2 ms·
Tesla self driving is only level 2 and they explicitly say that the driver must be fully attentive and have hands on the wheel at all times. So no matter how th
by sigmoid10 3y ago
Tesla self driving is only level 2 and they explicitly say that the driver must be fully attentive and have hands on the wheel at all times. So no matter how the courts rule here, it'll be about wording at best. A much more interesting case will come once Mercedes produces its inevitable first fatality with their level 3 system. Rather unlikely for now due to lots of factors (only works up to 40km/h, only on certain roads and much fewer cars sold), but this will set the stage for how far manufacturer liability actually goes for self driving.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Robotbeat 3y agoWhy is this comment downvoted? It’s pointing out correctly that the Mercedes system is the only one that allows you to take your hands off the wheel. Death is inevitable in literally any system, the point is to lower the death probability to well below human drivers.
- rootusrootus 3y ago> Why is this comment downvoted? Probably because the first sentence tries to say that 'full self driving' does not mean 'full self driving.'
- sigmoid10 3y ago...hence the whole case being about wording (i.e. marketing) that surrounds a feature, not the liabilities of actual self-driving.
- paxys 3y ago> So no matter how the courts rule here, it'll be about wording at best. That describes just about every civil court case in the world. The law is all about interpreting the meaning of words. Whether Tesla misled consumers into thinking their car could do more than it was capable of is a very important ruling, and will set a strong precedent for the entire self driving industry.
- sigmoid10 3y agoMisleading marketing is not new and no matter the ruling it will have little to no impact on actual future self driving liabilities.