JackLuminous
Member
In the end, this is the core issue.Seatbelts save lives. I’ll just leave it at that.
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.
In the end, this is the core issue.Seatbelts save lives. I’ll just leave it at that.
Ok, I watched the video and it looks like the fault of the Tesla driver to me. I completely agree with the poster above who said the Tesla would have rammed the white box truck in front of the pickup. Tesla's responsibility in this is minor IMHO. However, although the manual and UI is full of notices about maintaining awareness and control, I think Tesla still oversells the capability (the "beta" tag is a bit of an escape hatch.) We can see this very thing in Musk's tweet about "superhuman"Tesla Says Autopilot Makes Its Cars Safer. Crash Victims Say It Kills. (Published 2021)
A California family that lost a 15-year-old boy when a Tesla hit its pickup truck is suing the company, claiming its Autopilot system was partly responsible.www.nytimes.com
Behind a paywall about 80% of the way down the page. You may be able to open it in a private window. I've found I can open them for free on my Android with Chrome. Also in Firefox if you press the "Stop Loading - X" button quickly enough. Perhaps it's reposted somewhere else too.
Found one: it's much darker than the NYTimes video and somewhat obscured by logos:
The problem may not be unique to Tesla. I know GM's system has camera driver monitoring which might have prevented it? I think the fanciest systems now have lidar which certainly would have prevented this particular accident. I don't really see the relevance since all these systems are so new and performance standards haven't really been established.Are we saying that the accident doesn’t happen if it wasn’t a Tesla? Because I think that is the only way Tesla would be liable here.....
Judging by the amount of accidents that have happened even before TACC or lane keeping existed, I doubt that to be the case. Distracted driving existed well before TACC and lane keeping came into being.The problem may not be unique to Tesla. I know GM's system has camera driver monitoring which might have prevented it? I think the fanciest systems now have lidar which certainly would have prevented this particular accident. I don't really see the relevance since all these systems are so new and performance standards haven't really been established.
If the car didn't have lane keeping and TACC I think it's incredibly unlikely that this particular accident would happen. Almost no one would be driving in heavy traffic with that large a speed differential while not looking at the road.
Absolutely, I was just giving my opinion of this particular situation. You can see at the start of the video that they're already going much faster than the adjacent lanes. It just doesn't look like a situation where someone would start looking at their phone or something to me.Judging by the amount of accidents that have happened even before TACC or lane keeping existed, I doubt that to be the case. Distracted driving existed well before TACC and lane keeping came into being.
Texting while driving is a leading cause of accidents.... and most cars don’t have tacc or autosteerThe problem may not be unique to Tesla. I know GM's system has camera driver monitoring which might have prevented it? I think the fanciest systems now have lidar which certainly would have prevented this particular accident. I don't really see the relevance since all these systems are so new and performance standards haven't really been established.
If the car didn't have lane keeping and TACC I think it's incredibly unlikely that this particular accident would happen. Almost no one would be driving in heavy traffic with that large a speed differential while not looking at the road.
Agreed. Let's sue the phone companies because they give us phones that have gps so they know we're moving fast and yet, they let us write text messages. Clearly it's their fault for distracting us from driving.Texting while driving is a leading cause of accidents.... and most cars don’t have tacc or autosteer
Seatbelts save lives. I’ll just leave it at that.
So, by your logic, any car manufacturer can put any "driver assist" logic into a car; and as long as the manual says "it's the driver's responsibility to override the logic if the logic is about to get into an accident" the manufacturer should never be liable to third parties who get killed by a car using the logic?Basically I have a hard time seeing how a judge or jury would lay blame on the system in cases of inaction that is expected as part of the design specification (it's different for example if driver stepped on brakes and brakes didn't respond). The only cases where I see you can even begin to make that claim of defect is if an accident happened due to active action by the system and the driver had no time to override it (for example if the system actively swerved into a car in another lane, giving no time for driver to react). That's obviously not the case here
yea, in fact it gives them incentives to just not include it......That gives manufacturers no incentive to improve the quality of their logic rather than rush to market.
I disagree that AP (or, really, the advanced cruise control with lane keeping that is the part of AP were talking about) is a safety feature. It's a convenience feature.Relying on saftey features to keep you safe (as opposed to practicing safe driving practices) is doomed to fail.
You will just throw your head harder into the wall assuming the extra protection will keep you safe.
Relying on saftey features to keep you safe (as opposed to practicing safe driving practices) is doomed to fail.
You will just throw your head harder into the wall assuming the extra protection will keep you safe.
Which should be their incentive until they are comfortable standing behind their product.yea, in fact it gives them incentives to just not include it......
AEB does not stop the vehicle. It merely reduces speed.AEB is a safety feature. And you shouldn't rely on it. But it also is truly a back-up that jumps in after it is too late for the driver to fix the driver's mistake. That's very different from AP, where the logic does most of the driving for the driver, but the driver is expected to jump in to fix APs mistakes.
Did you not read the second half that you quoted? If the system does an active action that a driver literally has no chance to override, I could see the automaker being possibly liable. But other than that, if the action or inaction is well described as expected in the design, and the driver has plenty of time to respond, I don't see how the automaker would be responsible.So, by your logic, any car manufacturer can put any "driver assist" logic into a car; and as long as the manual says "it's the driver's responsibility to override the logic if the logic is about to get into an accident" the manufacturer should never be liable to third parties who get killed by a car using the logic?
And you think that's true no matter how much worse the logic is than a driver would be, no matter how unpredictable to the driver the logic is, and no matter how little time the driver might have to see what the logic is doing, decide it's a mistake and override?
That gives manufacturers no incentive to improve the quality of their logic rather than rush to market.
Regular cruise control behaves in a completely predictable manner.Did you not read the second half that you quoted? If the system does an active action that a driver literally has no chance to override, I could see the automaker being possibly liable. But other than that, if the action or inaction is well described as expected in the design, and the driver has plenty of time to respond, I don't see how the automaker would be responsible.
Let's take regular old cruise control for example: it does not brake or slow by itself. If a driver uses cruise control and crashes due to it not slowing for traffic ahead, should the car maker be liable? Next let's look at ACC: they tend to have a known limitation (described in the manuals) that it does not brake or slow for a stationary or slow moving vehicle, especially if it was following a different target vehicle. For the same reason, the automaker is not liable as long as that limitation is well documented and the driver is given plenty of time to react.
That limitation is l very likely to be mitigated with all vision-based TACC.Next let's look at ACC: they tend to have a known limitation (described in the manuals) that it does not brake or slow for a stationary or slow moving vehicle, especially if it was following a different target vehicle. For the same reason, the automaker is not liable as long as that limitation is well documented and the driver is given plenty of time to react.
L2 features (both ACC and ACC with lane keeping) reduce mental workload significantly vs manual driving according to a survey of studies. And if that freed mental capacity is used for driving related tasks, it's been shown to help improve situational awareness:I disagree that AP (or, really, the advanced cruise control with lane keeping that is the part of AP were talking about) is a safety feature. It's a convenience feature.
AEB is a safety feature. And you shouldn't rely on it. But it also is truly a back-up that jumps in after it is too late for the driver to fix the driver's mistake. That's very different from AP, where the logic does most of the driving for the driver, but the driver is expected to jump in to fix APs mistakes.