Hacker News Reader

Comment by o_p | Hacker News Reader

Why would someone use autopilot when Tesla is not liable for damages? Its like you hire a driver but you are liable for any crash they do.

View on HN

Because autopilot has nothing to do with the crash. You're supposed to pay attention and take over at any time.

Why does anyone drive any car when the manufacturer isn't liable for mechanical failures that could cause a crash? I'm much more worried about a suspension part failing and my wheel flying off than autopilot doing something dumb.

Gotta treat it like cruise control.

They behaved irresponsible, but Tesla could really use actual driver attention monitoring. It should not be possible to have no one sitting in the driving seat. They seem to have a broken attention monitoring system that is easily tricked.

They are working on a camera based solution though it's imperfect. You can see examples of it running at https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1379928419136339969

Yeah I generally agree with this. Forget the camera stuff the other commenter mentioned, the seats have a weight sensor already for other stuff like making sure you don't get out of the car when it's not in park. I can't believe AP doesn't use that, unless the owner here bypassed that by shorting the circuit or something.

> Why does anyone drive any car when the manufacturer isn't liable for mechanical failures that could cause a crash?

Manufacturers absolutely are liable if there is a design problem. This is the entire reason recalls exist.

One could certainly argue that Tesla's laissez faire attitude toward autopilot safety constitutes a systems engineering design failure, making it grounds for a recall.

They're not liable when the componets are used outside of their reasonable limits. You don't see recalls for shocks that fail after 200,000 miles, and leaving the driver's seat entirely should fall under that bucket too.

>when the manufacturer isn't liable for mechanical failures that could cause a crash

uhm. Ever heard of the GM ignition switch defect? Ford Pinto? I'm sure there's more where a manufacturer is liable for mechanical failures that cause a crash.

Completely different situation. That doesn't involve the consumer not following instructions.

There is something called personal responsibility that most people believe in. We aren’t children. You could ask that question about literally anything that you buy that could potential kill you.

That doesn't apply to cars, which have the potential to kill anyone who shares the road with you (or people on crosswalks, the sidewalk, cafés, inside shops, etc). So it is my business that you drive safely.

>There is something called personal responsibility that most people believe in.

If you are talking about the personal responsability of Elon Musk by misleading the public into thinking his cars have anything close to a self driving car, I agree. If autopilot is not autopilot, then why name it as such?

Because it is similar to an actual autopilot. Aircraft autopilots are also not fully-autonomous, and basically just follow a predetermined course.

Turns out following a pre-determined course on the streets is harder.

Which makes what Tesla calls “autopilot” all the more appropriate IMO. Both will get you _most_ of the way from A to B, while you have to pay very close attention at any critical point, and generally supervise it at all times.

To make driving more relaxing.

Instead of actively driving you switch to be a driving supervisor instead.

Think about it as a really advance cruise control.

Autopilot doesn't mean it won't crash, thats absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com