this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023

116 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

34894 readers

1047 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

116

Tesla trial over Autopilot fatality kicks off in California (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/technology@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Opening statements are set to begin on Thursday in the first U.S. trial over allegations that Tesla's (TSLA.O) Autopilot driver assistant feature led to a death, and its results could help shape similar cases across the country.

The trial, in a California state court, stems from a civil lawsuit alleging the Autopilot system caused owner Micah Lee’s Model 3 to suddenly veer off a highway east of Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour (105 kph), strike a palm tree and burst into flames, all in the span of seconds.

The 2019 crash killed Lee and seriously injured his two passengers, including a then-8-year-old boy who was disemboweled, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed against Tesla by the passengers and Lee's estate, accuses Tesla of knowing that Autopilot and other safety systems were defective when it sold the car.

Tesla has denied liability, saying Lee consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel. The electric-vehicle maker also claims it was not clear whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of crash.

Tesla has been testing and rolling out its Autopilot and more advanced Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, which Chief Executive Elon Musk has touted as crucial to his company's future but which has drawn regulatory and legal scrutiny.

Tesla won a bellwether trial in Los Angeles in April with a strategy of saying that it tells drivers that its technology requires human monitoring, despite the "Autopilot" name. A Model S swerved into a curb in 2019 and injured its driver, and jurors told Reuters after the verdict that they believed Tesla warned drivers about its system and that driver distraction was to blame.

The stakes are higher in the trial this week, and in other cases, because people died. Tesla and plaintiff attorneys jousted in the runup about what evidence and arguments each side could make.

Tesla, for instance, won a bid to exclude some of Musk’s public statements about Autopilot. However, attorneys for the crash victims can argue that Lee’s blood alcohol content was below the legal limit, according to court filings.

The trial, in Riverside County Superior Court, is expected to last a few weeks.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] skip0110@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don’t believe the claim that their ADAS was not enabled at the time of the crash. While maybe factually true, if it disengaged a few seconds before, the crash is still the fault of Tesla’s software.

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

"Plane crash is not the fault of pilot as he jumped out the plane during nosedive."

[–] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. Most importantly, „it is unclear if the autopilot was active“ is an admission of guilt in my book. A system that is highly critical (impacting steering, accelerating and decelerating a 2+ ton vehicle with multiple people on board) is unclear if active means they are completely clueless of their own products status and should be fully liable. You can not sell something like this at all. I feel like they (people in charge) should go to jail for negligent manslaughter.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, so much. It drove me crazy when a car company argued “but our logs say it was the driver’s fault”. We’re arguing that your most critical software failed, and you want us to trust the logging subsystem?

The NTSC needs to be qualifying car software the same way the FAA qualifies aircraft software. We need to stop trusting the manufacturers to self police.

[–] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A sane person? What are you doing on social media? :)

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is a nice break from my day job, where I am certifying software for critical systems.

sigh

[–] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Oof. Seeing this must frustrate you. It bothers me too seeing sleazebags getting their way while honest people get fucked.

[+] TheYang@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if it disengaged a few seconds before, the crash is still the fault of Tesla’s software.

I actually disagree, because it's not self driving, it doesn't actually claim to have any autonomous features. The driver has to be aware all the time.
The way all of this is worded when facing the public is... horrible, that's true. But since the warnings once in the car seem to all be there, I'd say that's more a false advertising issue than a "is your product actually safe?" issue.

Really interested in how this comes out, even more data would be interesting to me.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except that Tesla does claim that they’re autonomous self-driving. They’re even among the group pushing to be allowed to sell cars with no driver controls.

Not only should Tesla’s executives be held personally liable, I’d probably also jail whichever regulator let them get away with it.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except that Tesla does claim that they’re autonomous self-driving. They’re even among the group pushing to be allowed to sell cars with no driver controls.

https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/support/autopilot

they really don't say that. I mean they advertise with it, sure. But always when it actually comes down to it, tesla admits it's an assistive feature that requires constant attention.

Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. While these features are designed to become more capable over time, the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous.

and you get warnings source (or here ) when you first sign up, as well as reminders when the car detects that you don't follow the requirements.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, the software doesn’t actually do anything, it just gives the illusion that it does. That’s sounds safe.

If you are relying on T&C as a get out of jail free card for your safety system, then it isn’t a safety system.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you are relying on T&C as a get out of jail free card for your safety system, then it isn’t a safety system.

That's how every safety system works.
You define the necessary conditions in which it works, and guarantee (with testing and validation) that in those conditions it does its job.
Nothing works unconditionally.

The Conditions in this case are in fact, that it is an assistance system, and not a safety system, because everybody knows it can't be relied upon. It probably works >99% of times, which just isn't (nearly) enough for driving.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I’ve been working in aerospace, automotive, industrial and rail safety for over 20 years. You don’t get to say “this software does thing” and then in the safety manual say “you don’t get to trust that the software will actually do thing”.

Further, when you claim the operator as a layer of protection in your safety system, the probability of dangerous failure is a function of the time between the fault (the software doing something stupid) and the failure (crash). The shorter that time, the less safe the system is.

Here’s a clue: Musk doesn’t know anything about software safety. Their lead in autonomous technology has less to do with technical innovation and more to do with cutting corners where they can get away with it.

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

My guy, the feature is literally named “Autopilot”. By definition they are advertising it as a system that can PILOT the car AUTOMATICALLY. It doesn’t matter what they put in the fine print, they are blatantly describing the system as autonomous.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 20 points 1 year ago

Someone has to hold Tesla accountable. Here’s hoping this case starts the ball rolling.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tesla won a bellwether trial in Los Angeles in April with a strategy of saying that it tells drivers that its technology requires human monitoring, despite the "Autopilot" name

Then it should not be called "Autopilot." The AI required to make real autopilot work does NOT exist now and probably won't exist for decades.

Tesla autopilot is a marketing gimmick that is going to cost a lot of lives because the people who shill for Musk have a child-like worship of billionaires.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then it should not be called “Autopilot.” The AI required to make real autopilot work does NOT exist now and probably won’t exist for decades.

Well, in Aviation, where I believe the term "Autopilot" is most commonly used, at least before tesla, an Autopilot is actually exactly what Tesla offers.
When everything is fine, it can keep the plane going.
If issues come up, it disengages and the pilot has to be able to receive full control

/e: also, waymo and cruise already have completely autonomous cars, which generally work.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The 2019 crash killed Lee and seriously injured his two passengers, including a then-8-year-old boy who was disemboweled, according to court documents.

Tesla won a bellwether trial in Los Angeles in April with a strategy of saying that it tells drivers that its technology requires human monitoring, despite the "Autopilot" name.

However, attorneys for the crash victims can argue that Lee’s blood alcohol content was below the legal limit, according to court filings.

The original article contains 363 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 43%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anybody who crashes while using Autopilot is their own damn fault, and this is what the court will find.

Autopilot is nothing more than an advanced driver assistance system. Every other manufacturer has a similar system but Tesla is the only one being used and plastered all over the news.

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The way it is marketed is not in line with it's functionality. I expect the prosecution will claim the term "Full Self Driving" is confusing to consumers

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except "full self driving" is not in question. It's autopilot.

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sigh..

Jonathan Michaels, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in his opening statement at the trial in Riverside, California, said that when the 37-year-old Lee bought Tesla's “full self-driving capability package” for $6,000 for his Model 3 in 2019, the system was in "beta," meaning it was not yet ready for release.

RTFA

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

🤦‍♂️ you're the one who needs to read the article. There's nothing there to indicate it was in use at the time.

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's irrelevant. The plaintiff bought the FSD package and his attorney (not prosecutor, I missed that this was a civil suit not criminal trial) will likely argue that it introduced confusion on the part of his client. It doesn't matter that the FSD package wasn't actually in use if the plaintiff believed it was (or, more importantly, that he believed it could do things that it could not due to the confusing terminology)

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Of course it matters. The plaintiff not knowing how to use their car is not a valid defense.