U believe everything elon says.

Yes, of course the driver is at fault for being an idiot. And sadly, a shitton of drivers are idiots. Ignoring this fact is practically ignoring reality. You shouldn't be allowed to do false marketing as a company exactly because idiots will fall for it.

Dude, slow down, if you keep glazing Elon this hard, it's gonna start getting frothy.

I guess the lesson is, if your car doesn't provide a system that can be used to guide the vehicle WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM A HUMAN BEING, then don't be an idiot and call it "AUTOPILOT"

Hope he has to sell twatter at some point. Not that any good would come from that, but just the thought of him finally eating some shit makes me giggle.

Please read the article. I hate when people upvote bullshit just because it says things they like to hear. I dislike Elon Musk as much as anyone else, but the jury's findings were this:

• The driver is ⅔ responsible for the crash because of his negligent driving.
• The fact that the driver did in fact keep his foot on the accelerator was accepted by the jury.
• The jury accepted that the driver was reaching for his cell phone at the time of the crash.
• Evidence in court showed that the speed of the car was about 100 km/h. Keep in mind that this incident occurred in the Florida Keys where there are no high-speed expressways. I couldn't find info on where exactly this happened, but the main road in the area is US Route 1, which close to the mainland is a large four-lane road with occasional intersections, but narrows into a two-lane road for most of the distance.
• The jury found Tesla ⅓ liable because it deemed that it had sold a faulty product. For international readers, in the US, a company that sells a product which is defective during normal use is strictly liable for resulting damages.
• Obviously Tesla plans to appeal but it is normal for everyone to appeal in these sorts of cases. Many appeals get shot down by the appellate court.

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.

Unfortunately, for companies like this, that would be just another business expense to keep things running.

$329mm is a little more than a standard cost of doing business fine. That's substantially more than 80% of these companies get fined for causing huge amounts of damage.

I think the bigger issue is that Tesla might be diminishing the drivers impression of their vehicle responsibility with their marketing/presentation of auto pilot.

I say that knowing very little about what it's like to use auto pilot but if it is the case that there are changes that can be made that will result in less deaths then maybe the guys lawyer has a point.

Woo, both parties are terrible, irresponsible, and should be held accountable

This is, or was (thanks RFK for handing the industry a blank check), how pharma development works. You don't even get to do human trials until you're pretty damn sure it's not going to kill anyone. "Experimental medicine" stuff you read about is still medicine that's been in development for YEARS, and gone through animal, cellular, and various other trials.

Indeed, just the feeling of loss crossing his path would taste sweet for us peasants.

I guess they just didn't want to admit that snow defeats both lidar and vision cameras. Plus the fact that snow covers lane markers, Street signs, and car sensors. People can adjust to these conditions, especially when driving locally. No self driving system can function without input.

FreeDumbAdvocate serving Elon for free.

You gotta remember we're also back in 2019. Most of the talk back then was about what it was going to be able to do when FSD was ready, but no one got access to it until 2020 and that was a very small invite only group, and it lasted like that for years. I'd say the potential for confusion today is immensely more.

I have used AP back then, and it was good, but it clearly made lots of little mistakes, and needed constant little adjustments. If you were paying attention, they were all easy to manage and you even got to know when to expect problems and take corrective action in advance.

My \ the big beef with this case, is that he kept his food on the accelerator, and the car tells you while you do this, that it won't brake, and having your foot on the accelerator is a common practice, as AP can be slow to start, or you need to pass someone etc, so it's really unfathomable to think that the first time this guy ever did this, was when he decided to try and pick up his dropped phone, and thought, I should keep my foot on the accelerator while doing this! No amount of marketing, should be able to override "Autopilot will not brake. Accelerator pedal pressed" type active warnings with the screen pulsating some color at him. He knew about those warnings, without any doubt in my mind. He chose to ignore them. What more could you write in a small space to warn people it will not brake?

That being said - The NHSTA has found that Tesla's monitoring system was lacking, and Tesla has had to improve on that because of that in recent times. People would attach oranges to the steering wheel to defeat the nag to pay attention type thing back then, but this goes well beyond that IMO. Even the current system won't immediately shut down if you decided to not pay attention for some reason, it would take time before it pulls itself over, but you might get a strike against future use where it will prevent you from using it again.

Had his foot not been on the accelerator, this would have been a very different case had the accident still occurred (which is also still possible)

Actually we have "right to try" laws for the scenario I described.

But the FDA could use some serious reform. Under the system we have, an FDA approval lumps together the determinations of whether a drugs is safe, effective and worth paying for. A more libertarian system would let people spend their own money on drugs that are safe even if the FDA's particular research didn't find them effective. And it wouldn't waste tax payer money on drugs that are effective but exorbitantly expensive relative to their minimal effectiveness. But if a wealthy person wants to spend their own money, thereby subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of us, that's great in my opinion.

The snopes article indicates that the study cited for reporting Tesla cars to have the most fatalities per billion miles driven cannot be validated

In sum, while the claims across social media are correct in saying a study did find Tesla to have the highest fatal accident rate of any car brand, the study itself uses data that is not available to the public. Therefore, although this does not mean the data is incorrect, it does mean that ensuring the study's accuracy is not possible at this time.

If the data is incorrect, I would expect Tesla to file suit for libel.

Well we have other datapoints too, like the fact that here in Denmark Tesla fail a third of the initial 4 year safety check, without comparison the highest of any brand. That's not being a beacon of safety, no AI no-matter how good can make a car with faulty brakes or steering safe.

Thanks for the sources