4 ms·

Meanwhile, the company has defended itself in court documents by arguing that its user manuals and on-screen warnings make “extremely clear” that drivers must b

Meanwhile, the company has defended itself in court documents by arguing that its user manuals and on-screen warnings make “extremely clear” that drivers must be fully in control while using Autopilot. Somewhat unrelated, I have a personal list of automatic liar indicators, "extremely clear" is high on that list.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
How much responsibility does Tesla have in attempting to encourage willfully irresponsible and negligent humans to be less so? Or are we all beholden to the lowest common denominator. The warnings are clear when enabling the driver assistance system. You are responsible. Pay attention. If you don’t, you’re liable. Any Tesla drivers who say otherwise are a combination of ignorant and liars.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Maybe they should call it something like "driver assistance system" rather than "full self driving"? I've never driven a Tesla, so I'm not aware of what warnings are in place, but doesn't it seem reasonable to think that a full self driving system could fully self drive the car? Perhaps it is Tesla who is lying if the car is not capable of driving itself fully?
  - qsdf38100 2y ago
    This "Full Self Driving" thing is absurd. It should already be illegal to sell "Self Driving" cars that are 0% responsible for any crash. But Elon thought it wasn’t enough and decided to go Full Hypocrisy and called it "Full Self Driving". What a joke.
- sorokod 2y ago
  I guess that the outcomes of these lawsuits will tell. I'd phrase your question differently though: how much responsibility does Tesla have in selling a mass consumer product that allows consumers to be irresponsible and negligent in a friction-less manner.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Consumers are already irresponsible (DUIs, road rage, inattentive driving), how is Tesla making it worse with a system that aggressively determines attention via camera and wheel torque? Should they not sell to irresponsible drivers based on their driving record and insurance scoring? I’d tolerate that if it meant responsible drivers don’t get dragged down by the low to median quality driver.
    - sorokod 2y ago
      I am not obliged to contribute to Tesla's business plan and strategy, the question is about a legal obligation, not profit maximization.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Agreed; hopefully the law rules for the responsible, not the irresponsible. But this is America, so could go either way unfortunately.
        FireBeyond 2y ago
        How do you define "responsible" in this context to represent Tesla? Tesla has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance for safety issue after safety issue: Early AP/FSD required a hand on the steering wheel only once every FIFTEEN MINUTES. Tesla was the cause of the requirement to consider an incident "within 5 seconds" of an AP/FSD disengagement to be considered for those factors. Tesla was the last manufacturer to implement cabin monitoring. (I despise them too, for the record) Musk has said that he'd have Tesla pay a fine for every vehicle shipped just to avoid having the airbag warning on sunvisors. Many other tales abound, from component firmware developers being aghast that when shipping new firmware to Tesla that had a 36 hour test suite and cycle, that they'd get emails 3-4 hours later that said "looks great, thanks" and would explain that they "just flashed it onto a car they had and took it for a drive".
        2y ago
- Veserv 2y ago
  The standard is not prominently advertising the opposite of what the manual and fine-print say. People regularly do not read the manual. People regularly do not read warning messages. Everybody knows that. Claiming that you have cleared up confusion because you wrote a warning message that says the opposite of the advertising you created is deliberate and calculated deception. NOBODY in that room made an honest mistake: "Oh my goodness, I thought people read and carefully consider warning messages." BULLSHIT. Everybody knows this is pure legal head-up-ass-covering. Twisting ethics into a pretzel to come up with implausible excuses for such blatant deception is just plain absurd.
RaftPeople 2y ago
> drivers must be fully in control while using Autopilot Sales guy: "You will love the Full Self Driving feature" Customer: "So I can just let the car drive?" Sales guy: "Technically, you must be fully in control, but yes, the car will drive itself" Customer: "But I thought I had to be fully in control" Sales guy: "Oh ya, absolutely, you must be fully in control" Customer: "So I'm fully in control but the Full Self Driving is fully driving?" Sales guy: "Absolutely, it's an amazingly advanced feature that you will love" Customer: "But if I'm fully in control, when does Full Self Driving get a chance to be in control" Sales guy: "The minute you turn it on, there's no delay, it immediately begins Full Self Driving"
- sorokod 2y ago
  I believe that the official term is "Sales Advisor", would be interesting to see the script they follow in such cases.
- vinyl7 2y ago
  I don't know what happened but its like all the regulators disappeared and its just anarchy in corporate america
- kevincox 2y ago
  This is exactly the problem. I think there is very dangerous gap between cruise control (just controlling the speed) and full self driving (the real thing, not the Tesla marketing). I don't know what the exact line is (automatically keeping distance from the car in front seems fine to me, staying in the lane doesn't, but hard to say) but it seems like there should be laws against this dangerous middle area. Personally I think after this point the manufacturer should have to take full responsibility for accidents. (Although questions about maintenance, repairs and modifications will get very complicated.) Humans are really bad at focusing during repetitive tasks. Driving is already pretty repetitive and the more tasks you take away (or take away 99.9% of the time) the more difficult it is for people to stay attentive. I think self-driving is great and will make our roads safer and free up people's time. But I find this "safety driver" situation far too dangerous.
JJMcJ 2y ago
Just calling it Autopilot pushes the idea that the car requires no attention.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

How much responsibility does Tesla have in attempting to encourage willfully irresponsible and negligent humans to be less so? Or are we all beholden to the lowest common denominator. The warnings are clear when enabling the driver assistance system. You are responsible. Pay attention. If you don’t, you’re liable. Any Tesla drivers who say otherwise are a combination of ignorant and liars.

silverquiet 2y ago
Maybe they should call it something like "driver assistance system" rather than "full self driving"? I've never driven a Tesla, so I'm not aware of what warnings are in place, but doesn't it seem reasonable to think that a full self driving system could fully self drive the car? Perhaps it is Tesla who is lying if the car is not capable of driving itself fully?
- qsdf38100 2y ago
  This "Full Self Driving" thing is absurd. It should already be illegal to sell "Self Driving" cars that are 0% responsible for any crash. But Elon thought it wasn’t enough and decided to go Full Hypocrisy and called it "Full Self Driving". What a joke.
sorokod 2y ago
I guess that the outcomes of these lawsuits will tell. I'd phrase your question differently though: how much responsibility does Tesla have in selling a mass consumer product that allows consumers to be irresponsible and negligent in a friction-less manner.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Consumers are already irresponsible (DUIs, road rage, inattentive driving), how is Tesla making it worse with a system that aggressively determines attention via camera and wheel torque? Should they not sell to irresponsible drivers based on their driving record and insurance scoring? I’d tolerate that if it meant responsible drivers don’t get dragged down by the low to median quality driver.
  - sorokod 2y ago
    I am not obliged to contribute to Tesla's business plan and strategy, the question is about a legal obligation, not profit maximization.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Agreed; hopefully the law rules for the responsible, not the irresponsible. But this is America, so could go either way unfortunately.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        How do you define "responsible" in this context to represent Tesla? Tesla has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance for safety issue after safety issue: Early AP/FSD required a hand on the steering wheel only once every FIFTEEN MINUTES. Tesla was the cause of the requirement to consider an incident "within 5 seconds" of an AP/FSD disengagement to be considered for those factors. Tesla was the last manufacturer to implement cabin monitoring. (I despise them too, for the record) Musk has said that he'd have Tesla pay a fine for every vehicle shipped just to avoid having the airbag warning on sunvisors. Many other tales abound, from component firmware developers being aghast that when shipping new firmware to Tesla that had a 36 hour test suite and cycle, that they'd get emails 3-4 hours later that said "looks great, thanks" and would explain that they "just flashed it onto a car they had and took it for a drive".
        2y ago
Veserv 2y ago
The standard is not prominently advertising the opposite of what the manual and fine-print say. People regularly do not read the manual. People regularly do not read warning messages. Everybody knows that. Claiming that you have cleared up confusion because you wrote a warning message that says the opposite of the advertising you created is deliberate and calculated deception. NOBODY in that room made an honest mistake: "Oh my goodness, I thought people read and carefully consider warning messages." BULLSHIT. Everybody knows this is pure legal head-up-ass-covering. Twisting ethics into a pretzel to come up with implausible excuses for such blatant deception is just plain absurd.

RaftPeople 2y ago

> drivers must be fully in control while using Autopilot Sales guy: "You will love the Full Self Driving feature" Customer: "So I can just let the car drive?" Sales guy: "Technically, you must be fully in control, but yes, the car will drive itself" Customer: "But I thought I had to be fully in control" Sales guy: "Oh ya, absolutely, you must be fully in control" Customer: "So I'm fully in control but the Full Self Driving is fully driving?" Sales guy: "Absolutely, it's an amazingly advanced feature that you will love" Customer: "But if I'm fully in control, when does Full Self Driving get a chance to be in control" Sales guy: "The minute you turn it on, there's no delay, it immediately begins Full Self Driving"

sorokod 2y ago
I believe that the official term is "Sales Advisor", would be interesting to see the script they follow in such cases.
vinyl7 2y ago
I don't know what happened but its like all the regulators disappeared and its just anarchy in corporate america
kevincox 2y ago
This is exactly the problem. I think there is very dangerous gap between cruise control (just controlling the speed) and full self driving (the real thing, not the Tesla marketing). I don't know what the exact line is (automatically keeping distance from the car in front seems fine to me, staying in the lane doesn't, but hard to say) but it seems like there should be laws against this dangerous middle area. Personally I think after this point the manufacturer should have to take full responsibility for accidents. (Although questions about maintenance, repairs and modifications will get very complicated.) Humans are really bad at focusing during repetitive tasks. Driving is already pretty repetitive and the more tasks you take away (or take away 99.9% of the time) the more difficult it is for people to stay attentive. I think self-driving is great and will make our roads safer and free up people's time. But I find this "safety driver" situation far too dangerous.

JJMcJ 2y ago

Just calling it Autopilot pushes the idea that the car requires no attention.