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.
I have doubts that all of these autopilot problems we've seen reported are actually a problem with the autopilot feature and not the driver. Sounds like kids playing with their toys in ways that are not intended for the most part.
Mark Molthan, the driver, readily admits that he was not paying full attention
Because he was sleeping, using his phone other otherwise fucking off like the other drivers. The insurance company should sue Mark and nobody else.
"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.
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.
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.
"... 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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.