Elon: FSD Beta tweets

[Silicon Desert]

Insurance companies have also gotten ahead of this where they explicitly say they don't cover the vehicle when its in self-driving mode. So its really your insurance that won't touch liability with a ten foot pole.

How about an example of such companies? I've talked to my agent recently about this and they would not agree. In fact, he is saying they are evaluating the possibility of having the deductible waived in the future if in self-driving mode. Maybe some companies are considering not covering while in self-driving mode, but my agent is not aware of which ones are doing that.

 

[Knightshade]

The federal government could almost certainly regulate the performance of self-driving cars, I think they're just allowing the states to regulate them until the technology is more mature. The FMVSS was recently modified to allow cars without steering wheels and other changes necessary for dedicated robotaxi design.

Kind of two different things here.

Things like the FMVSS is the feds regulating safety requirements for vehicles- and indeed there's both federal and state laws on this stuff- this is things like vehicle bumpers must handle crash X to standard Y type of stuff and the like.

Car insurance is generally only regulated at the state level.... and as noted at least a few states do not require you to have car insurance at all

 

[dcesq06]

You guys are dreaming in technicolor if you think Tesla or any manufacturer will assume liability for their self driving systems. You buy it and use it and the responsibility is with you. These systems can never correct for every contingency thrown at them. The same situation exists with a human driver. That being said no companies legal team will allow it to be sued into oblivion over an unforeseen condition that causes injury or death.

Not sure of the relevance of what a manufacturer will assume in terms of liability. What the manufacturer assumes may constitute a defense; but, that doesn't necessarily mean that a court will agree that the manufacturer isn't liable.

This happens everyday in all types of situations. Seller sells a widget to Buyer and denies any liability that may arise from Buyer's use of widget. Buyer uses widget, suffers an injury and pursues legal recourse. The court/jury then determines whether, given the facts of the case, the Seller should be held accountable for Buyer's injuries.

 

[dcesq06]

I'll be waiting for the first U.S. case where somebody is hit by a Tesla and they end up suing JUST Tesla and NOT the owner/operator of the car. We'll see how that works out.

Practically speaking, you know they will sue Tesla and the owner (as well as the manufacturer of whatever car part that allegedly didn't work as it was expected to work).

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'll be waiting for the first U.S. case where somebody is hit by a Tesla and they end up suing JUST Tesla and NOT the owner/operator of the car. We'll see how that works out.

Not suing only Tesla but here you go: Bay Area Family Suing Tesla Blames Son's Death On Nascent Autopilot Technology
Obviously won’t set any precedent for driverless vehicles.

 

[2101Guy]

To be fair..in America, one can file a suit against almost anyone for almost anything.
WINNING the suit...different story

 

[Goose66]

Practically speaking, you know they will sue Tesla and the owner (as well as the manufacturer of whatever car part that allegedly didn't work as it was expected to work).

Sort of to my point. Your (practical) choices: you (or your insurance company) sue the owner/operator, the owner/operator AND Tesla, or the owner/operator AND Tesla AND some other parties. But suing Tesla only because the system is labeled L3 thus relieving the owner/operator of any liability and the court accepting that? Not going to happen in my lifetime IMO.

What would technically happen if somebody sue Tesla only would be that Tesla would file for impleader of the owner/operator which the court would surely grant because suing Tesla only in the first place was so ridiculous.

 

[AndrewZ]

Sort of to my point. Your (practical) choices: you (or your insurance company) sue the owner/operator, the owner/operator AND Tesla, or the owner/operator AND Tesla AND some other parties. But suing Tesla only because the system is labeled L3 thus relieving the owner/operator of any liability and the court accepting that? Not going to happen in my lifetime IMO.

What would technically happen if somebody sue Tesla only would be that Tesla would file for impleader of the owner/operator which the court would surely grant because suing Tesla only in the first place was so ridiculous.

What about a Level 4+ vehicle that doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals, which Tesla has said is in the pipeline?

You would have zero ability to even correct what the vehicle is doing while operating using software that is under the purview of the manufacturer. You might not even be in the vehicle if it's out operating autonomously in Robotaxi mode, and yet you'd be liable for what the vehicle is doing? I don't know if there has ever been a product quite like this, and that feels like a big risk to assume as the owner.

All of this feels like ammunition for my ultra-pessimistic view that consumer vehicles will remain Level 2 with the human responsible at all times, and anything Level 4+ will remain with corporate fleets thus all this risk will be theirs to assume.

 

[Silicon Desert]

What about a Level 4+ vehicle that doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals, which Tesla has said is in the pipeline?
You would have zero ability to even correct what the vehicle is doing while operating using software that is under the purview of the manufacturer.

Interesting thought. As old as I am, I will be dead before that happens. I'll be glad since I prefer to have a backup method of controlling a vehicle. I would never buy such a car, but yup, a bunch of people will

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

What about a Level 4+ vehicle that doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals, which Tesla has said is in the pipeline?

You would have zero ability to even correct what the vehicle is doing while operating using software that is under the purview of the manufacturer. You might not even be in the vehicle if it's out operating autonomously in Robotaxi mode, and yet you'd be liable for what the vehicle is doing? I don't know if there has ever been a product quite like this, and that feels like a big risk to assume as the owner.

All of this feels like ammunition for my ultra-pessimistic view that consumer vehicles will remain Level 2 with the human responsible at all times, and anything Level 4+ will remain with corporate fleets thus all this risk will be theirs to assume.

My opinion is that if Level 4+ happens it will also end up in vehicles owned by private individual, or leased/rented long-term by them.
I think that competitive pressures would lead to it. Competition will squeeze margin in taxi services, and there would be sizable margin x volume in selling/leasing/long-term rental.

I would expect a reduction in the number of vehicles owned per household, with elimination of ownership at the lower end, but middle-income having quite a lot of 1 crap carrier + low-cost ride-share commuting. A substantial amount of that ride-share will be paid for as a benefit/wage dodge by employers.

Also, once you have autonomy, longer commutes become more tolerable, which could either ease urban property price pressure or just further spread the problem.

As far as liability goes, the only challenge with L3 is whether the human responded appropriately. But they'd probably want to go after the company's deep pockets anyway, hoping to settle. However, I'd expect L3+ vehicles to have tamper-proof boxes recording handover events. Like dashcams, that'd resolve a lot of issues.

 

[willow_hiller]

Following from this discussion, I decided to look into the theoretical research already done about the liability of autonomous robots (because what is a L4/5 car other than a robot with wheels). Found this interesting article: Research study on the legal liability of autonomous robotics

Interesting points to highlight:

• 10 additional levels of autonomy discussed, that are all following on from SAE L5. E.g. the first one is "The human operator sets the mission and turns it over to the computer to implement it." So if you tell an autonomous car to drive off a cliff, and it does, are you liable for issuing the directions, or is the manufacturer liability for not preventing you from directing it off cliffs?
• The above leads into a discussion about robots as products, and how there are two potentially liable "programmers," those that write the firmware, and the operator that issues the robot commands. So if you set your car to "Aggressive" lane changes, is Tesla at fault for offering that option, or are you at fault for choosing it?
• Current EU law: "the consumer who has obtained the robot is covered by consumer protection law if the robot harms him and there is no fault or negligence in his conduct"

 

[dcesq06]

Sort of to my point. Your (practical) choices: you (or your insurance company) sue the owner/operator, the owner/operator AND Tesla, or the owner/operator AND Tesla AND some other parties. But suing Tesla only because the system is labeled L3 thus relieving the owner/operator of any liability and the court accepting that? Not going to happen in my lifetime IMO.

What would technically happen if somebody sue Tesla only would be that Tesla would file for impleader of the owner/operator which the court would surely grant because suing Tesla only in the first place was so ridiculous.

You are absolutely correct with the caveat that a plaintiff would/could use different theories of liability for each defendant. So, there would be claims against Tesla because of it misrepresenting its system as L3 (for example); but, in the same suit, there would be a negligence claim against the owner/operator.

And to extrapolate this hypothetical even further, whether the injured party sued ONLY the owner/operator (i.e., didn't sue Tesla) in a case arising from an accident, the owner/operator would then bring Tesla into the case to contest the legitimacy of the label L3 designation. (Injured party would try and collect from the Tesla driver and the Tesla driver would then try and recoup that sum against Tesla.)

Everyone who can be involved will ultimately end up involved.

• Injured driver will point his/her finger at the operator for negligence and attempt to bring in Tesla for labeling system L3
• Operator is going to bring a claim against Tesla for the L3 label
• Tesla is going to bring a claim against the operator for negligence
• Tesla may go after a parts manufacturer under the theory that the L3 system didn't work because of said faulty part
• Tesla and operator will go after the injured driver under some negligence theory (e.g., accident wasn't caused because of the L3 system, but because the injured party was texting on his phone instead of paying attention to the road).

Not saying that all of these "claims" are viable and would survive a case through trial, but everyone will be involved and pointing a finger at someone else.

 

[EVNow]

But suing Tesla only because the system is labeled L3 thus relieving the owner/operator of any liability and the court accepting that? Not going to happen in my lifetime IMO.

That is why I keep saying there will be legislation to fix this mess. New paradigms will always create confusion and courts are the last to adopt. Thus the need for legislation.

 

[Daniel in SD]

In the California autonomous vehicle regulations the manufacturer of the vehicle is required to have $5 million of insurance but the owner of the vehicle is required to have the same (ridiculously low) liability insurance as a regular car. I still don't understand what loophole there is in the SAE J3016 that would result in the owner of the vehicle having to pay a judgement (unless of course the manufacturer goes bankrupt). And of course if a manufacturer refused to cover the costs to the owner of this hypothetical loophole it seems like that would be really bad publicity.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

How about an example of such companies? I've talked to my agent recently about this and they would not agree. In fact, he is saying they are evaluating the possibility of having the deductible waived in the future if in self-driving mode. Maybe some companies are considering not covering while in self-driving mode, but my agent is not aware of which ones are doing that.

That doesn't really make sense because the manufacture (or fleet operator) is responsible for the accident. Now he could be talking about L2 FSD style mode where the driver is still responsible.

The following link is from the UK, and seems to be addressing L3.

Self-driving car users will not be liable for accidents under DfT proposals

The DfT has proposed an update to The Highway Code that will see insurance companies become financially liable for self-driving car crashes.

www.uktech.news

 

[Goose66]

What about a Level 4+ vehicle that doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals, which Tesla has said is in the pipeline?

Who would own such a vehicle? A robotaxi service or Tesla itself. As such I suspect the owner/operator would still bear liability.

 

[willow_hiller]

Just realized that amidst all the liability discussion, this thread missed an Elon FSD Beta Tweet. Sounds like 10.69.2 is on track for this weekend?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567975438064189440

 

[Acisplat]

Just realized that amidst all the liability discussion, this thread missed an Elon FSD Beta Tweet. Sounds like 10.69.2 is on track for this weekend?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567975438064189440

"This weekend" in Elon time

 

[Daniel in SD]

Who would own such a vehicle? A robotaxi service or Tesla itself. As such I suspect the owner/operator would still bear liability.

What if the damages were caused by a defect in the vehicle design?

 

[LowlyOilBurner]

How about let some of us folks in that paid twice for FSD (to the tune of $18,000.00 over two cars) traded a car in that had FSDb, maintained a “safety score” of 100% for the last 8,598miles on their new car, only to miss the last “roll out” due to being stuck on “factory software”. How about that? Or should I buy an eTron, Rivian, or a Denali w/super cruise, maybe even go back and buy a V60 Polestar Recharge? Because, I’d have more fun flushing that last $12,000.00 down the toilet…k, thanks