Hacker News Reader

Comment by neotek | Hacker News Reader

That's what happens when you mislead your customers into believing your self-driving technology is far more advanced than it actually is. I hope Tesla loses this case and is forced to change their bullshit marketing before more people lose their lives.

View on HN

> According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location.

The idea that "bullshit marketing" is the problem here seems short-sighted.

But they actually didn't. They specifically tell you it is NOT a fully autonomous autopilot and that's it's more of an advanced cruise control.

They also specifically tell you to KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD. If you fail to do so, you're asking for trouble.

It is unfortunate the guy haf kids that will now grow up orphans, but judging from the information I've read in the Tesla blog post, it is clear that he was in the wrong here, at least partially, for not paying attention while driving.

Not only does the car provide repeated warnings, we can pretty clearly infer that—like anyone who has used Autopilot—he had become reasonably proficient at avoiding the warnings. So not only was he warned, he was actively working to avoid those warnings.

(Edit: to those voting me down, please contribute your objections to the discussion.)

Well, the warnings were unrelated and 15 minutes before the crash for once. So that invalids the ignored warnings in that case. I assume the real chain of events will be analyzed now. And the fact that the Autopilot is named the way it is for, presumably, marketing reasons doesn't help.

Exactly, no warnings for 15 minutes. Which means the driver HAD received warnings, understood the warnings, and learned how to avoid the warnings with such proficiency that he did not receive one for 15 minutes. It is not possible to avoid these warnings without being acutely aware of what the car was warning him not to do.

Furthermore, as a licensed car driver, he should know that driving is his responsibility. Nothing a car manufacturer says can diminish that responsibility. Even if Tesla's feature descriptions were ambiguous or insufficiently clear, that doesn't override the responsibility of a licensed car driver to remain in command of the vehicle at all times.

It's not Tesla's fault if a driver ignores the requirements of their driver license AND the vehicle's clearly worded warnings. Claiming that the driver is not at fault because they interpreted the word "autopilot" to mean "I can disregard my responsibility as a driver and ignore the vehicle's very clear warnings" is absurd.

So why call it 'autopilot'? Seems like bullshit marketing to me. The first association we make when we hear that term is hands-off, not 'advanced cruise control'. They're specifically using that terminology to sell their products and now they're paying the price.

In an airplane, autopilot still requires the pilot to pay attention.

Most people are not pilots to know that.

In an emergency, an airplane pilot often has time to pull out the operating handbook, flip through to the emergency checklist for their particular problem, and follow the instructions. Even for time-critical emergencies, it's recommended to read through the checklist afterwards to ensure you didn't forget anything [1].

By contrast, it would be very unsafe to be reading the Tesla owner's manual while driving. The level of attention required is much higher.

[1]: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp11575-e...

> They specifically tell you it is NOT a fully autonomous autopilot and that's it's more of an advanced cruise control.

Not here they don't:

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/autopilot?redirect=no

Look at the caption in the beginning of the first video. They say the driver is only there for legal reasons and not doing anything.

"Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."

From your link.

There’s clearly contradictory information going on, so I can see why a customer may be confused.

If I take the perspective of someone who isn't informed about the technology, I can see how they could think that the technology is safe and Tesla is putting excessive warnings because their lawyers want them to. I think superfluous warnings on so many products has trained people to take warnings less seriously.

Tesla needs to get their story straight. They're trying to talk out of both sides out of their mouth, and using whichever statement is convenient at different places.

My understanding is the video is a demo of what their research technology can do as a one off demo, not recommended procedure.

The guy was an Apple engineer, so most probably he was also technologically literate enough to know the difference(despite whatever Tesla's marketing material claims).

They tell you those things in safety notes, but then the marketing people at Tesla call it "Autopilot", a name deliberately designed to imply hands-off operation.

To quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

"An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required."

Should users pay attention at all times, of course. Does Tesla provide mixed messages to users about the efficacy of the system.... I'd say there is evidence to support that.

> but judging from the information I've read in the Tesla blog post

Lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com