5 ms·

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 c

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".
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        These actions have not incurred a material number of deaths. Zero deaths is unattainable, a handful are tolerable. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
        FireBeyond 2y ago
        Pretty bold of you to decide people who were killed (particularly non-Tesla owners) because of issues with drivers using Tesla's barely competent (at BEST) software are "tolerable".
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        I did not decide. Regulators have decided; the fleet retains the driver assist capability. Changes have been made of course to appease regulatory bodies, which is good and desirable. Ergo, this quantity and types of death incurred is within government regulator risk appetite. As mentioned up thread, irresponsible drivers hold the blame for deaths caused. If you can’t use the feature safely, you shouldn’t use it, or have access to it. Irresponsible drivers in non Tesla vehicles will continue to maim and kill others just fine on a daily basis (~40k deaths/year, ~109 per day). (I despise Elon too, but the data tells the story for us)
        Veserv 2y ago
        You have presented a lower bound on deaths. You can establish that it is at least as dangerous as X. To demonstrate safety you need to establish a credible upper bound, then you can credibly assert it is at most as dangerous as X. Even if we do not attempt to estimate the true underlying rate, there are over 1,000 reported crashes that Tesla has declined to investigate. The upper bound can not be tightened further than that without investigation or a robust predictive/statistical model. Even underestimating the credible upper bound at 1,000 fatalities constitutes a material number of deaths as that would be many times less safe than a human driver. You need to tighten the upper bound before your assertions that there have not been a material number of deaths are credible.

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".
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      These actions have not incurred a material number of deaths. Zero deaths is unattainable, a handful are tolerable. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        Pretty bold of you to decide people who were killed (particularly non-Tesla owners) because of issues with drivers using Tesla's barely competent (at BEST) software are "tolerable".
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        I did not decide. Regulators have decided; the fleet retains the driver assist capability. Changes have been made of course to appease regulatory bodies, which is good and desirable. Ergo, this quantity and types of death incurred is within government regulator risk appetite. As mentioned up thread, irresponsible drivers hold the blame for deaths caused. If you can’t use the feature safely, you shouldn’t use it, or have access to it. Irresponsible drivers in non Tesla vehicles will continue to maim and kill others just fine on a daily basis (~40k deaths/year, ~109 per day). (I despise Elon too, but the data tells the story for us)
      - Veserv 2y ago
        You have presented a lower bound on deaths. You can establish that it is at least as dangerous as X. To demonstrate safety you need to establish a credible upper bound, then you can credibly assert it is at most as dangerous as X. Even if we do not attempt to estimate the true underlying rate, there are over 1,000 reported crashes that Tesla has declined to investigate. The upper bound can not be tightened further than that without investigation or a robust predictive/statistical model. Even underestimating the credible upper bound at 1,000 fatalities constitutes a material number of deaths as that would be many times less safe than a human driver. You need to tighten the upper bound before your assertions that there have not been a material number of deaths are credible.