Another 'Sudden Acceleration' lawsuit

[disagree]

This is getting really interesting ... and this guy is doubling down on his version of the truth

After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

View attachment 208806

Son's arguing against a claim (that no one has made) -- that he intentionally pushed the accelerator -- pretty much tells us everything we need to know.

 

[bhzmark]

Why not share the logs with the customer? Is it not his car and therefore his data?

They did. The singer/crash driver/face loser/ liar is lying.
After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

 

[mmd]

People should read the lawsuit posted up-thread by Tam. Here is that link again:
Telsa Lawsuit | Tesla Motors | Airbag

It doesn't deny that accelerator pedal might have been pushed. But it argues, a car that can drive itself and is promoted as a computer on wheels, should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house. I find it hard to argue against this. I asked a similar question earlier.

 

[MP3Mike]

But it argues, a car that can drive itself

But it can't drive itself, as it only has driver assistance features, and what the driver commands always overrides the assistance features.

That and Tesla has never advertised that they have a feature that prevents you from ramming your car through walls.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

They did. The singer/crash driver/face loser/ liar is lying.

Source?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

a car that can drive itself and is promoted as a computer on wheels, should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house. I find it hard to argue against this.

Do you understand the concept of Personal Responsibility?

I have no sympathy for incompetent drivers. Or people who can't admit that they screwed up, and instead try to blame others for their carelessness.

 

[mhan00]

People should read the lawsuit posted up-thread by Tam. Here is that link again:
Telsa Lawsuit | Tesla Motors | Airbag

It doesn't deny that accelerator pedal might have been pushed. But it argues, a car that can drive itself and is promoted as a computer on wheels, should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house. I find it hard to argue against this. I asked a similar question earlier.

I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. You're saying the car should override driver input, which it should never, ever do, IMO. It's also not possible to make a car that can counteract the stupidity of the owner, which is apparently what you and his actor feel Tesla should have somehow done even though no car manufacturer ever has done so, at least not until steering wheels and other driver input devices are removed from fully autonomous cars. There's no way to build a fool proof car right now, and even when we eventually go fully autonomous don't be surprised if we humans produce even more ingenious fools who figure out how to **** that up too.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This is getting really interesting ... and this guy is doubling down on his version of the truth

After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

View attachment 208806

I would disagree with the Electrek that the owner agreed with Tesla about the "blackmail" though, his Facebook was disagreeing on that. Not saying who is right, just not agreeing with Electrek's characterization on that detail.

However Tesla's response certainly seems to have encouraged him into action. I wonder how wise Tesla's public shaming of a customer was from a PR perspective.

Other than this I have found this and Electrek's past write-ups on the unintended accelerations well researched and overall excellent.

 

[bhzmark]

Source?

"A source familiar with the case at Tesla told Electrek that the company did provide the data to Son after an investigation and reaffirms that it clearly shows that the cause of the accident was the accelerator pedal being floored."

After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

Read more. Type less.

 

[disagree]

People should read the lawsuit posted up-thread by Tam. Here is that link again:
Telsa Lawsuit | Tesla Motors | Airbag

It doesn't deny that accelerator pedal might have been pushed. But it argues, a car that can drive itself and is promoted as a computer on wheels, should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house. I find it hard to argue against this. I asked a similar question earlier.

It argues that even if someone intentionally pushes the accelerator, the car should not move if the car detects an obstacle. That sounds nice, until you think about it for a second.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

A couple of points:

1. I don't know the chronology of events in these cases. If Tesla was responding to complaints already made public, then I am pretty comfortable with what I say next. If not, then I gotta rethink.

2. I tend against paranoid conclusions. So I am not inclined to conclude from "the case of the fellow and the dirt road" and "the case of the Korean celebrity" that Tesla is not respectful of customers' privacy. I can imagine that Tesla receives many, many complaints and is threatened with or engaged in litigation many, many times. This might well be exception proving the rule. So maybe we can fairly ask, "Did Tesla cross the line in either of these cases?" But we shouldn't conclude that Tesla is willy-nilly about customer info. (Me: My falcon wing door creaks. T: You promised your kids you'd take them to the zoo yesterday, but you didnt!)

I disagree because it is not just these cases. Tesla has also e.g. been very public about high-speed crashes too which are very sensitive for the participants and have included deaths.

Tesla clearly puts their perceived self-interest above that of customer privacy. I would say there is enough predent to say this is their current policy - right or wrong, good or bad.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

"A source familiar with the case at Tesla told Electrek that the company did provide the data to Son after an investigation and reaffirms that it clearly shows that the cause of the accident was the accelerator pedal being floored."

After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

Read more. Type less.

Thank you for the source. It was not referred to on this thread before on that detail so I read it later.

That said, I must again say the owner and Tesla disagree on that, especially at the download stage. He says they kept him away from seeing. Whether or not he really has seen full logs later I guess we have to wait and see.

 

[bhzmark]

I disagree because it is not just these cases. Tesla has also e.g. been very public about high-speed crashes too which are very sensitive for the participants and have included deaths.

Tesla clearly puts their perceived self-interest above that of customer privacy. I would say there is enough predent to say this is their current policy - right or wrong, good or bad.

Any customer privacy rights are waived as to data that shows that the customer's public allegations are lies.

 

[McRat]

People should read the lawsuit posted up-thread by Tam. Here is that link again:
Telsa Lawsuit | Tesla Motors | Airbag

It doesn't deny that accelerator pedal might have been pushed. But it argues, a car that can drive itself and is promoted as a computer on wheels, should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house. I find it hard to argue against this. I asked a similar question earlier.

So the argument is, that if there is a misspelled word or contextual error in the lawsuit filing, it is Microsoft Word that is to blame, not the typist? MS Word does have spell checking and grammar checking.

Unless he used an automatic parking function, it appears the car might have done exactly what the operator requested of it.

The same kind of reasoning the lawsuit uses is the same that anti-gun lawsuits have tried. The device itself should not be able to cause harm when requested to do so.

But? If I want to ram something with my vehicle, it should not stop me. How does the vehicle know I don't have a good reason for it?

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I would disagree with the Electrek that the owner agreed with Tesla about the "blackmail" though, his Facebook was disagreeing on that. Not saying who is right, just not agreeing with Electrek's characterization on that detail.

However Tesla's response certainly seems to have encouraged him into action. I wonder how wise Tesla's public shaming of a customer was from a PR perspective.

Other than this I have found this and Electrek's past write-ups on the unintended accelerations well researched and overall excellent.

Trying to figure out where the public shaming is...

 

[disagree]

I would disagree with the Electrek that the owner agreed with Tesla about the "blackmail" though, his Facebook was disagreeing on that. Not saying who is right, just not agreeing with Electrek's characterization on that detail.

However Tesla's response certainly seems to have encouraged him into action. I wonder how wise Tesla's public shaming of a customer was from a PR perspective.

Other than this I have found this and Electrek's past write-ups on the unintended accelerations well researched and overall excellent.

I disagree because Tesla has e.g. been very public about high-speed crashes too which are very sensitive for the participants and have included deaths.

Tesla clearly puts their perceived self-interest above that of customer privacy. I would say there is enough predent to say this is their current policy - right or wrong, good or bad.

You're conflating all sorts of things here and appear to have reached a point of conviction that makes discussion impossible.

Scolding Tesla for Son making good on his threat is straight up victim-blaming.

 

[mmd]

It argues that even if someone intentionally pushes the accelerator, the car should not move if the car detects an obstacle. That sounds nice, until you think about it for a second.

I 've thought enough. Have you? Have you taken a little time to read the lawsuit and think?
Anyway, it doesn't matter what I say here. It's the jury that will need convincing. The stats are overwhelmingly against Tesla in this case.
You should check what Tesla and supporters said about the horse power lawsuit in Norway, At the end, it was Tesla who turned out to be "the liar" and settled the lawsuit.

You should also check out what happened to the falcon wing door lawsuit Tesla filed against the German company. At the beginning of every lawsuit against Tesla, the "thoughts" expressed by Tesla supporters are the same. They are all liars and Tesla should get a free pass.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You're conflating all sorts of things here and appear to have reached a point of conviction that makes discussion impossible.

Scolding Tesla for Son making good on his threat is straight up victim-blaming.

My point was never about this customer in particular but about sharing customer data and confronting them in public in general. I would say Tesla likely made it worse in this case by making the celebrity threat claims in public instead of sticking to a higher road. And I think they sent a poor signal to their customers by once again showing they will discuss individual customers publicly.

That is just a pragmatic view on troublemakers in particular and a conservative view on customer privacy in general. It may backfire on them.

Just because you disagree does not mean my opinion is impossible. It is just different from yours.

p.s. I stress that I believe the customer is very likely wrong in this instance. What I am not sure is they couldn't have been treated better even so, with a better outcome for all.

 

[tinm]

I really really want a visual of 360º around my car, not just backup camera. I wonder if the new Tesla Vision cameras have that capability to deliver to my big screen.

Careful, not so sure a 360 view is gonna be the solution. I say this as the owner of a Model S that got hit by a big Toyota Highlander the driver of which was attempting to squeeze said huge Highlander into the 45-degree-angle parking spot next to my parked car, all the while watching the dash screen 360-camera view image rather than looking out the freaking window, and next thing you know, huge Highlander's left front bumper is plowing into my Model S's right rear bumper and quarter panel taking the paint off in large scrapes and providing a nice dent or two, all in slow motion. Said Highlander owner continued parking anyway, and then got out, saw the damage, and was writing a note for me when I was walking back to the car...

I love the idea of built-in cameras recording driving in 360-degrees a la a dashcam/black-box but remain unconvinced they're ideal for helping (at least Highlander) drivers while parking.

 

[Az_Rael]

I 've thought enough. Have you? Have you taken a little time to read the lawsuit and think?

Well, this fellow had his acceleration blocked because the car thought it saw a collision at an entrance ramp and it created a safety hazard for him: "Obstacle detected" - blocking acceleration - very dangerous!

I think Tesla overriding driver inputs is generally a bad idea. Unfortunately, that means people will continue to mistake pedals and slam into walls. I think I prefer that to the car making an error in sensor readings, and a driver unable to override.