Hacker News Reader

That's an excerpt from a statement made by Tesla that is quoted in the article. Tesla was reprimanded by the NTSB for making statements like this during the investigation process.

The article I linked in the footnote has quotes that are arguably more WTF than the Tesla statement. It quotes the wife describing how she had told him many times that the car was swerving in that spot.

Well yeah but he’s not the one suing. The family lost him and probably isn’t thinking rationally. Or, maybe they are thinking rationally. Lawyers probably took the suit on contingency right?

That's fair enough, but the problem I have is the way this event is being portrayed in news and social media. The implication everywhere is that autopilot just unexpectedly swerved into a wall and there was nothing the driver could have done. It actually was expected, and any reasonable driver could have easily prevented it, because it had almost happened so many times in the past.

> any reasonable driver could have easily prevented it,

Not really. The crash attenuator was missing because someone else crashed into it. That highway exit is ridiculous. As for faults, there is obviously fault on both sides. The driver should have been more alert and the "autonomous system" should have detected the obstacle and slowed down the vehicle before hitting the guard.

Both sides? Shouldn't there be some responsibility for the organization tasked with making sure roads have dividers that people don't crash against multiple times in a month?

What would you suggest Caltrans do instead, other than replace the attenuator more often?

I can think of various other things that Caltrans can place there for people to crash into, but at some point there will be the start of a rigid wall.

The repeatable problem suggests a lapse in the current layout. The fact that a new crash happened within two weeks suggests that replacing the attenuator should have happened faster than that.

That being said, I'm only pointing out that in this case there can be extra variables to account other than the car manufacturer and the driver, the same way that when people speeding, running stop signs and pedestrians not paying attention when crossing an intersection can all result in a collision there is always also a bit of missing urban planning that could have helped avoid the situation in the first place. I believe the same would be true of this case.

This is the issue with wireless updates on any vehicle.

What if tomorrow Autopilot is updated and it begins occurring 2 miles down the road?

On the flip side, Tesla fixed this specific issue (and apparently unfixed it again) with over the air updates. If this was another manufacturer the cars would need to be recalled and it would likely be years before a fix was rolled out to all vehicles and therefore lives would continue to be in danger. So it isn't like over the air updates are inherently bad. The reality of the situation is that there almost certainly needs to be some level of government oversight over this type of thing.

I won't argue against over the air for everything but when your 'autopilot' system can be updated any day for any reason, I would argue that it failing and killing you shouldn't be as excusable.

It is worth noting that Teslas don't update "any day for any reason". The updates are very rarely more frequent than once every several weeks and have to be manually triggered and approved by the owner.

>It actually was expected, and any reasonable driver could have easily prevented it, because it had almost happened so many times in the past.

Not true if is the driver first time on that road at that time of day on that software version.

These articles take off because the general (non-Tesla-owning) public believes "autopilot" is full autonomy and Tesla is covering something up.

If this was branded as a "driving assistant", people wouldn't bat an eye when the driver failed to maintain control.

As we've heard from other Tesla drivers on HN in the past: Tesla continues to deliver OTA updates, which occasionally causes people to think that previous issues have been fixed, especially if they haven't popped up again recently. Either they continue to avoid using autopilot because they can't take the chance of finding out whether Tesla ever bothered fixing the problem, or they give it a test, think it's working fine now, and are lulled into security ... right until it doesn't work again.

As a Tesla driver, I look out the windows when operating my motor vehicle. If my car crashes on AutoPilot or otherwise, it’s my fault.

When Tesla tells me I can stop looking while the car drives, instead of how they currently do it where it constantly reminds me to be alert, then I might change my position.

Until then it is abundantly clear to every single Tesla driver, who exactly is responsible for controlling the vehicle. The car reminds the driver of this when activating AutoPilot and persistently while under way.

The name of the feature could be MagicCarpet, AutoDrive, AutoCruise, SmartPilot, Pilot, Jeeves, I don’t care what. The car says in big bold letters every time you activate the feature to be alert and ready to take over.

I also expect the performance of the Beta AutoPilot software to change with each update. Navigate on Autopilot didn’t exist when I first got my Tesla. Blind Spot warning functionality either. Adaptive cruise and merging behavior have both significantly improved.

Last week a car in the lane to the left of me put on its blinker and I could have sworn my Tesla slowed down to let them in. I did not notice the car make any rightward motion to enter my lane before my car slowed slightly. It was not a jerky deceleration but just a smooth increase in the distance just enough to maintain the follow distance with the new car in place. The car changed lanes in front of me and we kept driving along. I’ve never seen that before, and I wasn’t aware Tesla could do that based on optical recognition of the blinker alone, but I’m pretty sure that’s what happened. It could be the Tesla saw the car moving to enter the lane before I did, but it had certainly not crossed the dashed line before the deceleration.

Drivers flirt with danger when they allow themselves to drive distracted and stop paying full attention to the road, with or without an AutoPilot capability.

Two days ago I was driving without AutoPilot and was on a phone call on speakerphone (Bluetooth through the car speakers). It was a fairly contentious call and even though I was hands-free and looking ahead it was definitely the first thing on my mind. I was approaching a left-lane must exit, in the middle of a 3 lane highway when at the last minute a car in the left lane swerved to avoid the exit in front of me.

I probably had enough time to slow down without causing an issue behind me, but I hadn’t checked my rear-view in some time due to being distracted by the call. So instead I jerked to the right and moved partially into the right lane. A car in the right lane ~3 car lengths behind me then had to hit their brakes hard enough for their tires to squeal.

After reviewing the dashcam video (Tesla records if you plug in a drive) I was unhappy with my choice there. I should have slowed quickly and stayed in lane. If I wasn’t on that call I would have made a better choice.

But worth mentioning, if AutoPilot was engaged, it would have made the better choice in that situation as well (since AutoPilot will never swerve to avoid an obstacle in fact).

> instead of how they currently do it where it constantly reminds me to be alert, then I might change my position.

So you're a new Tesla owner then?

Because a few years ago, it'd only tell you to put your hands on the wheel once every 15 _minutes_...

Relatively new, I bought a TM3 last July.

As a Tesla driver, I look out the windows when operating my motor vehicle. If my car crashes on AutoPilot or otherwise, it’s my fault.

Legally, both you and Tesla are at fault if the car crashes. You, for not maintaining full control of the car. And Tesla, for developing the AutoPilot system which directly caused the crash. In this context, Tesla is the "proximate cause* of the crash, so their liability generally would supersede your own. Moreover, in a lawsuit, you and Tesla would be jointly liable for damages, but any sane lawyer would settle with your for a small amount and go after Tesla for the remainder.

You’re the lawyer. Is there case law to support this? I ask not to mean “citation required” but because I would be very interested to read it.

I don’t know if and how much Tesla can disclaim responsibility for the crash based on warnings written into the UI and user manual and TOS.

For example, I’m fairly certain that autopilot systems on boats do not absolve the Skipper of liability if a boat crashes, and suing a small craft autopilot systems manufacture for maintaining (or not maintaining) a set course into a collision would be laughable.

I would also say, if we can’t ship self-driving capabilities without some way of managing and constraining the inherent liability, we will miss out on saving 10s of thousands of lives just because we can not save all the lives.

Yes, just break open a 1L torts treatise and there are dozens of cases.

The difference between autopilot on a boat and Tesla's Autopilot is a matter of agency/autonomy. Boat and plane autopilots mostly just go in a straight line--they make no decisions.

Tesla's autopilot functions autonomously from the driver--and that, legally, makes all the difference, because it can make different decisions from what the driver would do. The driver still bears some responsibility for their failure to oversee and correct TA, but TA bears direct responsibility.

The analysis would be different if TA was just a glorified cruise control or lane-keeping system.

Autopilot systems on (small) boats neither have, nor advertise, nor imply that they have any form of collision detection, let alone avoidance.

Tesla on the other hand describes its system as being safer than human drivers at avoiding accidents.

Why does that matter? The next person who comes by with autopilot on who doesn't know that might also die.

Sounds like his smartphone is about as liable as Tesla here. If he hadn't been distracted this shouldn't have happened. He knew his autopilot doesn't handle this section of the road.

I'm confused here.

Has Tesla publicly stated which sections of the road autopilot doesn't work on ?

The docs say to keep your hands on the wheel and stay alert at all times.

Never mind Tesla CEO on national television taking hands off the wheel and not watching the road.

I'm fully aware of their recommendation.

But if Tesla is aware that certain parts of the road are more likely to cause incidents and they haven't communicated that. Well sounds to me like that would be criminally negligent.

So like when a manufacturer puts a label on a set of knives saying “warning, bottom edge is sharp” something like that? Except popping up on the screen as you drive every five seconds so you can read about the hazards you are seeing outside the windows?

Nanny car, anyone?

I think drivers are already well aware that roads contain an ever changing variety of risks, and they can see the signs of these risks with their eyes.

The driver in this case was acutely aware that the beta software could not yet properly handle that segment of road. So much so that he even visited the Tesla service center specifically to let them know about the issue.

You know there's a difference between a kitchen knife and a 1 tonne metal structure travelling at 100km/h on a freeway.

People are dying from Tesla failing to let their users know when and where autopilot should be used.

Oh okay then let's tell people every five seconds what to do or not do with each knob and button in every car. Or why not every two seconds? Maybe one?

Forget Tesla, we should have these warnings in all cars!

"You are entering a curve. It may be unsafe to let go of the steering wheel here especially if you don't have autopilot."

"You have encountered another patch of snow. The wheels might slip on this spot. Autopilot will handle it just fine but in case it doesn't, stay attentive and keep your hands on the wheel."

"You are starting to go downhill. Warning: brakes may be required."

"The road is curving to the left 7 degrees. At this time and date the sun's rays will be entering your windshield at an angle that may obscure your view of distant objects to your right."

"Last night's rain left some fallen wet leaves strewn on the opposite side of the roadway. Watch for oncoming cars who have lost control due to conditions."

"Your blood sugar is getting low. Please get something to eat. And you haven't called your mother in a week. Make sure you call her soon to prevent dangerous distraction from incoming calls."

These warnings are very important, people are dying in droves, there are at least 2 reported incidents, from all car companies not telling everyone about what they can see for themselves.

I mean come on, it's a 1 tonne metal structure hurtling down the freeway at 100km/h I'm telling you. People are dying and it's all down to the car companies not providing these messages, which we totally have time to read while driving, every one second.

/s

Surely there's some sort of "autopilot does not work on all roads" disclaimer, right? That's why you're supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention.

Just like there is a warning on cigarettes, yet we have stopped allowing smoking in enclosed public places. Kind of like driving on a freeway...

Yep, there is.

It’s clear from what Elon said about high definition maps that Tesla’s stance is that roadways are dynamic environments that can change at any time.

> Has Tesla publicly stated which sections of the road autopilot doesn't work on ?

yes: noone of them. you are to be able to take control at all time.

Your argument sounds the same as: people who smoke know that cigarettes cause cancer, in fact it says that on the pack, still they decide to smoke. So, if they get cancer and die it's their fault not the cigarette manufacturer's.

Cigarette manufacturers got sued into oblivion because they suppressed science and insisted their product was beneficial. Now that they acknowledge the dangers, nobody’s suing.

Of course people are still suing. And in many countries governments are continuing to sue as well.

Just Google it. Plenty of examples.

How many of them are not based on previous lies and fraudulent claims by tobacco companies?

People are suing based on injury and illness that occurred during the period this knowledge was being suppressed, etc. Not because they took up smoking last year and are sick.

Knowingly manufacturing a product that has such a high risk of causing cancer as do cigarettes is certainly unethical in my opinion. But today when that risk is known to consumers (as opposed to in the past when it was not) it is ultimately the responsibility of anyone that decide to start smoking today when doing so ends up giving them cancer.

I say this as someone who is a low volume consumer of another tobacco product (Swedish snus) that is also bad for my health and which also has a risk of giving me a form of cancer (oral cancer). I am betting on the fact that I keep my use of the product on the low end to save me. But I accept the fact that I am to blame if this ends up giving me cancer.

Autopilot arguably prevents more accidents and deaths than it causes, just to keep this in perspective. So the tobacco analogies can only go so far here.

Keep this in perspective: based on the number of avoidable deaths in Tesla cars driving on Autopilot in otherwise favorable conditions, its arguable that Autopilot causes more accidents and deaths than it avoids, especially given that Autopilot is used in the lowest-risk driving conditions.

Yeah good to keep an open mind on both possibilities, but it’s overwhelmingly likely that autopilot will only get much better over time.

Those deaths were not caused by autopilot though.

Which is right.

Do you disagree with that?

Yes. What is your point ?