Five cops sue Tesla over “severe injuries” caused by car on Autopilot | Hacker News Reader

Five cops sue Tesla over “severe injuries” caused by car on Autopilot

arstechnica.com

37 pointsaw162110717 comments

I think in hindsight "autopilot" was a terribly bad name.

"assisted driving" might be less sexy, (sorry S3XY) but would have kept "driver in control" in the message.

I'm a long-term skeptic of the autonomous vehicle on current roads. Special purpose highways, and future roads, could be different. As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies.

> As things stand, with the current technology its too much like trolley-philosophy-problem with live bodies.

Yeah if the trolley problem is kill 1 person for a 10% chance of saving 5 people in ten years.

I think the ethics are actually against Tesla, especially since there are other alternatives to testing/developing self driving such as simulation or closed courses, instead of releasing it out into the wild with very irresponsible naming and marketing.

I was a little unfair. I think Tesla and others have argued they can demonstrate the aggregate millimort consequence of their stuff is already net-positive: You're arguably safer both inside and outside a Tesla, than cars in the hands of people. Especially people who drink.

Yes, the marketers behind the dishonest naming in the first place managed to come up with some numbers that can dishonestly be used to show that. Shocking, right?

It needn't even be in hindsight. There were plenty of us arguing at the time that this was a terrible idea that would lead to problems. From a user interface point of view, it creates a grey zone where it kinda sorta works but not in a bunch of edge cases and that's where danger awaits. It's like having no input sanitisation then hoping users just follow the input requirements manually so that your program doesn't crash.

It was immediately clear at release that it would be an issue and their initial promise of just making it better over time put end users in danger as beta testers. Applying those sort of 'move fast and break things' software engineering concepts to the real world where there's tonnes of metal hurtling around is manifestly irresponsible.

The term Autopilot seems to be taken from the aviation industry, where "Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather and on-board systems)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

Most people do not know the technical details of airplane autopilot systems, because they are not technical nor are they pilots. Colloquially, autopilot means fully autonomous to most people.

Tesla's marketing[1] is clear about what they mean when they say "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving":

> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.

It's been up on Tesla's site for 5 years now.

[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...

> Most people do not know the technical details of airplane autopilot systems, because they are not technical nor are they pilots. Colloquially, autopilot means fully autonomous to most people.

That's not how they work or are used in aviation:

1) The pilot in command is solely responsible for the flight, not a device. That's why there's 2 pilots on airline flights, and will be for the forseeable future (ie. decades.)

2) Autopilots are either basic levellers (like automotive cruise control systems), or FMS (computer systems.) In either case, a pilot configures them, and is likely to deactivate or re-program them during flight. There's no confusion who is responsible though - solely the pilot in command.

3) The pilot is not there "for legal reasons" - he's there as the airman responsible and in control of the trip.

4) An airline might have minimum equipment lists (MELs) that require a functioning autopilot for revenue flights, but it depends on the aircraft model. (Because airliners are complex machines, it's not required to have every single piece of equipment working for each flight.)

Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

Yes, this apology is made every time people criticize Tesla’s term. But I think it’s misleading nonetheless—what really matters is a layperson’s interpretation of the term, particularly when it comes to something as dangerous as “Autopilot.”

Autopilot is a great name because Tesla doesn’t buy ad placements, they rely on controversy driven marketing.

It’s like how holy books are filled with contradictions, give the people something to argue about.

They could keep that sweet controversy. Elon can go the Not-A-Flamethrower route and release a FSD driving update that changes the name to “Not-Autopilot.” Throw in a new game that requires tapping the “I am a passenger” confirmation, but is _only_ available while driving with “Not-Autopilot” engaged.

EDIT: This is somewhat sarcastic, but the name Autopilot keeps coming up and invariably there’s a “think of the laypeople” response. In my opinion, it’s only what Tesla owners (or authorized operators) understand about Autopilot capabilities that matters. It doesn’t (shouldn’t) matter what my Camery-driving neighbor thinks Autopilot means. Apple has long offered a “Do Not Disturb” feature. Many laypeople might recognize an allusion to the hospitality industry, but there’s obviously a different “feature set” on my device than Do Not Disturb in a hotel room context. The main issue is not what they choose to call it, but whether or not Tesla is fulfilling their obligation to give the operator a clear picture of the capabilities and limitations.

OFF-TOPIC: I don’t care what it’s called. I’ve owned a Tesla since 2018 and I purchased the FSD and AP packages for an added cost of $8K. I’m a bit salty because that $8K pushed the value of my Model 3 up enough that the insurance company wouldn’t total it after an accident. Repairs of ~$29k were less than half of the “value” at the time of the accident. However, 3 years later I’m here hoping the algorithm decides to let me use a feature that a) I paid for b) kept me in a car that would have otherwise been deemed a total insurance loss.

That's probably why GM went with "super cruise," seems more accurate.

No. Shit. It's not like people have been saying this for years and years and criticising Tesla for their obvious marketing speak.

Title isn't totally accurate, since the officers also sued a restaurant owner whose restaurant allegedly served alcohol to the driver of the Tesla, but it's what Ars had.

I'm curious to see where this goes. I'm not familiar enough with the laws involved to offer an informed opinion on how plausible this suit is, unfortunately.

How is the title not accurate? That is the novel part of the story.

Perhaps "complete" is a better adjective; I just wanted to mention that Tesla is not the only defendant, though as you point out Tesla's involvement here is the novel bit.

Honestly not sure what the correct course is here. Including the restaurant owner better represents the whole picture, but isn't as focused.

Note how much ink is used to target Tesla as opposed to Pappa's. The real reason that Pappa's is being sued under the Dram Shop Act is to destroy complete diversity, so as to avoid removal to federal court.

If they only sued Tesla, they might get taken to a less sympathetic federal court. By including a Texas defendant, Tesla can't take them out of a state court that may very well be far more sympathetic to local police, or simply more plaintiff-friendly in cases sounding in negligence or products liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com