep your speed. And it makes sense, in case it has incorrectly determined the speed limit, it won't cause safety issue by driving too slowly.
• Jabbles 4y ago
  What is the speed limit of a "surface street"? It's not a term I am familiar with (and presumably it varies by state?).
  • jazzyjackson 4y ago
    surface street just means "not the interstate", in my experience it's a word colloquial to LA, where the interstate highway is almost entirely elevated, so exiting is like coming down to the surface. Tl;dr: 45mph or less
• trinsic2 4y ago
  I am not an expert in autopilot technologies, but my intuition is that its going to take 50 years, or more, for the technology to be ready for this, and the road conditions will need to remove the human-driven cars from the equation for this to work. Putting the driver's responsibility to be aware of what was going on around him aside (which I agree he did not seem to be), Telsa is being grossly negligent for testing this kind of tech in the public sphere. IMHO, computers and software cannot, yet, and for a long time, will not, account for all the variables that are part of driving. People that drive these cars really need to understand that computers cannot think like people. Thats my two cents about this, and I hope that this trial puts the brakes on testing this tech in public.
  • pmoriarty 4y ago
    "IMHO, computers and software cannot, yet, and for a long time, will not, account for all the variables that are part of driving." Neither can every person who's allowed to drive. The question is should we allow semiautonomous/autonomous vehicles that drive at least as good as the worst human drivers who are legally allowed to drive? If not, why not?
    • trinsic2 4y ago
      No. There is no comparison. The brain is light years beyond what a computer and software is capable of, full stop.
      • ichugwindex 4y ago
        Not when sleepy, drunk or distracted.
• 40four 4y ago
  As far as the law and the courts are concerned, I think autopilot part of the story here is irrelevant. As drivers we are responsible for whatever happens when we are behind the wheel. Full stop. It’s pretty obvious they weren’t focused on the road, and failed to realize the highway was ending. On a related note, I’m starting to think Tesla get a bad rap with all the negative press about their advanced cruise control system. And I didn’t call it ‘Autopilot’ here on purpose. Because there are many many versions of advanced cruise control on the market. Tesla does not have a monopoly on this type of technology. I saw an advertisement the other day for full size pickups that have it now. The commercial showed a truck changing lanes and passing another vehicle, while towing a trailer, presumably all on its own. That is terrifying to me haha. Why do we all tend to focus on, and demonize Tesla’s version? Is it because it was one of the first, or maybe just the way Musk tend to be a magnet for criticism & scrutiny? How many wrecks and deaths have been caused by other manufacturer’s systems? It’s got to be happening. This will continue to be a problem, not just for Tesla, as the tech becomes more widespread.
  • corner_case2 4y ago
    > Why do we all tend to focus on, and demonize Tesla’s version? Because Tesla has been claiming fully-autonomous L5 self-driving “will be released next year” for half a decade now. Not to mention robo-taxis, and the continued lies covering up their insufficient camera/perception hardware. Tesla needs HW5 at least. FYI: Andrew Karpathy left Tesla a few months ago and is on garden leave. For better marketing, Elon calls it a sabbatical.
  • Dylan16807 4y ago
    When it comes to trailers specifically, I could be pretty easily convinced that a computer will handle it better than a human. The physics are tricky to intuit and the feedback you get is not great.
  • nolok 4y ago
    I do not know the law in the US for that, but how the manufacturer represent the product and its capabilities can often make him liable. Unlike most others, Tesla has been very brazen to describe its system as self piloting rather than driving assists (but see the tons of asterisk at the bottom who clearly state that we're lying in the big letters!). Naming it Autopilot being one of the most obvious cases, autopilot means something and that's not what theirs does. I know that things like EULA, NDA, and other forms of agreement like that are more easily enforceable there so maybe legally they won't be in trouble, but morally my personal belief is that they absolutely are.
• kylecordes 4y ago
  At the low end of automation, there is the long precedent of cruise control being legal. (I assume this applies to TACC also; maybe some lawyer can weigh in.) Likely almost everyone agrees a excellent-human-driver general-AI grade of full automation should be legal; with a to-be-determined degree of manufacturer liability when a collision occurs. All of the dispute between those extremes boils down to this: Should there be a range of automation that is illegal to make and/or use? What should that range be? What current cars fall in the range? Should the illegality be based only on the technical performance, or also on the branding? When such illegal use happens, who all should be liable / punished?
• lbrindze 4y ago
  Here is my issue with all of this. It very clearly states on tesla's website that "Navigate on Autopilot is designed to get you to your destination more efficiently by actively guiding you from on-ramp to off-ramp, including suggesting lane changes, navigating motorway interchanges, and assist in taking exits."[0] Its unclear which autopilot features the driver thought he had, but if believed he had purchased the "Enhanced autopilot" and that it was enabled wouldnt that mean the Tesla's system failed here? The intersection in question is at the end of a freeway[1] which would constitute an exit. I do agree with most that the driver is partly to blame, but probably not as a felony manslaughter. Tesla on the other hand should be held criminally responsible since at best they are misleading customers into believing their car has features it doesn't and at worst they are claiming a level of system reliability in their product that just does not exist (something I would classify as gross negligence on their part). My father has one of these cars with the enhanced self-driving enabled, and I am always gripped in mild terror whenever I ride with him, regardless of whether it is the car or my father who is driving... [0] https://www.tesla.com/en_AE/support/autopilot-and-full-self-driving-capability https://www.tesla.com/en_AE/support/autopilot-and-full-self-... [1]https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8715442,-118.2917755,17.35z https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8715442,-118.2917755,17.35z
• russellbeattie 4y ago
  Repeat after me: All AI's are guilty until proven innocent. I've been saying this (and getting downvoted) for years: AI is a tool. It is no different from any other tool in that the person using it is responsible for whatever it does. If something happens when an AI is involved, it should be presumed to be at fault. And thus the user of the AI is also presumed to be at fault. This comes into play specifically with the "child in the middle of the road" scenario. At some point our vehicles will become good enough to make actual life and death decisions. Does it swerve into a tree, into oncoming traffic, or take out the child? The only moral, ethical and practical answer is: An AI should choose to harm its user rather than anyone else, because there can never be 100% certainty that the AI did not make a mistake. You choose to use Tesla autopilot and it kills someone? You are responsible. Period. Feel free to sue Tesla for selling you a faulty tool, but you're still culpable for it's use.
• hancholo 4y ago
  I used to work on the autopilot team. It is long and far away from being ready, and true fully autonomous self driving is even farther.
• fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  Is there a good source of information comparing the capabilities of assistive driving systems offered by different automakers? I see that Consumer Reports published something comprehensive in 2020, but it seems like the industry is advancing quickly. Many automakers boast new and improved systems since then. I found this: https://www.autopilotreview.com/cars-with-autopilot-self-driving/ https://www.autopilotreview.com/cars-with-autopilot-self-dri... But the site is very Tesla-oriented, and I’m not sure if the info is up to date for other automakers. Also not sure who the publisher is or whether they are credible. I’ve personally tried out Tesla, Toyota, and VW and the Tesla was definitely the best at the task of driving on the highway in traffic and staying in the lane when the road turned.