4 ms·

OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker

by abduhl 2y ago

OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...

ETH_start 2y ago
Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product. When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them. Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        This is simply a mischaracterization of the situation. No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be attentive while using the driver assist features.
- abduhl 2y ago
  First, Tesla is not legally required to put the driver in control - they are free to indemnify the driver completely and shoulder all of the liability themselves. Second, who do you think was ultimately the one at fault for the excessive radiation doses caused by the Therac-25 machines: the machine technician operating the machine or the machine manufacturer? If it isn't the technician then I don't understand your argument because you can just find/replace every instance of driver in your post with technician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - gridspy 2y ago
    Therac-25 is more like a stuck accelerator pedal. The operator did not command the machine to deliver too much radiation, that happened outside their control.
    - abduhl 2y ago
      And you think that a driver commands their Tesla to run into an object when they enable autopilot or FSD?
      - gridspy 2y ago
        One is a failure to act as an agent - to control the car and make decisions. Another is a failure to even be a reliable tool - to do what the operator commands. Very different. Creating Agents is a lot harder.
        abduhl 2y ago
        Coming up with new words and terms in order to escape the comparison smacks of This Time It’s Different. Therac-25 was an Agent for performing radiation therapy - it controlled the radiation machine and made decisions. Autopilot/FSD is supposed to be a tool for the driver and it fails to be a reliable tool by driving into things. This Time It’s Not Different At All
        2y ago
lowkeyoptimist 2y ago
If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect. Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.
- gridspy 2y ago
  Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted. Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.

by abduhl 2y ago

ETH_start 2y ago

Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product. When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them. Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      This is simply a mischaracterization of the situation. No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be attentive while using the driver assist features.
abduhl 2y ago
First, Tesla is not legally required to put the driver in control - they are free to indemnify the driver completely and shoulder all of the liability themselves. Second, who do you think was ultimately the one at fault for the excessive radiation doses caused by the Therac-25 machines: the machine technician operating the machine or the machine manufacturer? If it isn't the technician then I don't understand your argument because you can just find/replace every instance of driver in your post with technician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
- gridspy 2y ago
  Therac-25 is more like a stuck accelerator pedal. The operator did not command the machine to deliver too much radiation, that happened outside their control.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    And you think that a driver commands their Tesla to run into an object when they enable autopilot or FSD?
    - gridspy 2y ago
      One is a failure to act as an agent - to control the car and make decisions. Another is a failure to even be a reliable tool - to do what the operator commands. Very different. Creating Agents is a lot harder.
      - abduhl 2y ago
        Coming up with new words and terms in order to escape the comparison smacks of This Time It’s Different. Therac-25 was an Agent for performing radiation therapy - it controlled the radiation machine and made decisions. Autopilot/FSD is supposed to be a tool for the driver and it fails to be a reliable tool by driving into things. This Time It’s Not Different At All
        2y ago

lowkeyoptimist 2y ago

If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect. Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.

gridspy 2y ago
Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted. Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.