Tesla Draws Scrutiny from Regulators After Autopilot Feature Linked to a Death | Hacker News Reader

Tesla Draws Scrutiny from Regulators After Autopilot Feature Linked to a Death

wsj.com

37 pointsdankohn118 comments

Current discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419

Naming their system "autopilot" was risky, I bet Tesla's attorneys pushed back hard on that.

Why? To me "autopilot" means "automatic".

Wikipedia suggests the "average" definition is similar to my own - "An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required."

And yet Tesla's disclaimer states "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel."(2)

In plain words that dissension between the name and the actual function is needlessly confusing and probably irresponsible.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

(2) https://www.teslamotors.com/presskit/autopilot

Autopilot in aircraft is no different; you must remain aware and attentive at all times, it is merely to reduce physical workload. If you make a mistake, you are still at fault.

EDIT: I can't reply to children comments because HN is throttling my posting ability.

It's not Tesla's job to turn driver's into model citizens. They can't fix irresponsible people taking irresponsible risks.

Right. But public understanding of the word is not the same as trained pilots.

TV and games have fairly conclusively made the word mean "autonomous."

But aircraft pilots are of course very different from typical car drivers: more educated, much more strenuously vetted -- and much more likely to understand and act in accord with the caveats you're describing.

Regular car drivers? These are the ones yakking on their cell phones, texting, doing conference calls, eating take out -- and falling asleep in droves at the wheel, already. Inasmuch as the distinction between Autopilot and a truly automated control system may be crystal clear to you -- you can be dead sure it won't be, to many of these people.

I agree that it's necessary to be very, very careful with nomenclature, operator instruction, and user controlled options when dealing with anything safety related in a product marketed for the general public. But I can see where Tesla might be coming from calling it "autopilot": they're following along in the same vein as previous "autopilot" systems such as those found in aircraft. As your wiki link states, aircraft autopilots of varying complexity have been around for a very, very long time, but they did not ever mean "no need for a pilot". The ancient RAE naming of "pilots' assister" is probably more descriptive of the function to the average person, and by the same token Tesla could have called it "driver assistance" or similar. Even so, I think Tesla would have a reasonable argument that the term "autopilot" has been around for over 100 years and it was always a safety assistance feature, not a driver replacement. That argument would be strengthened by the fact that there's already a widely used term of full automation: "self driving car", which they didn't use.

At the same time it never hurts to be overly cautious, if only because terminology is such a trivial thing to change and the cost of confusion (even if only in terms of PR, unfair or not) can be significant. Operation of aircraft is a significantly more niche area with significantly more stringent requirements at all levels then operating a non-commercial motor vehicle, so it would be reasonable to expect pilots to understand more terms of the art.

This naming style seems to be a Tesla "thing". For example, I suspect Elon Musk would be hesitant to say the Model X's "Biohazard Defense Mode" will definitively protect you in a biological warfare attack... but it does clean up the air you're breathing fairly nicely.

The "Ludicrous Speed" upgrade is another example.

That isn't to say it can't get them into hot water legally, but it does seem like the company culture is to name features a bit extravagantly.

Actually they quite clearly state that in this blog post:

"In other words, Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. You can literally survive a military grade bio attack by sitting in your car." [1]

[1] https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/putting-tesla-hepa-filter-a...

I think "advanced cruise control" for example may have been better.

The moment you say autopilot or autonomous, you think entirely hands off.

Or "Driver Assist". Which would be much more reflective of its actual function.

"Autopilot" is not just a bad name -- it's outright misleading.

No paywall: https://archive.is/zo1lE

You can click the "web" link at the top of this page to do the same thing.

Does this article add anything not in the Tesla blog post that is on the front page?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419

One improvement is that the title is "Tesla Draws Scrutiny from Regulators After Autopilot Feature Linked to a Death", instead of "A Tragic Loss". I clicked this one but not the other.

Agreed. This article is much better written.

The Tesla blog post arguably has more information: but its really just Tesla trying to cover their ass about the issue. The May 7th date also provides some better context: this crash happened nearly a month-and-a-half ago.

Has it actually been linked?

Tesla has stated in their blog that Autopilot was active at the time of the crash. It didn't stop the vehicle.

well sooner or later it would happen so Tesla was probably ready for it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com