Tesla driver in multi-car crash told police self-driving software malfunctioned | Hacker News Reader

Tesla driver in multi-car crash told police self-driving software malfunctioned

reuters.com

27 pointsmfiguiere15 comments

> Tesla's says "Full Self-Driving" gives access to more advanced driver assistance features but emphasizes "all Tesla vehicles require active driver supervision and are not autonomous."

It sounds like they should call it advanced driver assistance then. Tesla wants all of the credit and zero of the responsibility of actual FSD.

If I sell a pill that increases your lifespan by 1 year I shouldn’t get to market it as the “immortality pill”.

It is misleading for sure in it's current state. In my opinion when it becomes a proper L3 (my estimate is in 2 years) the FSD name would be fair, even if a L3 implies that the car may ask you to take over.

At a minimum FSD needs an asterisk like “these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA” for supplements.

The "full self driving malfunctioning" excuse will no doubt become a common way for people to excuse their terrible driving when accidents happen or lamp posts jump out from the side of the road and collide with innocent cars.

My only thought is that using full self driving on the bay bridge is irresponsible for the driver. It’s confusing enough to navigate as a driver with the three transitions - Oakland side, tunnel, and sf side

Then what does the "Full" in Full Self Driving stand for?

The 21st Century equivalent of "I don't know what happened, he just came out of no-where officer!"

Isn't FSD unavailable on highways until unreleased version 11? So how could this be FSD?

Given Elon's propensity to leak customer driving logs in these situations when they suit Tesla, the lack of any comments from Elon is (circumstantial) evidence that FSD was engaged during this accident.

Could just be Elon is too busy running Twitter into the ground at the moment to bother.

pretty sure tesla will have some form of log, whether it was active or not

But as always they would deactivate FSD / AP 1 second prior to the crash, so that they can claim at the moment of the crash FSD / AP was not active

or just modify the log!

I don't get this argument at all. Either you ask them and trust the answer to be somewhat useful, or you just don't ask Tesla to tell the police/court what the state was 1-10-30 seconds before the crash?

I might be small-minded, but why would police/courts/insurance companies(?) continue to ask Tesla "did the car or the driver steer?" if it is "obvious" to everyone that when they say "the driver" that it was disconnected a second before the crash?

I'm not saying the Tesla does or does not lie through their teeth about it, just that it seems like the post above and similar ones are framed as if JoeRandomInternetPerson can easily recognize this lie but people who seemingly spend their whole days figuring out who is to blame in traffic accidents haven't cracked this mystery yet?

I guess we are at a point in regards to AI driving where it actually doesn't matter "who" drove the car, as in the driver is always fully responsible, regardless of what the sticker on the FSD says, so they would ask Tesla out of want for statistics or something and not to prove anything that would shift blame away from the driver in any case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com