4 ms·

> On one hand I don't think you can apply a price to a human life Yes, although courts do this all the time. Even if you believe this as solely manufacturer er

by bko 1y ago

> On one hand I don't think you can apply a price to a human life Yes, although courts do this all the time. Even if you believe this as solely manufacturer error, there are precedents. Consider General Motors ignition switch recalls. This affected 800k vehicles and resulted in 124 deaths. > As part of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, GM agreed to forfeit $900 million to the United States.[4][51] GM gave $600 million in compensation to surviving victims of accidents caused by faulty ignition switches So about $5m per death, and 300m to the government. This seems excessive for one death, even if you believe Tesla was completely at fault. And the fact that this is the only such case (?) since 2019, seems like the fault isn't really on the manufacturer side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch_recalls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...

panarky 1y ago
If you you make a manufacturing error without intentionally deceiving your customers through deceptive naming of features, you have to pay millions per death. If you intentionally give the feature a deceptive name like "autopilot", and then customers rely on that deceptive name to take their eyes off the road, then you have to pay hundreds of millions per death. Makes sense to me.
- bangaladore 1y ago
  Wouldn't that logic mean any automaker advertising a "collision avoidance system" should be held liable whenever a car crashes into something? In practice, they are not, because the fine print always clarifies that the feature works only under specific conditions and that the driver remains responsible. Tesla's Autopilot and FSD come with the same kind of disclaimers. The underlying principle is the same.
  - bko 1y ago
    Right, this is the frustrating thing about court room activism and general anger towards Tesla. By any stretch of the imagination, this technology is reasonably safe. It has over 3.6 billion miles, currently about 8m miles per day. By all reasonable measures, this technology is safe and useful. I could see why plaintiffs go after Tesla. They have a big target on their back for whatever reason, and activist judges go along. But I don't get how someone on the outside can look at this and think that this technology or marketing over the last 10 years is somehow deceptive or dangerous. https://teslanorth.com/2025/03/28/teslas-full-self-driving-surpasses-3-6-billion-miles-driven/ https://teslanorth.com/2025/03/28/teslas-full-self-driving-s...
    - dmoy 1y ago
      > activist judges Wait what? What activism is the judge doing here? The jury is the one that comes up with the verdict and damage award, no?
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    If it was called "comprehensive collision avoidance system" then yes.
  - panarky 1y ago
    There are plenty of accurate names Tesla could have selected. They could have named it "adaptive cruise control with assisted lane-keeping". Instead their customers are intentionally led to believe it's as safe and autonomous as an airliner's autopilot. Disclaimers don't compensate for a deceptive name, endless false promises and nonstop marketing hype.

by bko 1y ago

panarky 1y ago

If you you make a manufacturing error without intentionally deceiving your customers through deceptive naming of features, you have to pay millions per death. If you intentionally give the feature a deceptive name like "autopilot", and then customers rely on that deceptive name to take their eyes off the road, then you have to pay hundreds of millions per death. Makes sense to me.

bangaladore 1y ago
Wouldn't that logic mean any automaker advertising a "collision avoidance system" should be held liable whenever a car crashes into something? In practice, they are not, because the fine print always clarifies that the feature works only under specific conditions and that the driver remains responsible. Tesla's Autopilot and FSD come with the same kind of disclaimers. The underlying principle is the same.
- bko 1y ago
  Right, this is the frustrating thing about court room activism and general anger towards Tesla. By any stretch of the imagination, this technology is reasonably safe. It has over 3.6 billion miles, currently about 8m miles per day. By all reasonable measures, this technology is safe and useful. I could see why plaintiffs go after Tesla. They have a big target on their back for whatever reason, and activist judges go along. But I don't get how someone on the outside can look at this and think that this technology or marketing over the last 10 years is somehow deceptive or dangerous. https://teslanorth.com/2025/03/28/teslas-full-self-driving-surpasses-3-6-billion-miles-driven/ https://teslanorth.com/2025/03/28/teslas-full-self-driving-s...
  - dmoy 1y ago
    > activist judges Wait what? What activism is the judge doing here? The jury is the one that comes up with the verdict and damage award, no?
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  If it was called "comprehensive collision avoidance system" then yes.
- panarky 1y ago
  There are plenty of accurate names Tesla could have selected. They could have named it "adaptive cruise control with assisted lane-keeping". Instead their customers are intentionally led to believe it's as safe and autonomous as an airliner's autopilot. Disclaimers don't compensate for a deceptive name, endless false promises and nonstop marketing hype.