Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjwright | Hacker News Reader

Imagine a driver driving down a parkway at speed and thinking "I'm on a parkway, so I should shift the car into Park."

That's how dumb this argument is.

If a driver ignores the requirements of their driver license AND the vehicle's clearly worded warnings, then the driver is entirely responsible. Claiming that the driver is not at fault because they interpreted the word "autopilot" to mean "I can disregard my responsibility as a driver and ignore the vehicle's very clear warnings" is deeply absurd.

View on HN

I would be more sympathetic to your argument if Tesla marketed Autopilot as a driver assistance feature. But that's not at all how they market it. When you go to Tesla's Autopilot page, you immediately see a video of a Tesla driving itself- the user doesn't touch the steering wheel for minutes as it navigates complicated scenarios: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

Tesla's own Autopilot page video has this disclaimer in bold at the very start of the video: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF". Then there are multiple videos of Elon Musk driving hands-free on Autopilot for extended periods of time, like this one:

https://youtu.be/MO0vdNNzwxk?t=123

So Tesla can bury whatever carefully worded legalese they want in their terms and conditions, but they know that these videos will get shared and watched millions of times, and that they strongly convey the message that "Tesla's drive themselves on Autopilot". These videos set the expectation of how Autopilot should function, and I don't blame Autopilot users for not understanding this.

So the driver is not there to take over if the system does something dangerous? But that's what Tesla says every driver killed in one of these crashes was not doing, and why they were at fault. This is an unambiguous case of Tesla sending a mixed message, and completely unacceptable.

You really have to be intentionally unsympathetic to come to this conclusion. On the AP page you linked, you literally scrolled past this description:

> All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future

What's more, when you activate AP in a Tesla, a message appears to keep your hands on the wheel and be ready to take over at any time.

While the driver is ultimately responsible, your analogy makes no sense. Auto(matic) means pretty much the same thing in most languages. Something that works without human intervention. An automatic gearbox shifts automatically, auto-shutdown shuts down automatically, and the auto pilot pilots automatically. Or that’s what many people expect: even if confined only to motorways (as opposed to everywhere) it will be able to work by itself.

The park-parkway analogy is about as good as cruise control vs. cruise ship. It’s a coincidence of words that nobody will ever confuse.

> That's how dumb this argument is.

So, no problem changing the name then - because in your opinion the name isn't effecting the purchaser or driver expectations.

That isn’t something you can extrapolate from what I wrote, but yes, of course they could change the name with minimal real consequences.

They could name it Jeff.

>Claiming that the driver is not at fault because they interpreted the word "autopilot" to mean "I can disregard my responsibility as a driver and ignore the vehicle's very clear warnings" is deeply absurd

Boy are you going to be in for a shock when the investigations start. "Autopilot", with the way Elon has promoted it, shouldn't slam into stationary objects.

What investigations?

Has Tesla ever said that Autopilot will stop for stationary objects?

Has Tesla ever said that Autopilot is intended to allow the driver to take his focus off the road?

I do think that Tesla can do more to emphasise that Autopilot isn't a synonym for full self driving, but that isn't an excuse for people who are supposed to be acting in accordance with their driver license.

> Has Tesla ever said that Autopilot is intended to allow the driver to take his focus off the road?

What the hell is the point of it then?

I’d recommend reading some actual reviews of AutoPilot by the hundreds of thousands of people that use it every day, watch some YouTube videos or read some auto review sites explaining it.

You keep your attention on the road. AutoPilot “takes the strain” off micromanaging the vehicle in the lane while you do the executive planning.

It’s a supremely comfortable way to drive. But you are still responsible for driving the damn car.

Okay, but with this autopilot you can be dead if your attention slips for 8 seconds and when nobody else does anything wrong. Are we really convinced that the Teslas are safer than humans when it fails in such fashion?

This is true of driving in any case. 8 seconds is an eternity at 70mph on the highway. You have to look out the window. You can not watch a movie, or check your phone, or fall asleep.

You can, for example, adjust the radio, or take a sip of coffee.

IMO quick emergency stopping for surprise obstacles falls under "micromanagement" not "executive planning".

... we all love Tesla but seriously?

We have a serious problem if "autopilot" cannot avoid an object in plain sight. Everyone interprets "autopilot" to be self-driving capabilities. Some people understand that the performance of this system is tied to the conditions of the road. If you cant handle the most perfect road conditions then you shouldnt call it autopilot. It is gross negligence. Tesla can add whatever warnings they want -- they will not win that case in the long run. Either they will lose in the court of law or in the court of public opinion.

I wonder how Tesla feels about lidar now.

I don't see what lidar has to do with any of this.

No car on sale today has lidar, and yet plenty of them perform speed-adaptive cruise control with varying degrees of steering assistance, from none to hands-off-wheel. They use radar. Tesla cars also use radar. The question is whether the various software algorithms that interpret sensor information are being too quick to dismiss the apparent presence of stationary objects on the road.

My understanding is that most—if not all—adaptive cruise control and autonomous emergency braking systems are unreliable when it comes to reacting to stationary objects at highway speed.

The vehicle's clearly worded warnings can be at odds with the reality of how they market their vehicles. If you don't believe me, read your car's manual some day. They go to the point of pretty much warning you to never drive.

If a warning makes a feature less than advertised, or is impractical in general, the company has still come short of their duty. The problem with Autopilot is that basic human nature will make you less attentive if it's taking that level of control. You can't warn that away.

I have a couple cars with TACC (tesla and not-tesla) and sit in bumper-to-bumper commute traffic daily. I will admit I sometimes let my mind wander because I trust the system to stop & go correctly in this kind of traffic scenario. However, if the system stopped working and rear-ended the person in front of me with no warning, I would be 100% ready to take the blame -- I'm behind the wheel, thus I am responsible, barring some kind of freak malfunction (pedals don't respond to input or something crazy)

The question of whether the driver should have had their hands on the wheel (clearly they should have) is distinct from the question of whether the Autopilot should have avoided this crash.

I agree, the issue in this case—and indeed with most Autopilot-related incidents—wasn't anything to do with the driver taking his hands off the wheel, it was the driver taking his eyes off the road.

The warning message says "Be prepared to take over at any time." That is clearly the exact opposite of "You may now focus your attention to that laptop on the passenger seat."

Yes it is a concern that Autopilot is failing in some circumstances. But whatever Tesla says or does, the road rules say that the human driver is always responsible in cases like this.

In fact, the driver should have had his eyes on the road, in order to have the degree of attentiveness that Tesla always claims was missing whenever this sort of crash occurs. Tesla cars are unable to detect whether the driver is doing that, and if they did, it would make clear that this technology is nowhere near as complete as Tesla claims.

They can drive a car automatically but not tell if a driver is awake and alert and looking at the road?

Seems that would be easier to me.

Would you buy a car that had a camera pointed at you constantly, recording for use in an accident investigation, uploading periodic short videos to Tesla for use in their training data?

Firstly, no-one has a right to drive distracted, any more that they have the right to drive drunk. Secondly, monitoring the attentiveness of a driver, as a backstop for weaknesses in the automation, does not require recording. Thirdly, this might be a good point to remind ourselves that this is, according to Tesla, a beta-testing program. The goal should be to get to the point where constant driver attentiveness is not necessary, but until that is achieved, additional safety measures are justified.

Absolutely yes, because I don't drive like a stupid idiot—and if I ever did I'm not going to deny responsibility.

However I don't see why having a camera pointed at my face necessarily means that Tesla have to willingly provide information to insurance companies. As long as it is only available to law enforcement after being granted a court order, I'm fine with that.

(Note: I do not live in the USA. I trust the law enforcement in my country. My answer would be very different if I were in the US resident. I've heard enough about law enforcement in the US to know that I'd never live there, and if I did, I wouldn't ever trust the police.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com