Tesla will investigate why the FSD failed to disengage right before crossing the stop line.
Hohoho elon’s getting sued
So who pays the civil suit to the survivors of the victim, and who is charged? Who’s intelligence is a danger to society? Note that once these regulations are figured out, then we are at the mercy of be tracked everywhere we go. Flock cameras will not be the issue when it comes to privacy and the human right of movement.
This was the big discussion back when I still worked in insurance while years ago. The discussion was that insurance companies would not accept liability for the owners of self-driving cars because its not the driver creating the risk, but the car company and its programmers, but that car producers would have to insure their own vehicles. The discussion was how the industry will have to adapt to survive this change.
Current models of insurance (and prices) is based on statistics, including the driver’s age, gender, location, and characteristics of the vehicle (make, model, age). Some companies give discounts if you are willing to give them telemetry on your driving habits. (Personally, I’m not willing, but at least that’s based on you individually rather than a statistical average version of you. )
Those all to out the window when the car is self-driving. Driving behaviour is determined by the competence of the programmers who programed the car, which is entirely opaque to the public and insurers. An update can totally change the driving behaviour anytime, in ways no one can know. That is not an acceptable risk to a risk-calculating industry.
When I was still around the industry, the current issue was exactly when did policy coverage start and stop for ride share drivers (the moment they accept a ride in an app or when a passenger enters the vehicle?). I have not seen a policy for a vehicle that has some autonomous mode, but I would imagine that, in these years since, wordings have been added that state a policy does not cover the owner when FSD is engaged. But I also haven’t seen that car companies are actually offering insurance either.
So, owner or car company? Maybe both, but there’s a reason that Tesla specifically states that drivers have to maintain control of the vehicle, for exactly this reason: to disclaim responsibility.
Self driving cars are such a stupid, pointless, dead end and dangerous idea and they represent nobodies future.
I’d sue both if I were the family. The idiot for trusting and misusing the tech against it’s eula and features, AND, the company so conceited they call it full self drive, suckering the stupids and creating accidents.
They’re both equally culpable imho.
So who pays the civil suit to the survivors of the victim, and who is charged?
the person sitting in the driver seat.
He can try and sue Tesla, but they will pull out a book of fine print on the FSD EULA.
He should sue both to make sure their likely non-culpability is part of the same suit as suing the driver. Otherwise he risks the driver having an easier job painting it as entirely Tesla’s fault in order to weasel out of it.
Will there be a recall? There have been recalls for potentially unsafe issues. Killing a human is the most unsafe you can be.
Can we recall Elon Musk? He has killed lots of humans.
They’ll still blame it on the driver.
as they should. no reasonable driver thinks they are not responsible for their vehicle just because they were sold fancy lane keep assist.
any driver who thinks that is a dumbass and shouldn’t have a license
Tesla is also guilty, and the driver can take it up with them.
That’s really my point, that Tesla is guilty too, but they will say the fault is wholly with the driver. I’m surprised they even preserved enough evidence to show it was using FSD or Autopilot. In the past they’ve had FSD disengage 300 milliseconds before an accident and then they said it wasn’t on at the time.
Nothing wrong with that, they are still responsible for the movement of rhe car.
However, Tesla still needs to be responsiblw for false advertising
Sure, and gun companies are responsible for gun deaths.
Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly.
A car company makes cars. Cars’ main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing.
That’s in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car.
False analogy.
If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them.
We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger.
Who said it was unattended?
You did.
discharged without anyone touching it
That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules.
Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner.
The same is true for the driver of the tesla.
So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended?
Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren’t expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we’re talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun.
The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn’t have brought it up because guns aren’t cars.
The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat…
###BANG###
Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn’t I - SigP320
we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible
Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products.
Tesla hasn’t bought a law like that yet.
The driver shouldnt be held responsible.
You purchased a product, used the product as intended and the product malfunctioned and killed someone. If it is so critically important that a person needs to be paying 100% attention to it at all times incase it goes wrong while simultaniously being prepared to react instantly and kills someone then the product is bad, not the person using it.
Consumerist thinking, just because you paid money for something doesn’t absolve you of shit. Dont use your paid dogshit product to kill other people.
Nope, as a driver you are responsible for moving the vehicle safely.
If you can’t do that, you can’t move the vehicle.
This is an extremely well established principle, one of the few globally universal legal rules.
If you are driving a car, you are resonsible for the movement of the car.
Blaming self driving is not a defence, you activated the system, you may have delegated the action, but you can’t delegate the responsibillity.
At most Tesla should be prosecuted for false advertising and reckless endangerment.
But, look at it from the lawyer’s point of view: Tesla has more money. If you include Tesla in the suit, they may pay you to go away.
You also include Tesla in the suit to make it harder for the driver to weasel out of it by blaming Tesla. Best case, jointly and severally liable and you can execute the judgement against the party with money or assets to seize. More likely case, Tesla actively helps your attempt to get a judgement against the driver.
If you are driving a car, you are resonsible for the movement of the car.
And the point is that the person sat in the car is not driving the car. The GPU is the driver in autonomous vehicles.
Do we have to wait for the first empty robotaxi killing someone on the way to a pickup to assign obvious responsibility?
Thats exactly my point, if you’re going to call it “Self Driving” it needs to be able to “Drive Itself”. If it cant, its pointless. Most people cant focus on driving when they actually have to do the driving.
‘Emergency accident avoidance’ could have been a marketable and representative name. But it wouldn’t make Tesla stock skyrocket.
correction: you purchased a product while knowing it did not absolve you of responsibility, and then you chose to believe that anyway
You bought the gun, you pulled the trigger.
As they should, but Tesla should be punished as well.
Over 40 Tesla owners caught sleeping the wheel.
It’s the gun makers vs gun owners argument. Just fucking ban FSD.
Or don’t ban it but make the provider fully liable
Make it a (and I cant believe I’m going to say this) subscription model.
It costs $X a year for self driving, requires an annual inspection and if using it correctly in accordance with manufacturers instructions the manufacturer has to carry the insurance and liability when its in use.
Until the manufacturer is willing to take the liability on I have ZERO faith in self driving tech.
I feel like it’s one of those cases where both the interest & liability is a public issue. This is a perfect case for a public service, and not one for a “go fast and break things” & enshittification economic model
But I fear that both the US (duh) and Europe are way too neoliberal to ever consider this seriously
Tesla calls it “full self-driving”. If anybody should be punished, it should be Tesla. Words have meaning, and while legally you can cover your ass by having in the fine print “not actually full self-driving”, morally these shits are utterly repugnant and should have their company shut down, sold off piece by piece, with the proceeds going to their victims.
If they called it “Go jump off a bridge” would you do that?
If a bungee cord or parachute was named that i might. And if the description and technical name specified it was only a Prop id be stupid for having done so. But if the Advertising kept saying you should jump of a bridge with it and only the fine print specifies its a prop. i would say that is dangerously misleading and they should be held at least partially responsible.
Hey look! A Felon fanboi!
If I called it “unalive yourself to spare us your attempts at wit” would you do it? How 'bout if I said “please”?
Pretty much the opposite of a fanboy.
They do call it “Full Self Driving (Supervised)”, and say the driver has to be continually alert and ready to intervene, but the name plus Elron promising full autonomous capability for 10 years has been misleading.
I mean it is their fault.
If they turn it on and stop watching then that’s on them. Doesn’t matter what tesla says, its in the news enough that it is vaporware and dangerous. You are at fault if you push the button and something bad happens.
IMO, implying that folks are responsible (to the point of liability) for following the news closely enough to see whether the manufacturers of the products they own have lied to them sets a dangerous precedent. That would mean you not only have to research your purchases beforehand to make good economic decisions for yourself, you also lock yourself into some unknown period of ongoing investigation with unknown depth to keep from being liable for someone else’s failures. It’s one thing if what is being marketed and sold is comprehensive driving assistance theoretically requiring no driver input, it’s another when it’s called full self-driving and the CEO makes overreaching claims about its capability. It’s been repeatedly ruled that corporations can’t bury clauses that fundamentally alter the nature of their agreements with consumers deep in the fine print and expect that to reverse what was otherwise communicated plainly.
You are at fault if you push the button and something bad happens.
There’s plenty of fault to go around. We can blame the bad driver and Tesla’s bad AI. And there are already legal mechanisms in place to hold both of them responsible.
you shouldn’t be able to turn your attention away if it’s supervised. it’s such a shit show, unsafe at any speed or brainpower.
I agree it’s ultimately their fault, and they should especially be vigilant at a stop sign. Still, Tesla has been misleading.
Tesla was just doing its job as a nazi company, which is utterly disgust.
