10 ms·

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

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?

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?