Technology

Holding them accountable would be jail time. I'm fine with even putting the salesman in jail for this. Who's gonna sell your vehicles when they know there's a decent chance of them taking the blame for your shitty tech?

"Some of you will die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."

I mean, that's probably strictly true.

All they really need to do is make self-driving cars safer than your average human driver.

Release the unredacted Epstein files. The Epstein files didn't redact themselves.

Not to mention tone-deaf. Maybe you shouldn't talk about life-saving technology when your technology anti-saved a life....

And that's ignoring the fact that they're using inferior technology. Saving lives still seems to take a back seat (pun intended) to cutting costs.

There's actually a backfire effect here. It could make companies too cautious in rolling out self driving. The status quo is people driving poorly. If you delay the roll out of self driving beyond the point when it's better than people, then more people will die.

While Tesla said that McGee was solely responsible, as the driver of the car, McGee told the court that he thought Autopilot "would assist me should I have a failure or should I miss something, should I make a mistake," a perception that Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk has done much to foster with highly misleading statistics that paint an impression of a brand that is much safer than in reality.

Here’s the thing, Tesla’s marketing of autopilot was much different than the reality. Sure, the fine print might have said having your foot on the gas would shut down autopilot, but the marketing made autopilot sound much more powerful. This guy put his trust in how the vehicle was marketed, and somebody died as a result.

My car, for instance, does not have self driving, but it will still brake if it detects I am going to hit something. Even when my foot is on the gas. It is not unreasonable to think a car marketed the way Tesla was marketed would have similar features.

Lastly, Tesla’s valuation as a company was based on this same marketing, not the fine print. So not only did the marketing put people in danger, but Tesla profited massively from it. They should be held responsible for this.

More than one person can be at fault, my friend. Don't lie about your product and expect no consequences.

There are other cars on the market that use technology that will literally override your input if they detect that there is a crash imminent. Even those cars do not claim to have autopilot and Tesla has not changed their branding or wording which is a lot of the problem here.

I can't say for sure that they are responsible or not in this case because I don't know what the person driving then assumed. But if they assumed that the "safety features" (in particular autopilot) would mitigate their recklessness and Tesla can't prove they knew about the override of such features, then I'm not sure the court is wrong in this case. The fact that they haven't changed their wording or branding of autopilot (particularly calling it that), is kind of damning here.

Autopilot maintains speed (edit), altitude (end of edit), and heading or flight path in planes. But the average person doesn't know or understand that. Tesla has been using the pop culture understanding of what autopilot is and that's a lot of the problem. Other cars have warning about what their "assisted driving" systems do, and those warnings pop up every time you engage them before you can set any settings etc. But those other car manufacturers also don't claim the car can drive itself.

Yeah, but I think Elon shares the blame for making outrageous claims for years suggesting otherwise. He's a liar and needs to be held accountable.

i dont disagree; but i believe the suit was over how tesla misrepresented assistive technology as fully autonomous as the name autopilot implies

Well, if only Tesla hadn't invested tens of millions into marketing campaigns trying to paint autopilot as a fully self driving, autonomous system. Everyone knows that 9 out of 10 consumers don't read the fine print, ever. They buy, and use shit off of vibes. False marketing can and does kill.

I dig blaming the people who wind up believing deceptive marketing practices, instead of blaming the people doing the deceiving.

Look up the dictionary definition of autopilot: a mechanical, electrical or hydraulic system used to guide a vehicle without assistance from a human being. FULL SELF DRIVING, yeah, why would that wording lead people to believe the car was, you know, fully self-driving?

Combine that with year after year of Elon Musk constantly stating in public that the car either already drives itself, or will be capable of doing so just around the corner, by the end of next year, over and over and over and

Elon lied constantly to keep the stock price up, and people have died for believing those lies.

It is assistive technology, but that is not how tesla has been marketing it. They even sell a product called full self driving, while it's not that at all.

Even when the evidence is as clear as day, the company somehow found a way to bully the case to out of court settlements, probably in their own terms. Sounds very familiar yea.

Look, we've only known the effects of radium and similar chemical structures for about a hundred years or so. Give corporations a chance to catch up. /s

Did you read it tho? Tesla is at fault for this guy overriding the safety systems by pushing down on the accelerator and looking for his phone at the same time?

I do not agree with Tesla often. Their marketing is bullshit, their cars are low quality pieces of shit. But I don't think they should be held liable for THIS idiot's driving. They should still be held liable when Autopilot itself fucks up.

I feel like calling it AutoPilot is already risking liability, Full Self Driving is just audacious. There's a reason other companies with similar technology have gone with things like driving assistance. This has probably had lawyers at Tesla sweating bullets for years.