3 ms·

The responsibility doesn't shift, it always lies with the human. One problem is that humans are notoriously poor at maintaining attention when supervising auto

The responsibility doesn't shift, it always lies with the human. One problem is that humans are notoriously poor at maintaining attention when supervising automation Until the car is ready to take over as legal driver, it's foolish to set the human driver up for failure in the way that Tesla (and the humans driving Tesla cars) do.

f1shy 2y ago
What?! So if there is a failure and the car goes full throttle (no autonomous car) it is my responsibility?! You are pretty wrong!!!
- kgermino 2y ago
  You are responsible (Legally, contractually, morally) for supervising FSD today. If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. The whole point is that is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation but it’s what Tesla expects you to do today
  - f1shy 2y ago
    My example was clear about NOT about autonomous driving. Because the previous comment seems to imply for everything you are responsible
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. Didn't Tesla have an issue a couple of years ago where pressing the brake did not disengage any throttle? i.e. if the car has a bug and puts throttle to 100% and you stand on the brake, the car should say "cut throttle to 0", but instead, you just had 100% throttle, 100% brake?
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      If it did, it wouldn’t matter. Brakes are required to be stronger than engines.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        That makes no sense. Yes, they are. But brakes are going to be more reactive and performant with the throttle at 0 than 100. You can't imagine that the stopping distances will be the same.
- xondono 2y ago
  Autopilot, FSD, etc.. are all legally classified as ADAS, so it’s different from e.g. your car not responding to controls. The liability lies with the driver, and all Tesla needs to prove is that input from the driver will override any decision made by the ADAS.
- andrewaylett 2y ago
  The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again? In this case, the behaviour of the system and the responsibility of the driver is well-established. I'd actually quite like it if Tesla were held responsible for their software, but they somehow continue to skirt the line wherein they require the driver to retain vigilance and any system failures are therefore the (legal) fault of the human not the car despite advertising it as "Full Self Driving".
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again? In most American jurisdictions' liability law, the more usual thing is to expand liability, rather than transferring liability. The idea that exactly one -- or at most one -- person or entity should be liable for any given portion of any given harm is a common popular one in places like HN, but the law is much more accepting of the situation where lots of people may have overlapping liability for the same harm, with none relieving the others. The liability of a driver for maintenance and operation within the law is not categorically mutually exclusive with the liability of the manufacturer (and, indeed, every party in the chain of commerce) for manufacturing defects. If a car is driven in a way that violates the rules of the road and causes an accident and a manufacturing defect in a driver assistance system contributed to that, it is quite possible for the driver, manufacturer of the driver assistance system, manufacturer of the vehicle (if different from that of the assistance system) and seller of the vehicle to the driver (if different from the last two), among others, to all be fully liable to those injured for the harms.
mannykannot 2y ago
> The responsibility doesn't shift, it always lies with the human. Indeed, and that goes for the person or persons who say that the products they sell are safe when used in a certain way.

f1shy 2y ago

What?! So if there is a failure and the car goes full throttle (no autonomous car) it is my responsibility?! You are pretty wrong!!!

kgermino 2y ago
You are responsible (Legally, contractually, morally) for supervising FSD today. If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. The whole point is that is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation but it’s what Tesla expects you to do today
- f1shy 2y ago
  My example was clear about NOT about autonomous driving. Because the previous comment seems to imply for everything you are responsible
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. Didn't Tesla have an issue a couple of years ago where pressing the brake did not disengage any throttle? i.e. if the car has a bug and puts throttle to 100% and you stand on the brake, the car should say "cut throttle to 0", but instead, you just had 100% throttle, 100% brake?
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    If it did, it wouldn’t matter. Brakes are required to be stronger than engines.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      That makes no sense. Yes, they are. But brakes are going to be more reactive and performant with the throttle at 0 than 100. You can't imagine that the stopping distances will be the same.
xondono 2y ago
Autopilot, FSD, etc.. are all legally classified as ADAS, so it’s different from e.g. your car not responding to controls. The liability lies with the driver, and all Tesla needs to prove is that input from the driver will override any decision made by the ADAS.
andrewaylett 2y ago
The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again? In this case, the behaviour of the system and the responsibility of the driver is well-established. I'd actually quite like it if Tesla were held responsible for their software, but they somehow continue to skirt the line wherein they require the driver to retain vigilance and any system failures are therefore the (legal) fault of the human not the car despite advertising it as "Full Self Driving".
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again? In most American jurisdictions' liability law, the more usual thing is to expand liability, rather than transferring liability. The idea that exactly one -- or at most one -- person or entity should be liable for any given portion of any given harm is a common popular one in places like HN, but the law is much more accepting of the situation where lots of people may have overlapping liability for the same harm, with none relieving the others. The liability of a driver for maintenance and operation within the law is not categorically mutually exclusive with the liability of the manufacturer (and, indeed, every party in the chain of commerce) for manufacturing defects. If a car is driven in a way that violates the rules of the road and causes an accident and a manufacturing defect in a driver assistance system contributed to that, it is quite possible for the driver, manufacturer of the driver assistance system, manufacturer of the vehicle (if different from that of the assistance system) and seller of the vehicle to the driver (if different from the last two), among others, to all be fully liable to those injured for the harms.

mannykannot 2y ago

> The responsibility doesn't shift, it always lies with the human. Indeed, and that goes for the person or persons who say that the products they sell are safe when used in a certain way.