Hacker News Reader

Comment by txcwpalpha | Hacker News Reader

I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this response, I've completely lost respect for the company, for Musk, and I don't think I'll ever buy one or advocate for someone buying one.

The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times that there was an issue with autopilot, but Tesla told him "no there is no issue". There is also video evidence of this same issue happening in other parts of the world, but with similar road conditions. But again, Tesla's response has been "there is no issue."

And now their response is "the driver knew there was an issue but he used autopilot anyway"? Seriously? Either there is an issue or there isn't, Tesla. At first you said there is no issue, and now you're saying there is an issue? And as the cherry on top, you're blaming the driver for continuing to use the feature even after you told him repeatedly that it's okay to use?

For shame, Tesla. For shame.

View on HN

> The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times

I understand this is not a popular opinion on news forums anywhere nor do I write this to absolve in my view Tesla of their poor response nor of their poor choice in naming the system 'autopilot' to start.

But at what point does corporate or government responsibility end and personal responsibility start? If I knew something didn't work and that something could kill me and had reported the issue 7 to 10 times, I would be watching, like a hawk for the issue to recur, or more likely just not using it at all.

People have this insane idea that just because something isn't their fault they don't have to take corrective action in order to avoid the consequences. It is better to be alive than to be correct.

In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised. If they don't, generally strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller, and all middleman (in this case, they're all Tesla), regardless of whether the customer-victim was misusing the product.

In this case, there is no evidence that the driver was misusing the car. But there is a carload of evidence that Autopilot failed.

At this point, the only thing Tesla is accomplishing with these public statements is adding more zeros to the eventual settlement/damage award.

The driver was required to remain alert.

the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.

It does! Just not after 5 seconds.

How is this, or can be, detected?

tesla's already detect people not having the hands on the wheel, for starters. then you can fairly easily see where the eyes are looking and I guess with some more effort if the eyes are engaged or wandering.

this is a paper from a hundred years ago about the subject, this is not rocket science https://www.jstor.org/stable/1412972?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

The Model 3 has a driver-facing camera, presumably for exactly this.

That's a very naive comment. What if there's no emergency lane? Should it just crash towards whatever is on the right side of the car? :)

Tesla's autopilot already slows down then stops moving if the user doesn't touch the steering wheel for a period time, but it gives plenty of warning to the user before that happens, as it should be.

So let me see, what are the alternative here.

Inconveniencing the driver and making it a learning experience vs crashing into concrete and killing him

Well. Maybe you are the naive one. Machinery shouldn’t give warnings. We already learned those lesson in industrial automation settings.

The average mentality of “just user error bro” seen on hackers new is what scares me the most. That is not how you build secure machines, far from it, and at this point my only hope not to be killed from an autonomous car in the next 30 years is for the regulations hammer coming crashing down full force on the wanton engineers that are treating loss of life as user error

> In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised.

And if they don't, what's the first thing you, as the customer, do? You stop using the product. If autopilot isn't working the way you think it should, you stop using autopilot. This driver did not do that. What kind of sense does that make?

I realize we're talking about Teslas, but still, how many people can just stop using their car when they need to go to work or pick up kids?

The airbag recall affected millions and millions of cars. How many of those people were able to not drive their car until the problem was resolved?

> how many people can just stop using their car

You wouldn't have to stop using the car. Just stop using autopilot.

I agree completely with you and also with grandparent. I don't think these perspectives are in conflict at all. You have to take responsibility for your own safety. But at the same time, Tesla's response makes me lose respect for them.

At the heart of this issue is the fact Teslas are the first car that can have its functionality changed drastically from day to day (this "drive into a median" bug is believed to be a recent issue introduced within the last few months of autopilot updates).

I think that ability to update is one of the most exciting things about Teslas compared to other cars, but it presents a huge organizational problem. How does Tesla communicate out those changes to their customers, mechanics, sales staff, and customer service people? I think the reporting of this specific issue and the original "there is no issue" response is simply from a company failing to communicate in multiple directions rather than any type of sinister motive that some people seem to be implying (Hanlon's razor and all).

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives".

Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightest error in this update could result in bodily harm to someone". There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features.

> There's a reason that most non-software industries (think aviation, medical, most car manufacturers not named Tesla) move excruciatingly slow when rolling out new features.

They do and I'm largely glad they do but I think you can go too far the other way, delaying advances that can save lives can result in more lives been lost because of the delay.

There has to be a middle point, you want new drugs (for example) reaching the market but with the risk minimised to a degree that is acceptable, you simply can't reduce the risk to 0.

All that said I'd be fascinated to read the assurance approaches that Tesla uses before pushing out updates to what is essentially a computer on wheels attached to batteries.

It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or moral decision is something that can be debated forever, but Musk and in turn Tesla have made it very clear where they stands on it.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.

The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.

>It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer.

In this instance, it didn't get safer. It did the opposite, and it killed someone.

>I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.

You haven't? Because I'm sitting here looking at a story about a bug in Tesla's latest software that Tesla ignored and then it resulted in someone's death.

You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.

>Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.

Then why are you making assumptions about it, then?

>You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation.

No, I'm not. The facts are: there was a problem that was reported to Tesla, Tesla ignored that problem, and now someone is dead because of that problem. No further information is needed to recognize that Tesla acted poorly here.

I said Tesla failed in my first comment. I am not defending them regarding this particular accident. I am simply explaining the potential logic behind their decisions and why this single failure doesn't mean their approach is inherently wrong. The only assumption I am making is that Tesla has good intentions with their aggressive autopilot releases.

> and now someone is dead because of that problem.

You've stated this repeatedly without proof. It has not been established he is dead because of that problem. The investigation may yet reach that conclusion, but until then you have no support for this assertion.

there is also no indication that it is _saving_ lives either, stats that are about easy, relatively safe situations, where humans take over when challenges occur are not any kind of meaningful indicator.

Not to mention the market telsa courts self selects for safer driving in general (rich, and informed).

To act like this is a clearcut case of the trolley dilemma and telsa is making a moral choice that saves life is misinformed bordering on disingenous.

There is a huge amount of indication that Telsa is acting both irresponsibly (refusing to admit fault, when its clear fault exists, refusing to address concerns, only answering with deflections), and recklessly (misleading marketing about fully capable autodriving hardware, calling a system that requires constant, careful manual attention "autopilot", enabling it by default, absolutely refusing to back down even a little)

As far as I know there has been only a single public study on the safety of Tesla's autopilot. It compared miles driven in Teslas without the autopilot hardware and safety features versus miles driven in Teslas with those features. They showed a 40% reduction in crashes. I think it is fair to assume that a 40% reduction in crashes resulted in numerous lives being saved. I don't see how coming to that conclusion is "misinformed bordering on disingenous".

That specific note is available on page 10-11 in the linked study. [1]

[1] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1...

This isn't limited to no autopilot vs full autopilot. If autopilot is so good at correcting a drunk driver's accident, then let it run in a shadow mode only making corrective actions in emergencies. Why is AEB bundled in with Autosteer in all stats? AEB is undoubtedly good, Autosteer is debatable.

> AEB is undoubtedly good, Autosteer is debatable.

AEB is clearly unreliable, as it didn't automatically slow the car in any of these cases where the car was pointed directly at a significant-sized stationary solid object.

I did worry about this sort of thing back when they mentioned nuisance trips of the radar-based AEB system, and that to deal with them they were basically just geotagging where these nuisance trips happened and disabling the system near those points. I'd like to know if AEB was actually active at the location where the fatality occurred.

AEB is there to correct driver's mistakes, not drive the car itself.

Yes, AEB fails, but a driver + AEB is safer than a driver alone.

> I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths.

The safety claims Tesla/Musk make are debatable. There is a lawsuit over getting the raw data NHTSA used to make the "autosteer reduces collisions by 40%" [1]. AEB also reduces the collision rate by 40 percent, which is mentioned in the same NHTSA report [2]. And, supposedly AEB and autosteer were activated around the same time, so it might not be easy to tell which provided a benefit.

> I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended"

You need a lot of data to show that. 1 death per 86 million miles driven is the average in the US, and that's across all types of vehicles, new and old, including motorcycles, bad weather (where autopilot is not likely to be engaged), and on all kinds of roads (autopilot is mostly engaged on divided highways).

There was also a death in China that looks like autopilot [3].

[1] http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-...

[2] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

> functionality changed drastically from day to day

Is this a daily thing? Weekly? Forced-updating software is almost always bad, but it would be a nightmare in my car. "Good morning! The buttons on your steering wheel have been remapped, and the auto-nav now has a different set of quirks. Have a nice day, and we are not liable!"

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system.

Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted auto-pilot, or even if it was just some lame GPS navigation, is completely irrelevant. The bottom line is: there was an issue that was reported, Tesla denied it, the man died because of that issue, and now Tesla is contradicting themselves by saying there is an issue, but are deflecting blame.

At this point, Tesla is eroding the ability for anyone to put trust in their cars. What if you have a Model X and one day it unsafely opens the doors while you are driving on the highway, so you take it to the dealer but they say "nope, can't replicate the issue, your car is safe to use". Are you going to believe them? Why, when they've just confirmed that they have a track record of being wrong?

Oh wait, that already happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6giiao/my_mode...

You can't just blanket say everything is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative. If he reported the system wasn't working, why would he continue using it especially in a known problematic area?

Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong.

As for the relevance: sure I can. My post about Tesla's contradiction has no relevance on what kind of autopilot it was. Tesla denied there was an issue, contradicted themselves by then saying there is an issue, and now is casting blame on the user for that issue. That's not acceptable. It would be unacceptable if we were talking about windshield wipers, or tires, or door locks, or the fucking clock on the dashboard. It is all about Tesla's denial of the issue and contradiction of themselves, and the type of autopilot is completely irrelevant.

> Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong.

This doesn't hold up if you refer back to the comment that states he contacted them 7-10 times.

Nobody was forcing him to use the feature if he knew it wasn’t working as intended on that particular stretch of road. My issue with your statements are you’re shifting 110% of the blame to Tesla when that isn’t remotely the case.

And my issue with your statements is that you're trying to have it both ways: you're claiming both that "there is no problem" and "Tesla told him about the problem so it's his fault". You have to pick one.

Nowhere do I say there is no problem so I’m not sure why you’re quoting that. I acknowledge there may be a problem since he shouldn’t have been using autopilot on that known problematic strip of road.

> he shouldn’t have been using autopilot on that known problematic strip of road.

Tesla don't make preconditions on where to use their autopilot. How many Tesla's discover a new 'problematic' strip of road each day? Is every first Tesla to drive down a new road to become a crash-test dummy when it turns out the autopilot just can't handle that next bend in the road?

It's absurd to think so. The product is not fit for purpose. I'm confident the law would agree.

Sure they do, it isn’t enabled 100% of the time. It only enables it when it has the confidence it can perform its task. There are plenty of times where it wouldn’t be available to me for various reasons, either road conditions or weather conditions.

There's a difference between "couldn't find a problem" and "no problem".

He went to them multiple times and they couldn't reproduce the problem. Sounds fairly standard. I'd be surprised if you can cite them saying there is definitely no problem.

Because it’s on his daily commuting path? If the autopilot globallly function well and give him added security why should he disconnect it?

But if the car consistently swerve toward the barrier in certains circumstances, doesn’t it increase the probability of a crash because it programmatically increase risk of accident in an otherwise safe situation. And then isn’t Tesla culpright of not treating bug report appropriately?

Based on his complaints I don’t see how we can infer it gave him added security which would warrant continued use. If I knew a tool I used around the house wasn’t working completely as advertised I wouldn’t continue using the feature that wasn’t working for me.

As a beta user of bank software where clicking transfer money ended up sending twice as much, wouldn’t it be my fault if I did it 7 more times when I acknowledged its behavior even if it wasn’t as advertised?

I realize my examples are hard to compare to this specific situation, but the software is opt in and is littered with disclaimers because it’s not a level 3+ autonomous vehicle.

As I see it it’s a minor bug with horrible consequences. What is shocking is not the bug itself, nor the lack of a quick bugfix, but inability to acknowledge the problem and lack of basic and sincere human empathy.

To quote Tesla statement "We empathize with Mr. Huang's family,(...), but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road." and the last sentence is by far the worst "The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."

Seriouly the most urgent thing to do for Tesla is maybe to fire the head of PR. How can anybody in his right mind have vetted this last sentence?

> How can anybody in his right mind have vetted this last sentence?

Agreed. Unfortunately, Elon himself probably wrote that.

> As a beta user of bank software where clicking transfer money ended up sending twice as much, wouldn’t it be my fault if I did it 7 more times when I acknowledged its behavior even if it wasn’t as advertised?

Bad example. "Hey, this is broken, it did this." You say. They say "Nope, no problem/ fixed." You do it again. "Still broken!" "All good!". Again...

I think it’s a fine example when applied to 7 different times. That’s past a reasonable amount of times to place your trust in a system at that point. You’re just self inflicting pain if you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

That makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that Tesla's statement made it OK that the driver did not pay attention to what was going on, which is something which is required 100% of the time when Autopilot is functioning correctly. (It's a L2 system, and reminds the driver to continue paying attention each time it is turned on.)

If things worked the way you want it to, no car company would every say anything to any customer other than bland statements drafted by lawyers.

I'm a new Model S over, and it's hard for me to believe anyone would believe them. The autopilot makes egregious errors during any prolonged use. You should feel more alert and engaged when using it at this point.

It's a feature that is in development and you can not use it if you don't want to.

Everybody knows ad is alerted by the fact that self driving technology is not there yet. The driver knew that.

> It's a feature that is in development

there's something fundamentally wrong in releasing that to the public then, your authority for vehicle safety should be VERY concerned about this, people getting killed aren't "bugs to iron out".

Then why on earth does Tesla refer to it as autopilot ?

Words have consequences and in this case deadly consequences.

> the man died because of that issue

Tesla would argue that the proximate cause was that the driver was not paying attention.

> And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system.

Tesla is not saying that it's his fault for using the system. They are saying it is not Tesla's fault if the driver wasn't paying attention, despite being presented with repeated warnings closely preceding the impact.

Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies.

> Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies.

I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. We don't know what the investigation will show.

Car steered itself into a concrete wall. That is, by definition, failure. It doesn't matter whether it was properly following its coding to follow lane lines.

> I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed.

It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.

> It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.

Reflecting on your reply and gamblor956's post below, and after reviewing the published photos, I concede this looks like the most likely scenario, and if that is what actually occurred, it would unequivocally be a failure.

(That said, there's still a chance, however small, that whatever seems obvious now ends up being invalidated by the investigation. I just don't like feeling certain about things like this, especially from a distance.)

Failed under what conditions, though? The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. The car was not used under those conditions and the result was injury through misuse of the product.

If my toaster causes me serious injury because I used it in the bath, that is my problem.

Product liability (in the US) attaches to the normal usage of a product, whether that is an intended usage of the product or not.

A toaster is not normally used in the bath, so that does not create product liability issues. A car is normally used for driving...in fact, that's a car's primary use...so product liability would attach to its driving-related functional failure.

To be fair, a car isn't normally used for driving on the freeway without looking where you're going for 5+ seconds at a time.

> The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose.

No, they don't, otherwise they could disclaim everything.

Wow, reading the comments in that post are amazing. The echo-chamber, Stockholm Syndrome is full blown on that subreddit...

Look, I'm old and cynical too, but we can't do character assassination in this way. You need to take issue with specific facts or your argument comes across as extremely weak.

The post was downvoted almost to oblivion, and blocked until the admins released it. Just read the comments. Most of the "character assassination" is commentors attacking the OP on Reddit.

Could you please point to the source where it says that Tesla said it wasn’t an issue? All I read describes that they couldn’t reproduce the issue. That is something different.

I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means.

If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred.

Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s family but for everyone listening, including everyone who owns a Tesla.

It’s not an “autopilot”, it’s a lane assist. I see this as a naming failure more than anything else.

> they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected.

That hasn't even been definitively established yet (regardless of what Tesla says), as the multiple videos of post-update Teslas steering directly toward crash barriers demonstrate.

... in a Level 2 system, that's a fine thing.

No, it is absolutely not. I'm not sure why you keep posting this as if it is definitive.

Let me put it very clearly for you: it is not acceptable, in any shape or manner, to expect your users to have to "save themselves" from your product killing them every 5 seconds. If your product requires that, it is a bad product.

Furthermore, your entire argument of "it's just a level 2 system..." falls apart when you consider that Tesla jumps through several marketing hoops to deceive people and make them believe it isn't just a level 2 system. When you visit Tesla's webpage on autopilot [1], the first and only thing you see at the top of the page are the following words in big, bold text:

>Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

>All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

It is not until you get to nearly the very bottom of the page that Tesla displays a disclaimer that "when we say 'full self-driving', we don't actually mean full self-driving, because that would be illegal and isn't available yet." There is only one single sentence, buried within a paragraph mid-page, that says drivers must remain alert and prepare to take over. The rest of the page is also filled with language indicating that autopilot is capable of turning itself, switching lanes itself, speeding itself up/slowing itself down, etc.

It is not unreasonable whatsoever for someone to read this webpage and assume that autopilot will magically take them whereever they need to go. This webpage is in stark contrast to the reality, where autopilot will actively steer you into a concrete barrier and kill you if you do not babysit it. And to make things worse, Tesla apparently considers this to be a "feature".

According to your Twitter, you own a Tesla, so it seems you have a little bit of fanboy-ist bias going on here. I'd suggest you take off the Tesla fanboy ballcap and consider how you would feel if this were a different product. If someone sold you a smartphone, but told you "this phone never requires charging because it has a mini nuclear reactor in it. Be careful though, because if you don't keep your eyes on the phone at all times and press the 'please don't explode and kill me' button every 5 minutes, you'll die!" would you be defending that phone in the same way you're defending Tesla?

1: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

>Let me put it very clearly for you: it is not acceptable, in any shape or manner, to expect your users to have to "save themselves" from your product killing them every 5 seconds. If your product requires that, it is a bad product.

Yes it is. Otherwise you're asking all car manufacturers to stop selling cars. "I have to constantly keep my car between the lines or I'll cause an accident" is an acceptable standard. That's how every car on the road works today. The liability is on the user to operate it properly.

You accuse the poster of fanboy-ism, but you don't realize how much Tesla tells the driver that they need to pay attention and keep their hands on the steering wheel while they're using autopilot. So maybe your lack of experience with the car makes you pull those baseless arguments.

While I agree Tesla is deceptive with their wording and the way they sell their autopilot ("have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability"), it's not legally wrong. They have the hardware for it (according to them), but at the moment, the software they have is a glorified lane assist. They specifically mention in that same page:

    > Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time.

>That's how every car on the road works today. The liability is on the user to operate it properly.

No, it is not. No other car on the market today actively steers you toward an obstacle. Every non-autopilot car would require the driver (or another human actor, such as another driver) to first put themselves in a dangerous situation before requiring they get themselves out of it. Tesla autopilot, on the other hand, puts the driver in a dangerous situation on it's own. That is the crucial, fundamental difference.

Er, no, there are other cars that steer. All of them are level 2 systems that could steer you wrong.

And which manufacturer actually refers to it as autopilot?

I can only name one.

Great research! Having used autopilot in my girlfriend’s car, I’m aware of the notifications when autopilot is turned on. You should check it out, instead of assuming that drivers only see the marketing materials you quote.

Also, have you used any adaptive cruise control system? Because they break your rule.

Steering toward a barrier is not fine for any level.

Er, no, that’s not how it works. Level 2 is not expected to be perfect in that fashion. You want level 3.

Automatic cruise control is also not expected to be perfect at slamming on the brakes to avoid rear-enders. The driver is responsible.

There is a huge difference between not-avoiding an accident and causing an accident. It didn't just drift, it actively pointed itself toward the barrier. That shouldn't happen at level 2, or level 3, or level 0.

I've never driven a Tesla or any other kind of "autopilot" car.

But for the current kind of systems, what I would really like is something to take evasive action, not drive for me. I know some non autopilot cars have those systems in place, but not sure what more a Tesla car would give me in protection.

I guess I need to take one for a spin one of these days.

Some interesting research on “assist” functionality was mentioned as a part of this fascinating talk on self driving cars and their perception of the world.

https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_...

I didn't know Tesla had an exchange with that person over previous occurences of the problem.

I believe Tesla should take responsibilities for this. But I think they fear this could just kill their entire company if they make a PA regarding safety being their fault.

All in all, it's not right, not long ago they were claiming to have the highest safety ratings, now they're in denial over a death.

Tesla was one of the best tech I've ever watched happen, up until when they decided to introduce the Autopilot. I guess they found out they can't easily improve on the range, which was the feature, up until this mess of a branding and PR. They were the good, benevolent techies, but they became angry and arrogant rich guys just in a flash under the slightest of criticism, and when they were to blame.

What I hope now is that there come a new fresh enterprise that prioritises the range variable, and can produce serious electric alternatives to conventional buses and scooters (e.g. Vespa) too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com