Focus: Tesla braces for its first trial involving Autopilot fatality
www.reuters.com
Tesla Inc is set to defend itself for the first time at trial against allegations that failure of its Autopilot driver assistant feature led to death, in what will likely be a major test of Chief Executive Elon Musk's assertions about the technology.

Tesla braces for its first trial involving Autopilot fatality::Tesla Inc is set to defend itself for the first time at trial against allegations that failure of its Autopilot driver assistant feature led to death, in what will likely be a major test of Chief Executive Elon Musk’s assertions about the technology.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      66·
      1 year ago

      Driving a car is not safe. 40000 people die on car crashes every year in the US alone. Nothing in that article indicates that autopilot/FSD is more dangerous than a human driver. Just that they’re flawed systems as is expected. It’s good to keep in mind that 99.99% safety rating means 33000 accidents a year in the US alone.

      • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        You can’t just put something on the streets without first verifying it’s safe and working as intended. This is missing for Autopilot. And the data that’s piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          02·
          1 year ago

          First of all what is it that you consider safe? I’m sure you realize that 100% safety rating is just fantasy so what is the acceptable rate of accidents for you?

          Secondly would you mind sharing the data “that’s piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly” ? Reports of individual incidents is not what I’m asking for because as I stated above; you’re not going to get 100% safety so there’s always going to be individual incidents to talk about.

          You also seem to be talking about FSD beta and autopilot interchangeably thought they’re a different thing. Hope you realize this.

          • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
            0·
            1 year ago

            There are very strict regulations around what is allowed to be in the streets and what isn’t. This is what protects us from sloppy companies releasing unsafe stuff in the streets.

            Driver assist features like the Autopilot are operating in a regulatory grey zone. The regulation has not caught up with technology and this allows companies like Tesla to release unsafe software in the streets, killing people.

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              04·
              1 year ago

              Exactly. Driver assist features. These aren’t something to be blindly relied on and everyone knows this and the vehicle will remind you. Every crash is fault of the driver - not the system.

              Now if you don’t mind showing me the data that’s “piling up is showing that Autopilot is deadly”

      • paintbucketholder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Former NHTSA senior safety adviser Missy Cummings, a professor at George Mason University’s College of Engineering and Computing, said the surge in Tesla crashes is troubling.

        “Tesla is having more severe — and fatal — crashes than people in a normal data set,” she said in response to the figures analyzed by The Post.

        This would indicate that FSD is more dangerous than a human driver, would it not?

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          01·
          1 year ago

          That still doesn’t tell are those accidents happening more compared to normal cars. If you have good driver assist systems which are able to prevent majority of minor crashes but not the severe ones then the total number of crashes goes down but the kinds that remain are the bad ones.

      • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        Humans my friend. We can hold humans accountable. We can’t hold hunks of semi-sentient sand and nebulous transient configurations of electrons liable of anything. So, it has to be better than humans, which is not. If it isn’t better than humans, then we’ll rather just have a human in control. Because we can argue with and hold the human accountable for their actions and decisions.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Driving is not safe. These systems could be improved upon, but they’ve also saved numerous lives by preventing accidents from occurring in the first place. The example in the OP happened while this driver was sitting behind the wheel watching a movie. The first example in your article occurred with a driver behind the wheel. If either of them had been driving a 1995 Honda Civic, these accidents would have occurred just the same, but would anyone be demanding that Honda is to blame?

      • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
        51·
        1 year ago

        but they’ve also saved numerous lives by preventing accidents from occurring in the first place.

        There is no data to make this claim. You’re just making this up.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
          13·
          1 year ago

          Give me a break. You think all these companies are dumping billions of dollars into technology that doesn’t work? You’re making stuff up. Go watch some dashcam videos on YouTube if you want some proof.

          • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Are you kidding me? I never said it will never work. But that does not mean its current state is safe to trust your life.

            • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
              02·
              1 year ago

              You did in fact just say that by saying that I was making up the fact that these systems have saved lives. Moving the goalposts to “you can’t trust your life to it” doesn’t make your original argument anymore accurate nor does it reference anything in dispute. Nobody said you should trust your life to cruise control.

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                Nobody did indeed say you should trust your life to cruise control.

                But Tesla did claim you could trust your life to autopilot because “the car basically drives itself”, which it obviously doesn’t.

                • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
                  01·
                  1 year ago

                  Tesla didn’t claim that. Musk claimed their early FSD “basically drove itself” in what appears to have been a staged demonstration. This accident and lawsuit are about Autopilot, which is a completely different system.

              • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
                0·
                1 year ago

                There is no doubt that one day these systems will be so good that they will make transportation much safer. But there is no data that shows that we’re already there.

                • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Actually there is some doubt about that. Completely irrelevant to the present either way though.

                • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
                  02·
                  1 year ago

                  You mean you’ve done zero research on the topic before injecting your opinions, so you simply haven’t seen any data?

                  https://thedriven.io/2023/04/27/accident-rate-for-tesla-80-lower-than-us-average-with-fsd/

                  New data released in its Impact Report show that Tesla vehicles with Autopilot engaged (mostly highway miles) had just 0.18 accidents per million miles driven, compared to the US vehicle average of 1.53 accidents per million miles.

                  https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3219570/The-Potential-Benefits-of-LKAS-in-Australia-MUARC-Report-365.pdf

                  A statistically significant 16% reduction in the risk of involvement in all casualty crashes of these types and a 22% reduction estimated for fatal and serious injury crashes was associated with LKA fitment to Australian light vehicle was estimated.

                  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27624313/

                  The analysis showed a positive effect of the LDW/LKA systems in reducing lane departure crashes. The LDW/LKA systems were estimated to reduce head-on and single-vehicle injury crashes on Swedish roads with speed limits between 70 and 120 km/h and with dry or wet road surfaces (i.e., not covered by ice or snow) by 53% with a lower limit of 11% (95% confidence interval [CI]). This reduction corresponded to a reduction of 30% with a lower limit of 6% (95% CI) for all head-on and single-vehicle driver injury crashes (including all speed limits and all road surface conditions).

                  https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/

                  ADAS functionalities can change the driving experience. According to research by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, ADAS vehicles showed a 27% reduction in bodily injury claim frequency and a 19% reduction in property damage frequency.

                  • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Lol the only relevant link is the first one, which comes from Teslas cherry picked and thoroughly disproven data set.

                  • silvercove@lemdro.idEnglish
                    0·
                    1 year ago

                    We’re not talking about ADAS in general, we’re talking about what Tesla is selling.

      • pup_atlas@pawb.socialEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        No, we would (rightfully so) blame the driver for merging into a semi truck that from my understanding was clearly visible.