14 ms·

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the video the Tesla is making a lane change and stopping simultaneously which means there could be a case of the Tesla FSD/driver doing a unsafe lane change.[1] Most of the time FSD just wrecks the Tesla itself or injures the driver of the Tesla (i.e. running into trees/dividers, running into much heavier freight trucks). It will be interesting if Tesla comes in to provide monetary support for proving the legal case that Tesla FSD is not at fault or the Tesla driver (and his insurance) will be left to fend for themselves. In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc. But the long term effects of not legally supporting any driver with Tesla FSD accidents will be that new customers won't trust this $10000 upsell product offering that's highly profitable for Tesla. I could also see 3rd party (non-Tesla) insurance companies refusing to sell coverage to Tesla FSD drivers. It could also make Tesla 1st party insurance also untrustworthy to customers and could become a huge liability for Tesla. It seems like it will be a great litmus test to see if Tesla has the guts to step up for its own product. [1] First video shows a potential unsafe lane change https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-autopilot/ https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto...

Alex3917 4y ago
> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.
- somethoughts 4y ago
  From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault. The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        They should, and I said as much. It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason. I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?
- 7e 4y ago
  In California, it is illegal for a car to stop on a freeway except in an emergency.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Law in question: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21718.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...
  - alanfranz 4y ago
    That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.
    - witheld 4y ago
      The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal. It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. Right, same as what the Tesla did, suddenly stopping on a highway (being in a tunnel makes it worse, as there's no runoff room to the sides).
- kube-system 4y ago
  > it's basically never the fault of the front car Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault. Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care. Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.
- kmoser 4y ago
  It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing. At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.
- watwut 4y ago
  If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here). The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence. The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.
  - mhb 4y ago
    the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage Ha ha ha. London, UK?
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.
      - mhb 4y ago
        That's just silly.
        Gordonjcp 4y ago
        It's one of the things I found baffling about the US, is the sheer amount of cameras on everything. People even put CCTV cameras inside their homes. What on earth?
        mhb 4y ago
        I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse. For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London. https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-t...
- scoopertrooper 4y ago
  It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided. From the police report: > V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change. V-1 = The Tesla > P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3). and it goes on from there... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-02256-redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-0...
  - Alex3917 4y ago
    Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars. I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.
- jjav 4y ago
  > In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc Imagine there is an 'autopilot' gun, you buy it, and it comes with the contract that says you take full responsibility got the gun. Then it shoots me and kills me before you have a chance to react. The prosecutor will go after the manufacturer. If manufacturer wrote code that kills me, you and any contract you signed is not even relevant. You cannot contract away criminal responsibility. Otherwise I could contract away all my responsebilities to a random homeless guy.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  Unless there is precedent and tort "reform" by the given lobby. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Tort is civil law. Criminal liability still can't be insulated.
modeless 4y ago
FSD does not activate on freeways. This is not FSD. It's the same Autopilot that has been in use for many years.
- 7e 4y ago
  Wrong. Here’s a video of FSD in use on a freeway. There are hundreds of these. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RHYbvIZYo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RHYbvIZYo
  - modeless 4y ago
    Wrong. You can plainly see in the video (and the hundreds of others) that as soon as the car enters the freeway it switches to Autopilot automatically. The easiest way to tell is the red lines in the FSD visualization disappear when it switches to Autopilot. The transition is completely smooth and the driver doesn't have to know or care at all, so it's not surprising that they were mistaken. But it's relevant here because people are trying to blame this on FSD. On FSD cars the freeway Autopilot is still the exact same Autopilot that non-FSD cars have (with the "Navigate on Autopilot" feature which is more than four years old now). They plan to replace freeway Autopilot with FSD later this year, but it hasn't happened yet.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      If drivers are unlikely to notice the transition and the capabilities are significantly different that seems problematic.
      - modeless 4y ago
        It is not problematic because the capability of Autopilot on freeways is not significantly different to FSD on other roads. Drivers do not need to adjust their behavior based on the system in use. Of course they should keep hands on wheel and eyes on road at all times using both systems, which is enforced with regular nagging and a driver-facing camera.
    - 4y ago
toast0 4y ago
> It will be interesting if Tesla comes in to provide monetary support for proving the legal case that Tesla FSD is not at fault or the Tesla driver (and his insurance) will be left to fend for themselves. > In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc. > But the long term effects of not legally supporting any driver with Tesla FSD accidents will be that new customers won't trust this $10000 upsell product offering that's highly profitable for Tesla. Tesla publicly disparages people who died relying on their products, and refuses to cooperate with the NTSB. I'd expect nothing less in this case. Somehow that hasn't been a big factor in sales.
- somethoughts 4y ago
  Agreed. It seems like a great short term strategy to get out of trouble quickly but long term it doesn't seem smart to use the most ardent Tesla evangelists who are literally willing to put their lives on the line as scapegoats. It seems the take rate of FSD for new Tesla purchases is not as high as it used to be - perhaps due to the increase in price and other Autopilot-FSD bundling/unbundling aspects - but also perhaps due to negative press from the accidents thus far. [1] Definitely something to watch as/if the accident incidents accumulate. [1] https://twitter.com/troyteslike/status/1586356451639189504 https://twitter.com/troyteslike/status/1586356451639189504?
- numpad0 4y ago
  In my gut feeling, it's never had been a factor because Tesla had no competitors in good-looking, UX focused EVs. Tesla buyers had specific, unaddressed reasons that competitors were either missing or had been ignorant about, just like how Nokia lost to iPhone.
- 93po 4y ago
  > refuses to cooperate with the NTSB This is completely false. Tesla is legally required, and complies every time, to release crash data to the NTSB. This data includes whether or not self driving was enabled. > Tesla publicly disparages people Tesla refutes that self driving is enabled when people lie about it. I am sure there is an incident or two of someone being sassy about calling out these lies but there is no trend of "disparagement"
justapassenger 4y ago
It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way. Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed. That’s the thing about testing on the public roads - there are many ways you can affect other users.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is significantly at fault.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.
      - ht85 4y ago
        Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?
kart23 4y ago
> think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. Autopilot has killed multiple motorcyclists, and is suspected in many other cases, totaling 19 fatalities. This isn't the first, our regulatory bodies are just incredibly slow at this. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-into-motorbike-deaths-false-advertising/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-... https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-crash-motorcyclist-fatal-utah-nhtsa https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-...
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.
  - suslik 4y ago
    Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
janalsncm 4y ago
That would be very interesting. Stand behind your product. If FSD becomes a public nuisance they will quickly become uninsurable or worse. I was thinking today about the Southwest disaster, not only for customers but for the company’s reputation. But I know a great way to win it back: cash. Promise it won’t happen again, but if it does, offer best in industry cash compensation. Prove that your company gives a shit. I will be very disappointed if they expect time alone to heal this.
enslavedrobot 4y ago
FSDbeta is not enabled on highways. It's not clear to me that it's even possible to be on FSD in that tunnel. Interestingly, the article is careful to say that the driver "claims" it was on FSDbeta. More to this story.

Alex3917 4y ago

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.

somethoughts 4y ago
From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault. The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.
sokoloff 4y ago
If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 4y ago
  Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      They should, and I said as much. It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason. I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?
7e 4y ago
In California, it is illegal for a car to stop on a freeway except in an emergency.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Law in question: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21718.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
lamontcg 4y ago
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...
- alanfranz 4y ago
  That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.
  - witheld 4y ago
    The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal. It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. Right, same as what the Tesla did, suddenly stopping on a highway (being in a tunnel makes it worse, as there's no runoff room to the sides).
kube-system 4y ago
> it's basically never the fault of the front car Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault. Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care. Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.
kmoser 4y ago
It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing. At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.
watwut 4y ago
If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here). The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence. The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.
- mhb 4y ago
  the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage Ha ha ha. London, UK?
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.
    - mhb 4y ago
      That's just silly.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        It's one of the things I found baffling about the US, is the sheer amount of cameras on everything. People even put CCTV cameras inside their homes. What on earth?
        mhb 4y ago
        I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse. For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London. https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-t...
scoopertrooper 4y ago
It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided. From the police report: > V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change. V-1 = The Tesla > P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3). and it goes on from there... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-02256-redacted https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-0...
- Alex3917 4y ago
  Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars. I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.
jjav 4y ago
> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc Imagine there is an 'autopilot' gun, you buy it, and it comes with the contract that says you take full responsibility got the gun. Then it shoots me and kills me before you have a chance to react. The prosecutor will go after the manufacturer. If manufacturer wrote code that kills me, you and any contract you signed is not even relevant. You cannot contract away criminal responsibility. Otherwise I could contract away all my responsebilities to a random homeless guy.

smileysteve 4y ago
Unless there is precedent and tort "reform" by the given lobby. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Tort is civil law. Criminal liability still can't be insulated.

modeless 4y ago

FSD does not activate on freeways. This is not FSD. It's the same Autopilot that has been in use for many years.

7e 4y ago
Wrong. Here’s a video of FSD in use on a freeway. There are hundreds of these. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RHYbvIZYo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RHYbvIZYo
- modeless 4y ago
  Wrong. You can plainly see in the video (and the hundreds of others) that as soon as the car enters the freeway it switches to Autopilot automatically. The easiest way to tell is the red lines in the FSD visualization disappear when it switches to Autopilot. The transition is completely smooth and the driver doesn't have to know or care at all, so it's not surprising that they were mistaken. But it's relevant here because people are trying to blame this on FSD. On FSD cars the freeway Autopilot is still the exact same Autopilot that non-FSD cars have (with the "Navigate on Autopilot" feature which is more than four years old now). They plan to replace freeway Autopilot with FSD later this year, but it hasn't happened yet.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    If drivers are unlikely to notice the transition and the capabilities are significantly different that seems problematic.
    - modeless 4y ago
      It is not problematic because the capability of Autopilot on freeways is not significantly different to FSD on other roads. Drivers do not need to adjust their behavior based on the system in use. Of course they should keep hands on wheel and eyes on road at all times using both systems, which is enforced with regular nagging and a driver-facing camera.
  - 4y ago

toast0 4y ago

> It will be interesting if Tesla comes in to provide monetary support for proving the legal case that Tesla FSD is not at fault or the Tesla driver (and his insurance) will be left to fend for themselves. > In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc. > But the long term effects of not legally supporting any driver with Tesla FSD accidents will be that new customers won't trust this $10000 upsell product offering that's highly profitable for Tesla. Tesla publicly disparages people who died relying on their products, and refuses to cooperate with the NTSB. I'd expect nothing less in this case. Somehow that hasn't been a big factor in sales.

somethoughts 4y ago
Agreed. It seems like a great short term strategy to get out of trouble quickly but long term it doesn't seem smart to use the most ardent Tesla evangelists who are literally willing to put their lives on the line as scapegoats. It seems the take rate of FSD for new Tesla purchases is not as high as it used to be - perhaps due to the increase in price and other Autopilot-FSD bundling/unbundling aspects - but also perhaps due to negative press from the accidents thus far. [1] Definitely something to watch as/if the accident incidents accumulate. [1] https://twitter.com/troyteslike/status/1586356451639189504 https://twitter.com/troyteslike/status/1586356451639189504?
numpad0 4y ago
In my gut feeling, it's never had been a factor because Tesla had no competitors in good-looking, UX focused EVs. Tesla buyers had specific, unaddressed reasons that competitors were either missing or had been ignorant about, just like how Nokia lost to iPhone.
93po 4y ago
> refuses to cooperate with the NTSB This is completely false. Tesla is legally required, and complies every time, to release crash data to the NTSB. This data includes whether or not self driving was enabled. > Tesla publicly disparages people Tesla refutes that self driving is enabled when people lie about it. I am sure there is an incident or two of someone being sassy about calling out these lies but there is no trend of "disparagement"

justapassenger 4y ago

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way. Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed. That’s the thing about testing on the public roads - there are many ways you can affect other users.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is significantly at fault.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.
    - ht85 4y ago
      Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

kart23 4y ago

> think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. Autopilot has killed multiple motorcyclists, and is suspected in many other cases, totaling 19 fatalities. This isn't the first, our regulatory bodies are just incredibly slow at this. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-into-motorbike-deaths-false-advertising/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-... https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-crash-motorcyclist-fatal-utah-nhtsa https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-...

MengerSponge 4y ago
But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.
- suslik 4y ago
  Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago

janalsncm 4y ago

That would be very interesting. Stand behind your product. If FSD becomes a public nuisance they will quickly become uninsurable or worse. I was thinking today about the Southwest disaster, not only for customers but for the company’s reputation. But I know a great way to win it back: cash. Promise it won’t happen again, but if it does, offer best in industry cash compensation. Prove that your company gives a shit. I will be very disappointed if they expect time alone to heal this.

enslavedrobot 4y ago

FSDbeta is not enabled on highways. It's not clear to me that it's even possible to be on FSD in that tunnel. Interestingly, the article is careful to say that the driver "claims" it was on FSDbeta. More to this story.