• UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Autopilot turns off because the car doesn’t know what to do and the driver is supposed to take control of the situation. The autopilot isn’t autopilot, it’s driving assistance and you want it to turn off if it doesn’t know what it’s should do.

        • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure, what meant though was that Tesla doesn’t have self driving cars the way they try to market it as. They are no different than what other car manufacturers got, they just use a more deceptive name.

      • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If an incident is imminent within the next <2 seconds or so, autopilot must take the action or assist in an action. Manual override can happen at any time, but in such a duration it’s unlikely and only the autopilot has any chance, therefore it cannot turn off and absolve itself if liability.

    • Biyoo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Autopilot turns off before collision because physical damage can cause unpredictable effects that could cause another accident.

      Let’s say you run into a wall, autopilot is broken, the car thinks it needs to go backwards. You now killed 3 more people.

      I hate Elon Musk and Teslas are bad, but let’s not spread misinformation.

      • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It seems reasonable for the autopilot to turn off just before collission, my point was more in the line of “You won’t get a penny from Elon”.

        People who rely on Full Self Driving or whatever it’s called now, should be liable for letting a robot control their cars. And I also think that the company that develops and advertises said robot shouldn’t get off scot-free but it’s easier to blame the shooter rather than the gun manufacturer.

        • Biyoo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah I agree. Both parties should be liable. Tesla for their misleading and dangerous marketing, drivers for believing in the marketing.

  • Hux@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    This reminds me of that Chinese law about being personally responsible for all medical debts of a person you run over—incentivizing killing the person, rather than injuring them.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      That rumor is so stupid it doesn’t even begin to stack up. Paying medical bills sucks, but killing someone even unintentionally puts you at risk of jail time. Vanishingly few people are going to choose a decade or more of hard labor in jail over paying a debt.

      The only thing this whole rumor proves is that people will believe the most irrational things about China as long as it makes Chinese people look bad.

  • lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hope this isn’t law anywhere. You’re liable for your car no matter what. You have to take control if necessary

    • uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 months ago

      I saw a headline about Mercedes offering an autopilot that doesn’t require the driver to monitor, so it’s going to be interesting to see how laws play out. The Waymo taxi service in Phoenix seems to occasionally run in with the law, and a remote service advisor has to field the call, advising the officer the company is responsible for the car’s behavior, not the passenger.

      • Cyclist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        So in theory the manufacturer takes responsibility because they trust their software. This puts the oness on them and their insurance, thereby reducing your insurance considerably. In actuality your insurance doesn’t go down because insurance companies.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m not trying to be the grammar police, just thought you might like to know that it’s “onus”.

        • Baŝto
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s the reason why they prefer to offer only assistence systems. Aside from warning they can act, but they don’t drive on there own. EU will even require some systems for new cars. They’ll especially annoy people who ignore speed limits and don’t use turn lights.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re liable for your car no matter what

      Nope, it should be law that if an auto manufacturer sells an autonomous driving system that they advertise being able to use while driving distracted then they are liable if someone uses it as advertised and per instructions.

      What you wrote is probably an auto manufacturer executive’s wet dream.

      “You used our autonomous system to drive you home after drinking completely within advertised use and per manufacturer instructions and still got in an accident? Oh well tough shit the driver is liable for everything no matter what™️”

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around then yeah the companies should be liable, but right now they’re not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

        • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around

          they become autonomous cars. It’s not autopilot if I’m liable, simple as that.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          but right now they’re not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

          Which is what would be per manufacturer instructions, which still falls under my definition

          • warm@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Replies aren’t always in disagreement! I agree with what you are saying, just adding on my thoughts on information further up the thread too.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          There are already fully autonomous taxis in some cities. Tesla is nowhere near fully autonomous, but others have accomplished it.

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Fair, but when a company is given the authority to run fully autonomous taxis in cities that’s a huge accomplishment. Granted they are cities that don’t see things like snow storms and I’m sure there is a good reason for that.

          • warm@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s still in its infacy, eventually it will replace humans entirely and the roads will be much safer. Right now it’s just like improved cruise control and kind of pointless.
            Some manufacturers have already said they will claim full responsibility for their cars in self-driving mode, which makes sense to do.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’ll clarify: what is the actual purpose of giving customers access to this infantile technology? It doesn’t make following traffic laws easier like cruise control does, it doesn’t make drivers better at driving or safer behind the wheel, and it merely encourages distracted driving.

              So why did they ship this product? Again, it just seems like a dangerous toy.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago
          1. Then don’t call it autopilot
          2. What’s the point of automated steering if you have to remain 100 % attentive? To spare the driver the terrible burden of moving the wheel a couple mm either way? It is well studied and observed that people are less attentive when they’re not actively driving, which, FUCKING DUH.

          Manufacturers provide this feature for the implicit purpose of enabling distracted driving. Yet they will not accept liability if someone drives distractedly.

          Next in We Are Not Liable For How Consumers Use Our Product, Elon will replace the speedometer by Candy Crush with small text that says “pwease do not use while dwiving UwU”.

          • warm@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            You choose to activate that mode, while I understand your sentiment and do agree, it’s not as cut and dry as ‘company liable’ or ‘driver liable’, both can be at fault. Taking blame off drivers entirely could make people even less attentive and the safety of lives is more important than some fines to a car manufacturer. The real problem is that mode being allowed to exist at all. It’s clearly not ready for use on public roads and companies are just abusing advertising to try and pin their ‘autopilot’ as something it isn’t.

            Also note: Some manufacturers (Volvo & Mercedes, that I know of) have already said they will claim full responsibility for their cars in self-driving mode.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        So I say it is law last time I’ve checked (which is a while back tbh), and you say “no, it should be law” in your opinion. You see it, right?

        Autonomous systems aren’t that trustworthy yet and you shouldn’t drive drunk with them. Are they really advertised that way?

  • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m not aware of a single jurisdiction on the planet that makes Tesla liable for what the vehicle does when autopilot is enabled. In order to activate autopilot you have to accept about 3 different disclaimers on the car’s screen that state VERY clearly how you are still responsible for the vehicle and you must intervene if it starts behaving dangerously.

    I’ve been driving with autopilot for over 2 years, and while it has done some stupid stuff before (taking wrong turns, getting in the wrong lane, etc.), it has NEVER come close to hitting another vehicle or person. Any time something out of the ordinary happens, I disengage autopilot and take over.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Bro bought a Tesla just 2 years ago. Long after it was very widely known just how much of an arsehole Musk was, and after many other excellent EVs were on the market.

        I’ll let you draw the conclusions from those facts.

        • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          When I bought my car, there were no widespread plans for other manufactures to adopt NACS, you couldn’t get your hands on a Rivian for less than $100k, and I was commonly driving long distances for work so I needed a vehicle with long range that I could charge quickly on trips. Tesla checked all the boxes.

          I haven’t experienced any of these super widespread quality or reliability issues people on the internet talk about. It was delivered with no issues, has needed very little maintenance (just tire rotations basically), and it’s not falling apart like some would lead you to believe. I don’t know what to say other than that my personal experience with the vehicle has been great, and that’s what I really care about in a vehicle. I don’t buy cars based off what the CEO says on Twitter.

        • jose1324@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hate Musk or not, the Tesla is still a very good car. In many markets still the better value often times.

          • pufferfisherpowder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah and while Elon is the fucking worst I assume not everyone knows that he is the Tesla man. It’s incredible actually how much he’s intertwined with the brand. I would totally buy a Toyota or whatever and I couldn’t tell you the name of their CEO, nor of any other car manufacturer, nor would I look up who they are beforehand.

            Granted the poster above is on Lemmy so I assume he knows more about musky boy than he would like.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Everything I’ve heard says that Teslas have had huge reliability problems.

      • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You can think whatever you want, but my experience driving it has been perfectly fine. Range is great, the car is not falling apart like some people claim, it was not delivered with any issues, and chargers are plentiful where I live. Those are the main things I (and many others) care about in a vehicle. I don’t care what the CEO does or says online. I have a Ford as well and couldn’t even tell you who the CEO of Ford is.