> but it seems that Tesla is subject to unfair treatment here given the amount of warnings you have to completely ignore and take no responsibility for.
Lol is this for real? No amount of warnings can waive away their gross negligence. Also, the warnings are clearly completely meaningless because they result in nothing changing if they are ignored.
> Autopilot is cruise control
You're pointing to "warnings" while simultaneously saying this? Seems a bit lacking in self awareness to think that a warning should muster the day, but calling cruise control "autopilot" is somehow irrelevant?
> I can't help but think there's maybe some politically driven bias here
> they result in nothing changing if they are ignored.
That’s not true
> Do I still need to pay attention while using Autopilot?
> … Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.” Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.
> If you repeatedly ignore the inattentive driver warnings, Autosteer will be disengaged for that trip. If you receive several ‘Forced Autopilot Disengagements’ (three times for vehicles without a cabin camera and five times for vehicles with a cabin camera), Autosteer and all features that use Autosteer will be temporarily removed for approximately one week.
And you don't respond to your own point about it being called autopilot despite it not being an autopilot
>> If you repeatedly ignore the inattentive driver warnings, Autosteer will be disengaged for that trip. If you receive several ‘Forced Autopilot Disengagements’ (three times for vehicles without a cabin camera and five times for vehicles with a cabin camera), Autosteer and all features that use Autosteer will be temporarily removed for approximately one week.
There are videos of people on autopilot without their hands on the wheel...
> And you don't respond to your own point about it being called autopilot despite it not being an autopilot
I don’t follow what you mean here? Are you confusing me with someone else?
> There are videos of people on autopilot without their hands on the wheel...
You can definitely remove your hands momentarily. I’ve seen people apply a weight to the steering wheel to fool it too. Not sure how people defeating the safety features would be Tesla’s fault.
What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence?
I would ask, what is the existing definition of autopilot as defined by the FAA? Who is responsible when autopilot fails? That's the prior art here.
Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body?
I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety and I still don't think this clearly points to Tesla as being in the wrong with how they market these features. At best it's subjective.
>What part of how autopilot is marketed do you find to be gross negligence?
The fact that it's not an autopilot is a great start.
>I would ask, what is the existing definition of autopilot as defined by the FAA? Who is responsible when autopilot fails? That's the prior art here.
I don't think the FAA defines terms, and prior art is something specific to patents that has no relevance to the worlds of marketing and product safety.
>Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body?
NTSB does not approve of marketing nor does it provide such definitions. On what basis do you have to suggest they did any of the sort that Tesla needed their approval?
>>Additionally if NTSB failed to clearly define such definitions and allowments for marketing, is that the fault of Tesla or the governing body?
It's Tesla's. They marketed a product that does not do what they claim it does. The fact that when it does not do those things it can cause (deadly) harm to others, is why they received such a steep adverse judgment.
>I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety and I still don't think this clearly points to Tesla as being in the wrong with how they market these features. At best it's subjective.
Who cares how neurotic you think you are? You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all.
The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used, and so should the the NHTSA (mixed up the transpo acronyms) for ADAS. I suspect the FTC may address false marketing claims if NHTSA does not.
> You haven't come across reasonable in this conversation at all.
This is a discussion. We can disagree. No need to attack me.
I'm not attacking you, it's a direct response to your frequent appeals to yourself as some sort of authority for reason and sensibility in this discussion, when your responses clearly indicate that you are being neither reasonable nor sensible.
> The FAA does define how autopilot can and should be used,
Appeals to myself? I'm stating an opinion on the regulatory uncertainty of automobile safety. Don't be ridiculous.
My problem with all of this is that the regulatory agencies that cover safety in this country did jack shit to prevent this. Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat. The NHTSA and the FTC could have prevented this, but they're just pointing fingers at Tesla. They dropped the ball.
> Appeals to myself?
...
> I'm pretty neurotic about vehicle safety
Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter.
> Blaming Tesla is a scapegoat.
Not really.
>They dropped the ball.
Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem.
> Like, I'm not making it up. So no need to pretend to be daft about it. You each time referred to yourself as someone particularly capable of rendering a reasoned opinion on the matter.
This is childish and does nothing for the discussion. It's not about me. I'm not claiming to be an authority, nor am I using myself as one.
> Tesla's actions are incredibly reckless. No other company is behaving like them so it's an absurd proposition to say its the fault of the regulators. It's not a market problem. It's a tesla problem.
The FTC hasn't once acted on Tesla's marketing. That's tacit approval at this point.
The NHTSA has issued two? recalls on Tesla's ADAS and that wasn't until late 2023.
Relying on lawsuits from crash victims, based completely on unclear or lack of regulations, is far from the ideal situation. It's only a Tesla problem insofar they make up the vast majority of miles driven with this kind of ADAS. The NHTSA just isn't keeping up.
Is Tesla pushing the envelope? Yeah, of course they are. That's by design of the self certifying approach that the NHTSA landed on. Tesla could do a lot more safety testing, but that doesn't mean the regulators haven't dropped the ball.
>This is childish and does nothing for the discussion. It's not about me. I'm not claiming to be an authority, nor am I using myself as one.
If it's not about you why did you reference yourself as an authority twice? Calling me childish is projecting.
>The FTC hasn't once acted on Tesla's marketing. That's tacit approval at this point.
Asinine logic.
>Relying on lawsuits from crash victims, based completely on unclear or lack of regulations, is far from the ideal situation. It's only a Tesla problem insofar they make up the vast majority of miles driven with this kind of ADAS. The NHTSA just isn't keeping up.
Who is relying? Tesla is doing what they want. No one is forcing them to sell this dreck.
Continuing to focus on me does nothing to substantiate your position.
> Asinine logic.
Do you want to make an argument, or is your goal just to dunk with these low effort responses and waste my time?
Multiple automakers are making similar marketing claims as Tesla as their level 2 classified technology improves. Tesla is not even remotely alone in any of this. They're just ahead. Meanwhile FTC has done nothing on this front for a decade.
Is a decade not long enough to take action? What's acceptable in your opinion?
> Who is relying?
Everyone that cares about autonomous vehicle safety and thinks Tesla is not doing enough to protect drivers. You'll find plenty of lawyers stating that tort law is the only way to settle ADAS cases right now.
In this particular 2019 crash, the jury found that Tesla had a defect for not disabling autopilot in this area. This is something that NTSB specifically called on the NHTSA to define better in 2017 prior to this fatality. In 2020, after this traffic fatality, the NHTSA responded for the first time saying this would be impractical to impossible to do and doubling down that the driver is responsible, to which the NTSB calls out the NHTSA for not doing enough to prevent these types of fatalities with Tesla.
So we have a situation where Tesla and every other automaker is operating under the ill defined autonomous safety regulations of the NHTSA, a silent FTC, and a safety review board claiming that NHTSA isn't doing enough prior to and after this accident.
Dunk on Tesla all you want, but that's not going do anything to further road safety. I suspect that Tesla will lean heavily on FTC inaction and NHTSA's 2020 response in their appeal. Rightly so given the jury is contradicting NHTSA's own statement on liability for level 2 system. Hence the use tort law.
>Continuing to focus on me does nothing to substantiate your position.
Lol, it's not my position. It's the law. They were held liable. You kept making the focus on yourself, bringing yourself up for no reason, and then even more perplexingly, denying that you did it.
>Multiple automakers are making similar marketing claims as Tesla as their level 2 classified technology improves. Tesla is not even remotely alone in any of this. They're just ahead. Meanwhile FTC has done nothing on this front for a decade.
I haven't seen that and no one seems to be close to what Tesla outright implies with "autopilot".
>Is a decade not long enough to take action? What's acceptable in your opinion?
The fact that regulators should take action is not incongruous with the fact that Tesla is reckless and negligent. Both can be true. No one forced Tesla to do anything so no one else is responsible for their behavior.
>Everyone that cares about autonomous vehicle safety and thinks Tesla is not doing enough to protect drivers. You'll find plenty of lawyers stating that tort law is the only way to settle ADAS cases right now.
Jeez. I guess it's everyone else's fault but Tesla's when it's clear that everyone else thinks Tesla is behaving poorly.
>Dunk on Tesla all you want, but that's not going do anything to further road safety.
Yawn. This comment thread isn't doing anything to "further road safety" how obnoxious of you.
Saying Warnings are meaningless because they can be ignored would literally flip the entire legal system on its head. That is literally an insane way to think about things.
Not all warnings are equal. Are you a negligence or products liability attorney? You think that a warning that is easily ignored and moved past to do the same thing anyway is sufficient to obviate liability? I don't think the law agrees with you there. Not sure what you think is so insane about that.
Lol is this for real? No amount of warnings can waive away their gross negligence. Also, the warnings are clearly completely meaningless because they result in nothing changing if they are ignored.
> Autopilot is cruise control
You're pointing to "warnings" while simultaneously saying this? Seems a bit lacking in self awareness to think that a warning should muster the day, but calling cruise control "autopilot" is somehow irrelevant?
> I can't help but think there's maybe some politically driven bias here
Look only to yourself, Tesla driver.