Hacker News Reader

Comment by scotty79 | Hacker News Reader

No intention, no fault. But definitely unsafe lane change, I think.

I agree with your original example ("good reason => OK", "bad reason => BAD"). But for the in-between we should default to "not OK" as well, since stopping on a highway is just dangerous.

But damn, I really have little sympathy for all the inattentive drivers not being able to stop in time for the pileup (and hope damages have to be payed accordingly). Maybe, Tesla FSD does not make the streets more dangerous than they already are, after all.

> No intention, no fault.

Nonsense.

Imagine it is a human driver saying that shadows on the road made him believe there was a person there so he slowed down to make sure.

He wouldn't be at fault for slowing down (after checking his eyesight).

Lane change is what makes Tesla at fault here, not unreasonable slowing down.

How convenient for Tesla. I doubt we would think this way if your wheel flew off your civic because of a design flaw in the axle.

Why is this being downvoted? Intent isn't everything. While it is important, design flaws are worth getting the book thrown at you over.

That's because we'd fully expect them to recall the effected models and fix the design flaw. Since Tesla knows about erratic lane-changes and phantom braking, and has for years, why haven't they recalled the vehicles and fixed the design flaw or at least disabled the feature?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com