6 ms·

Because that's the law of the land currently. The product you buy is called "FSD Supervised". It clearly states you're liable and must supervise the system. I

by kjksf 9mo ago

Because that's the law of the land currently. The product you buy is called "FSD Supervised". It clearly states you're liable and must supervise the system. I don't think there's law that would allow Tesla (or anyone else) to sell a passenger car with unsupervised system. If you take Waymo or Tesla Robotaxi in Austin, you are not liable for accidents, Google or Tesla is. That's because they operate on limited state laws that allow them to provide such service but the law doesn't allow selling such cars to people. That's changing. Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car.

jasoncartwright 9mo ago
I see. So not Tesla's product they are using to sell insurance around isn't "Full Self-Driving" or "Autonomous" like the page says.
- FeloniousHam 9mo ago
  My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles (since v14.x). Besides driving everywhere, everyday with FSD, I have driven 4 hours garage to hotel valet without intervention. It is absolutely "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous". FSD isn't perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.
  - jasoncartwright 9mo ago
    Yet still on relying you to cover it with your insurance. Again, clearly not autonomous.
    - dzhiurgis 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - zen928 9mo ago
        Disagree. I appreciate their viewpoint tethering corporate claims to reality by illustrating Tesla is obfuscating the classification of their machines to be autonomous, when they actually aren't. Their comments in other thread chains proved to be fruitful when lacking agitators looking to dismiss critique by citing website rules, like the post adding additional detail to how Tesla muddles legal claims by cooking up cherry-picked evidence that work against the driver despite being the insurer.
    - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
      Liability is a separate matter from autonomy. I assume you'd consider yourself autonomous, yet it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle. If the company required a representative to sit in the car with you and participate in the driving (e.g. by monitoring and taking over before an accident), then there's a case to be made that you're not fully autonomous.
      - buran77 9mo ago
        > it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle I think you're mixing some concepts. There's car insurance paid by the owner of the car, for the car. There's workplace accident insurance, paid by the employer for the employee. The liability isn't assigned by default, but by determining who's responsible. The driver is always legally responsible for accidents caused by their negligence. If you play with your phone behind the wheel and kill someone, even while working and driving a company car, the company's insurance might pay for the damage but you go to prison. The company will recover the money from you. Their work accident insurance will pay nothing. The test you can run in your head: will you get arrested if you fall asleep at the wheel and crash? If yes, then it's not autonomous or self driving. It just has driver assistance. It's not that the car can't drive itself at all, just that it doesn't meet the bar for the entire legal concept of "driver/driving". "Almost" self driving is like jumping over a canyon and almost making it to the other side. Good effort, bad outcome.
  - wat10000 9mo ago
    If it was full self driving, wouldn't your usage be 100%?
    - FeloniousHam 9mo ago
      > It's not perfect, Probably about 90% perfect! Obviously we don't agree on the definition.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - pests 9mo ago
      Sometimes a car is fun to drive.
      - fragmede 9mo ago
        It refuses to engage above, like, 80.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles I'd guess my Subaru's lane-keeping utilisation is in the same ballpark. (By miles, not minutes. And yes, I'm safer when it and I are watching the road than when I'm watching the road alone.)
    - FeloniousHam 9mo ago
      I don't want minimize the efforts of other manufacturers (I'm sure they'll all have Tesla's features in the next generation), but: my wife has a Subaru Outback, and the two systems are as close in functionality as humans are to chimpanzees. The differences are many, stark and subtle (that Subaru screen), I'd just say take a test drive with FSD.
    - olyjohn 9mo ago
      My favorite feature of Subaru's system is when you change lanes, and it stays locked onto the car in the slower lane and slams on the brakes. People behind you love that.
rubyfan 9mo ago
Waymo is also a livery service which you normally aren’t liable for as a passenger of taxi or limousine unless you have deep pockets. /IANAL
AlotOfReading 9mo ago
You can sell autonomous vehicles to consumers all day long. There's no US federal law prohibiting that, as long as they're compliant with FMVSS as all consumer vehicles are required to be.
2III7 9mo ago
Without LIDAR and/or additional sensors, Tesla will never be able to provide "real" FSD, no matter how wonderful their software controlling the car is. Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property. Waymo and others are providing a taxi service where the driver is not a human. You don't pay insurance when you ride Uber or Bolt or any other regular taxi service.
- Marsymars 9mo ago
  > Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property. Well practically speaking, there’s nothing stopping anyone from voluntarily assuming liability for arbitrary things. If Tesla assumes the liability for my car, then even if I still require my “own” insurance for legal purposes, the marginal cost of covering the remaining risk is going to be close to zero.
- arijun 9mo ago
  Never say never—it’s not physically impossible. But yes, as it stands, it seems that Tesla will not be self driving any time soon (if ever).
  - kjksf 9mo ago
    They literally just (in the last few days) started unsupervised robotaxis in Austin. They are as self-driving as a car can be. This is different than the one where they had a human supervisor in passenger seat (which they still do elsewhere). And different than the one where they didn't have human supervisor but did have a follow car. Now they have a few robotaxis that are self driving.
    - amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
      Have you actually ridden in one? It's unclear whether this is a real thing or not.
kolbe 9mo ago
> Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car. This is news to me. This context seems important to understanding Tesla's decision to stop selling FSD. If they're on the hook for insurance, then they will need to dynamically adjust what they charge to reflect insurance costs.
arijun 9mo ago
I imagine insurance would be split in two in that case. Carmakers would not want to be liable for e.g. someone striking you in a hit-and-run.
- smallnix 9mo ago
  If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay. Otherwise it's a human and the situation falls into the bucket of what we already have today. So yes, carmakers would pay in a hit-and-run.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay Why? That's not their fault. If a car hits and runs my uninsured bicycle, the manufacturer isn't liable. (My personal umbrella or other insurance, on the other hand, may cover it.)
    - graeme 9mo ago
      They're describing a situation of liability, not mere damage. If yor bicycle is hit you didn't do anything wrong. If you run into someone on your bike and are at fault then you generally would be liable. They're talking about the hypothetical where you're on your bike, which was sold as an autobomous bike and the bike manufacturer's software fully drives the bike, and it runs into someone and is at fault.
paulryanrogers 9mo ago
Tacking "Supervised" on the end of "Full Self Driving" is just contradictory. Perhaps if it was "Partial Self Driving" then it wouldn't be so confusing.
- pests 9mo ago
  Its only to differentiate it from their "Unsupervised FSD" which is what they call it now.
  - paulryanrogers 9mo ago
    That is redundant and doesn't make the other any less contradictory
    - pests 9mo ago
      I agree but I think context is important here. It was called FSD, but they got into trouble, now its "Supervised" so people know its not, well, unsupervised FSD. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense.
throwaway2037 9mo ago
> Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car. You raise an important point here. Is it economically feasible for system makers to bear the responsibility of self-driving car accidents? It seems impossible, unless the cars are much more expensive to cover the potential future costs. I'm very curious how Waymo insures their cars today. I assume they have a bespoke insurance contract negotiated with a major insurer. Also, do we know the initial cost of each Waymo car (to say nothing of ongoing costs from compute/mapping/etc.)? It must be very high (2x?) given all of the special navigation equipment that is added to each car.

by kjksf 9mo ago

jasoncartwright 9mo ago

I see. So not Tesla's product they are using to sell insurance around isn't "Full Self-Driving" or "Autonomous" like the page says.

FeloniousHam 9mo ago
My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles (since v14.x). Besides driving everywhere, everyday with FSD, I have driven 4 hours garage to hotel valet without intervention. It is absolutely "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous". FSD isn't perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.
- jasoncartwright 9mo ago
  Yet still on relying you to cover it with your insurance. Again, clearly not autonomous.
  - dzhiurgis 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - zen928 9mo ago
      Disagree. I appreciate their viewpoint tethering corporate claims to reality by illustrating Tesla is obfuscating the classification of their machines to be autonomous, when they actually aren't. Their comments in other thread chains proved to be fruitful when lacking agitators looking to dismiss critique by citing website rules, like the post adding additional detail to how Tesla muddles legal claims by cooking up cherry-picked evidence that work against the driver despite being the insurer.
  - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
    Liability is a separate matter from autonomy. I assume you'd consider yourself autonomous, yet it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle. If the company required a representative to sit in the car with you and participate in the driving (e.g. by monitoring and taking over before an accident), then there's a case to be made that you're not fully autonomous.
    - buran77 9mo ago
      > it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle I think you're mixing some concepts. There's car insurance paid by the owner of the car, for the car. There's workplace accident insurance, paid by the employer for the employee. The liability isn't assigned by default, but by determining who's responsible. The driver is always legally responsible for accidents caused by their negligence. If you play with your phone behind the wheel and kill someone, even while working and driving a company car, the company's insurance might pay for the damage but you go to prison. The company will recover the money from you. Their work accident insurance will pay nothing. The test you can run in your head: will you get arrested if you fall asleep at the wheel and crash? If yes, then it's not autonomous or self driving. It just has driver assistance. It's not that the car can't drive itself at all, just that it doesn't meet the bar for the entire legal concept of "driver/driving". "Almost" self driving is like jumping over a canyon and almost making it to the other side. Good effort, bad outcome.
- wat10000 9mo ago
  If it was full self driving, wouldn't your usage be 100%?
  - FeloniousHam 9mo ago
    > It's not perfect, Probably about 90% perfect! Obviously we don't agree on the definition.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pests 9mo ago
    Sometimes a car is fun to drive.
    - fragmede 9mo ago
      It refuses to engage above, like, 80.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles I'd guess my Subaru's lane-keeping utilisation is in the same ballpark. (By miles, not minutes. And yes, I'm safer when it and I are watching the road than when I'm watching the road alone.)
  - FeloniousHam 9mo ago
    I don't want minimize the efforts of other manufacturers (I'm sure they'll all have Tesla's features in the next generation), but: my wife has a Subaru Outback, and the two systems are as close in functionality as humans are to chimpanzees. The differences are many, stark and subtle (that Subaru screen), I'd just say take a test drive with FSD.
  - olyjohn 9mo ago
    My favorite feature of Subaru's system is when you change lanes, and it stays locked onto the car in the slower lane and slams on the brakes. People behind you love that.

rubyfan 9mo ago

Waymo is also a livery service which you normally aren’t liable for as a passenger of taxi or limousine unless you have deep pockets. /IANAL

AlotOfReading 9mo ago

You can sell autonomous vehicles to consumers all day long. There's no US federal law prohibiting that, as long as they're compliant with FMVSS as all consumer vehicles are required to be.

2III7 9mo ago

Without LIDAR and/or additional sensors, Tesla will never be able to provide "real" FSD, no matter how wonderful their software controlling the car is. Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property. Waymo and others are providing a taxi service where the driver is not a human. You don't pay insurance when you ride Uber or Bolt or any other regular taxi service.

Marsymars 9mo ago
> Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property. Well practically speaking, there’s nothing stopping anyone from voluntarily assuming liability for arbitrary things. If Tesla assumes the liability for my car, then even if I still require my “own” insurance for legal purposes, the marginal cost of covering the remaining risk is going to be close to zero.
arijun 9mo ago
Never say never—it’s not physically impossible. But yes, as it stands, it seems that Tesla will not be self driving any time soon (if ever).
- kjksf 9mo ago
  They literally just (in the last few days) started unsupervised robotaxis in Austin. They are as self-driving as a car can be. This is different than the one where they had a human supervisor in passenger seat (which they still do elsewhere). And different than the one where they didn't have human supervisor but did have a follow car. Now they have a few robotaxis that are self driving.
  - amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
    Have you actually ridden in one? It's unclear whether this is a real thing or not.

kolbe 9mo ago

> Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car. This is news to me. This context seems important to understanding Tesla's decision to stop selling FSD. If they're on the hook for insurance, then they will need to dynamically adjust what they charge to reflect insurance costs.

arijun 9mo ago

I imagine insurance would be split in two in that case. Carmakers would not want to be liable for e.g. someone striking you in a hit-and-run.

smallnix 9mo ago
If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay. Otherwise it's a human and the situation falls into the bucket of what we already have today. So yes, carmakers would pay in a hit-and-run.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay Why? That's not their fault. If a car hits and runs my uninsured bicycle, the manufacturer isn't liable. (My personal umbrella or other insurance, on the other hand, may cover it.)
  - graeme 9mo ago
    They're describing a situation of liability, not mere damage. If yor bicycle is hit you didn't do anything wrong. If you run into someone on your bike and are at fault then you generally would be liable. They're talking about the hypothetical where you're on your bike, which was sold as an autobomous bike and the bike manufacturer's software fully drives the bike, and it runs into someone and is at fault.

paulryanrogers 9mo ago

Tacking "Supervised" on the end of "Full Self Driving" is just contradictory. Perhaps if it was "Partial Self Driving" then it wouldn't be so confusing.

pests 9mo ago
Its only to differentiate it from their "Unsupervised FSD" which is what they call it now.
- paulryanrogers 9mo ago
  That is redundant and doesn't make the other any less contradictory
  - pests 9mo ago
    I agree but I think context is important here. It was called FSD, but they got into trouble, now its "Supervised" so people know its not, well, unsupervised FSD. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense.

throwaway2037 9mo ago

> Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car. You raise an important point here. Is it economically feasible for system makers to bear the responsibility of self-driving car accidents? It seems impossible, unless the cars are much more expensive to cover the potential future costs. I'm very curious how Waymo insures their cars today. I assume they have a bespoke insurance contract negotiated with a major insurer. Also, do we know the initial cost of each Waymo car (to say nothing of ongoing costs from compute/mapping/etc.)? It must be very high (2x?) given all of the special navigation equipment that is added to each car.