4 ms·

The lack of side skirt is an important issue, though human eyes are certainly more important. We do not just rely on just one system to keep us safe on the roa

by kiba 3y ago

The lack of side skirt is an important issue, though human eyes are certainly more important. We do not just rely on just one system to keep us safe on the road, but multiple systems. Road design, trucking regulations, the software or lack thereof, human elements, all contribute to our safety.

lolinder 3y ago
Right, but it's completely unfair of OP to say that the article is poorly researched because it doesn't touch on something tangential. Tesla has marketing materials that say "the person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons", while their lawyers in court say it's "basically just fancy cruise control". That's the story wapo chose to tell, and it's a perfectly legitimate story. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we can learn from this incident, but they're not lazy for not focusing on them in this piece.
- judge2020 3y ago
  Legal reasons include a big popup gating access to the autosteer feature, as well as active driver monitoring to ensure you're watching the road. It's not "only there for legal reasons" and I don't see any marketing material that implies as such [0]. 0: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- vsskanth 3y ago
  I disagree about this being tangential. This article focuses in-depth on a single fatal accident with fancy animations. It's the job of the reporter to explore how other vehicles protect against this and how other regions like EU mitigate loss of life. This is what you call "fact-based" and "unbiased" reporting, that WaPo claims. Otherwise all they would be doing here is exploiting someone's tragedy to drive a pre-ordained conclusion, also known as "opinion". If the article is really about marketing issues with autopilot, they are many more avenues to explore, like how they're actually not allowed to call it "Autopilot" in Germany (try to find the word "Germany" in this article).
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > Otherwise all they would be doing here is exploiting someone's tragedy to drive a pre-ordained conclusion, also known as "opinion". They're emphasizing the point that the man's family is trying to make in court. That's hardly exploiting someone else's tragedy, it's telling their story.

by kiba 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago

Right, but it's completely unfair of OP to say that the article is poorly researched because it doesn't touch on something tangential. Tesla has marketing materials that say "the person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons", while their lawyers in court say it's "basically just fancy cruise control". That's the story wapo chose to tell, and it's a perfectly legitimate story. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we can learn from this incident, but they're not lazy for not focusing on them in this piece.

judge2020 3y ago
Legal reasons include a big popup gating access to the autosteer feature, as well as active driver monitoring to ensure you're watching the road. It's not "only there for legal reasons" and I don't see any marketing material that implies as such [0]. 0: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vsskanth 3y ago
I disagree about this being tangential. This article focuses in-depth on a single fatal accident with fancy animations. It's the job of the reporter to explore how other vehicles protect against this and how other regions like EU mitigate loss of life. This is what you call "fact-based" and "unbiased" reporting, that WaPo claims. Otherwise all they would be doing here is exploiting someone's tragedy to drive a pre-ordained conclusion, also known as "opinion". If the article is really about marketing issues with autopilot, they are many more avenues to explore, like how they're actually not allowed to call it "Autopilot" in Germany (try to find the word "Germany" in this article).
- lolinder 3y ago
  > Otherwise all they would be doing here is exploiting someone's tragedy to drive a pre-ordained conclusion, also known as "opinion". They're emphasizing the point that the man's family is trying to make in court. That's hardly exploiting someone else's tragedy, it's telling their story.