Another 'Sudden Acceleration' lawsuit

[AnxietyRanger]

Nonsense ... Tesla is just protecting the company from fraudulent lawsuits

...yes, by putting their short-term self-interest ahead of customer privacy.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

The challenge is: A jury might not want to be preached or lectured and would go for the one who is suffered

And just as easily, a jury might not feel inclined to listen to the whining of a rich celebrity who clearly failed to operate their vehicle in a safe manner.

 

[FlatSix911]

Excerpt from lawsuit:

"...Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects. This failure to provide programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction... by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall."

 

[Tam]

...I own a late model luxury car that WILL ignore the accelerator pedal if it suspects a collision is imminent and apply full brake instead...

That's opposite with Tesla, as soon as a human challenges the automation by instead of agreeing to slow down or to brake, a driver would press on an accelerator, the Automatic Emergency Braking must disengage and allow the driver to speed up.

Currently, driver is responsible so the automation should not question human's judgement because what if the automation erroneously detects an obstruction that's not there? Or what if the driver purposefully wants to break through an obstacle....

That's why Google suggests to delete all human controls for their prototype cars: Either automation is the boss or human is, but not both!

 

[Canuck]

...yes, by putting their short-term self-interest ahead of customer privacy.

I'm not sure "privacy" is the right word when a customer comes out publicly against Tesla. Once a customer has done that, they have waived any right to privacy and have made it clear that privacy is not of concern to them. So I don't see why it should be of concern to you or anyone else? I'm certain there's a number of cases with Tesla where the customers, with or without legal counsel, have gone directly to Tesla and avoided any publicity but Tesla does not mention those cases out of privacy issues. That's where privacy applies in my view.

 

[Pdub2015]

Excerpt from lawsuit:

"...Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects. This failure to provide programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction... by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall."

Thanks for pointing that out. So the plaintiff admits to "pedal misapplication" and is claiming Tesla is at fault for not providing code that reads the driver's mind and is able to tell when they are "misapplying" pedal inputs. Wow.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Excerpt from lawsuit:

"...Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects. This failure to provide programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction... by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall."

The lawyer overreach on autonomous stopping is the silliest part of this lawsuit IMO. I have no trouble believing that part is an attempt to ensure a case win by adding as much stuff as possible to it and may indeed backfire on them as it is ridiculous.

IMO much more interesting is, what really happened after the last thing the driver and Tesla seem to agree: accelerator was 17% pressed. Tesla says the logs then say 100% accelerator pedal press, the driver denies this.

Now, there of course is a very small and unlikely possibility of error in car function that would confound even logs. There has been a surprisingly high number of such events recently, but I still don't think it is very likely. Driver error is likeliest.

So if the driver was applying 17% acceleration, this he and Tesla seems to agree on, the idea that he then pressed it down fully does not seem quite as plausible as, say, creeping with no pedal press and then mistaking accelerator for brake...

Could there be some other driver error confusion that happened, other than just a simple pedal miss? Any thoughts?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm not sure "privacy" is the right word when a customer comes out publicly against Tesla. Once a customer has done that, they have waived any right to privacy and have made it clear that privacy is not of concern to them. So I don't see why it should be of concern to you or anyone else? I'm certain there's a number of cases with Tesla where the customers, with or without legal counsel, have gone directly to Tesla and avoided any publicity but Tesla does not mention those cases out of privacy issues. That's where privacy applies in my view.

Tesla has done this even in many cases where this has not happened, but e.g. a crash has become news by itself. It seems their common policy to discuss company-affecting customer events in detail in public. They will pull logs and tell the world about you and your car. We can agree to disagree on the right or wrong, smart or not of course, but that seems to be happening.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Thanks for pointing that out. So the plaintiff admits to "pedal misapplication" and is claiming Tesla is at fault for not providing code that reads the driver's mind and is able to tell when they are "misapplying" pedal inputs. Wow.

That is taking the selective quote too far. The plaintiff does not admit or agree to pedal misapplication.

 

[McRat]

Of course, because McDonalds ignored repeated previous burn cases which lead to the punitive award. It's rare that any mom & pop would ever do that. After burning one customer they would have turned down the temp. There's no excuse at all for scalding hot coffee that leads to skin grafts, at least not in the society that I wish to live in with my 75 year old mother.



Go live in many third world countries where they don't follow the Donoghue v Stevenson principle of tort law and then tell me that it is better to live in your utopia where "Shiit happens" and we much just accept it. Of course, we don't have the perfect system in the States and Canada where we follow the English common-law of tort law. But it's the best of what we can develop as humans so far living in an imperfect world, at least in my view. Detractors like you always like to tear things down without telling us what you would re-construct in their place. Sure, let's bring in statutory tort reform and let corporations do as they please -- and get rid of Donoghue, right? That's the world you want to live in? Where chain restaurants can serve coffee that will scald you requiring skin grafting should it spill, as it often does. Either that or don't drink coffee. Nice choice there!

Or, perhaps, you have a better principle of law than Donoghue? If so, I'm all ears. But something tells me you have nothing at all.

Talk is cheap.

If the legal system of 2017 in the USA was in place in 1900, we would have neither cars nor aircraft. The manufacturers knew for a fact that the operator was in grave danger.

Soon, everything dangerous will be removed. It's changed tremendously during my lifetime.

 

[Canuck]

If the legal system of 2017 in the USA was in place in 1900, we would have neither cars nor aircraft.

In your mind only. Do you really expect anyone with the capacity to reason to accept such nonsense?

It doesn't surprise me that you continue to spread ridiculously false information rather than answer my one simple question to you:

Or, perhaps, you have a better principle of law than Donoghue? If so, I'm all ears. But something tells me you have nothing at all.

 

[acadapter]

Of course, because McDonalds ignored repeated previous burn cases which lead to the punitive award. It's rare that any mom & pop would ever do that. After burning one customer they would have turned down the temp. There's no excuse at all for scalding hot coffee that leads to skin grafts, at least not in the society that I wish to live in with my 75 year old mother.



Go live in many third world countries where they don't follow the Donoghue v Stevenson principle of tort law and then tell me that it is better to live in your utopia where "Shiit happens" and we much just accept it. Of course, we don't have the perfect system in the States and Canada where we follow the English common-law of tort law. But it's the best of what we can develop as humans so far living in an imperfect world, at least in my view. Detractors like you always like to tear things down without telling us what you would re-construct in their place. Sure, let's bring in statutory tort reform and let corporations do as they please -- and get rid of Donoghue, right? That's the world you want to live in? Where chain restaurants can serve coffee that will scald you requiring skin grafting should it spill, as it often does. Either that or don't drink coffee. Nice choice there!

Or, perhaps, you have a better principle of law than Donoghue? If so, I'm all ears. But something tells me you have nothing at all.

Talk is cheap.

Just to add context, McDonald's still has not reduced its coffee temperature. Starbucks is at least one company that also serves coffee at a temperature hot enough to also cause 3rd-degree burns...

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I refer to making customer conversations and data public that may embarrass them. Worse still, Tesla may give a one-sided version.

For the legal goals, Tesla could have left all that out. For customer relationship goals, they could have shown they treat their customers privately and with dignity even in times of argument. It would set a better PR predecent for other customers... and might appease a single customer (vs. aggrivating him to potentially more confrontational mode).

Call it diplomacy.

They were asked to comment after he filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, that is public knowledge.

I see no reason for them to hold their tongue when this D-list celebrity made good on the blackmail.

 

[dhanson865]

You guys think a car with radar, ultrasonic sensors, and 8 cameras should allow itself to plow through a wall in the year 2016? I'm playing devil's advocate here, since clearly the Tesla has enough sensor suite to prevent this type of accident or at least diminish the damage. Yes likely the guy mistook the accelerator pedal for the brake but that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

8 cameras would be AP2 which wasn't enabled at the time of the incident so either:

This was an AP1 car with 1 camera for AP or this was an AP2 car with no AP functionality.

Either way it's a strawman argument to talk about 8 cameras AP in 2016. Heck I'm writing this in 2017 and AP2 isn't fully enabled on all the cars with 8 cameras.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

If the legal system of 2017 in the USA was in place in 1900, we would have neither cars nor aircraft. The manufacturers knew for a fact that the operator was in grave danger.

Soon, everything dangerous will be removed. It's changed tremendously during my lifetime.

You could at least answer their question. What's your alternative? Your failure to answer suggests that you have no solution other than to rant about how things used to be so great.

I generally hate blood-sucking lawyers more than anyone, but the "legal system" of 2017 isn't that different from the "legal system" of 2007, and that hasn't prevented Tesla or SpaceX from accomplishing a vast amount in a single decade.

 

[EVie'sDad]

Well, so much for that....

You just can’t drive: Tesla fires back over Korean actor’s claims of ‘unintended acceleration’

 

[AnxietyRanger]

They were asked to comment after he filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, that is public knowledge.

I see no reason for them to hold their tongue when this D-list celebrity made good on the blackmail.

The thing that IMO is more disconcerting is Tesla's willingness to do the same even when there is no court case...

Tesla vehicles know when a crash is your fault—and other cars will soon, too

Tesla did the same in the recent fatality cases without any court cases. And they did so in the mentioned warranty cases. So they have uncharacteristically (for such a company) open way about their customer's events.

Without third-party verification and Tesla being a partial party (interest in portraying their cars in the best light), some level of privacy policy or at least third-party control of such disclosures would be welcome.

Lest every crash from now on be judged in the court of Tesla and public opinion... instead of an actual impartial finding.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Well, so much for that....

You just can’t drive: Tesla fires back over Korean actor’s claims of ‘unintended acceleration’

Well, that is Tesla's version of it anyway.

However, nobody bit earlier when I asked for speculation what might cause this:

“Data shows that the vehicle was travelling at 6 mph (9.6 km/h) when the accelerator pedal was abruptly increased to 100 per cent,” the company said at the time.

According to even earlier info, the car's accelerator was pressed 17% at this stage (the driver was driving into the garage). Then suddenly it goes 100%. As we all agree the driver is most likely at fault, what reasons might cause/contribute to this in a Model X? Any ideas?

This does not necessarily sound like the scenario people have been speculating on: that the car was coasting/creeping (no pedals) and the driver mistook accelerator for brake when pressing a pedal to stop, which would be quite common probably. Instead, it looks like the driver was pressing accelerator all along at 17% - and suddenly further presses it to 100%.

So it is possible the driver pressed the same pedal down according to Tesla that they had been pressing all along. That is different from first pressing no pedal (coasting/creeping in place) and then mistaking accelerator for brake when it comes time to press a pedal to stop... Someone speculated closer than usual pedal placement in the car's design (possible of course), but this would involve lifting the foot first...

This is harder to explain by a simple mistaken pedal. A foot slipping might explain it. Made worse by the instant acceleration. Being distracted (by the child?), perhaps. Reaching for something that causes the body to extend the foot unintentionally? Seating position? What else? Given the fairly high amount of these incidents for the small amout of Model X's out there (this does not seem to be as common for Model S), could there be something to the design or nature of the car that we should be wary of? I think the use of creep mode suggestion earlier was a good concrete one for some situations.

Electrek.co listed some of these events, though offered little in the way of speculation on causes: Several Tesla owners claim Model X accelerated/crashed on its own but everything points to user error

 

[AnxietyRanger]

One unique aspect of this case is that while Tesla's publicity machine and their California/Silicon Valley/English-speaking EV following guarantees a symphatetic ear and better ability to control the message in the English-speaking news/technology/EV press and forums such as this, they very likely have much less control over the message in non-English-centric Asian countries. This is probably true for the German speaking world to some extent as well.

It is evident the tone of discussion regarding EV and Tesla news is often very different on Asian or German media/forums. While the English speaking sources are dominated by California mindsets, U.S. abbreviations and attitudes, the world is a bit different elsewhere. I gather it is already different in Norway, though that is a very Tesla-oriented market and as a smaller language group looks more to the English speaking world as, say, Germans do... Just look at the P85D consumer complaint process and how differently that turned out in Norway.

Combined with a Korean celebrity personality and this language and culture divide, it will be interesting to see how Tesla tackles this particular case on the Korean side. While the accident happened in California and the lawsuit is local, the PR question is hardly the same as your average American crashing into the mall parking lot wall. The culture is foreign to Tesla - and Tesla is foreign to the culture.

Combined with the simultaneous Tesla starting to enter the Korean market, it certainly is unfortunate timing for all sides. I doubt there is big impact, but still it is interesting to watch how Tesla manages to mind the gap so to speak.

 

[EVie'sDad]

One unique aspect of this case is that while Tesla's publicity machine and their California/Silicon Valley/English-speaking EV following guarantees a symphatetic ear and better ability to control the message in the English-speaking news/technology/EV press and forums such as this, they very likely have much less control over the message in non-English-centric Asian countries. This is probably true for the German speaking world to some extent as well.

It is evident the tone of discussion regarding EV and Tesla news is often very different on Asian or German media/forums. While the English speaking sources are dominated by California mindsets, U.S. abbreviations and attitudes, the world is a bit different elsewhere. I gather it is already different in Norway, though that is a very Tesla-oriented market and as a smaller language group looks more to the English speaking world as, say, Germans do... Just look at the P85D consumer complaint process and how differently that turned out in Norway.

Combined with a Korean celebrity personality and this language and culture divide, it will be interesting to see how Tesla tackles this particular case on the Korean side. While the accident happened in California and the lawsuit is local, the PR question is hardly the same as your average American crashing into the mall parking lot wall. The culture is foreign to Tesla - and Tesla is foreign to the culture.

Combined with the simultaneous Tesla starting to enter the Korean market, it certainly is unfortunate timing for all sides. I doubt there is big impact, but still it is interesting to watch how Tesla manages to mind the gap so to speak.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the FUD being spread by Chinese EV makers (e.g. FF, EeVo?) to downplay the success of Tesla Motors in favor of their 'state' sponsored EV programs? Search for Fact vs Fiction in topic thread titles and you will see what kind of publicity is being created (more fake news) to keep the stock price depreciated and to make it appear TM is not as well off as it truly is.