The fact that he had an audible warning during the drive indicates he wasn't paying attention. Anyone using AP as it was intended (hands on wheel, looking forward with the CID in view) should never receive an audible warning.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
this is the crap narrative that tesla wants to spread which is 100% false.
But like i said this very deceptively crafted sentence. if i drove on AP for 15 minutes and i was alerted to put my hands on the wheel 2 minutes in.
You make a lot of leaps and assumptions.I think the driver’s family has no case against tesla in a court of law - All of the instructions and warnings say to keep hands on the wheel the entire time and not to rely on autopilot for avoiding everything. The driver had a unobstructed view of the barrier and should have reacted.
The court of public opinion is a different story however, because most people will be happy to lay the blame on tesla’s feet because it fits a narrative established by the Uber crash.
I really hope tesla does a good job of explaining and handling this without taking blame which ultimately rests on the inattentive driver.
You make a lot of leaps and assumptions.
1. It apparently cannot be repeated enough that "Hands not detected" is not equivalent to "hands not on wheel."
2. "Received warnings earlier in the drive" is not equivalent to "received warnings at a time relevant to the crash."
3. That the driver didn't steer the prior six seconds doesn't mean that autopilot didn't steer him into the barrier.
Also, who cares about Uber? I care about AP vis-a-vis accidents because I own a Tesla and want to know what is going on. If you need to construct some false motive apologetics in order to make a point, there's a problem with your argument.
Cowards unwilling to actually disagree with substantive comments.
You are just pushing your assumptions on the facts presented.You make a lot of leaps and assumptions.
1. It apparently cannot be repeated enough that "Hands not detected" is not equivalent to "hands not on wheel."
2. "Received warnings earlier in the drive" is not equivalent to "received warnings at a time relevant to the crash."
3. That the driver didn't steer the prior six seconds doesn't mean that autopilot didn't steer him into the barrier.
Also, who cares about Uber? I care about AP vis-a-vis accidents because I own a Tesla and want to know what is going on. If you need to construct some false motive apologetics in order to make a point, there's a problem with your argument.
There's no such thing as a private language.You are just pushing your assumptions on the facts presented.
I'm not assigning anyone any blame.I wasn’t even mentioning Tesla’s report as far as the holding the steering wheel comment - that’s what the AP says every time you turn it in. Ultimately, if had been paying attention and had his hands on the wheel, he would have had plenty of time to react. That’s where the inattention comment stems from.
So unless you’re suggesting that the AP wrestled the steering wheel away from him, the driver is in control of the car with the AP assisting him.
If you want to talk about the technical causes of the crash, fine, that’s pretty interesting and i’m curious why the AP failed to recognize the lines. Maybe a car cut across right in front of him? that could explain it.
But as far as assigning blame and liability, to me Tesla is in the clear - the driver appears to have been inattentive at the time of the accident.
Again, the facts here state that there was no driver input. If you want to interpret that as a simultaneous system failure of the AP system and the steering system, feel free. I, however, interpret it as the more likely event of no input by the driver.
-ahem- I couldn't find your 'substantive comments' associated with your disagreement a post of mine. In fact, I didn't see any comment from you re this post at all, substantive or not. Just a disagree. I didn't think it was cowardly, but I may have to reconsider, based on this post of yours.Cowards unwilling to actually disagree with substantive comments.
-ahem- I couldn't find your 'substantive comments' associated with your disagreement a post of mine. In fact, I didn't see any comment from you re this post at all, substantive or not. Just a disagree. I didn't think it was cowardly, but I may have to reconsider, based on this post of yours.
Product liability laws are very pro consumer. Even if a manufacturer said don't do "this", but most people do it anyway, than the manufacturer can be held responsible for known abuse.
People are emotional about a very important topic. Obviously I don't want to get killed, on the flip side, people who use autopilot without abuse, don't want their favorite luxury item taken away, because other people don't follow the instructions.Some of these discussions are unnecessarily personal. Please play nice, people.