Hacker News Reader

Comment by marstall | Hacker News Reader

will be fascinating to follow this one and see how responsibility for the death is apportioned.

I can see the argument for indicting the driver. He could be seen as negligent for choosing to unleash this car, known to be buggy, on a public street, leading to two deaths. His counterargument is obvious too, that the manufacturer assured him of its safety, and its therefore the manufacturer's fault.

Which then begs the question - if it is Tesla's fault, does that mean manslaughter charges will be brought against a corporation? What would that even mean?

View on HN

I think both Tesla and the driver need to be held responsible separately, through legal means.

It's the FTC's (or some other gov agency) responsibility to enforce that marketing claims make sense. They should go after Tesla.

At the same time, it's on a consumer to control their vehicle. It's on them to know this. The government should help consumers not get into legal trouble by enforcing accurate marketing claims, but if it shirks its responsibility there, consumers do not get a free pass.

So, manslaughter for the driver, fraud for Tesla.

Tesla does not promote FSD as being autonomous, the driver is going to have a hard time blaming Tesla:

https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscription...

Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.

if the car automatically “suddenly and unintentionally accelerated to an excessive, unsafe and uncontrollable speed", even an attentive driver could find themselves unable to prevent the crash. it strikes me as more akin to a car with faulty brakes. such a car would not be certified as fit for the road. perhaps self driving should not be either.

Calling it “full self-driving” is promoting it as being autonomous, regardless of what the disclaimers say. If it’s not capable of that, they should call it something else.

Right? You can't have a label say X, and then in small print say that it absolutely is not X. It's equivalent to a product saying "Contains absolutely no nuts!" and then in small print saying "may contain nuts".

Full Self Driving means that the car is capable of driving itself, not that it can handle all situations autonomously.

A counter example, the package of Cheezits says "made with 100% real cheese", even though they are not 100% cheese, cheese is the 3rd ingredient, below flour and oil, but of the cheese used in the product, it's 100% real cheese. (so it makes it a meaningless statement, I guess they mean "no artificial cheese flavoring")

That's not a very good argument: "made with" implies that it is one of several ingredients. If Cheezits said "made entirely of" then the consumer would be understandably confused if there are other ingredients. Think about what you would answer to the questions "Did you make this pizza WITH sourdough?" vs "Is this cake made entirely OF lego?".

If the car can't "fully" self drive, then it shouldn't be marketed as such. Call it "partially self driving", "assisted self driving" or whatever.

That depends on your definition of driving, for example, take the dictionary definition:

"To guide, control, or direct (a vehicle)."

My car has driver assistance features, it can do basic lane keeping, keep a set distance behind the car in front (even in stop and go traffic), and has emergency braking assistance. But no one would say that it's self-driving.

Tesla FSD can control the car from entering the highway to taking your exit (plus some support for driving on smaller streets).

But it's not autonomous, hands-free driving.

I am not sure I understand the argument here as what you said highlights that Tesla's FSD is not fully self driving.

Taking the dictionary definition of fully:

"completely or entirely; to the fullest extent"

I would expect a fully self-driving car to drive for the entirety of any trip I wish to take. Anything less than that I would consider as "partial".

The car can fully self drive -- it has full control over steering and brakes, can pass other cars and even enter/exit the highway.

My car has limited self-driving, it can only do limited lane keeping or keeping distance from the car in front.

So you're defining it as the capability to automate steering, accelerator and brake? (i.e. the three things that constitute driving)

By that definition self-parking cars can also fully self-drive.

My definition of driving is being able to do all the tasks required to pass a driving test, i.e. driving around a city (intersections, roundabouts etc.), motorway, country road and car parks.

That’s clearly a bogus argument.

Made with 100% real cheese

Is clearly and unambiguously not the same as

100% cheese

But it is quite a good example:

A cheesit contains an ingredient that is 100% cheese.

A Tesla with FSD mode, is a car that has a feature that is full self driving.

If that mode cannot handle all conditions, then it is not full self driving. That means no “I’m confused” switch to a human driver.

Now explain the meaning of "Full".

The disclaimer is clear, the FSD means that the car is capable of full self-driving, but is not capable of autonomous driving without a driver paying attention.

Given that Tesla hasn't been sued into oblivion by drivers who got into accidents by incorrectly treating FSD as autonomous driving, I think the argument will hold up in court.

I’m not trying to be obtuse but I genuinely don’t understand what the difference between the terms ”full self-driving” and “autonomous driving” are. They’re synonymous to me, and I have to imagine they are to the average person.

Tesla explains it as:

Autopilot is an advanced driver assistance system that enhances safety and convenience behind the wheel. When used properly, Autopilot reduces your overall workload as a driver. Each new Tesla vehicle is equipped with 8 external cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors and a powerful onboard computer provide an additional layer of safety to guide you on your journey. Model 3 and Model Y built for the North American market have transitioned to camera-based Tesla Vision, which are not equipped with radar and instead rely on Tesla’s advanced suite of cameras and neural net processing to deliver Autopilot and related features. Model S and Model X continue to be equipped with radar.

Autopilot comes standard on every new Tesla. For owners who took delivery of their cars without Autopilot, there are two packages available for purchase, depending on when your car was built: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability.

Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. While these features are designed to become more capable over time, the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous.

That's bullshit. Name it something accurate. Don't give it a name that is an outright lie and then correct yourself in the fine print.

That sounds harder than just driving

The driver wasn't using FSD, so that's irrelevant. He was using Autopilot, a much less capable system that doesn't cost an extra $12k.

At the time, Autopilot did not stop at red lights. It was (and mostly still is) a lane-following cruise control. How could it be Tesla's fault?

IANAL, but corporations have been successfully charged and convicted of felonies in the US:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_...

What is the bug that lead to the deaths, and what assurances of safety were given by the manufacturer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com