4 ms·

> This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings. Perhaps, but does it hurt more or less than getting life-changing in

by addaon 1y ago

> This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings. Perhaps, but does it hurt more or less than getting life-changing injuries and your partner killed by a Tesla?

cnst 1y ago
So, we have to ignore the entire safety record for the entire technology just because one operator has failed to follow the instructions? This is especially the case for something that was in its infancy back in 2019 when this crash happened. And you know what we have in 2025 because of those restrictions being enforced since then? In 2025, Tesla's nag drivers so much, for not paying attention to the road, that drivers no longer keep the much safer versions of autopilot engaged at all, when looking for their phones. Instead, now, because the issue is "fixed", Tesla drivers simply do the same thing what drivers of any other car do in the situation. They disable autopilot first, and only then stop paying attention to the road, looking for their phone. How's that safer? We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements. (And, add insult to injury, this court is now using the hindsight 20/20, of these warnings subsequently being implemented, as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing in 2019, at a time before anything like that was thought to be possible? Even though, now that these warnings were implemented, we already have evidence that these nags themselves make everybody less safe, since autopilot is simply turned off when you need to stop paying attention to the road?)
- Veserv 1y ago
  What safety record are we ignoring? Can you please cite some scientifically rigorous and statistically sound data, evidence, and analysis? Or are you talking about self-published numbers by the company that is proven to withhold, lie, and misdirect in even official police investigations, subpoenas, and trials where it is actively illegal to do so? Are we talking numbers with a degree of scientific rigor unfit for publication in a middle school science fair, let alone the minimum standard of scientifically rigorous that members of their team had to achieve to get their degrees, yet somehow fail to do when detailing systems that are literally responsible for the life and death of humans?
  - cnst 1y ago
    So where's your unbiased data then? Where's your data that these nags make everyone safer, when it's widely known that they simply result in people turning off the entire autopilot/FSD when the operator needs to stop paying attention to the road, to avoid the nags and the penalty strikes? Where's all the news reports about the crashes without the autopilot engaged? If they were as rare as the autopilot ones, surely we'd have seen some of them covered by the media, right? Or are they so rare that not a single one has happened yet, hence, the lack of any reports being available?
    - Veserv 1y ago
      You are the one claiming it has a “safety record”. You are the one claiming “We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements.” Support your assertion with scientifically rigorous, statistically sound evidence. And no, your ignorance of safety problems is not evidence of safety despite your attempts to argue as such. That was not a valid argument when the cigarette companies made it and it is not valid now.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
There is no car sold in America which could have prevented this accident.
- addaon 1y ago
  And would the driver’s actions have been different if they had understood that? Was their lack of understanding coincidence, correlated with their Tesla ownership by no fault of Tesla, or deliberately engineered by Tesla’s marketing approach?
  - cnst 1y ago
    You know, I've talked to a whole bunch of people who actually own Tesla's, who actually work in tech, and most of them are completely unaware about any of these autopilot features whatsoever. Most people are actually very dismissive of autopilot, and are completely misinformed of the benefits / drawbacks / differences of "FSD" versus "Autopilot". Most are completely unaware of the improvements of v12 or v13, or differences between HW3 or HW4, or which one they have, or that "autopilot" is free, or circumstances under which autopilot can be used etc. I talked to some guy last year (mid 2024) who was actually paying $199/mo for FSD v12, before the price drop to $99/mo, and swearing how great it was, yet he has never tried the parking feature, even though it's been released several months prior. He's a software engineer. That's just one example. So, if anything, Tesla's marketing is nowhere near as successful as these naysayers would make you believe. Because the vast majority of Tesla's own customers are actually far behind on autopilot or FSD buy-in, and are NOT aware of the progress.
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    An average of 100 people die every day in the US due to traffic accidents, many of which would have been prevented by Tesla-like software. You're obsessing about the wrong side of the equation.
- toss1 1y ago
  Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capabilities of "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving". Hell, just the names alone entirely point to no-limitations full self driving. Plus selling $10k upgrades to use your car as a driverless taxi with the next software upgrade, which years later, has never happened. The fine print is BS; the message screams nothing but capable driving. Add to that the instant data collection and real-time deleting it at the scene, and Tesla is 100% wrong. (and I used to admire Tesla and aspire to own one) And this is 100% Tesla's own fault. They did NOT have to market it that way. Had they marketed it as "Advanced Driving Assistant" or "Super Lane-Keeping", or something, and left the data available to the driver, they likely could have won this case easily. "The guy wasn't even looking, we never even implied it could take over all driving, what the hell was he thinking?".
jjk166 1y ago
The law is not supposed to make the utilitarian choice of what causes the least net harm to all people, individual rights be damned. That someone died while unchained is not a compelling argument for everyone to be put in irons.
- cma 1y ago
  Everyone without a driver's license and liability insurance is in chains with respect to driving a car on on public roadways and it is broadly unanimous opinion that it makes perfect sense. Its a mix of utilitarian grounds, externalities, etc. You can't build a large dynamite factory in a residential neighborhood either even if you don't intend for it to blow up.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Well yeah, the law isn't "do whatever you want, there are no rules" either. The important thing is getting your license and insurance is purposefully an extremely low bar. Driving is a dangerous activity, someone could hurt or kill themselves or others every time they get behind the wheel, but so long as you have demonstrated the very most basic understanding of what you're doing (ie getting a license), and taken responsibility for the potential consequences of your actions (ie carrying insurance), you're free to take that risk. Note, you still don't have the right to run over pedestrians, but if you do, you will be held liable, not the manufacturer of your car or the state which granted you a license. You would likely lose your license under such a circumstance, but no one else will lose their licenses to mitigate the risk of future pedestrian impacts. Zoning laws are a complete non sequitur. The issue with building a large dynamite factory in a residential neighborhood is the threat to the people of the neighborhood who not only didn't consent to live near it but specifically chose to live in an area zoned so that such things could not be built. Building a dynamite factory wherever you want is not something you have the innate right to do. That said, you probably can get a permit (assuming you have the proper licenses and insurance) to build a dynamite factory in an appropriately zoned area.

by addaon 1y ago

cnst 1y ago

So, we have to ignore the entire safety record for the entire technology just because one operator has failed to follow the instructions? This is especially the case for something that was in its infancy back in 2019 when this crash happened. And you know what we have in 2025 because of those restrictions being enforced since then? In 2025, Tesla's nag drivers so much, for not paying attention to the road, that drivers no longer keep the much safer versions of autopilot engaged at all, when looking for their phones. Instead, now, because the issue is "fixed", Tesla drivers simply do the same thing what drivers of any other car do in the situation. They disable autopilot first, and only then stop paying attention to the road, looking for their phone. How's that safer? We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements. (And, add insult to injury, this court is now using the hindsight 20/20, of these warnings subsequently being implemented, as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing in 2019, at a time before anything like that was thought to be possible? Even though, now that these warnings were implemented, we already have evidence that these nags themselves make everybody less safe, since autopilot is simply turned off when you need to stop paying attention to the road?)

Veserv 1y ago
What safety record are we ignoring? Can you please cite some scientifically rigorous and statistically sound data, evidence, and analysis? Or are you talking about self-published numbers by the company that is proven to withhold, lie, and misdirect in even official police investigations, subpoenas, and trials where it is actively illegal to do so? Are we talking numbers with a degree of scientific rigor unfit for publication in a middle school science fair, let alone the minimum standard of scientifically rigorous that members of their team had to achieve to get their degrees, yet somehow fail to do when detailing systems that are literally responsible for the life and death of humans?
- cnst 1y ago
  So where's your unbiased data then? Where's your data that these nags make everyone safer, when it's widely known that they simply result in people turning off the entire autopilot/FSD when the operator needs to stop paying attention to the road, to avoid the nags and the penalty strikes? Where's all the news reports about the crashes without the autopilot engaged? If they were as rare as the autopilot ones, surely we'd have seen some of them covered by the media, right? Or are they so rare that not a single one has happened yet, hence, the lack of any reports being available?
  - Veserv 1y ago
    You are the one claiming it has a “safety record”. You are the one claiming “We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements.” Support your assertion with scientifically rigorous, statistically sound evidence. And no, your ignorance of safety problems is not evidence of safety despite your attempts to argue as such. That was not a valid argument when the cigarette companies made it and it is not valid now.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

There is no car sold in America which could have prevented this accident.

addaon 1y ago
And would the driver’s actions have been different if they had understood that? Was their lack of understanding coincidence, correlated with their Tesla ownership by no fault of Tesla, or deliberately engineered by Tesla’s marketing approach?
- cnst 1y ago
  You know, I've talked to a whole bunch of people who actually own Tesla's, who actually work in tech, and most of them are completely unaware about any of these autopilot features whatsoever. Most people are actually very dismissive of autopilot, and are completely misinformed of the benefits / drawbacks / differences of "FSD" versus "Autopilot". Most are completely unaware of the improvements of v12 or v13, or differences between HW3 or HW4, or which one they have, or that "autopilot" is free, or circumstances under which autopilot can be used etc. I talked to some guy last year (mid 2024) who was actually paying $199/mo for FSD v12, before the price drop to $99/mo, and swearing how great it was, yet he has never tried the parking feature, even though it's been released several months prior. He's a software engineer. That's just one example. So, if anything, Tesla's marketing is nowhere near as successful as these naysayers would make you believe. Because the vast majority of Tesla's own customers are actually far behind on autopilot or FSD buy-in, and are NOT aware of the progress.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  An average of 100 people die every day in the US due to traffic accidents, many of which would have been prevented by Tesla-like software. You're obsessing about the wrong side of the equation.
toss1 1y ago
Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capabilities of "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving". Hell, just the names alone entirely point to no-limitations full self driving. Plus selling $10k upgrades to use your car as a driverless taxi with the next software upgrade, which years later, has never happened. The fine print is BS; the message screams nothing but capable driving. Add to that the instant data collection and real-time deleting it at the scene, and Tesla is 100% wrong. (and I used to admire Tesla and aspire to own one) And this is 100% Tesla's own fault. They did NOT have to market it that way. Had they marketed it as "Advanced Driving Assistant" or "Super Lane-Keeping", or something, and left the data available to the driver, they likely could have won this case easily. "The guy wasn't even looking, we never even implied it could take over all driving, what the hell was he thinking?".

jjk166 1y ago

The law is not supposed to make the utilitarian choice of what causes the least net harm to all people, individual rights be damned. That someone died while unchained is not a compelling argument for everyone to be put in irons.

cma 1y ago
Everyone without a driver's license and liability insurance is in chains with respect to driving a car on on public roadways and it is broadly unanimous opinion that it makes perfect sense. Its a mix of utilitarian grounds, externalities, etc. You can't build a large dynamite factory in a residential neighborhood either even if you don't intend for it to blow up.
- jjk166 1y ago
  Well yeah, the law isn't "do whatever you want, there are no rules" either. The important thing is getting your license and insurance is purposefully an extremely low bar. Driving is a dangerous activity, someone could hurt or kill themselves or others every time they get behind the wheel, but so long as you have demonstrated the very most basic understanding of what you're doing (ie getting a license), and taken responsibility for the potential consequences of your actions (ie carrying insurance), you're free to take that risk. Note, you still don't have the right to run over pedestrians, but if you do, you will be held liable, not the manufacturer of your car or the state which granted you a license. You would likely lose your license under such a circumstance, but no one else will lose their licenses to mitigate the risk of future pedestrian impacts. Zoning laws are a complete non sequitur. The issue with building a large dynamite factory in a residential neighborhood is the threat to the people of the neighborhood who not only didn't consent to live near it but specifically chose to live in an area zoned so that such things could not be built. Building a dynamite factory wherever you want is not something you have the innate right to do. That said, you probably can get a permit (assuming you have the proper licenses and insurance) to build a dynamite factory in an appropriately zoned area.