4 ms·

I’m sure there’s no incentive for a driver who’s responsible for an eight car crash to pass buck

by thinking4real 4y ago

tosc 4y ago
Presumably the same incentive as Tesla has.
- google234123 4y ago
  Same? It’s way more liability to handle as a single person than a large company. So
  - smt88 4y ago
    If Tesla admits "FSD" can cause this accident, they admit that it can cause any Tesla accident. It could result in millions in fines and potentially much more in lost sales.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    Publicly traded companies have fiduciary duty to protect their reputation.
- thinking4real 4y ago
  And the article doesn’t state Tesla is making the opposing claim. If it were I’d be equally critical of that press report. Or maybe to the folks here “some guy claims” is a valid source. Maybe I’m in the wrong lol
  - tosc 4y ago
    “Some guy claims”, is a valid source when the claim is credible. We can’t be sure it’s true of course, until we learn more, but it’s just silly to dismiss it out of hand.
capitalsigma 4y ago
Tesla should have logs that show the driver is responsible for the braking, if so
Gigachad 4y ago
You can’t even be responsible for an 8 car crash like this, because they shifted lanes, they are responsible for the first car, but the 6-7 after that are their own faults for tailgating.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  It's really a travesty of how financial liability is handled in this country that your comment is not falsehood. If this were a normal negligence tort vs an automobile crash there would be a very strong case to be made that the driver who set the whole chain of events in motion is responsible for all of it under something akin to the eggshell skull rule.
  - watwut 4y ago
    no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. When you hit someone from behind, it is your fault, because you should have been driving more slowly or further away And that is also absolutely correct way of evaluating it - the one in the back controls attention, speed and distance. The one in front does not.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. And pretty much every state also has a law drivers not to do things like panic stop in the highway without a reason. The rules of the road have redundant responsibility baked in almost everywhere on purpose We abridge a lot of normal rules and legal doctrine for handling civil liability when it comes to car stuff because we have to have quick rules of thumb to deal with the sheer volume of incidents. What you are arguing in favor of here is a very sloppy rule of thumb and such advocacy is likely because you have assessed yourself to be far more likely to be the source of a multi-car wreck than one of the people caught up in it. Ask yourself, if you brake checked someone and caused a chain reaction would you be morally culpable? The overwhelming majority of the population would say yes. So why should you not be financially culpable? Now ask yourself if instead of brake checking someone you were stopping because a child wandered into the road how would that change things. On what grounds do you justify using the same allocation of liability for both these situations?

I’m sure there’s no incentive for a driver who’s responsible for an eight car crash to pass buck

tosc 4y ago

Presumably the same incentive as Tesla has.

google234123 4y ago
Same? It’s way more liability to handle as a single person than a large company. So
- smt88 4y ago
  If Tesla admits "FSD" can cause this accident, they admit that it can cause any Tesla accident. It could result in millions in fines and potentially much more in lost sales.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Publicly traded companies have fiduciary duty to protect their reputation.
thinking4real 4y ago
And the article doesn’t state Tesla is making the opposing claim. If it were I’d be equally critical of that press report. Or maybe to the folks here “some guy claims” is a valid source. Maybe I’m in the wrong lol
- tosc 4y ago
  “Some guy claims”, is a valid source when the claim is credible. We can’t be sure it’s true of course, until we learn more, but it’s just silly to dismiss it out of hand.

capitalsigma 4y ago

Tesla should have logs that show the driver is responsible for the braking, if so

Gigachad 4y ago

You can’t even be responsible for an 8 car crash like this, because they shifted lanes, they are responsible for the first car, but the 6-7 after that are their own faults for tailgating.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
It's really a travesty of how financial liability is handled in this country that your comment is not falsehood. If this were a normal negligence tort vs an automobile crash there would be a very strong case to be made that the driver who set the whole chain of events in motion is responsible for all of it under something akin to the eggshell skull rule.
- watwut 4y ago
  no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. When you hit someone from behind, it is your fault, because you should have been driving more slowly or further away And that is also absolutely correct way of evaluating it - the one in the back controls attention, speed and distance. The one in front does not.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >no. The driver is responsible to keep speed and distance from previous car such that he/she can stop if necessary. And pretty much every state also has a law drivers not to do things like panic stop in the highway without a reason. The rules of the road have redundant responsibility baked in almost everywhere on purpose We abridge a lot of normal rules and legal doctrine for handling civil liability when it comes to car stuff because we have to have quick rules of thumb to deal with the sheer volume of incidents. What you are arguing in favor of here is a very sloppy rule of thumb and such advocacy is likely because you have assessed yourself to be far more likely to be the source of a multi-car wreck than one of the people caught up in it. Ask yourself, if you brake checked someone and caused a chain reaction would you be morally culpable? The overwhelming majority of the population would say yes. So why should you not be financially culpable? Now ask yourself if instead of brake checking someone you were stopping because a child wandered into the road how would that change things. On what grounds do you justify using the same allocation of liability for both these situations?