3 ms·

First of all I stated my bias. What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence? I would ask, what is the existing definition of auto

First of all I stated my bias. What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence? I would ask, what is the existing definition of autopilot as defined by the FAA? Who is responsible when autopilot fails? That's the prior art here. Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body? I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety and I still don't think this clearly points to Tesla as being in the wrong with how they market these features. At best it's subjective.

freejazz 1y ago
>What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence? The fact that it's not an autopilot is a great start. >I would ask, what is the existing definition of autopilot as defined by the FAA? Who is responsible when autopilot fails? That's the prior art here. I don't think the FAA defines terms, and prior art is something specific to patents that has no relevance to the worlds of marketing and product safety. >Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body? NTSB does not approve of marketing nor does it provide such definitions. On what basis do you have to suggest they did any of the sort that Tesla needed their approval? >>Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body? It's Tesla's. They marketed a product that does not do what they claim it does. The fact that when it does not do those things it can cause (deadly) harm to others, is why they received such a steep adverse judgment. >I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety and I still don't think this clearly points to Tesla as being in the wrong with how they market these features. At best it's subjective. Who cares how neurotic you think you are? You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all. > At best it's subjective. It's objectively not autopilot.
- goosejuice 1y ago
  The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used, and so should the the NHTSA (mixed up the transpo acronyms) for ADAS. I suspect the FTC may address false marketing claims if NHTSA does not. > You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all. This is a discussion. We can disagree. No need to attack me.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    > No need to attack me. I'm not attacking you, it's a direct response to your frequent appeals to yourself as some sort of authority for reason and sensibility in this discussion, when your responses clearly indicate that you are being neither reasonable nor sensible. > The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used, Yeah... in airplanes.
    - goosejuice 1y ago
      Appeals to myself? I'm stating an opinion on the regulatory uncertainty of automobile safety. Don't be ridiculous. My problem with all of this is that the regulatory agencies that cover safety in this country did jack shit to prevent this. Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat. The NHTSA and the FTC could have prevented this, but they're just pointing fingers at Tesla. They dropped the ball.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        > Appeals to myself? ... > I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter. > Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat. Not really. >They dropped the ball. Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem.
        goosejuice 1y ago
        > Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter. This is childish and does nothing for the discussion. It's not about me. I'm not claiming to be an authority, nor am I using myself as one. > Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem. The FTC hasn't once acted on Tesla's marketing. That's tacit approval at this point. The NHTSA has issued two? recalls on Tesla's ADAS and that wasn't until late 2023. Relying on lawsuits from crash victims, based completely on unclear or lack of regulations, is far from the ideal situation. It's only a Tesla problem insofar they make up the vast majority of miles driven with this kind of ADAS. The NHTSA just isn't keeping up. Is Tesla pushing the envelope? Yeah, of course they are. That's by design of the self certifying approach that the NHTSA landed on. Tesla could do a lot more safety testing, but that doesn't mean the regulators haven't dropped the ball. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/05/04/tesla-autopilot-recall-crashes-deaths-nhtsa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/05/04/tes...

freejazz 1y ago

>What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence? The fact that it's not an autopilot is a great start. >I would ask, what is the existing definition of autopilot as defined by the FAA? Who is responsible when autopilot fails? That's the prior art here. I don't think the FAA defines terms, and prior art is something specific to patents that has no relevance to the worlds of marketing and product safety. >Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body? NTSB does not approve of marketing nor does it provide such definitions. On what basis do you have to suggest they did any of the sort that Tesla needed their approval? >>Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body? It's Tesla's. They marketed a product that does not do what they claim it does. The fact that when it does not do those things it can cause (deadly) harm to others, is why they received such a steep adverse judgment. >I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety and I still don't think this clearly points to Tesla as being in the wrong with how they market these features. At best it's subjective. Who cares how neurotic you think you are? You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all. > At best it's subjective. It's objectively not autopilot.

goosejuice 1y ago
The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used, and so should the the NHTSA (mixed up the transpo acronyms) for ADAS. I suspect the FTC may address false marketing claims if NHTSA does not. > You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all. This is a discussion. We can disagree. No need to attack me.
- freejazz 1y ago
  > No need to attack me. I'm not attacking you, it's a direct response to your frequent appeals to yourself as some sort of authority for reason and sensibility in this discussion, when your responses clearly indicate that you are being neither reasonable nor sensible. > The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used, Yeah... in airplanes.
  - goosejuice 1y ago
    Appeals to myself? I'm stating an opinion on the regulatory uncertainty of automobile safety. Don't be ridiculous. My problem with all of this is that the regulatory agencies that cover safety in this country did jack shit to prevent this. Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat. The NHTSA and the FTC could have prevented this, but they're just pointing fingers at Tesla. They dropped the ball.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      > Appeals to myself? ... > I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter. > Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat. Not really. >They dropped the ball. Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem.
      - goosejuice 1y ago
        > Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter. This is childish and does nothing for the discussion. It's not about me. I'm not claiming to be an authority, nor am I using myself as one. > Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem. The FTC hasn't once acted on Tesla's marketing. That's tacit approval at this point. The NHTSA has issued two? recalls on Tesla's ADAS and that wasn't until late 2023. Relying on lawsuits from crash victims, based completely on unclear or lack of regulations, is far from the ideal situation. It's only a Tesla problem insofar they make up the vast majority of miles driven with this kind of ADAS. The NHTSA just isn't keeping up. Is Tesla pushing the envelope? Yeah, of course they are. That's by design of the self certifying approach that the NHTSA landed on. Tesla could do a lot more safety testing, but that doesn't mean the regulators haven't dropped the ball. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/05/04/tesla-autopilot-recall-crashes-deaths-nhtsa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/05/04/tes...