Skip to content

Tesla loses Autopilot wrongful death case in $329 million verdict

Technology
176 97 3
  • A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

    So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

    Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

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

  • I mean, that's probably strictly true.

    its really not, we just have cowards who are afraid of the word regulation running the government.

  • Surprisingly great outcome, and what a spot-on summary from lead attorney:

    "Tesla designed autopilot only for controlled access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," said Brett Schreiber, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "Tesla’s lies turned our roads into test tracks for their fundamentally flawed technology, putting everyday Americans like Naibel Benavides and Dillon Angulo in harm's way. Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries, holding Tesla and Musk accountable for propping up the company’s trillion-dollar valuation with self-driving hype at the expense of human lives," Schreiber said.

    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?

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    Well, the Obama administration had published initial guidance on testing and safety for automated vehicles in September 2016, which was pre-regulatory but a prelude to potential regulation. Trump trashed it as one of the first things he did taking office for his first term. I was working in the AV industry at the time.

    That turned everything into the wild west for a couple of years, up until an automated Uber killed a pedestrian in Arizona in 2018. After that, most AV companies scaled public testing way back, and deployed extremely conservative versions of their software. If you look at news articles from that time, there's a lot of criticism of how, e.g., Waymos would just grind to a halt in the middle of intersections, as companies would rather take flak for blocking traffic than running over people.

    But not Tesla. While other companies dialed back their ambitions, Tesla was ripping Lidar sensors off its vehicles and sending them back out on public roads in droves. They also continued to market the technology - first as "Autopilot" and later as "Full Self Driving" - in ways that vastly overstated its capabilities. To be clear, Full Self Driving, or Level 5 Automation in the SAE framework, is science fiction at this point, the idea of a computer system functionally indistinguishable from a capable human driver. Other AV companies are still striving for Level 4 automation, which may include geographic restrictions or limitations to functioning on certain types of road infrastructure.

    Part of the blame probably also lies with Biden, whose DOT had the opportunity to address this and didn't during his term. But it was Trump who initially trashed the safety framework, and Telsa that concealed and mismarketed the limitations of its technology.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    "Ya gotta break some eggs," or some shit. /s

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    Not to defend Tesla here, but how does the technology become "good and well ready" for road testing if you're not allowed to test it on the road? There are a million different driving environments in the US, so it'd be impossible to test all these scenarios without a real-world environment.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    Listen, if we make it safe it could take an entire extra fiscal year! I have payments to make on my 3 vacation homes NOW!

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

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

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

  • A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

    So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

    "Today’s verdict is wrong"
    I think a certain corporation needs to be reminded to have some humility toward the courts
    Corporations should not expect the mercy to get away from saying the things a human would

  • Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

    Did the car try to stop and fail to do so in time due to the speeding, or did the car not try despite expected collision detection behavior?

    Going off of OP's quote, the jury found the driver responsible but Tesla is found liable, which is pretty confusing. It might make some sense if expected autopilot functionality despite the drivers foot being on the pedal didn't work.

  • Not to defend Tesla here, but how does the technology become "good and well ready" for road testing if you're not allowed to test it on the road? There are a million different driving environments in the US, so it'd be impossible to test all these scenarios without a real-world environment.

    You are defending Tesla and being disingenuous about it.

    The other car companies working on this are spending millions of dollars to test their vehicles in closed areas that simulate real world conditions in order to not kill people.

    You sound like a psychopath.

  • Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

    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.

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

    Brannigan is way smarter than Mush.

  • 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?

    Don't you love how corporations can be people when it comes to bribing politicians but not when it comes to consequences for their criminal actions? Interestingly enough, the same is happening to AI...

  • I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

    And we're having less and less deadly injured people on developed countries (excluding the USA, if the statistics are correct I've read).

    Tesla's autopilot seems to be a step backwards with a future promise of being better than human drivers.

    But they slimmed down their sensors to fucking simple 2D cams.
    That's just cheaping out on the cost of Tesla owners - but also of completely uninvolved people around a self driving Tesla, that didn't take the choice to trust this tech, that's living more on PR, than actual results

  • I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

    Cars, yes, driven by humans. But not by AI bullshit.

  • And we're having less and less deadly injured people on developed countries (excluding the USA, if the statistics are correct I've read).

    Tesla's autopilot seems to be a step backwards with a future promise of being better than human drivers.

    But they slimmed down their sensors to fucking simple 2D cams.
    That's just cheaping out on the cost of Tesla owners - but also of completely uninvolved people around a self driving Tesla, that didn't take the choice to trust this tech, that's living more on PR, than actual results

    Can't comment specifically about Tesla's but self driving is going to have to go through the same decades of iterative improvement that car safety went through. Thats just expected

    However its not appropriate for this to be done at the risk to lives.

    But somehow it needs the time and money to run through a decade of improvement

  • 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?

    You'd have to prove that the salesman said exactly that, and without a record it's at best a he said / she said situation.

    I'd be happy to see Musk jailed though, he's definitely taunted self driving as fully functional.

  • Adding Obstacles to Your Ebitengine Game (Tutorial)

    Technology technology
    2
    6 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    R
    This video complements the text tutorial at https://trevors-tutorials.com/0005-adding-obstacles-to-your-ebitengine-game/ Trevors-Tutorials.com is where you can find free programming tutorials. The focus is on Go and Ebitengine game development. Watch the channel introduction for more info.
  • 115 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    297 Aufrufe
    omegalemmy@discuss.onlineO
    American individualism is when you believe everyone is as bad as you or worse Self-fulfilling prophecy when they never want to cooperate in fear of being ripped off
  • PauseAI presents: The Google DeepMind Protest

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    27 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    mcasq_qsacj_234@lemmy.zipM
    At 17:00, on Monday, the 30th of June, in Granary Square, London, PauseAI will be holding our biggest protest yet. It's already Tuesday, July 1st
  • 279 Stimmen
    47 Beiträge
    439 Aufrufe
    Z
    Die mad about it :3 [image: cf6c5d73-a287-42a7-be2d-e80219312f02.webp]
  • No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites

    Technology technology
    205
    2
    772 Stimmen
    205 Beiträge
    6k Aufrufe
    R
    Gemini is just a web replacement protocol. With basic things we remember from olden days Web, but with everything non-essential removed, for a client to be doable in a couple of days. I have my own Gemini viewer, LOL. This for me seems a completely different application from torrents. I was dreaming for a thing similar to torrent trackers for aggregating storage and computation and indexing and search, with search and aggregation and other services' responses being structured and standardized, and cryptographic identities, and some kind of market services to sell and buy storage and computation in unified and pooled, but transparent way (scripted by buyer\seller), similar to MMORPG markets, with the representation (what is a siloed service in modern web) being on the client native application, and those services allowing to build any kind of client-server huge system on them, that being global. But that's more of a global Facebook\Usenet\whatever, a killer of platforms. Their infrastructure is internal, while their representation is public on the Internet. I want to make infrastructure public on the Internet, and representation client-side, sharing it for many kinds of applications. Adding another layer to the OSI model, so to say, between transport and application layer. For this application: I think you could have some kind of Kademlia-based p2p with groups voluntarily joined (involving very huge groups) where nodes store replicas of partitions of group common data based on their pseudo-random identifiers and/or some kind of ring built from those identifiers, to balance storage and resilience. If a group has a creator, then you can have replication factor propagated signed by them, and membership too signed by them. But if having a creator (even with cryptographically delegated decisions) and propagating changes by them is not ok, then maybe just using whole data hash, or it's bittorrent-like info tree hash, as namespace with peers freely joining it can do. Then it may be better to partition not by parts of the whole piece, but by info tree? I guess making it exactly bittorrent-like is not a good idea, rather some kind of block tree, like for a filesystem, and a separate piece of information to lookup which file is in which blocks. If we are doing directory structure. Then, with freely joining it, there's no need in any owners or replication factors, I guess just pseudorandom distribution of hashes will do, and each node storing first partitions closest to its hash. Now thinking about it, such a system would be not that different from bittorrent and can even be interoperable with it. There's the issue of updates, yes, hence I've started with groups having hierarchy of creators, who can make or accept those updates. Having that and the ability to gradually store one group's data to another group, it should be possible to do forks of a certain state. But that line of thought makes reusing bittorrent only possible for part of the system. The whole database is guaranteed to be more than a normal HDD (1 TB? I dunno). Absolutely guaranteed, no doubt at all. 1 TB (for example) would be someone's collection of favorite stuff, and not too rich one.
  • Dyson Has Killed Its Bizarre Zone Air-Purifying Headphones

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    226 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    522 Aufrufe
    rob_t_firefly@lemmy.worldR
    I have been chuckling like a dork at this particular patent since such things first became searchable online, and have never found any evidence of it being manufactured and marketed at all. The "non-adhesive adherence" is illustrated in the diagrams on the patent which you can see at the link. The inventor proposes "a facing of fluffy fibrous material" to provide the filtration and the adherence; basically this thing is the softer side of a velcro strip, bent in half with the fluff facing outward so it sticks to the inside of your buttcrack to hold itself in place in front of your anus and filter your farts through it.
  • GeForce GTX 970 8GB mod is back for a full review

    Technology technology
    1
    34 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The mystery of $MELANIA

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    25 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    123 Aufrufe
    geekwithsoul@lemm.eeG
    Archive