Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Owner in Autopilot Crash Won't Sue, But Car Insurer May (bloomberg.com)
Dana Hull, reporting for Bloomberg: A Texas man said the Autopilot mode on his Tesla Model S sent him off the road and into a guardrail, bloodying his nose and shaking his confidence in the technology. He doesn't plan to sue the electric-car maker, but his insurance company might. Mark Molthan, the driver, readily admits that he was not paying full attention. Trusting that Autopilot could handle the route as it had done before, he reached into the glove box to get a cloth and was cleaning the dashboard seconds before the collision, he said. The car failed to navigate a bend on Highway 175 in rural Kaufman, Texas, and struck a cable guardrail multiple times, according to the police report of the Aug. 7 crash. "I used Autopilot all the time on that stretch of the highway," Molthan, 44, said in a phone interview. "But now I feel like this is extremely dangerous. It gives you a false sense of security. I'm not ready to be a test pilot. It missed the curve and drove straight into the guardrail. The car didn't stop -- it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail." Cozen O'Connor, the law firm that represents Molthan's auto-insurance carrier, a unit of Chubb Ltd., said it sent Tesla Motors Inc. a notice letter requesting joint inspection of the vehicle, which has been deemed a total loss.
"he reached into the glove box to get a cloth and was cleaning the dashboard seconds before the collision"
The Tesla has a clear warning that "autopilot" is not "self-driving", so the driver should have been paying attention to the road, not digging through the glovebox and cleaning the dashboard.
Did the autopilot function as designed?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Tesla would swap for a new car to get to look over the one that's broke and to get the guy back in their car.
But the article says guy doesn't want another Tesla.
Awkward.
So what's next?
A check every time an 'autopilot' exposes the false sense of security.
or maybe
Clearer definitions of the proper way to operate the 'autopilot' as it evolves.
It appears to be already a pretty useful gadget,
and maybe there is no other way to work through all the corner cases to get to a real autopilot.
I wonder why the guy wishes to switch cars.
Understandable if the well to do customers feel the situation is an un-wise to gamble with their lives.
Perhaps he thinks the autopilot grass is greener with some other manufacturer.
Anybody have a clue if that is the case?
It will be interesting to see what the NTSB says.
Eh, Slashdot? After all the picked nits you've had over the years?
If it isn't free software, don't call it free software.
If it's phr34k1n ur ph()()nez d00d, don't call it a hacker.
Well:
If it isn't autopilot, don't call it autopilot.
"But now I feel like this is extremely dangerous.
No fucking shit, it always was.
It gives you a false sense of security.
Sounds like wealth redistribution - Darwin style.
I'm not ready to be a test pilot.
Well, obviously you should have been since wanting to be an early adopter of a nascent technology that hasn't been thoroughly vetted at all to DRIVE YOUR FUCKING CAR sure sounds like test pilot to me.
Probably get modded down. Don't give a fuck. I think this shit will/has been pushed out the door too early because money. Wait til it kills someone else.
There are lawyers with erections they're not even sure how they got right now.
Not certain. The guy claimed he was reaching into the glove box. It's not inconceivable that he accidentally bumped or held the steering wheel thus overriding the autopilot. Tesla might have some more black box goodness forthcoming to entertain us.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This is why I was making a question just the other day about the tech being used for the autopilot.
I've read explainers, watched videos talking about the tech, it doesn't add up.
Not for this case, and not for that one which ended in a fatality.
Tesla Model S is supposed to have a camera, a bunch of ultrasonic sensors, and a radar in front of the car.
Those sensors either react too slow, which would make them useless, the software is bad, or quality control isn't working well enough.
Because if you think about it, no way 3 different sensor systems will fail all at once and not detect a curve or a truck coming across.
I can understand a single camera not being able to distinguish between a white truck and a bright sky, or it getting confused because of reflections, bad weather conditions and whatnot... but what about the ultrasonic sensors and radar system? Are those working at all? What sort of condition is required to make 3 different colision detection systems fail all at once?
I did not find any technical explanation as to why those accidents happened. And "because the driver wasn't paying attention" is not enough from a technical standpoint. It just sounds like we're getting half the story here.
Wasn't this the case where Tesla said Autopilot wasn't engaged at all?
"... The car didn't stop -- it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail."
Continuing to accelerate after hitting the guardrail (and deploying the airbag I assume) would seem to be an issue.
The owner will have insurance cover it. The insurer will see that telsa cars are not safe and increase the cost of insurance to cover autopilot errors.
Not certain. The guy claimed he was reaching into the glove box.
He's not going to sue. I find that highly suspicious. In America, everybody sues over things like spilled hot coffee, poodles in microwaves and confusing the gas and break pedal. So if he is not going to sue, he has something to hide.
If the driver did sue Tesla, Tesla would send in a battalion of private detectives to investigate everything with a scanning electron microscope. If the accident was his fault, he can't afford that to happen. Ditto for the insurance company suing Tesla; the driver cannot let that happen either.
So what I think we'll see is that the driver will make an undisclosed "deal" with the insurance company, and Tesla won't get sued. And this story will be soon forgotten.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Computers, no matter how advanced, will always be susceptible to misinterpreting data received via audio-visual input.
He's not going to sue. I find that highly suspicious. In America, everybody sues over things like spilled hot coffee, poodles in microwaves and confusing the gas and break pedal. So if he is not going to sue, he has something to hide.
That's what happened! He pressed the "break" pedal.
He's not going to sue. I find that highly suspicious. In America, everybody sues over things like spilled hot coffee, poodles in microwaves and confusing the gas and break pedal. So if he is not going to sue, he has something to hide.
Or maybe, just maybe, he's an honest person who's already admitted that he wasn't paying attention which Tesla tells you to do while using auto-pilot.
If the accident was his fault, he can't afford that to happen.
It was his fault. He's practically admitted as much.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
+Class action prohibited And Binding arbitration with Tesla for any accident that occurs as a result of you operating the vehicle, And a restriction that You may not convey any of your dispute rights or capability to sue us to any insurance company or other 3rd party; any claim must be pursued solely by you, with sworn statement that no insurer or 3rd party will have interest in any settlement paid to you for dispute resolution.
i agree, it's his own fault, a driver is not supposed to be doing anything other then driving and paying attention to the road and traffic while driving. Cleaning your car is done when it is parked. His Insurance would be better off sueing their client for not complying to the rules of responsible driving.
As will humans, of course.
It's a "brake" pedal you ignorant goof.
apparently he doesn't read much news.
I am getting really sick of the media and others bashiing self-driving technology when they can't see the forest for the trees - no new technology is ever perfect. When commercial air travel first started in the 20s, crashes happened all the time - it was extremely dangerous by modern standards, and even more dangerous than current car travel. Air travel is now by orders of magnitude the safest way to travel on earth - how did that come to be? It came to be because the regulation ensured that accidents were investigated, root cause analysis done, and whatever deficiency was found was addressed.
This is the exact same thing that will happen with self-driving technology, except that it will happen at an EXPONENTIALLY faster pace.
Yes, people will get into accidents with self-driving cars. Yes, people will die. Anyone who does not think this is going to happen is living behind a reality distortion field. However, what happens with self-driving technology is that every single accident gives the opportunity to push software updates out to make EVERY CAR instantly safer. This is simply not the case with human drivers - when a human driver causes an accident, there is no feedback loop that makes all other human drivers safer.
In America,
There's your problem... this occurred in Texas.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Everybody" doesn't sue over things like that, it's just that you always hear about it when they do.
Also I'm not sure there is much of an incentive to stop the insurance company from investigating and/or suing. If he was at fault he can admit that and maybe his premiums will go up. If he doesn't admit it and the insurance co or car co discovers it after investigation, his premiums may still go up. But it's not like he's on the hook for anything if it's discovered he was at fault, and unless he plans on paying the insurance co millions of dollars to walk away from litigation that could establish liability for self-driving car manufacturers, I'm not sure what kind of "undisclosed deal" you think he's going to be cutting with the insurance company.
Are serious? What is he can sue for? $500 deductible? He is not even injured, insurance company pays for his car.
It is insurance company who decides sue or not sue. As is a bit expensive, it may decided to sue. It is not millions in some fatal accident like the one in FL, but still some money. Maybe not enough to warrant lawsuit with legal expenses when outcome is not clear, but still possible. Tesla has marketed autopilot as mostly "autonomous" and Tesla salesmen demonstrated hands free driving, so some legal agreement checkboxes and formal disclaimers may be not enough to dodge responsibility.
What a nonsense, how can you prevent insurance company from going to court. They paid for damages and they can sue for themselves. Even if such clause would be legal and enforceable, insurances company can always refuse to write policy for anything that has word "Tesla" on it, and good luck selling cars with such smart ass contracts then.
What is he can sue for?
People don't get sued in the US because they did something wrong . . . they get sued because they have money. A sexual harassment at a workplace . . . who gets sued? Not the perpetrator . . . he has no money. The employer company gets sued, because they have enough money to make it worthwhile for the lawyer involved.
If there is no obvious reason to sue, the lawyer will create one. The driver has already stated that Tesla's autopilot gave him a "false sense of security", or some weasel words like that. Maybe he can complain about anxiety caused by the "accident", even if it was obviously his own fault.
I've always thought that autonomous driving will not fail with technology on the roads. But this Waterloo will not be decided on the playing fields of Eton, but in the US courts with some shifty lawyers.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
good luck selling cars with such smart ass contracts then.
It won't be a problem.... Nobody ever reads them anyways. Also, accepting the EULA terms becomes a
requirement not to own the car, But to Activate the software license key which enables the Self-Driving Option.
Don't agree to the EULA, then no AutoPilot for you.
The insurance company should sue Mark and nobody else.
That doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that Mark has more money that Tesla?
I simply stepped into the back seat to make myself a sandwich and, being overcome with fatigue, decided to take a nap...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
He doesn't have to sue, the insurance will cover him and they will sue. Not uncommon in car crashes.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Ah, that's the key to the whole thing. He thought it was a break pedal, so he took a break from driving.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Slightly reminiscent of those "sudden unintended acceleration" cases a while back, the audi ones, before drive by wire confused things. When the driver claims he was standing on the brake pedal but the car just leapt forward, and there is no way the engine could overpower the brake, and the gas pedal is bent from being stood on forcefully and the brake pedal isn't, you kind of have to entertain the possibility of driver error, no matter how certain the driver is of his innocence.
in this case he's not disputing the possibility.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I thought in a tesla you are officially supposed to have your hands on the steering wheel still? Can't do that while looking through the glovebox and cleaning the dashboard.... That's why he's not suing Tesla, because he has no case. I mean seriously, when I buy new tech that costs $100 I follow the instructions, and if I don't and it behaves in an unexpected way, I'm not surprised. When spending more by a factor of hundreds, on emerging tech, I think I'd be a little more careful, perhaps heed the warnings and guidelines, etc...
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
Even the drive by wire ones turned out to be wrong pedal accidents as well in the recent Toyota crashes. The only "fixes" they had were to remove any unsecured floormat and a software update that shut off the gas when the brake was depressed. NASA wasn't even able to fault Toyota, as the data logs clearly showed the users flooring the gas and not the brake.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?