7 ms·

Tesla whistleblower casts doubt on car safety

45 points by jmfldn 3y ago

aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
natch 3y ago
It’s a car, so it’s not perfectly safe when users do not follow safe driving instructions. No surprise there. Like any car, drivers have to keep their hands on the wheel and their attention on the road situation, and stay in control at all times. Until FSD is not in beta, there’s no use pointing out that a bad driver can do bad things because that is true in any car. Saying the system is not ready may be true, but it’s not anything we don’t already know. If the point is that some drivers need better education, then sure, this is definitely a special case of that and worthy of close attention.
- freejazz 3y ago
  It's okay for Tesla to put you at risk because others wrongly do so as well?
  - mgoetzke 3y ago
    His point was that the Driver will put you at risk though.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I understand that - what does that have to do with Tesla?
      - natch 3y ago
        Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. As far as we can tell from reading the article, this whistleblower is reporting on stuff that is entirely resulting from driver misbehavior, which is possible in any car. But since he worked at Tesla and has some kind of issue with Tesla, it seems like he’s trying to make it about FSD when it’s really just down to the driver. At least that’s my read of it.
        freejazz 3y ago
        >Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. Well, to the extent it is caused by a Tesla, it absolutely has something to do with Tesla. I don't get to smash into a car because a drunk driver would. Why should a Tesla? It's a bit disingenuous to "put it on the driver" when the driver isn't driving because he's using Tesla's self-driving software.
        natch 3y ago
        How it works is the driver is responsible for maintaining safety at all times. We are talking about the beta here. So it is 100% the driver. When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet.
        freejazz 3y ago
        That's what Tesla says, but that's clearly just a way for them to avoid liability. A system that points you off a cliff and then gives you control after its already terminal is facially defective. >When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet. Sorry, but putting the label "test" on things is not actually a way to avoid legal liablity for your products. No less when you sell them without restriction.
        natch 3y ago
        How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
        freejazz 3y ago
        >How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? A few thoughts here: (1) I didn't propose otherwise, I just pointed out that it's deficient (at least, legally) to say "I can be negligent because others are negligent", or to put it another way "other people's negligence should put you on warning with regards to my negligence", (2) I don't think it's my burden to satisfy this problem, regardless, even granting your point, it doesn't have to proceed the way Tesla has so far, it certainly hasn't with regards to other similar companies making similar products. >And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product should be primarily responsible for how it functions. How exactly is that controversial to you? To whatever extent the driver is jointly liable might be a question, but, given how Tesla's self driving feature works, Tesla is clearly responsible for how it functions, including when it determines that the driver must take over. I've seen nothing that indicates that this function occurs in a way that always allows a driver to establish a safe response to whatever the self-driving couldn't handle. So, to be honest, your question seems a bit absurd to me. >Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control? Yeah, but no one here is talking about when the driver is driving, we are talking abotu when the self-driving feature is driving. You are farcically insisting that the driver is driving even when self-driving is enabled. Can't have it both ways.
- thomaslord 3y ago
  The problem is that humans are bad at sitting there paying attention while they're not actively engaged, which is what's required to use FSD safely. Also, FSD has essentially no benefits if you use it safely. If you listen to someone talk about what they want FSD for, they'll probably tell you they want to be paying attention to something other than driving or that they want to sit in a more comfortable position where their feet aren't on the pedals and/or their hands aren't on the steering wheel. The current Tesla FSD beta has no purpose other than as a tech demo, but people absolutely treat it as if it's ready to be your chauffeur while you take a nap in the back seat.
  - natch 3y ago
    Speak for yourself but I have no problem at all staying engaged when my life is on the line. And FSD beta with me supervising is I must admit a way safer driver than myself alone. The biggest delta is probably follow distance in edge cases. I generally try to keep good follow distance pretty religiously, but FSD does it better. And I’m not talking about the amount of distance. If anything it is closer on average then I would be. I’m talking about the edge case moments when overtaking or getting over to an exit; it is consistently, assiduously, safe at points where I might take a risk and it will not. It also sees way more than I can. Also, it does not have an ego. And it lets me detach my ego involvement with how another driver is behaving. Related, it handles stop and go absolutely amazingly and completely removes the stress of the experience.
  - natch 3y ago
    > The current Tesla FSD beta has no purpose other than as a tech demo This is a bizarre take. FSD beta is many things beyond a demo. To name a few, it’s gathering data, it’s testing the system and improving, and it’s training other drivers, pedestrians, and governments how to live in a world that has FSD cars on the road.
petrut_m 3y ago
I have worked in SW for the automotive industry for 10 years. The amount of times we where stopped from implementing features or had to roll them back and the number of delays because a test showed a decrease in safety was frustrating but I do feel safe driving my daughter around in the cars I worked on because off it. With the cybertruck, just the transition to 48V electrical system means ALL electronic components had to re-engineered, and for an established manufacturer this would mean huge costs and time to retest everything.

45 points by jmfldn 3y ago

[dead]

It’s a car, so it’s not perfectly safe when users do not follow safe driving instructions. No surprise there. Like any car, drivers have to keep their hands on the wheel and their attention on the road situation, and stay in control at all times. Until FSD is not in beta, there’s no use pointing out that a bad driver can do bad things because that is true in any car. Saying the system is not ready may be true, but it’s not anything we don’t already know. If the point is that some drivers need better education, then sure, this is definitely a special case of that and worthy of close attention.

freejazz 3y ago
It's okay for Tesla to put you at risk because others wrongly do so as well?
- mgoetzke 3y ago
  His point was that the Driver will put you at risk though.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I understand that - what does that have to do with Tesla?
    - natch 3y ago
      Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. As far as we can tell from reading the article, this whistleblower is reporting on stuff that is entirely resulting from driver misbehavior, which is possible in any car. But since he worked at Tesla and has some kind of issue with Tesla, it seems like he’s trying to make it about FSD when it’s really just down to the driver. At least that’s my read of it.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        >Exactly. Any driver can put you at risk. Nothing to do with Tesla. Well, to the extent it is caused by a Tesla, it absolutely has something to do with Tesla. I don't get to smash into a car because a drunk driver would. Why should a Tesla? It's a bit disingenuous to "put it on the driver" when the driver isn't driving because he's using Tesla's self-driving software.
        natch 3y ago
        How it works is the driver is responsible for maintaining safety at all times. We are talking about the beta here. So it is 100% the driver. When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet.
        freejazz 3y ago
        That's what Tesla says, but that's clearly just a way for them to avoid liability. A system that points you off a cliff and then gives you control after its already terminal is facially defective. >When the non-beta exists, then we can talk about that, but we aren't there yet. Sorry, but putting the label "test" on things is not actually a way to avoid legal liablity for your products. No less when you sell them without restriction.
        natch 3y ago
        How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
        freejazz 3y ago
        >How do you propose any self driving system reach perfection without ever having a beta testing period? A few thoughts here: (1) I didn't propose otherwise, I just pointed out that it's deficient (at least, legally) to say "I can be negligent because others are negligent", or to put it another way "other people's negligence should put you on warning with regards to my negligence", (2) I don't think it's my burden to satisfy this problem, regardless, even granting your point, it doesn't have to proceed the way Tesla has so far, it certainly hasn't with regards to other similar companies making similar products. >And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety? Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product should be primarily responsible for how it functions. How exactly is that controversial to you? To whatever extent the driver is jointly liable might be a question, but, given how Tesla's self driving feature works, Tesla is clearly responsible for how it functions, including when it determines that the driver must take over. I've seen nothing that indicates that this function occurs in a way that always allows a driver to establish a safe response to whatever the self-driving couldn't handle. So, to be honest, your question seems a bit absurd to me. >Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control? Yeah, but no one here is talking about when the driver is driving, we are talking abotu when the self-driving feature is driving. You are farcically insisting that the driver is driving even when self-driving is enabled. Can't have it both ways.
thomaslord 3y ago
The problem is that humans are bad at sitting there paying attention while they're not actively engaged, which is what's required to use FSD safely. Also, FSD has essentially no benefits if you use it safely. If you listen to someone talk about what they want FSD for, they'll probably tell you they want to be paying attention to something other than driving or that they want to sit in a more comfortable position where their feet aren't on the pedals and/or their hands aren't on the steering wheel. The current Tesla FSD beta has no purpose other than as a tech demo, but people absolutely treat it as if it's ready to be your chauffeur while you take a nap in the back seat.
- natch 3y ago
  Speak for yourself but I have no problem at all staying engaged when my life is on the line. And FSD beta with me supervising is I must admit a way safer driver than myself alone. The biggest delta is probably follow distance in edge cases. I generally try to keep good follow distance pretty religiously, but FSD does it better. And I’m not talking about the amount of distance. If anything it is closer on average then I would be. I’m talking about the edge case moments when overtaking or getting over to an exit; it is consistently, assiduously, safe at points where I might take a risk and it will not. It also sees way more than I can. Also, it does not have an ego. And it lets me detach my ego involvement with how another driver is behaving. Related, it handles stop and go absolutely amazingly and completely removes the stress of the experience.
- natch 3y ago
  > The current Tesla FSD beta has no purpose other than as a tech demo This is a bizarre take. FSD beta is many things beyond a demo. To name a few, it’s gathering data, it’s testing the system and improving, and it’s training other drivers, pedestrians, and governments how to live in a world that has FSD cars on the road.

petrut_m 3y ago

I have worked in SW for the automotive industry for 10 years. The amount of times we where stopped from implementing features or had to roll them back and the number of delays because a test showed a decrease in safety was frustrating but I do feel safe driving my daughter around in the cars I worked on because off it. With the cybertruck, just the transition to 48V electrical system means ALL electronic components had to re-engineered, and for an established manufacturer this would mean huge costs and time to retest everything.