3 ms·

> However Mercedes are taking liability whilst their system is in use Are they? This press release doesn't actually say so. There was an announcement a while

by ajross 3y ago

> However Mercedes are taking liability whilst their system is in use Are they? This press release doesn't actually say so. There was an announcement a while back when they deployed this system in Germany, but that's obviously a different legal environment. FWIW, this is mostly spin anyway. Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's either there or not. If Tesla FSD causes an accident, they can absolutely be sued for that in the US. And they have been on a handful of occasions (Successfully even, I think? Pretty sure there were settlements in some of the early AP accidents?). The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. The system as deployed is safe, but that doesn't match people's priors so we end up in arguments like this about "accepting liability" instead of "it crashed".

enragedcacti 3y ago
[1] (2) (A) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle that meets the definition of Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 [2] (c) The manufacturer has in place and has provided the department with evidence of the manufacturer's ability to respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=38750 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-p... > FWIW, this is mostly spin anyway. Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's either there or not. Mercedes is releasing an L3 product in a jurisdiction where operation of L3 products is insured by the manufacturer. That is substantially different than "someone could sue them and maybe maybe maybe win" > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. There have been 736 known AP/FSD crashes and 17 deaths. The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is that they aren't legally liable for their level 2 system under existing AV regulation. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/theres-been-a-whopping-736-tesla-crashes-involving-autopilot-mode-since-2019-report-finds/ar-AA1cnzgH https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/theres-been-a-whopping-...
- ajross 3y ago
  Sorry, where do you get "accept liability" from "ability to respond to a judgement for damages"? That's not a requirement to pay, that just requires that the company have the ability to pay if they are found liable! It's the corporate equivalent of requiring liability insurance. Show me the contract (or hell, even a press release) where Mercedes acknowledged accepting liability in the US. I really don't think this happened.
  - piotrkaminski 3y ago
    There were a ton of articles around 2022-03-20 (e.g., [1]) that had a line like this: > Once you engage Drive Pilot, you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages. Not quite a press release but given that Mercedes never denied the claims it's pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how this is implemented legally, of course. [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-mercedes-drivepilot-causes-a-crash/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-...
    - ajross 3y ago
      That was a German product though. The press release about the american rollout is notably missing that language.
      - piotrkaminski 3y ago
        Hmm, the latest article [1] specifically about the California authorization says: > When active, Mercedes takes responsibility for Drive Pilot's actions. and > "Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot is the world's only SAE Level 3 system with internationally valid type approval," Mercedes CTO Markus Schäfer said in a statement. Not as clear-cut as you'd want it to be but certainly leaning towards the claim. I guess we'll know for sure once the cars actually go on sale in California. [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44139131/mercedes-benz-selling-level-3-self-driving-cars-california/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44139131/mercedes-benz-se...
  - 3y ago
ra7 3y ago
> Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's either there or not. If Tesla FSD causes an accident, they can absolutely be sued for that in the US. That’s not what liability means here. Assuming the story is true, it means Mercedes is responsible for damages caused when the system is engaged and the users know that when they buy the car. Being sued afterwards is not the same thing. > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. Or because Tesla actively hides accident data by using suspect methodology and not following regulations about disclosure. Just a couple of days ago there was a user report of FSD hitting and killing a dog: https://twitter.com/TeslaUberRide/status/1666860361381818384?s=20 https://twitter.com/TeslaUberRide/status/1666860361381818384... Unsurprisingly, it won’t show up in any of the stats Tesla publishes in their two-paragraph “safety report”. That’s because they don’t consider any contact that doesn’t deploy airbags to be an accident. There are plenty of reports like this that are not being counted. Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and contact events.
- toast0 3y ago
  > Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and contact events. Tesla letters to CA DMV claim they don't participate because their system isn't a self-driving system. Which is fine, other than they're telling customers it is at the same time.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    A word's meaning is a specific legal document can be different than a word's meaning in a product's marketing material.
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      Can. It can also be the same.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago

by ajross 3y ago

enragedcacti 3y ago

[1] (2) (A) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle that meets the definition of Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 [2] (c) The manufacturer has in place and has provided the department with evidence of the manufacturer's ability to respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=38750 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-p... > FWIW, this is mostly spin anyway. Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's either there or not. Mercedes is releasing an L3 product in a jurisdiction where operation of L3 products is insured by the manufacturer. That is substantially different than "someone could sue them and maybe maybe maybe win" > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. There have been 736 known AP/FSD crashes and 17 deaths. The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is that they aren't legally liable for their level 2 system under existing AV regulation. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/theres-been-a-whopping-736-tesla-crashes-involving-autopilot-mode-since-2019-report-finds/ar-AA1cnzgH https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/theres-been-a-whopping-...

ajross 3y ago
Sorry, where do you get "accept liability" from "ability to respond to a judgement for damages"? That's not a requirement to pay, that just requires that the company have the ability to pay if they are found liable! It's the corporate equivalent of requiring liability insurance. Show me the contract (or hell, even a press release) where Mercedes acknowledged accepting liability in the US. I really don't think this happened.
- piotrkaminski 3y ago
  There were a ton of articles around 2022-03-20 (e.g., [1]) that had a line like this: > Once you engage Drive Pilot, you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until it disengages. Not quite a press release but given that Mercedes never denied the claims it's pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how this is implemented legally, of course. [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-mercedes-drivepilot-causes-a-crash/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-...
  - ajross 3y ago
    That was a German product though. The press release about the american rollout is notably missing that language.
    - piotrkaminski 3y ago
      Hmm, the latest article [1] specifically about the California authorization says: > When active, Mercedes takes responsibility for Drive Pilot's actions. and > "Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot is the world's only SAE Level 3 system with internationally valid type approval," Mercedes CTO Markus Schäfer said in a statement. Not as clear-cut as you'd want it to be but certainly leaning towards the claim. I guess we'll know for sure once the cars actually go on sale in California. [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44139131/mercedes-benz-selling-level-3-self-driving-cars-california/ https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a44139131/mercedes-benz-se...
- 3y ago

ra7 3y ago

> Liability isn't generally something that is granted, it's either there or not. If Tesla FSD causes an accident, they can absolutely be sued for that in the US. That’s not what liability means here. Assuming the story is true, it means Mercedes is responsible for damages caused when the system is engaged and the users know that when they buy the car. Being sued afterwards is not the same thing. > The reason that "Tesla is liable for accidents" doesn't make news is... that there are vanishingly few AP/FSD accidents. Or because Tesla actively hides accident data by using suspect methodology and not following regulations about disclosure. Just a couple of days ago there was a user report of FSD hitting and killing a dog: https://twitter.com/TeslaUberRide/status/1666860361381818384?s=20 https://twitter.com/TeslaUberRide/status/1666860361381818384... Unsurprisingly, it won’t show up in any of the stats Tesla publishes in their two-paragraph “safety report”. That’s because they don’t consider any contact that doesn’t deploy airbags to be an accident. There are plenty of reports like this that are not being counted. Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and contact events.

toast0 3y ago
> Not to mention, Tesla is openly violating at least CA DMV regulations that require reporting of all disengagements and contact events. Tesla letters to CA DMV claim they don't participate because their system isn't a self-driving system. Which is fine, other than they're telling customers it is at the same time.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  A word's meaning is a specific legal document can be different than a word's meaning in a product's marketing material.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Can. It can also be the same.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago