Hacker News Reader

Comment by somethoughts | Hacker News Reader

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the video the Tesla is making a lane change and stopping simultaneously which means there could be a case of the Tesla FSD/driver doing a unsafe lane change.[1]

Most of the time FSD just wrecks the Tesla itself or injures the driver of the Tesla (i.e. running into trees/dividers, running into much heavier freight trucks).

It will be interesting if Tesla comes in to provide monetary support for proving the legal case that Tesla FSD is not at fault or the Tesla driver (and his insurance) will be left to fend for themselves.

In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc.

But the long term effects of not legally supporting any driver with Tesla FSD accidents will be that new customers won't trust this $10000 upsell product offering that's highly profitable for Tesla.

I could also see 3rd party (non-Tesla) insurance companies refusing to sell coverage to Tesla FSD drivers.

It could also make Tesla 1st party insurance also untrustworthy to customers and could become a huge liability for Tesla.

It seems like it will be a great litmus test to see if Tesla has the guts to step up for its own product.

[1] First video shows a potential unsafe lane change https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto...

View on HN

> think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers.

Autopilot has killed multiple motorcyclists, and is suspected in many other cases, totaling 19 fatalities. This isn't the first, our regulatory bodies are just incredibly slow at this.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/tesla-faces-new-probes-...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23280461/tesla-autopilot-...

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road.

I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters.

Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.

You’re right, wherever there aren’t protected bike lanes, we should ban cars

You are being sarcastic - but this mindset change should happen in American cities if we are to move towards a sustainable future. We should have regular roads for bicyclists and pedestrians and "car lanes" on some roads, "truck lanes" on others etc.

That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.

You'd be surprised. They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.

Something like a CBR300F is about half the emissions of a hybrid and a grom can get lower, but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.

> They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.

Still more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than someone riding a full-blown SUV to work solo.

> but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.

Not everyone drives a Kawasaki Ninja H2 R with 310 hp or whatever the top record is these days. Per German ADAC, the average motorcycle consumes 2-3 liters/100km [1], whereas the average car is at 7-8 liters/100km [2].

[1] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-...

[2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe

They might be worse for emissions that aren't CO2, but this whole discussion is moot. Ebikes could be the actual future.

When measuring the health hazards of motorbikes/mopeds, emissions are a small part.

Part of the reason is that it's so fun to go fast with them.

You can buy electric scooters nowadays that can drive a lot farther than any car with the same battery. If one was big on emission reduction, one would ban all cars and only allow scooters.

With streets crowded with scooters during rush hour I think we'd have a lot more minor accidents/injuries, but far, far fewer deaths, right? What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?

> What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?

For one, more strictly enforce technical fitness and some form of age requirements. An awful lot of people don't care much about the roadworthiness of their vehicle, and many don't care about technological advances like anti brake-lock systems in newer models as well.

The other major contributor to motorcycle (or bicycle) accidents is road conditions like potholes, dirt and especially oil contamination, bumpiness in roads... a car doesn't care much (unless it's one of those super-flat sports vehicles), but a cyclist can easily lose control.

You can drive 350+ miles on a single scooter charge? Also, I have a hard time imagining anyone taking 400+ mile road trips on a scooter.

> Also, I have a hard time imagining anyone taking 400+ mile road trips on a scooter.

On a scooter not, but on a Harley or Honda Gold Wing? People make trips across Europe on these beasts.

The parent is talking about electric scooters having more range than electric cars; I’m not sure how gas motorcycles fit in here.

e-scooters, ebikes, trains and LEVs are very much the sane answer.

Aerodynamic drag is cD multiplied by cross section. By virtue of about a quarter the cross section of an average passenger vehicle, motorcycles are far more efficient. Don't even get me started on road wear being a function of weight to the fourth power, thus motorcycles effectively cause negligible road wear.

For what it's worth, I've never driven a motorcycle and probably never will, for danger.

Motorcycles aren’t viable in many places due to weather, and they aren’t practical for most people (people with kids, pets, large items, etc to transport).

I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.

Electric cars are the only viable, general purpose solve for climate change as it pertains to personal transit. We aren’t going to get everyone to start (motor)cycling or taking public transit over the coming decades, but EVs are a drop-in replacement for most personal transit use cases.

> I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.

Oh, of course we can practically implement road safety for everyone:

- limit inner-city speeds outside of major influx roads to 30 km/h

- build dedicated bicycle and bus lanes in cities

- build dedicated pedestrian lanes (not an issue in urban Europe, a bit of an issue in rural areas though)

- enforce speeding and distance-keeping regulations

- make sure the quality of the roads and pedestrian ways is acceptable (i.e. no potholes, even surface) to minimize accident risk

- keep heavy haul traffic on highways wherever possible, prevent toll evasion

- build out public transport to reduce the amount of individual traffic

- provide elderly citizens with taxi vouchers or other forms that ensure their mobility without having them drive themselves

- get old vehicles outside of historical preservation interests off the road to increase the amount of cars with up-to-date safety features

- enforce regular technical check-ups (Germany, for example, requires one every two years) so that vehicles in dangerous condition get taken off the road and owners of vehicles in barely-roadworthy condition also get the hint

Countries that prioritise safe infrastructure for bicyclists like the Netherlands fare significantly better in road accident statistics [1] over countries that just say "fuck it, cars first" like the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Those things improve safety, and we should certainly do them, but that’s likely not enough to bring all modes of transit into parity with regard to safety.

We can get near parity though - in the end it's probably a classic pareto distribution problem. The last 20% of traffic fatalities will be really hard, I agree, but we can reduce the utter majority of traffic accidents very very easily.

Agreed, although I think by and large we’ve already progressed a good ways into the 80%; however, the variance is huge because some jurisdictions take safety very seriously and others ignore it to the extent allowed by national law.

Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? They’re not as efficient as weight would imply, because aerodynamics dominate when you’re not speeding up/slowing down.

Motorcycles typically get 40-50mpg. A little better than cars, but not a lot. And they transport at most two people.

You're outright wrong, I've detailed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34351151

And yes, motorcycles transport two people at the most - but for real, look outside a window and count how many car drives are made by single-occupants. In the UK, for example, it's 60% [1].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/314733/single-occupant-c...

I don’t bike to work for the reason you mentioned, even in the bike lane. The health benefits aren’t worth the amortized risk. Cars treat bike lanes as passing lanes way too often. If it’s not physically separated it’s not for me.

Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Prosecuting bad drivers is very important, at the very least in a "Strike One to Educate One Hundred" way.

On the other hand the reason for most car accidents is bad road design, especially designs that encourage high speeds.

Yes! It's also a policy failure to allow vehicles with such high hoods. I'd be okay with requiring a CDL/professional insurance as a compromise

If harsher punishments don’t deter intentional violent crime, why do people expect them to deter accidents?

Not the person you’re responding to, but typically this mindset is about punishment more than deterrence. It won’t reduce the incidence of bad outcomes, but some people feel better knowing that judicial vengeance will be meted out.

Fair enough, but do those people hold the same attitude about punishing violent criminals? Seems like there’s a lot of overlap between the “we shouldn’t punish violent offenders” and the “reckless drivers should be punished” people, but maybe I’m misreading the situation.

Yes, there's still a categorical difference between "there should be some consequences for recklessly killing someone" and "jailing people forever is the only right response to a violent crime".

So you agree that there is some degree of punishment that is acceptable for violent criminals? And I don’t think any serious person thinks jailing forever is the only right response to violent crime; the much more defensible position is “jailing until they are rehabilitated”, but this isn’t about punishment, it’s about protecting society. As it happens, rehabilitating prisoners is extremely hard and expensive, so sometimes we have long sentences and other times we let violent offenders out to further victimize their communities.

At what margin is this true? Is the claim that at all margins, harshness of punishment never has any effect on violent crime? It seems unlikely to me that people would not adjust their behaviour with respect to a type of crime, between it being unenforced vs punished by death.

Typically the claim comes up when discussing crime; one side usually advocates for harsher penalties for violent criminals and the other side argues that harsh penalties are ineffective and cruel—and usually some stuff about how the criminals can’t help it, they’re a product of their environment, etc. Typically, in my country at least, the side arguing for softer penalties tends to overlap a lot with the folks who are most likely to advocate for severe driving penalties. This seems like a contradiction to me, so I’m curious about how people reconcile this.

There are two different axes: the severity of the punishment, and the predictability of receiving that punishment. Severity, applied spuriously, doesn't really provide a meaningful deterrent. A less severe sanction, applied predictably and reliably, does.

If the way you operate a motor vehicle causes a death, you should be charged. If there were a meaningful risk of jail time for bad driving (including driving tired, speeding, driving recklessly, etc), people would either drive less, or would drive more carefully.

I think “attempted manslaughter” is just “reckless endangerment” or similar. Manslaughter means without intent; you can’t very well attempt to do something without intent.

/pedant

If someone's impaired driving in unsafe conditions results in an accident, they absolutely should be held liable. I'm tired of car-brained apologists.

Banning doesn't solve the problem. It just obscures one of the symptoms.

Motorcycles _and_ pedestrians equally take an unfair share of the mortality associated with vehicles. Which hints at a broader infrastructure and design problem, that makes it very much seem like "automated" cars are thrown into this mess without any design changes with the hope that they will also obscure the underlying error.

Aside from that, even my 650cc motorcycle got 52mpg most days. Yes, absurd power to weight ratio, but also absurd fuel efficiency and reduced lane occupancy. Very green.

Or, you know, hold drivers accountable for the carnage they cause. This is much less a problem in Western Europe. It's almost wholly cultural in the US...

We build shit transportation infrastructure, force everybody to drive, don't build enough housing (forcing longer commutes), and then people like you complain that cars aren't given enough leeway?

Yes, and ban pedestrians. Walking belongs to a shopping mall. We cannot allow those pesky pedestrians endanger our Full Self Driving.

Or at least take their license once they have proven they are a hazard to others.

Honestly it feels like a car is the perfect murder weapon, if you want to kill someone you can ran over that person, especially if that person is on a bike, and you will get a reduced sentence compared to if you did that with what is normally considered a weapon ( knife, gun, ... )

I think if you endanger someone’s life with anything, be it a car, motorcycle, knife, gun, hands; you should always get the same sentence

This came up a lot in my criminology program in university. Criminologists (especially students) spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to kill people and get away with it. General consensus is with a car.

The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing.

> The crazy part is that whether or not you knew the person you ran over in your car can factor heavily into charges and sentencing.

Knowing the person leads one to question whether or not there was motive.

Right, but if I walk out my front door and shoot the first person I see, I'm not going to dodge prison time because I didn't know the person. Someone is still dead.

We cannot omit the context: in most places, people need to drive to work, to get groceries, and everything. A car is tremendously useful but a 5 second distraction can result in a death. You can't expect people who drive every day to be alert every single second, so there's a leeway when accidents happen.

That's a tradeoff society made.

But I'm all in favor of practicing more careful driving, and banning the shit of these incomplete automated driving mechanism!

> It will be interesting if Tesla comes in to provide monetary support for proving the legal case that Tesla FSD is not at fault or the Tesla driver (and his insurance) will be left to fend for themselves.

> In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc.

> But the long term effects of not legally supporting any driver with Tesla FSD accidents will be that new customers won't trust this $10000 upsell product offering that's highly profitable for Tesla.

Tesla publicly disparages people who died relying on their products, and refuses to cooperate with the NTSB. I'd expect nothing less in this case. Somehow that hasn't been a big factor in sales.

Agreed. It seems like a great short term strategy to get out of trouble quickly but long term it doesn't seem smart to use the most ardent Tesla evangelists who are literally willing to put their lives on the line as scapegoats.

It seems the take rate of FSD for new Tesla purchases is not as high as it used to be - perhaps due to the increase in price and other Autopilot-FSD bundling/unbundling aspects - but also perhaps due to negative press from the accidents thus far. [1] Definitely something to watch as/if the accident incidents accumulate.

[1] https://twitter.com/troyteslike/status/1586356451639189504?

In my gut feeling, it's never had been a factor because Tesla had no competitors in good-looking, UX focused EVs. Tesla buyers had specific, unaddressed reasons that competitors were either missing or had been ignorant about, just like how Nokia lost to iPhone.

> refuses to cooperate with the NTSB

This is completely false. Tesla is legally required, and complies every time, to release crash data to the NTSB. This data includes whether or not self driving was enabled.

> Tesla publicly disparages people

Tesla refutes that self driving is enabled when people lie about it. I am sure there is an incident or two of someone being sassy about calling out these lies but there is no trend of "disparagement"

>> refuses to cooperate with the NTSB

> This is completely false.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-won-apos-t-formally-140...

>> Tesla publicly disparages people

> Tesla refutes that self driving is enabled when people lie about it. I am sure there is an incident or two of someone being sassy about calling out these lies but there is no trend of "disparagement"

Does any other car company have a habit of responding in public like this?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

Given the deceased is not able to share their side of the story, I don't feel like it's appropriate to air this in public like this. Keep in mind that while they are saying the hands were not detected on the wheel, they can't say if hands were or were not on the wheel and there were many contemperaneous reports of poor sensing. This should really just be in the accident report, not aired by Tesla, regardless of fault. Maybe that's not disparagement, but again, do other automakers push this kind of narrative or is it only Tesla? What did Toyota say during the unintended accelleration issues a decade ago? As I recall, mostly they were blaming floormats, not drivers?

> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-won-apos-t-formally-140...

You are completely misrepresenting what's happening here by saying Tesla is refusing to cooperate. NTSB is trying to pressure a gag order on Tesla that would prevent Tesla from disclosing information around a car accident to the public. NTSB deciding this is a mandatory part of the agreement is their choice. They could have chosen to go forward without this requirement - they didn't. Tesla still provided all the information they had on the situation, and still continued to provide assistance to the NTSB in their investigation. Just not as a "formal party". This is the NTSB making demands while also asking for help that Tesla isn't obligated to provide unless they want.

You're also misrepresenting the Toyota situation. Toyota actively denied fault for most of this situation, and was fined $1.2 billion for deceptive statements around it. They frequently referred to "pedal misapplication"

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way.

Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed.

That’s the thing about testing on the public roads - there are many ways you can affect other users.

Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is significantly at fault.

This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.

The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.

Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

It’s almost impossible to rear-end another car without being at least partially at fault. The lane change from the Tesla was obviously dangerous, but the first car to collide with it had sufficient warning and time to react. You can see that they did react, but they obviously didn’t expect the Tesla to come to a full stop, which is why the first collision took place. I believe the legal term for this is contributory negligence.

It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger.

Even at 40 miles per hour your speed is 58 feet per second (or, at 60kmh you speed is 16 meters per second).

So it's either "the driver had sufficient warning" or "the lane change from Tesla was dangerous". As you don't expect cars that are dangerously changing to suddenly slow down.

5 seconds is nonsense.

The average driver’s reaction time is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. This is before the driver’s foot moves.

Then there is approx 1 second before the brakes take effect (foot movement, applying the force, brakes responding)

So 1.5 second before the car starts breaking.

There is a rule of “be at least 2 seconds behind the car in front” which gives a safe distance to handle any emergency braking.

Of course everything depends on driver’s and car’s conditions.

Sweden has the rule of "at least 3 seconds". Because you keep ignoring the speed, and the braking distance as well. Edit: and assuming perfect conditions when the driver is perfectly alert and looking ahead. And is young and healthy. And...

However you count, if Tesla did a dangerous lane change and started braking, how is this the fault if the driver behind?

You seem to be missing a couple of point here.

1. Fault in an accident can be spread across every party that was involved, and no matter how negligent one part was, that has no influence over how negligent every other party also potentially was.

2. A driver is typically responsible for being aware of all potential hazards on the road, not just the ones immediately ahead in the same lane. For instance a car that has started indicating to move into their lane from another lane (as this Tesla did ~7 seconds before the collision), and a car in their lane that is coming to a stop (this Tesla had completed the lane change pretty much 3 seconds before the collision).

Obviously the Tesla is really pushing the limits of what would be considered a safe gap, and coming to a stop in that location without a proper reason is obviously negligently dangerous. But the negligence of both parties contributed to this accident, regardless of who was most at fault.

It's absolutely not nonsense, I suggest taking some basic high-school physics. Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue.

At 60 mph it will take many meters and seconds to deaccelerate, assuming the driver can take exactly the correct action:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+met...

Estimate here is about 4 seconds, under perfect conditions. 5 seconds is more than reasonable, considering you also need to realize the other driver is acting erroneously.

he said 5 seconds to START braking

I did not interpret their comment that way. That would be unreasonable, however their comment included mention of physical break distance, so I'm pretty certain they didn't mean actual human response time and instead how long it takes for a human to respond and slow the car, which is the metric of interest here. Even for a robot with millisecond response times, you will be breaking in the multiples of seconds, not instantaneously. Observation "reaction time" really is completely irrelevant here.

> It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger.

That seems pretty clear. 5 total seconds is really reasonable. 5 seconds before you start is silly.

Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop

You seem to have your terminology confused. Reaction time doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with driving. I suggest a quick web search next time before assigning people remedial physics.

And I suggest you look into the concept of contextual terminology

> Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue.

No, reaction time means the time from noticing the need to brake to the time brake pressue is getting applied.

I disagree - reaction time is commonly referring to the reaction time of the vehicle in these events, the propensity of software devs to treat everything like a video game non-withstanding.

5 seconds?? Lol. Maybe if the driver is 86 years old.

I overtake you, the instant my car is 1m in front of yours I switch into your lane and hard break.

Who is at fault for you crashing into the back of me?

Key word is "almost". Perhaps this is a situation where the fault is primarily with the overtaking car. However, an attentive driver should have started braking as soon as the illegal lane change was started.

You, UNLESS THERE ARE CLEAR EVIDENCES THAT PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, like there are in this case and there will be in such cases(like skid marks).

The fact that the trailing driver is USUALLY found at fault it is just philosophical razors applied to situations without enough evidences. Generalizing that into "trailing drivers are always at fault" is disingenuous, partisan and malicious.

You're describing the exception situation that has led to many drivers to install dashcams.

Changing lanes and then slamming on the brakes means you are 100% at fault (assuming there is evidence). It's the most common car insurance scam and it is completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case

Breaking down is also completely indistinguishable from what the Tesla did in this case. The breaks weren’t slammed on either, 7 seconds elapsed between the Tesla indicating for the turn and the collision. It’s very obvious that every participant in the pile up was at least partially at fault. The only confounding factor in this case seems to be that many HN commenters lose a handful of IQ points when any topic relating to Elon Musk comes up.

I applaud your self awareness

The video of the accident[1] clearly shows the Tesla start hitting its brakes 4 seconds in, the car that eventually rearends it is a few car lengths behind and in the left lane and hits its own brakes less than a second later and the accident occurs less than 4 seconds later.

Taking into account reaction times, it takes approximately 5-6 seconds to bring a car going 60mph to a complete stop[2][3] The accident was completely unavoidable for the car that rearends the Tesla because the Tesla made an extremely dangerous maneuver

[1] https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto... [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_ti... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/keep-your-braking-dista...

The whole scenario would look very similar if the Tesla was a car suffering from a breakdown and moving to the safest lane it can reach safely. In such a case we would also expect other drivers to pay enough attention to prevent an accident like this...

No, it wouldn’t in a breakdown situation in any other car, the driver would try to pull over to the right.

Most drivers gain an instinct to passing slower/stopped objects on the left, and a natural aversion to passing them on the right.

The Tesla pulled over and stopped in the far left lane. No “space” was left to pass it.

It's either changing 3 lanes to the right or 1 to the left. In case of loss of control, in this case with the car coming to a stop very quickly, it might be better heading for the left lane, instead of getting stuck in the middle or second lane from the right.

>Is this not the case in California?

I don't think it is. I've never felt so unsafe in traffic as driving on highways in california. People keep an order of magnitude too little distance to the car in front. That density of cars would make any european highway slow down to a crawl but there they just practically touch eachother while driving 60kmph while doing crazy lane shifts left and right.

> I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops.

Brake testing (suddenly braking hard for no reason, what the Tesla did here) has always been a cause for the leading car to be the guilty party when they get rear ended.

In times prior to dashcams, it was difficult to prove the car ahead did brake to cause the accident, so the rule of thumb was the rear car is probably guilty. But if there was a way to show the lead car did brake, they're guilty.

Nowadays with dashcams, it's a lot easier to prove, so brake testers don't get away with it as much.

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers.

In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different than if someone backed into the Tesla while it was parked in a parking garage.

From what I can tell from the video - there seems to be a grey area because the Tesla FSD is changing lanes and stopping simultaneously. If that's the case, its not a tailgating issue but an unsafe lane change - for which the Tesla FSD (or Tesla driver) could be at least partially at fault.

The grey area will require some defense and it will be interesting to see if the Tesla driver is left high and dry by Tesla.

If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible.

That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla.

* and disappointed

Why would you be shocked and disappointed? It is the obligation of the driver trailing you to maintain enough distance to be able to stop safely if the car in front of them has to brake hard for whatever reason. The fact that your hard braking wasn't actually necessary may mean that you're also responsible, but it doesn't absolve the other driver.

As a matter of pragmatism, the person intentionally putting other drivers at unnecessary risk by being an asshole should bear the responsibility for the outcomes of that intentional and unnecessary risk they elected to subject roadway users to.

They should, and I said as much.

It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason.

I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.

How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?

You do not, but that wasn't the hypothetical posited by OP.

In the actual case with Tesla, the driver of the car that was in front of the pile-up was not at fault IMO. But there were a bunch more cars behind, and at least some of those slammed into each other because they didn't maintain proper distance, according to the police.

Are we looking at the same video? The turn signal is on long before, the lane change of the car starts long before.. you don't see any reaction of the following driver even when the Tesla's tires finally cross the line, which is the latest point where the following driver must adapt apeed and distance, but nothing happens?

I am not sure about the US, but in most countries I have driven in, putting a turn signal on is asking for permission to enter another lane, and there is no 'right' to go into the other lane or expect drivers currently there to slow down for you.

If there is an obstruction ahead, the safest scenario is to change to an empty lane ('empty' including safety distance) or brake in your lane to avoid hitting it. If you have some other problem you should probably brake slowly and change lanes to the outer edge of the road whenever there are safe gaps.

I would probably be off the gas or braking based on movement of the car in the other lane as part of driving defensively, though i don't think there is any 'obligation' for me to do so.

The behavior of the Tesla would also strike me as rather odd (assuming a right hand drive country unless there is a off-ramp coming up on the left) as it appears to be pulling over to the wrong side of the road.

You don't, but as soon as you see the car in front of you change the lane (or just indicating via turn signal), you should? And to be honest, this looks more like slowing down and not a hard break, and at least the first following driver slept quite a bit... agreed the stopping had no reason, so (as someone quoted German laws) for that you would be too blame... but for crashing into the car with that video footage, I'm sure the following driver would get at least 80% if not 100% blame.

our auto laws are founded from a time when catastrophic failure happened much more often. If a suspension bushing randomly disconnects, or a wheel hub disintegrates, or a differential grenades, who is the asshole? That's right, it's the person following too closely

No blame for the person driving unsafe equipment on a public highway?

Blame doesn’t have to be zero sum.

This seems to be 100% the fault of Tesla for selling unsafe equipment. Some amount of blame for the Tesla driver. 0% blame for the car that got cut off and hit the Tesla. And 100% blame for every car behind that crashed into the car in front of them.

Only half of the subsequent impacts in the Tesla video are the fault of the car who hit the car in front of them. I agree with the police conclusion that vehicles 5, 7, and 8 share fault for unsafe following. Vehicles 2, 3, and 6 do not, despite crashing into the car in front of them (subsequent to being hit from behind). Vehicle 4 I couldn’t develop a clear sense of what happened, but it seems was hit only from behind.

Some failures are sudden and unexpected.

I agree. But this should also apply to those drivers that experiment with FSD. After all, they were playing with tech on a public road, so deliberately putting others at risk.

As much as I agree with you, it seems that concepts like 'brake check' and other road rage behaviours make this matter a lot more complicated than common sense dictates.

Simply, drivers don't use their common sense, and just their normal daily driving routine is already endangering to people around.

It does. And then also actually maintaining a safe distance can be difficult simply because people will immediately merge in there (and then brake in front of you, because of course now they're too close to the other car).

Maintaining a safe configuration of cars on the road is the collective job of everyone who is driving on it; and conversely, it takes just one person to ruin it for everybody who is doing the right thing. So it really needs to be a part of the culture of driving for that to work. And we don't have that in US, unfortunately (though, to be fair, there are far worse places to drive in).

I think the intention matters. If you did it to spite the guy behind you then you are at fault. If you did it because you thought something might cross the road and just wanted to be safe then it's not your fault even if nothing crossed the road or nothing was really there.

Tesla’s FSD/autopilot does not act with intention as we understand it.

No intention, no fault. But definitely unsafe lane change, I think.

How convenient for Tesla. I doubt we would think this way if your wheel flew off your civic because of a design flaw in the axle.

Why is this being downvoted? Intent isn't everything. While it is important, design flaws are worth getting the book thrown at you over.

That's because we'd fully expect them to recall the effected models and fix the design flaw. Since Tesla knows about erratic lane-changes and phantom braking, and has for years, why haven't they recalled the vehicles and fixed the design flaw or at least disabled the feature?

I agree with your original example ("good reason => OK", "bad reason => BAD"). But for the in-between we should default to "not OK" as well, since stopping on a highway is just dangerous.

But damn, I really have little sympathy for all the inattentive drivers not being able to stop in time for the pileup (and hope damages have to be payed accordingly). Maybe, Tesla FSD does not make the streets more dangerous than they already are, after all.

> No intention, no fault.

Nonsense.

Imagine it is a human driver saying that shadows on the road made him believe there was a person there so he slowed down to make sure.

He wouldn't be at fault for slowing down (after checking his eyesight).

Lane change is what makes Tesla at fault here, not unreasonable slowing down.

or lack of intention. If an engine throws a rod, if a driveshaft pole vaults, if a wheel falls off, or a suspension component catastrophically fails.

These are all realistic sudden stop issues that our laws mostly accommodate.

No, those are not "sudden stop" situations either.

In fact the worst thing to do is to stop suddenly.

Even if a wheel falls off, you do not slam on the brakes unless you want to lose even more control.

If a wheel falls off, the driver doesn't have to apply the brakes... A quarter of the car is digging in and melding itself to the asphalt.

If the differential fails catastrophically, it applies more braking force than the brakes do, so you'll have brief period of being airborne and then at least 1 rear wheel will sheer off (seen it).

If the driveshaft or trailing arms fail the wrong way, they result in a steel shaft digging into the roadway at a downward angle in front of the wheels and the driveshaft will stop the differential as above, until it sheers off.

> If a wheel falls off, the driver doesn't have to apply the brakes... A quarter of the car is digging in and melding itself to the asphalt.

That's not necessarily true. I've been in a car where the rear wheel parted ways with the car and passed us. For a few seconds we wondered where that wheel came from until realizing it was from our car. The car was balanced just fine on three wheels, there was plenty time to lift off the gas and make way to the breakdown lane safely.

Even if it's a more heavily loaded wheel (e.g. front wheel on front engine front wheel drive car), it'll slide on the brake disc or the disk cover (whichever is lower, varies by car). A good amount of sparking but you'll have enough steerage to pull over.

Lane change + braking is extremely scary.

I rear-ended a woman who did that to me. When she cut in front of me in my lane there was not nearly enough distance between us for me to fully stop when she then suddenly braked.

I'm not sure what I really was even supposed to even do in a situation like that — I suppose as soon as she cut over I should have just assumed the worst was coming and hit my brakes right away?

Or at least have the foot off the gas. I try to have or create if I don't distance between myself and aggressive drivers. But even with defensive / paranoid driving sometimes there's just not much you can do, physics is physics.

Yeah, in cases like this it is just physics. Propably not much you could have done. She cuy into the space between you and the car in front, the normal reaction is to lift the foot to increase distance again. If the new car hits the brakes, no chance to not rear end it...

In the video, the Tesla comes to a gradual stop and the car behind it didn't change speed at all. The third car was able to stop without hitting the second car and that was arguably more challenging. Second car wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was using cruise control?

Yes. Watching the second video, you can see the second car's brake lights come on quite quickly, given the Tesla's actions were completely strange and unexpected. Less than a second from when the Tesla cuts in front and starts braking to the vehicle behind hitting the brakes. They're definitely not at fault. Some of the cars that piled in behind were a different matter though. Some were able to stop while others didn't. Those ones must have been following too close and/or not paying enough attention.

They didn't actually stop their car, though. And it really looks like they could have, had they braked a little bit harder. But that may be due to the unexpected nature of the Tesla coming to a full stop.

Yeah, it's possible they didn't fully slam on the brakes immediately. But you don't expect the car in front of you to do so for no reason either, so I still wouldn't consider the second car at fault.

In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash.

For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the front or the opposite.

Huh? In my (German) experience, responsibility for the crash (and thus for the sentence/fine/payout to each driver) is rarely assigned to a single driver in such a case. Instead, it is distributed among participants with e.g. the Tesla driver being 80% at fault for the second driver's damages and the others ramming the second car for 20% (or something like this).

I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.

I asked my lawyer, the fine element is the deliberate and dangerous part of the action without reason. Normally you effectively have shared fault.

The question is if in this case the action can be considered as deliberate. The "software" did it, is it deliberate? Is it considered as a failure of the car like the breaking of mechanical part?

This is new and the justice will have to figure it out and I am very happy not to have to figure it out.

> I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many people here assign complete blame to exactly one participant.

I'd say there is only one car which did a clearly illegal action (sudden lane change followed by brake checking), so the guilt is 100% on them.

It's also true that the car behind probably could've been more assertive in braking harder to avoid reaching the Tesla (I wish there was a dashcam to see it from a better angle). But they didn't do anything illegal per se.

Also, that second car driver might've been worried of braking too hard to avoid getting themselves rear ended, which is a legitimate concern when having to break hard in traffic. Of course in the end they got rear ended anyway, but couldn't have known that prior to it happening.

Not a brake check, that kind of implies cutting in and then a hard enough dab on the brake to freak out the guy behind and force them to brake sharply but not enough to stop.

This was the Tesla braking as hard as possible to a complete stop. The following driver reacted quickly and had they not been paying attention the accident would have been much much worse.

That would still be your fault for following too closely.

Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time.

> Basically if you hit a car from behind, it’s your fault, every time.

Incorrect. If you brake check someone (what the Tesla did), the front car is at fault.

In California, it is illegal for a car to stop on a freeway except in an emergency.

Law in question:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something.

Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...

That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.

The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal.

It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.

> That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there.

Right, same as what the Tesla did, suddenly stopping on a highway (being in a tunnel makes it worse, as there's no runoff room to the sides).

> it's basically never the fault of the front car

Because typically the car in the front stopped or slowed for a reason that does not violate any rules or responsibilities. But when they have neglected to follow rules, or uphold responsibilities, then they can share fault.

Generally speaking, drivers in the US have a legal responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and operate their vehicle with care.

Considering that the police report evidence includes the FAQ page from Tesla for the question “Do I need to pay attention while using autopilot?”, I think it’s clear what direction they’re going here.

It will be interesting to see if most of the problems with FSD go away as soon as all cars have FSD as well as transmitters to signal to nearby cars what they are doing.

At that point humans will theoretically be the weakest link, and anyone driving "manually" will be a liability because they will lack the information and reflexes to deal with whatever is happening around them in a timely manner.

If you change the lanes to be right in front of the car and then hit brakes, you are at fault. The back driver responsibility applies when they have control over space between you two.

At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here).

The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence.

The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.

the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage

Ha ha ha. London, UK?

No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.

That's just silly.

It's one of the things I found baffling about the US, is the sheer amount of cameras on everything.

People even put CCTV cameras inside their homes. What on earth?

I don't know what you mean by everything and I certainly agree that the U.S. trend is in the wrong direction with private video doorbells, license plate scanners, etc. It is also pretty crazy to put someone else's camera in your house. But I don't get how someone with a UK background could think that the situation here is somehow worse.

For example, this lists the top ten most surveilled cities. Nine are in China. Number three is London.

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-t...

Well, mostly because the article that's always cited about the number of cameras in London is tabloid bunk, an utter fiction.

The guy that wrote it wanted a suitably shock-horror piece so he went to the main street of a shitty part of London, counted every CCTV camera he could see everywhere including ones inside all the betting shops, off-licences, pawn shops, cheque cashing places, and so on - all lovely totally-not-dodgy businesses I'm sure - and then multiplied up by the total amount of roads in the UK.

If the figures were accurate then every single-track road that's basically just a cow path with tarmac sprayed over it would have a CCTV camera every four car lengths, which is clearly not the case.

Well, OK. But how is that different than the huge number of cameras that you mention in the US? Aren't the US cameras similar - doorbells, shops, banks, ATMs, etc.

It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided.

From the police report:

> V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel. This caused the front of V-2 to collide into the rear of V-1 (4.0.1. #1). P-2 did not have enough time to perceive and react to V-1's lane change.

V-1 = The Tesla

> P-4 observed V-3 stopping and applied V-4's brakes. V-3 came to a stop to the rear of V-2. P-5 observed V-4 stopping and applied V-5's brakes. As V4 slowed down, P-4 steered V4 towards the #2 lane. Due to P-5's unsafe speed for stopped traffic ahead (22350 California Vehicle Code), P-S failed to safely stop behind V-4 and V-3. The front of V-5 collided into the rear of V-4 (A.O.L #2). V-4 moved into the #2 lane without colliding into any other vehicles. V-5 came to a stop in the #1 lane after colliding into the rear of V-3 (A.O.L #3).

and it goes on from there...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569059-9335-2022-0...

Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.

> Right so if there was a lane change right before the Tesla stopped then it makes sense that they might have at least partial liability for the second car. But they will probably have zero liability for all the other cars.

I know someone who had to suddenly brake due to a pedestrian jumping onto the road. So, for a very good reason in that case. Nonetheless, it was a sudden stop, so their insurance had to pay for the repairs to both of the two following cars which rear ended each other.

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something.

Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.

That would be very interesting. Stand behind your product. If FSD becomes a public nuisance they will quickly become uninsurable or worse.

I was thinking today about the Southwest disaster, not only for customers but for the company’s reputation. But I know a great way to win it back: cash. Promise it won’t happen again, but if it does, offer best in industry cash compensation. Prove that your company gives a shit. I will be very disappointed if they expect time alone to heal this.

> In the short term I could see Tesla not supporting the driver and absolving themselves via fine line/TOS, etc

Imagine there is an 'autopilot' gun, you buy it, and it comes with the contract that says you take full responsibility got the gun.

Then it shoots me and kills me before you have a chance to react.

The prosecutor will go after the manufacturer. If manufacturer wrote code that kills me, you and any contract you signed is not even relevant.

You cannot contract away criminal responsibility. Otherwise I could contract away all my responsebilities to a random homeless guy.

Unless there is precedent and tort "reform" by the given lobby.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...

Tort is civil law. Criminal liability still can't be insulated.

FSDbeta is not enabled on highways. It's not clear to me that it's even possible to be on FSD in that tunnel.

Interestingly, the article is careful to say that the driver "claims" it was on FSDbeta.

More to this story.

FSD does not activate on freeways. This is not FSD. It's the same Autopilot that has been in use for many years.

Wrong. Here’s a video of FSD in use on a freeway. There are hundreds of these. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RHYbvIZYo

Wrong. You can plainly see in the video (and the hundreds of others) that as soon as the car enters the freeway it switches to Autopilot automatically. The easiest way to tell is the red lines in the FSD visualization disappear when it switches to Autopilot.

The transition is completely smooth and the driver doesn't have to know or care at all, so it's not surprising that they were mistaken. But it's relevant here because people are trying to blame this on FSD. On FSD cars the freeway Autopilot is still the exact same Autopilot that non-FSD cars have (with the "Navigate on Autopilot" feature which is more than four years old now). They plan to replace freeway Autopilot with FSD later this year, but it hasn't happened yet.

If drivers are unlikely to notice the transition and the capabilities are significantly different that seems problematic.

It is not problematic because the capability of Autopilot on freeways is not significantly different to FSD on other roads. Drivers do not need to adjust their behavior based on the system in use. Of course they should keep hands on wheel and eyes on road at all times using both systems, which is enforced with regular nagging and a driver-facing camera.

My take is that you are probably right in that it is pretty easy for Tesla to place all the blame on the driver of the Tesla and weasel out of any legally required support for the driver via TOS fine legal print in the short term.

But after the 10th (or maybe 100th) scenario where Tesla FSD is at fault but Tesla scapegoats responsibility onto the driver who is branded by Tesla's legal team as a dumb/irresponsible/clueless/reckless driver it starts making less sense.

That driver is likely to have been a highly loyal Tesla fan/customer/evangelist/believer who paid $10,000 for FSD sight unseen. Long term the evangelists might no longer evangelize and may in fact (correctly or incorrectly) spread the message to the general public that FSD is useless/unfinished feature - leading to long term damage to the Tesla brand.

> you are probably right in that it is pretty easy for Tesla to place all the blame on the driver of the Tesla

Whoa now, I didn't say that at all! I'm just talking about FSD vs. Autopilot here. It's entirely possible that Autopilot is at fault! I am curious to see what the investigation will uncover. My point is simply that this situation has nothing to do with FSD. It could have happened four years ago as easily as yesterday, and anyone trying to tie this to recent developments in FSD is being misleading.

It’s too late, the Tesla fanboy subreddit has been on the FSD hate train for a while now. I’m shocked at how bad autopilot is on my Tesla, my wife’s 2018 Honda CR-V has better “autopilot” in the form of lane keep assist and adaptive cruise control, it can drive the car just like the tesla, but it’s less finicky and operates much closer to the way the writer describes a better level 2 system that monitors you instead of you monitoring it.

The tesla demands you pay attention and drive but penalizes you by disengaging if you so much as try to take a slightly different line around a curve. Meanwhile the Honda just bides it’s time until you let go and seamlessly takes control keeping you in the middle of the lane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com