The Anger of Tesla Fans Is Becoming a Problem | Hacker News Reader

The Anger of Tesla Fans Is Becoming a Problem

slate.com

17 pointssundaeofshock17 comments

The source of the problem is Tesla's misleading marketing about self-driving when the technology is in it's infancy and decades away from safely reaching high automation.

It's a minor miracle that there are still politicians willing to regulate, these companies are becoming very powerful.

While I agree that Musk is overpromising the capabilities of FSD (or timeline thereof), and the rollout may be too soon, I also think the article is very one-sided. The so-called "Tesla Fans" seem to have a point in that it is a bit suspect that her research receives funding from Tesla's direct competitors[0], and that she seems to be on the board of a LIDAR company, for which she receives $400k in shares per year[1].

I also think it's sort of ugly that Musk is now being smeared as this republican guy, for character assasination. He seems to mostly stay out of politics, considering his influence.

[0] section 2.1 https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CS...

[1] https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1450699673358856197

Some of these people are a little unhinged, this rant was suggested on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQATlYrOoLU

edit: I do think Missy Cummings is legitimately controversial she seems to be very strongly opinionated and doesn't have the tone you'd expect for a regulator, but the weird Tesla fan behavior goes beyond this issue, anyone who highlight something negative about Tesla or FSD are automatically part of a conspiracy or a short seller.

Have to realize he is criticizing his own industry and clients for playing dirty when he known China is going to beat them easily when it enters the market. He doesn't care about Tesla. They don't pay him. It's Ford and Chrysler and his clients that he wants to wake up

Given that Tesla is hiding behind their users: Why not make the car company liable for any decision the car takes on its own?

Accelerating without being able to recognise obstacles? Liable.

Unable to decide on the right track without being able to do a safe stop? Liable.

Now this would be bad in some ways because it would encourage the idiots even more. This is for Tesla to solve in my view. I think they would get a lot more realistic about where their system can be operated safely.

Being liable for any mistake an autonomous vehicle makes would likely be infeasible even if the vehicle is many times safer than the average human driver.

If it was really many times safer than a human driver it presumably would be possible for them to get insurance to cover it. Maybe they could charge an annual fee to cover it.

If the customer covers the insurance then I'm not sure what is being accomplished. Seems pretty much like the existing situation.

I think the main problem with lolc's idea is setting the baseline at perfection rather than the baseline at the average driver. Penalties for vehicles causing more accidents per mile being accompanied with rewards for vehicles causing fewer accidents per mile would make more sense. But there are a lot of factors to consider in actually implementing that, not sure if it'd be feasible in practice.

Also, to clarify, from what I've seen I don't think Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" Beta is currently safer than a human driver. Used a hypothetical example of a super-safe autonomous vehicle to criticize the fact that it'd still get punished, when really it should be heavily encouraged.

Well, the insurance rate would depend on the performance of the system, wouldn't it? So if it were good, they could sell it cheap.

Can't insurance rates already take into account vehicle safety features? All that I can see this doing is reducing customer choice when it comes to insurance for their autonomous vehicles.

There are many restrictions on consumer choice when it comes to vehicle safety.

I'm fine with that, but I don't see how the proposed idea improves vehicle safety.

Miss Cummings had previously requested confidential information via regulators about Teslas. Tesla lawyers protested because of her payment from a rival autonomous driving company

https://mobile.twitter.com/NancyTracker/status/1450773160735...

Be careful what you want. Perhaps the Teslas that these fans drive should have the Autopilot always active.

When "Cruise Control" came out people did not expect it to control their vehicles cruise. Why is Full-Self-Driving any different? Its just a marketing term.

Besides the fact that the name FSD is completely misleading and does imply that the car will handle everything, cruise control was a simple well understood system where the driver knows what it will do.

It is still not clear at all when FSD will work or when it won't.

Or when Ford called the Model T an “automobile”.

Besides, Tesla doesn’t sell Full Self Driving. They sell a Ful Self Driving software Beta, and it is clearly explained on the order page what it currently does.

Musk obviously thought full self driving would be technically feasible sooner. Hence that name. If you blame him for being an optimist, you might as well blame him for starting Tesla in the first place.

If you really thought Tesla calls it FSD to make buyers think the car can do more than it actually can, then you would be able to point to a long line of disappointed customers asking for a refund. Yet this is NOT what you see if you go talk to them at the Supercharger, or look at the satisfaction polls.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com