Another fatal autopilot crash - China

[Tam]

If that were true, they'd give Tesla access to the vehicle...that's literally all it would take.

It's hard to figure out what's going out now. Tesla said the family is not allowing it to access the car but

"The lawyer said Gao disputed the claim.
The car is still there, and the data can still be extracted. A consumer can't read the data, but Tesla could read the data," he said."

It sounds like the lawyer says the family has no reasons in keeping the car from Tesla because Tesla is literate to read the programming codes and the family is not.

Chinese man blames Tesla autopilot function for son's crash

Tesla needs a very good human communicator to get through this mess (and it is not a money mess, it's just too cheap to pay up.)

 

[Gizmotoy]

And This

You are working really, really hard at proving my point aren't you? A compilation of the videos you already posted with a few new ones of old vehicles thrown in. Including one where the owner turned the vehicle off, put it in neutral, and let it roll while walking in front of it. You can even see it's off and the driver's seat is empty in this edited compilation. Clearly that is a good test!

Seriously. Absolutely not one vehicle in any video you've posted is representative. It does nothing to change the fact that they have three forward-facing radar, forward lidar, and stereoscopic cameras up front, nor that full force braking to 0mph for stopped vehicles both in and partially in the lane are supported up to 75mph.

Tesla specifically states they don't support this case, and we have multiple instances where we've seen they were right.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing current Teslas to 5 year old vehicles from other brands, or cars without automatic braking options enabled, but it's not one that's doing Tesla any favors.

 

[Zybd1201]

Tesla needs a very good human communicator to get through this mess (and it is not a money mess, it's just too cheap to pay up.)

According to the article, the person suing will not settle until Tesla admits fault which they will never ever do. It isn't about the money and I really respect the car owners for taking a stand and not trying to take a payout.

Additionally, Tesla's statement that they aren't being allowed to examine the vehicle is now being refuted by the family's attorney.

I wonder if Tesla now just doesn't WANT to look because as long as they don't they retain plausible deniability. What incentive do they have to look at this point?

To bring in my personal experience here I do know that Tesla does not make a substantial effort to actually look at the logs until external pressure exceeds internal resistance.

 

[Tam]

...To bring in my personal experience here I do know that Tesla does not make a substantial effort to actually look at the logs until external pressure exceeds internal resistance.

Tesla has many great people in science discipline such as engineers.

However, I wonder if it is well versed in the science of human culture/psychology/relations.

There might be times when a father lost his son and is in such a great grief that he would seek a closure.

Some may take a great deal of money for a closure.

In this case, the father might want to honor the son's reputations and shield the dead from the world's criticisms.

The father might have a strategy of shifting blames to Tesla to accomplish that goal.

On the other hand, Tesla could propose an alternative to accomplish the same goal.

May be all the Autopilot deaths should be awarded a title of Autopilot Martyrdom/Hero and there should be a place to display their names and pictures...

Although it is human nature to blame the dead.

But at the end of the day, we are all human and as you see on this thread, even scientists are not perfect as automatic brakes may not do so at times.

So may be it is fine to learn from the dead's experience but it might also now time for Tesla to honor their deaths.

 

[Stoneymonster]

What.

 

[Tam]

What.

Why not?

After all, this is a "beta" project, is it not?

 

[eye.surgeon]

By the very terms agreed upon by the driver to operate autopilot, no accident while autopilot is engaged is ever the fault of autopilot. AP is a drivers' aid. it is not the driver and at no point is it ever doing more than assisting the driver. When will people get this. It's level 2 people.

 

[Tam]

By the very terms agreed upon by the driver to operate autopilot, no accident while autopilot is engaged is ever the fault of autopilot. AP is a drivers' aid. it is not the driver and at no point is it ever doing more than assisting the driver. When will people get this. It's level 2 people.

The problem is, Tesla has not offered an Autopilot lesson that not only includes the pros but especially the cons as well. Owners are not shown all those failed youtube videos. For example: how real people were hit with the Volvo due to confidence in technology, how many Autopilot deaths, injuries, accidents so far....

Another video that Tesla should show is whether Autopilot can navigate through a traffic cones test. People take it for granted that it should pass with flying colors because traffic cone test is so basic that it has been around for ages.

Below is a picture from Nvidia with no hands on wheel. It has only 1 camera and 1 radar and passed the test easily.

 

[Zybd1201]

By the very terms agreed upon by the driver to operate autopilot, no accident while autopilot is engaged is ever the fault of autopilot. AP is a drivers' aid. it is not the driver and at no point is it ever doing more than assisting the driver. When will people get this. It's level 2 people.

this is actually not true. there are certainly circumstances where it would be autopilot's fault.

disclaimers limit but do not absolve a company of responsibility.

 

[msnow]

By the very terms agreed upon by the driver to operate autopilot, no accident while autopilot is engaged is ever the fault of autopilot. AP is a drivers' aid. it is not the driver and at no point is it ever doing more than assisting the driver. When will people get this. It's level 2 people.

In this case the "driver" (owners son) may never have seen those T&C's. I also think Tesla would settle an agregious case not admitting fault rather than set precedent.

 

[Tam]

In this case the "driver" (owners son) may never have seen those T&C's....

He should have seen it very clearly!

If the son wanted to use Autopilot, he would be directed to this Disclosure/Terms and Conditions Screen (appropriate language tailored to each country):

He then had a choice to use it or not.

 

[Az_Rael]

He should have seen it very clearly!

If the son wanted to use Autopilot, he would be directed to this Disclosure/Terms and Conditions Screen (appropriate language tailored to each country):

He then had a choice to use it or not.

Do you have to accept that screen every time you use Autopilot? Or just once when you first enable it?

 

[Zybd1201]

Do you have to accept that screen every time you use Autopilot? Or just once when you first enable it?

Just once. There is no reason to believe the son agreed to those terms,

 

[msnow]

He should have seen it very clearly!

If the son wanted to use Autopilot, he would be directed to this Disclosure/Terms and Conditions Screen (appropriate language tailored to each country):

He then had a choice to use it or not.

No, that's not true. My wife uses my car and doesn't get that screen. I only saw it the first time I enabled AP in a October 2015.

 

[Tam]

No, that's not true. My wife uses my car and doesn't get that screen. I only saw it the first time I enabled AP in a October 2015.

Thanks for the correction @msnow.

That means the responsibility is transferred to an owner who agreed with the T&C once.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

It's hard to figure out what's going out now. Tesla said the family is not allowing it to access the car but

"The lawyer said Gao disputed the claim.
The car is still there, and the data can still be extracted. A consumer can't read the data, but Tesla could read the data," he said."

It sounds like the lawyer says the family has no reasons in keeping the car from Tesla because Tesla is literate to read the programming codes and the family is not.

Chinese man blames Tesla autopilot function for son's crash

Tesla needs a very good human communicator to get through this mess (and it is not a money mess, it's just too cheap to pay up.)

I'll agree it's convoluted. However, I'm going to go with Tesla over someone who is being paid to extort money, albeit a relatively small amount (assuming the laywers fees aren't absurd).

 

[msnow]

Thanks for the correction @msnow.

That means the responsibility is transferred to an owner who agreed with the T&C once.

Right but that makes it a much more complex legal question.

 

[Zybd1201]

Right but that makes it a much more complex legal question.

made even more complex by the fact it is China and an American company.

Truthfully, anything is possible. If the owner of this car is well connected it may even be possible that Tesla no longer be able to be business in China. It is one of my favorite places, to visit.

 

[Chopr147]

Chinese man blames Tesla autopilot function for son's crash

Family is suing Tesla for $1,499 + legal costs....definitely not out to get money. Looks like they just want admission of fault.

Admittedly not knowing a thing about China's tort laws I suspect that is the culprit. The family would sue for millions if allowed by China law. (again, just a hunch) Not a knock on the family but if you want to punish Tesla you don't do it with a $1500 lawsuit.

 

[msnow]

Admittedly not knowing a thing about China's tort laws I suspect that is the culprit. The family would sue for millions if allowed by China law. (again, just a hunch) Not a knock on the family but if you want to punish Tesla you don't do it with a $1500 lawsuit.

The press coverage is punishment too.