> Boeing is pursuing profit at the expense of human lives
To play devil's advocate, this isn't a moral statement. The author is saying this is true based on actual events.
To play devil's advocate, this isn't a moral statement. The author is saying this is true based on actual events.
You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...
So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.
Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided.
Could be a fiefdom for all I care.
But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”.
But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.
And when it's the marketing department saying "X" in big print in flashy brochures and ads, and the legal department and their small print saying "not X in ways that kill purchasers expecting X", I'd expect company officers to be facing jail time.
I'm old fashioned that way too.
Hell, both Boeing and Tesla can be said to have indulged in the same sin: not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user
Taking the viewpoint that caveat emptor absolves the manufacturer of any complicity in mass producing and delivering for use dangerous systems without clearly communicating the underlying implementation details to a reasonable operator is just beyond naieve to the point of asking bad actors to take these types of risks in the least responsible way possible. In fact, the only reason Boeing is getting slammed so hard and Tesla isn't is entirely due to extra regulatory burden that aircraft manufacturers have to deal with that automotive don't.
Now, I personally take the onus of understanding my vehicle seriously, but not everyone does, and nevertheless, they still must be able to drive. Therefore I personally hold manufacturer's responsible for being good corporate citizens and not indulging in deceptive practices.
Not that that gets me or anyone else anywhere. It's the principle of the thing though.
Because we're talking about legality, not morality. I have said in my original comment I hate how Tesla markets this, but that does not absolve the driver of responsibility for piloting their multi-ton metal box at high velocity on public roads. What you're effectively saying is you want some entity, likely the government, to hold Tesla accountable for their claims. Except you will never find an official statement from Tesla saying you can drive without paying attention (there are numerous unofficial statements, and even a video of Elon Musk personally demonstrating the technology without paying attention on national TV) - so it's a question of proving fraud at that point. And proving fraud is an insanely difficult process, because you have to prove intent. Even proving neglect in this instance is challenging. I do wish there were more stringent regulations about advertising for driver-assist systems, but currently they do not exist.
Yes, in a perfect world, I would love for Tesla to not get away with this shit. But rather than only blame Tesla, perhaps we should recognize that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get your driver's license. You are responsible for the car so long as you are driving. If you are so easily duped that you can be dissuaded otherwise, you are likely not fit to be a safe driver.
Ultimately what I care about is how safe the roads are. I care much less about pointing the finger. Tesla deserves criticism for their disingenuous marketing, but so do lazy drivers who literally fall asleep at the wheel without even checking to see if that's okay.
I think it's becoming clear that at least Boeing have also indulged in "actively deceiving the regulator" as well as the end user.
(It may be that Tesla have also done that, but at least so far nothing like as egregiously as Boeing's recently revealed internal comms...)
I'm curious, because what I've read as a layman led me to believe Boeing legitimately didn't know how dangerous it was and their processes/culture helped undermine facilitating a better understanding. Still not good, but a different world than actively deceiving regulators. It almost seems like their cognitive biases deceived themselves
Onus does not apply to the safety of consumer products. For example, it is the responsibility of an automobile owner to drive a car with brakes in good working condition. Period.
But it is also the responsibility of an automobile manufacturer to issue a recall and fix faulty brakes in a car they sell.
It’s not an either-or. We don’t say, “Because the onus is on the driver to drive a safe vehicle, there is no fault to be laid at the manufacturer’s door. Caveat emptor.” We hold both parties responsible to some degree or other.
In sum, yes, drivers are supposed to know the limitations of their equipment and operate it responsibly. But also yes, manufacturers have responsibilities around the safety of the hardware and software they sell to people to operate as motor vehicles.
The driver’s responsibility does not absolve the manufacturer of its responsibilities.
But I think the solution to the problem describe upthread is more along the lines of "we need higher standards of truth in advertising".
While I agree that "the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works" - I think it's entirely understandable that drivers base that understanding on what the sales guy and marketing team told them when they researched and bought it, and that if they use works like "self driving" and "autonomous" and "autopilot" that it's reasonable for drivers to interpret them in their commonly understood meanings. Disclaimers in legal documentation redefining commonly understood English words are _not_ OK in my opinion.
Is that not pursuing profit at the expense of human lives?
The fact that the system safety analysis didn't label it 'catastrophic' seems to indicate they didn't know this. This doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that they should have, or that they still didn't follow their design procedures stating redundant senaors
The fact the system safety analysis didn't call out an MCAS failure as catastrophic seems to indicate they misunderstood the system risk which is different than claiming a catastrophic failure is an acceptable risk
They have to acknowledge at some point that lives may be at risk in their business. Whether or not that risk level is a acceptable and that they properly gauge that risk 8s another matter