Expanding FSD Beta.

[Tam]

...Is there an Non Disclosure Agreement in FSD Beta and does it prohibit posting and disclosure of accidents?...

If it is a public release (which is different than the limited release to a few NDA) then there is no NDA. You can post all the accidents you want.

...If this is true what happens to the person who violates the NDA?...

The NDA should specify the damages that the violator would be subject to pay. Most likely the testing privilege is revoked and the tester would default back to the public release version, not an NDA version.

...If someone has an accident are they allowed to tell the police and insurance company they were using FSD Beta?...

If there's a law broken (If the NDA says you can not disclose that you'll bring gallows to the Capitol to hang the traitor Vice President Mike Pence), the NDA is invalid. So you should be able to report accidents and report to your insurance company. NDA is not made to break the laws.

I think Tesla NDA would want you to give feedback to Tesla and not the public because short-sellers might use that as the basis for their position.

We've seen many YouTubers showing their use of NDA FSD beta versions and they are not punished.

Most likely, the NDA is there just to discourage acts that harm the FSD program and Tesla has the right to use NDA to punish those who abuse it.

It is not strictly enforced unless there's harmful abuse.

...If you can't talk about the NDA how can it be known what is in the NDA?...

You can read it to know it. If you are not sure, you don't need to participate and you'll have to wait for the public release version and not the NDA version.

...If accidents & incidents are not allowed to be discussed then how can statistics ever be collected on the safety of the program?

If accidents happen in public properties, you'll have to report it if it's more than $750 in damages in California regardless if there's an NDA or not.

NDA or not, Tesla still collects accident statistics and keeps NTHSA in the loop to prove that its numbers get better with each of its new software versions and eventually for driverless approval.

 

[Dan D.]

If it is a public release (which is different than the limited release to a few NDA) then there is no NDA. You can post all the accidents you want.

If accidents happen in public properties, you'll have to report it if it's more than $750 in damages in California regardless if there's an NDA or not.

NDA or not, Tesla still collects accident statistics and keeps NTHSA in the loop to prove that its numbers get better with each of its new software versions and eventually for driverless approval.

Thanks for answering my "ifs".

Partly I was wondering about whether any accident would have to be declared as specifically involving FSD Beta. For example one might just take responsibility for one's actions and thus not blame the software.

We have seen random accidents involving Autopilot and if you search for "Tesla Denies Autopilot" they are not exactly forthcoming with information until forced, sometimes the drivers say the same thing. If both parties denied it was engaged, isn't it likely there would be no investigation into the software, making it easier to hide the statistics.

All very conspiracy-stuff, and probably not very likely I agree.

 

[Tam]

...Partly I was wondering about whether any accident would have to be declared as specifically involving FSD Beta. For example one might just take responsibility for one's actions and thus not blame the software...

In an accident, the government wants to know as much info as it could get. A driver can volunteer that the alcohol was involved and FSD beta was activated but in an investigation, the government can eventually know all the facts even when the driver didn't volunteer the info: Blood test results for the alcohol and Tesla's log.

In an accident, you cannot claim NDA as a reason for refusing to supply information.

The courts/traffic courts have been clear about the current Tesla's automation system: The driver is responsible for driving and traffic violations and cannot deny liability for citing that Tesla's automation is very modern and sophisticated and it failed in a particular incident.

 

[Dan D.]

In an accident, the government wants to know as much info as it could get. A driver can volunteer that the alcohol was involved and FSD beta was activated but in an investigation, the government can eventually know all the facts even when the driver didn't volunteer the info: Blood test results for the alcohol and Tesla's log.

In an accident, you cannot claim NDA as a reason for refusing to supply information.

The courts/traffic courts have been clear about the current Tesla's automation system: The driver is responsible for driving and traffic violations and cannot deny liability for citing that Tesla's automation is very modern and sophisticated and it failed in a particular incident.

Serious accidents sure.

It's probably unlikely that an accident involving John Smith's FSD driving into Mrs Jones' bumper is going to be investigated and Tesla logs requested. Especially if there are no injuries, minor damage only, and nobody is claiming (or aware) that the driver was letting the car drive. I doubt it's to John's advantage to blame the software and claim he wasn't driving with due care, probably best to just say oops sorry.

Perhaps if there was a light on the top of the car saying "FSD Driving" we'd all know

 

[drtimhill]

Partly I was wondering about whether any accident would have to be declared as specifically involving FSD Beta. For example one might just take responsibility for one's actions and thus not blame the software.

You would be responsible anyway .. even after its not beta, FSD will still be a driver assist feature and so you are still liable.

 

[LowlyOilBurner]

Think about all the curb’d wheels though....