Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Autopilot Safety Defeat Device Gets a Cease-and-Desist From NHTSA (autoblog.com)

schwit1 writes: The National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) is cracking down on a device that was designed to trick Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot feature into thinking a driver is paying attention, in order to extend the amount of time that it will operate without anyone touching the steering wheel. NHTSA announced on Tuesday that it has sent a cease and desist letter to the makers of Autopilot Buddy, and has given the company until June 29 to end sales and distribution of the $199 product.

The device is a two-piece weighted hoop with magnets that wraps around a steering wheel spoke and registers with the car's sensors as a hand on the wheel. Autopilot is programmed to disengage after a short period of time if the driver is not touching the wheel and ignores a series of alerts to take control.unity.

138 comments

  1. A weighted hoop for $199? For $199, I'd rather buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...companion cube.

  2. Liability... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    They should be able to sell it, as long as they're willing to pay for the damages in any accident associated with its use. Bet it would be pulled very quickly...

    1. Re:Liability... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should be able to sell it, as long as they're willing to pay for the damages in any accident associated with its use.

      The people this device is involved in killing might disagree with you.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Liability... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, we need a "Cease-and-Desist" order for drivers who refuse to pay attention to the road, despite the explicit instructions from Tesla.

      Once again, the most dangerous part of an automobile is "The Loose Nut Behind the Wheel".

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Liability... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Seems easier and more effective to ban it instead of waiting for it to kill people and the following protracted law suits

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Liability... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised there is not a DIY Youtube video out there on such a device. (Maybe there is)

    5. Re:Liability... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why pay attention? Tesla calls it an "autopilot". "Auto=automatic". So its all automatic. Just like an automatic transmission where you don't need to shift, the car does it for you. Similarly, with an autopilot you don't need to pilot the car, it does it for you.

    6. Re:Liability... by war4peace · · Score: 1, Troll

      So let's fire all airplane pilots. 'cause planes have autopilot, y'know...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:Liability... by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can also knit a rope and hang yourself, but being on sale as a ready-made product will give it legitimacy in the eyes of some that it shouldn't have

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    8. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize this is meant to be used with a two thousand pound vehicle traveling at high speed while carrying a fragile, squishy thing while surrounded by other heavy, high-velocity devices, themselves housing other fragile, squishy things right?

    9. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two thousand pounds? You need to double that.

    10. Re:Liability... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Exactly! So, what are we arguing about here? We're all on the same side!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re: Liability... by unifex · · Score: 1

      They can. Many new planes can now fly autonomous. Qantas has done at least one complete flight.

    12. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another retard comment from the resident retard. B0Z0 is the one that needs a C&D.

    13. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Airplanes have air traffic control to make sure no one is in the way. Why do you always leave that part out?

    14. Re:Liability... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This product didn't kill anyone. It can only do one of two things:

      • Keep the Tesla from falsely nagging someone who does have both hands on the wheel.
      • Keep the Tesla from uselessly nagging someone who isn't going to pay attention anyway, and at best will just tap the wheel when the nags happen.

      Neither of these has any meaningful effect on driver or vehicle safety. The odds against a device like this causing a fatal accident are astronomical, because for the car's autosteer to shut down, the driver has to be so completely oblivious that he/she fails to respond to three nags WITH SOUND within a one-hour period. This is a relatively rare occurrence, short of someone dying behind the wheel....

      More importantly, any claim of reduced safety relies on the assumption that the nags somehow make the car safer, when in my experience, the precise opposite is true. The nag system takes an insane amount of time to detect when the driver doesn't have his/her hands on the wheel, most of the time, but constantly nags at highly inappropriate times (such as during acceleration) when the driver *does* have both hands on the wheel.

      As best I can tell, the main purpose of the nags seems to be to make the autosteer feature more annoying than driving by hand so that folks will spend more money for the self-driving package when it finally comes out. The nags have gotten so annoying that I'm finding myself using autosteer less and less frequently as the nag rate increases. In other words, assuming autosteer really is improving safety, then statistically speaking, the nags are making the car LESS safe, not more.

      Worse, because of the way Tesla detects hands on the wheel — by measuring the torque provided by your hands against the autosteer, the nags are actually more frequent when gripping the wheel tightly with two hands than when loosely hanging one hand on one side of the wheel. So the nags actively encourage drivers to do the exact opposite of what it claims to be doing. Again, the nags make the car LESS safe.

      So I don't know what NHTSA is smoking, but I'd like some of that. Obviously nobody involved in that C&D has ever actually driven a Tesla, or else they would not have sent it. The nags should die in a fire. They make the vehicle less safe, and any technology that can be used to render them harmless makes Tesla vehicles safer to drive, not less safe.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:Liability... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Unless they're judgment-proof, in which case, it might take a while to get the device pulled.

    16. Re:Liability... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Been there.

      Texaco refinery, Port Arthur, Texas.

      The operators stuffed red rags into the alarm horns and, sure enough, 8 people died on a unit where instruments showed there was sufficient time to get out of harm's way had the sound not been muffled.

      I remember my dad pulling the wire of the "ding, ding," of the lap belt warning.

      People take batteries out of smoke detectors.

      I think the answer is for the goddam artificial intelligence to be fucking intelligent.

      Until then, don't beta test the goddam thing in production.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re:Liability... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Actually, we need a "Cease-and-Desist" order for drivers who refuse to pay attention to the road, despite the explicit instructions from Tesla.

      This, because it will be hard to C&D oranges . Actually police should just mail this guy a speeding ticket for fun, since not only was he driving recklessly, he was also clearly speeding by 6mph.

    18. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why pay attention? Tesla calls it an "autopilot"

      For the same reason pilots are expected to pay attention even when using the autopilot. Because that is what is required for safe operation of the vehicle. "Autopilot" doesn't mean you get to mentally disengage.

    19. Re:Liability... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the answer is for the goddam artificial intelligence to be fucking intelligent.

      Until then, don't beta test the goddam thing in production.

      Get some perspective. 3000 people a day die in human caused traffic accidents worldwide. If by rolling out Autopilot and collecting real world data, they bring forward the transition to SDCs by even a single day, they will have saved a thousand lives for every one lost in beta testing.

      This is the same as The Trolley Problem, except instead of throwing the switch to save five by sacrificing one, we save thousands, or perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands.

      The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

    20. Re:Liability... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Tesla calls it an "autopilot". "Auto=automatic". So its all automatic.

      That changes nothing because all cars are "auto"mobiles. And in Germany, the "auto"mobiles drive on the "Auto"bahn.

      So everyone already believes cars don't need to be driven ... or perhaps people aren't as stupid as you think they are.

      Number of Tesla drivers who have claimed an accident wasn't their fault because they thought they didn't need to drive the car: 0.

    21. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also knit a rope and hang yourself, but being on sale as a ready-made product will give it legitimacy in the eyes of some that it shouldn't have

      It would seem you are arguing that rope should be an illegal product, as it's a "ready made product" someone *could* use to hang themselves. Perhaps we should outlaw stairs so that people no longer fall down them. 450 people in the US die each year falling out of bed, let's ban those too and just sleep on the floor for "safety".

      You moron.

    22. Re:Liability... by nazsco · · Score: 1

      exclusively for taking off and landing. you don't even have to log a flight plan for most (non-commercial) cases.

    23. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This product didn't kill anyone. It can only do one of two things:

      • Keep the Tesla from falsely nagging someone who does have both hands on the wheel.
      • Keep the Tesla from uselessly nagging someone who isn't going to pay attention anyway, and at best will just tap the wheel when the nags happen.

      Neither of these has any meaningful effect on driver or vehicle safety.

      Do not attempt to merely dismiss the asshole driver that ends up killing someone with their car because they want to bypass safety mechanisms. Why exactly should I give a shit when they the law wants to hear the drivers "side" of the legal case when that kind of shit happens? Fuck that. You want meaningful effect? Get distracted murderers the FUCK off the road and out of society.

    24. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the answer is for the goddam artificial intelligence to be fucking intelligent.

      Until then, don't beta test the goddam thing in production.

      Get some perspective. 3000 people a day die in human caused traffic accidents worldwide. If by rolling out Autopilot and collecting real world data, they bring forward the transition to SDCs by even a single day, they will have saved a thousand lives for every one lost in beta testing.

      And I'm sure when the internet came along, everyone thought all those advancements and forward progress would bring nothing but benefits.

      And then the computer virus came along. And the trojan, the worm, and a ton of other highly disruptive/effective/profitable malware.

      Speaking of perspective, don't be so fucking ignorant in assuming SDCs could never create pain or death with that flavor of progress. It certainly will. Complexity practically guarantees it.

    25. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Auto" = "self". "Automobile" means "self-propelled", not "self-guided".

    26. Re:Liability... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No, he's arguing that marketing rope specifically as a handy means of committing suicide might tend to make people think of using it specifically for that purpose. Your dislike of human suggestibility does not stop it from being a real thing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is to make the car pull itself over and stop if the driver's hands are not on the wheel for more than half a second...and rename "autopilot" to Driving Assist!

    28. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you fly? If you do, you're one of those idiots. Pilots don't do much at all during flight today, they are there just in case.

      And it has been so for quite a long time now. All of Haley's "Airport" pilots were born in the 1920s.

    29. Re:Liability... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I'll giver that one 2/10. Please try harder next time.

      --
      No sig today...
    30. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

      I suggest you get professional help.

      Conflating quotes from Star Trek movies with problems that exist in REALITY is a sure sign of a person with a mental disorder.

    31. Re:Liability... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Didn't they used say this about Winnebagos and "cruise control"?

      Old people putting it on "cruise" at 70mph then going in the back to make a sandwich?

      --
      No sig today...
    32. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean 100% of Tesla fires were Tesla EVs? Because sure as shit you are wrong if you meant what you said.

      A non comprehensive list:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents

      As to vehicle fires; Iâ(TM)ve seen a few in my life, most before EVs were a thing. It is not something that only happens in EVs.

    33. Re:Liability... by Megol · · Score: 2

      If you want to kill or maim yourself you are right. But you have no right throwing a dice risking other peoples well-being which is what you are supporting here.

    34. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those systems, which work in an environment many magnitudes less complicated than ordinary traffic, still require supervision in case something goes haywire. How's that any different from Tesla's system?

    35. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's clearly talking about airliners and not fork-tailed doctor killers.

    36. Re:Liability... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    37. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you don't mind flying with significant restrictions

    38. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, same exact thing. Go back to sleep you moron.

    39. Re:Liability... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In other words, assuming autosteer really is improving safety, then statistically speaking, the nags are making the car LESS safe, not more.

      Or you can just leave your hands on the wheel and pay attention while the car does the heavy lifting.

    40. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, all prose is prose and says something. You just committed a genetic fallacy. That you thought this was so clever is a sure sign of a person with an idiot problem. An idiot on their end of the internet.

    41. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there is routing set by traffic control and is part of your pre-agreed flight plan. If you did not know this then all you know about flying is from adverts for MS Flight Sim.

    42. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is the difference between a car propelling itself and a car guiding itself forward? Other than the letters. Do you think a car guiding itself somehow doesn't propel itself??? Maybe you think propel is normally done by "something else" so your legs are "autolegs" propelling themselves while the rest of your carcass gets dragged along?

    43. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A plane may take off, fly, and land unassisted. Still, a pilot is useful for dealing with the unexpected. Such as instrument landing facilities being turned off at the destination, or the jet engine ingesting some geese.

    44. Re:Liability... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "If you want to kill or maim yourself you are right. But you have no right throwing a dice risking other peoples well-being which is what you are supporting here."

      People accidentally kill other people in road accidents every day. What you are proposing is that no one be allowed to do anything, ever, because humans are fragile and there is always a risk they might die.

      Driving equals risking the well-being of others, whether you do it correctly or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we need a "Cease-and-Desist" order for drivers who refuse to pay attention to the road, despite the explicit instructions from Tesla.

      Once again, the most dangerous part of an automobile is "The Loose Nut Behind the Wheel".

      PEBKAC:

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error#PEBKAC

    46. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they shouldn't, because preventable deaths, including those of other traffic participants who have nothing to do with this nonsense, are not just a matter of 'liability'. If authorities can prevent those deaths, they have to, waiting until someone dies is obviously irresponsible.

    47. Re: Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly why auto manufacturers should have to work on making their vehicles safer for those NOT inside the car. People drive cars like maniacs because airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts make them feel sufficiently safe to do stupid things. Pity the pedestrian or cyclist who gets in their way or makes them 5 seconds slower getting to Starbucks.

    48. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the issue is far more complex than how you portray it. By your naive consequentialist criteria, we should stop most intensive medical care immediately and instead invest it in other things like e.g. better driver education or giving safer cars away for free to reckless drivers, etc. It doesn't work that way, neither morally nor in real life.

      Another issue is that the self-driving car industry applies safety standards that are far below the level of safety standards in the avionics industry. So there will still be lots of preventable deaths, even if other statistical deaths have been reduced, and there is no good rationale for allowing those deaths to happen when they are at the very same time clearly unacceptable from the point of view of the standards that have been accepted by the aviation industry and its regulators. Get standards as strict as in aviation safety, with multiple redundancies, validated and deterministic code, then we can start talking about your alleged statistics. (Which is, btw, totally flawed, since the sensors of self-driving cars are not tested under adverse weather conditions. If I cherry pick to conduct the majority of tests in California then this means nothing about how the car works in heavy snow, fog, etc.)

      There is a large number of other problems that I haven't even addressed yet, most of which have nothing to do with engineering and a lot to do with moral and legal issues. There is quite an interesting interdisciplinary research on these issues at Delft University, I'm not affiliated with them but recently heard an interesting and insightful talk by one of their experts on the ethics of autonomous vehicle safety, so check out their site for more information. In a nutshell, the consequentialist death toll argument is very old and very naive, and also based on incorrect interpretations of the statistical data.

    49. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are rationalizing too much, drivers should be paying attention to the road until tried and true autonomous driving is achieved. Period.

    50. Re:Liability... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Indeed. the Star Trek quote is totally plucked from thin air and isn't a paraphrase of anything written by a famous philosopher, especially not Bentham or Mill.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    51. Re: Liability... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Which is exactly why auto manufacturers should have to work on making their vehicles safer for those NOT inside the car.

      Well, you're in luck. Auto manufacturers DO have to work on making their vehicles safer for those people. For example, there is a required hood crumple specification to improve pedestrian safety if you hit them. All passenger vehicles sold in the USA will have to have automatic emergency braking by 2022, and the EU will probably follow suit. And they took non-folding hood ornaments off of cars to protect pedestrians, as well.

      People drive cars like maniacs because airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts make them feel sufficiently safe to do stupid things.

      Stupid as riding a bicycle on a public road, where a a slight mistake by you or by a motorist or any small equipment failure could end your life, or just relegate you to permanent vegetable status? And where in the best case, you're sucking exhaust and tire dust while breathing vigorously?

      Pity the pedestrian or cyclist who gets in their way or makes them 5 seconds slower getting to Starbucks.

      Don't get in the way. Physics is still a thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Liability... by rojash · · Score: 1

      The way you put it reminds me of one driving with one's wife in tow. The nag will keep you annoyed and alert right, and is a good thing to keep prodding you. Getting a gadget that alleviates your safety is ridiculous, and NHTSA is more interested in people's safety rather than your comfort when you drive. Its their job, whether they have driven a Tesla or not before banning anti-safety devices is their prerogative.

    53. Re:Liability... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No.

      I was an instrumntman there.

      In most cases, the operators were aware that the unit was upset and made adjustments.

      In several cases, the alarm was for very serious conditions.

      Safety measures/guards/alarms exist because of human learning.

      We didn't have false positives.

      We had operators who were inconvenienced, much like the persons who will not practice due diligence by keeping their goddam hands on the steering wheel, even when warned to do so.

      We did have

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    54. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few"

      There are no "few" in this equation, only individuals. Basically you're saying we need to sacrifice large numbers of individuals to help bring about a society where the individual isn't needed in the first place! Brilliant

    55. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This product is sold for novelty purposes only, and is not intended to be used as an autopilot defeat device. All liability is strictly disclaimed.

    56. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is VFR and IFR flying (plus a few special mixed categories). You're talking about VFR which has high casualty and accident rates. The OP was talking about IFR which has extremely low accident and casualty rates. All commercial airline flying is IFR except for certain legally allowed "tricks" like temporarily switching to VFR to ease procedures, if the airline allows these.

      Air traffic control under IFR rules is not exclusively for taking off and landing, on the contrary it is for all procedures during the whole IFR flight as long as the radio works. There are exceptions but roughly speaking the traffic controller is responsible for the flight vectors, separation to other aircraft, and anything else related to the flight path when you fly under IFR rules and the pilots must follow their commands to the letter immediately once they are told to do something like flying a certain heading at a certain speed.

    57. Re:Liability... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This is a human factors design problem, and Tesla made a bad design decision. People have a lot of trouble focusing attention on a task where they all they do is pay attention and not do anything. What the correct decision is may be arguable, but it will involve people acting whenever they're supposed to be paying attention.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    58. Re: Liability... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Auto manufacturers DO have to work on making their vehicles safer for those people. For example, there is a required hood crumple specification to improve pedestrian safety if you hit them.
        All passenger vehicles sold in the USA will have to have automatic emergency braking by 2022 [nbcnews.com], and the EU will probably follow suit. And they took non-folding hood ornaments off of cars to protect pedestrians, as well"

      Nice to hear something's finally being done for decades-old problems

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    59. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human nature is such that they will not pay attention unless they are required to. No amount of laws and posts on the web will change this.

      If you really want people to pay attention to the road, you need to paradoxically remove some of the 'safety' laws. Look at Italy. Nobody driving around in Naples is looking at their phone. If they do they will die. No speed limits means people are forced to pay attention. Also less than capable drivers voluntarily remove themselves from the driving pool.

      In the USA we have such a nanny sissified laws that keep everyone driving slow, that you can play a video game on your phone while drinking a 40 oz, while watching U-tube and not get in an accident 99.99% of time.

      So stop complaining about the cell phone use while driving. No amount of complaining will change the fact that driving is boring and unless driving becomes more exciting people will continue to fuck off on their daily commute.

      Rather than make more and more laws that try artificially mold society into the 'liberals' dream of the correct society, we need fewer laws that allow the perfect society to be created organically from the free exercise of liberty from the ground up.

      Nobody want to die on the road. Let that be the motivation for drivers to pay attention and drive safe.

    60. Re:Liability... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Wonder no more - https://wisemanbray.com/outrag...

      Yup, it was bullshit.

    61. Re:Liability... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Do not attempt to merely dismiss the asshole driver that ends up killing someone with their car because they want to bypass safety mechanisms.

      They would still kill someone without being able to bypass the "safety" mechanisms, because as I said, the nags do NOT serve ANY safety function. Either someone is paying attention to the road or he/she isn't, and the nags don't change that behavior. They just annoy users.

      If anything, the nags have nearly caused a couple of accidents for me when I deliberately torqued the wheel to force it to recognize that I was holding the wheel and inadvertently torqued it hard enough to kick out autosteer entirely. And they have distracted me at critical moments when I needed to take control away from AutoSteer. The nags are DANGEROUS. They are NOT a safety feature. They are the exact OPPOSITE of a safety feature.

      Nothing about the nags improves safety. Every single aspect of them makes safety measurably worse or at best is a no-op. And even if you don't believe that (which would pretty much require you never having used AutoSteer), a single "keep hands on wheel when driving" message when you start the car would have exactly the same effect without increasing the risk of driver mistakes by distracting the driver with an unnecessary message on the screen that draws their attention away from the road that they're supposed to be watching.

      But please, be my guest and explain to me why you think that having something needlessly flashing on your dashboard while you're trying to drive makes us safer.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    62. Re:Liability... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Or you can just leave your hands on the wheel and pay attention while the car does the heavy lifting.

      And when you do that, the nags still happen about once every minute or two, and they still distract me from my driving. Did you even read my post before you replied?

      Worse, because of the way Tesla detects hands on the wheel — by measuring the torque provided by your hands against the autosteer, the nags are actually more frequent when gripping the wheel tightly with two hands than when loosely hanging one hand on one side of the wheel.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    63. Re:Liability... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The nag will keep you annoyed and alert

      Having a warning message flash on your dashboard does not keep you alert. It distracts you from the road.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    64. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is still no evidence that autopilot will ever have a better safety record than humans.

    65. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That atitude is PRECICESLY what is wrong with the world now.

      To people like you, we are not people - We are just statistics, a number.

      We'll newsflash asshole - WE ARE PEOPLE

      Every one of those deaths is a REAL PERSON, with Parents, probably a family - a spouse and children, maybe a dog or cat or some other pet. Someone with friends and colleagues, a history.

      Saying some blasie shit like its acceptable losses for a few to die to expedite progress is a fucking inhuman attitude and you need to reset your goddamned moral compass if you think that is acceptable!

      This isn't the industrial revolution - We have decades of experience on making things to be safe or at least to fail-safe!

      Death in an unavoidable accident is already bad enough, but you can't predict all these things; Deaths on a thing you know has a significant chance of failing dangerously should not happen - That thing should be disabled or pulled until it is demonstrably safe! That it is not is a result of assholes with an attitude toward life like yours!

    66. Re:Liability... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      if the rules of using autosteer are to have your hands on the wheel, maybe thats what you have to do. i expect they don;t want the idiot drivers to put their seats back and go to sleep. People do drive when very tired and fall asleep at the wheel so the "nag" will be useful.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    67. Re:Liability... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Autopilot is a grossly overloaded term because people confuse pilot and navigator. There's already at least two types of autopilot in aviation and I'm guessing at least two types of nautical autopilots.

      The most basic autopilots maintain a heading and speed. That's it. Tesla's autopilot is right in line with this type of autopilot except slightly more advanced in that it capable of steering to follow pavement.

      After that you have the navigational autopilots which you can set waypoints and the autopilot will make course corrections to reach the waypoints. We have this mostly solved for cars but there's some critical components that still need to be tested.

      Nautical and aeronautical autopilots don't really get much more advanced than that for two reasons. The first is they expect the plane or ship's pilot to be paying attention to respond to changing conditions. The second is that the air and sea are so large that the probability of collisions is drastically smaller than that of cars. The collision avoidance aspect which isn't as critical for airplanes and ships is critical for cars and necessary for self-navigating autopilots on cars.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    68. Re:Liability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autopilot is misguided, anyway. Right now it's basically "sit and watch the car drive, but if your attention wanders, YOU ARE VERY NAUGHTY!"

      Instead, it should be a package that tries to tell how engaged you are in driving. If you've dozed off or texting instead of watching the road, the self-drive should kick in and gently pull you over to the side of the road (or exit if you're on a freeway). Instead of waking up to a horrific crash, you wake up to "Hey, the car just parked itself."

  3. Natural Selection by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Try to make something fool proof and the universe will make a better fool.

    1. Re:Natural Selection by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I would rather not be on the same road as this device, thanks.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Natural Selection by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You are, however, in the same Universe.

      Good luck.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Natural Selection by lsllll · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try to make something fool proof and the universe will make a better fool.

      Damn, am I reminded of that on a daily basis ... Can you tell I'm a programmer?

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    4. Re:Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be OK if the fool only got rid of itself without damage to others.

    5. Re:Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You look more like a coding monkey that complains about people complaining about the bugs it introduced.

    6. Re:Natural Selection by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The really worrying thing is that there are lots of people on the various Tesla forums complaining that the new Autopilot update makes it "unusable" for them. It now checks much more often for hands on the wheel, about every 30 seconds or so. It used to let you go 15 minutes or more without hands on.

      Seems like quite a lot of people were really using it in an unsafe way before, and are now angry at Tesla even though it's still a lot worse than every other manufacturer.

      Scary stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You look more like a coding monkey that complains about people complaining about the bugs it introduced.

      tell us more about these developers that write bug free code from perfect documentation

  4. Should be allowed by Leuf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because anyone that would pay $200 for a small magnet in a piece of plastic is too stupid to be trusted to drive themselves.

    1. Re:Should be allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because anyone that would pay $200 for a small magnet in a piece of plastic is too stupid to be trusted to drive themselves.

      But only on a closed road with a concrete barrier for the car to run into

    2. Re:Should be allowed by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even trust them to drive in Grand Theft Auto.

    3. Re:Should be allowed by E-Lad · · Score: 1

      Just hope that they don't demonstrate their stupidity by careening into you / anyone.

    4. Re:Should be allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's redundant, though if they've already bought a Tesla car.

    5. Re:Should be allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can actually just wedge a bit of fruit in the wheel, something like an orange. The weight is enough to make it think you are applying torque to the wheel.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Should be allowed by ledow · · Score: 1

      Does your car have a spoiler?

      I've seen people pay WAY more than that to fit a "after-market spoiler" to a car that's not even capable of generating any kind of air-flow which would produce such an effect, nor any kind of aerodynamic effect to utilise them.

      Don't even get me started on twin-exhausts and all kinds of other shite.

      I agree, those people shouldn't be allowed to drive themselves, just through sheer stupidity and misunderstanding of how their car works, but I would posit that "owning a Tesla" is a much higher risk category for being a twat that anything else.

  5. unity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Great summary!unity.

  6. Makes sense to me. by Labarna · · Score: 1

    This makes sense to me. It seems that communities (cities or states or whatever) seem to think they have the ability to determine whether self-driving vehicles are allowed on their streets. (This is not something I had thought about until the last couple of years.) Given that, the same governments should be allowed to determine if the sale of a device that turns a vehicle into a self-driving vehicle is allowed.

  7. Punishing the wrong device. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    They should be halting sales of any device's safety devices that can be defeated by this device. Is that enough devices?

    1. Re:Punishing the wrong device. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      That's because you are an idiot. Any safety device can be defeated. You cannot possibly engineer against all morons. As was referenced above, even warning sirens can be defeated by cramming rags into them. A door that is meant to contain something dangerous can be defeated by blocking it so it cannot close. Do we stop selling doors? Should every safety door have to be so overly engineered that it tries to withstand all morons? How about we just go with good old PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY? Stop selling devices that have a single function of defeating a safety device. These fucking weights have ZERO OTHER USE.

      Just because you can defeat something doesn't mean it should be actively sold. At least now someone will have to cobble together their own defeat-device and that will at least take some effort. They won't be able to claim "hey, I bought it so I thought it was okay to use". If someone bypasses the safety system and kills someone, they should spend the rest of their useless lives in a prison cell.

    2. Re:Punishing the wrong device. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone could come up with some other use for it. But its primary purpose is specifically to defeat a device intended to protect the lives of people, many of which are not the user. (If it only endangered the user of the device, I'd be OK with it.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. So the autopilot response is to kill you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Autopilot is programmed to disengage after a short period of time if the driver is not touching the wheel.

    Does it stop the vehicle? Or just nag until it detects you arent responding, then simply stops performing its duty. Jesus christ, just remove the feature. Unbelievable.

    1. Re:So the autopilot response is to kill you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happens when it disengages itself? Does the car just keep rolling on momentum with nothing controlling it? Stop in the middle of the highway?

  9. Ironic by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    This seems completely ironic to me. All this device does is stop the warning to put the drivers hands on the wheel. It does not make Autopilot safer or any less safe. Nor is there any way to determine whether a person is using Autopilot properly without one of these devices. Prohibiting these products seems to be a band-aid solution, when the real problem is that Autopilot is so easily misused in the first place.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Ironic by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      The real problem is that instead of warning people to pay attention to the road around them, Tesla felt it necessary to treat their customers like children with a useless nag that is annoying as heck even when users are using the product precisely as intended. As a result, folks have come up with creative ways to work around the lack of a "Stop nagging me already" switch in the settings. If they ban this, folks will come up with something else. It won't stop until Tesla cars either have true FSD capability or Tesla gives us a way to turn off the nags.

      And no, I don't own one, but I'm sorely tempted to rig up something similar. I'm really getting tired of all the nags while sitting there with both hands on the wheel simply because the car didn't turn the wheel enough to notice that my hands were providing resistance. The entire concept of using wheel torque to control nags is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. Then again, the entire concept of nagging the driver and hoping that it will somehow do something other than annoy the driver into being angry at your product is equally flawed.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Ironic by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing that is flawed is that Tesla doesn't seem to be willing to acknowledge common human traits. A car is requires a human to interact with it properly in order to not kill or injure anyone. Humans have flaws, yet Tesla seems to think they can pick the ones that they should feel liable for even though these human flaws are well known and completely predictable. They are acknowledging technology can augment a human to make them a better driver, yet failing to acknowledge that their technology just brings out the flaw of having poor reaction times when not being completely engaged with the driving.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me how this meets the dictionary definition of "ironic".

    4. Re:Ironic by Corbets · · Score: 1

      Being willing to acknowledge it is one thing.

      Believing that they should take responsibility for it, and take responsibility away from adults who have been licensed by the freaking state to drive, is another thing.

    5. Re:Ironic by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Is the state testing attention span as part of their driver licensing? If a person loses focus after, say, an hour of doing nothing, are they denying licenses?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With self-driving or even "Autopilot" features, the driver isn't really driving the car anymore, and unpredictable outcomes become so predictable the manufacturer cannot feign ignorance or non-accountability.

      Even cruise control is more predictable than some feature that may accelerate you into a turn fence or suddenly turn against incoming traffic lane, and fails miserably in non-programmed conditions.

      This stupid discussion was expected though.

    7. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the state testing attention span as part of their driver licensing? If a person loses focus after, say, an hour of doing nothing, are they denying licenses?

      this test is indeed administered and penalties are assessed, by darwin

    8. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a moron?

      The entire point is that it is human nature to lose interest in something if not actively engaged or participating in it. Tesla's design is flawed because it inevitably brings out / highlights a known human trait in an unsafe way yet they try to paper over that with "nags" so they can somehow say that they mitigated the known trait. This is complete bullshit because the overarching design is flawed.

      Since Tesla fans are really fucking dense when it comes to anything that challenges "Musk's Greatness", lets use an analogy: If you put a salmon in a grizzly bear cage he fucking eats it. You have a salmon you don't want the bear to eat. Putting a sign on the salmon that says "do not eat" does NOT stop the bear from eating it, but you do it anyway. Is it the bears fault he ate the salmon or the person who put the sign on the salmon and expected the bear to not eat it.

        If the bear was a human, Tesla is the one putting a sign on the salmon saying "do not eat" and the human is the one ignoring the sign and getting in wrecks. The wrecks are Tesla's fault because it is a known a proven quantity that humans are not going to stay engaged and the nag is always going to be 1) Worthless at stopping you from losing attention or 2) Result in the equivalent of driving the car yourself anyway.

  10. Re: A weighted hoop for $199? For $199, I'd rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...namely, a WEIGHTED companion cube.

  11. More asinine regulations by hwihyw · · Score: 1

    If you watch the Youtube video its just a weight held by magnets. I can wrap rubber bands around the steering wheel and it would accomplish the same thing. Might as well send a cease and desist to Youtube for showing how to circumvent the system. And if I tell my friends how to do it, will I get a cease and desist letter too?

    1. Re:More asinine regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not very bright huh.

    2. Re: More asinine regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let the book burning begin! Adolf would be proud!

  12. Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the driver stops interacting with the car, for example falling asleep, or having a seizure, a heart attack, wandering off in a drug induced haze or something equally disabling, then the vehicle will TURN THE AUTOPILOT OFF? As in, the car will just keep going but now without automated controls? I'm all for thinning the herd, culling the weak and speeding up human evolution but I am seriously skeptical towards this particular method.

    1. Re: Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight... If the driver stops interacting with the car, for example falling asleep, or having a seizure, a heart attack, wandering off in a drug induced haze or something equally disabling, then the vehicle's cruise control WILL STAY ON? As in, the car will just keep going at the preset speed, for example 65MPH, but now without anyone controlling it?

      Seems like cruise control, a feature around for decades, is just as dangerous--perhaps more so. At least auto pilot will shut down when it believes the driver is inattentive and that would cause the vehicle to coast, anti collision braking might even minimize the damage if you're rolling toward something stopped... Cruise control on the other hand would send me at 65+, up hill, into the back of stopped traffic or a guard rail.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As a safety measure it seems somewhat inadequate, but at least there is the possibility of the vehicle being slowed by regenerative braking in the case where autopilot is simply disabled. To make a fair comparison, you should contrast it with what happens when a driver becomes incapacitated while using other systems. If they are using cruise control, their vehicle becomes an unguided land missile, doing its best to maintain speed and that's it. With radar-guided cruise control, the vehicle will slow down and maybe even stop to avoid impact, but it will do nothing to avoid running drivers alongside off of the road, nor drifting into an oncoming lane. It's not until you get up to more complex solutions like super cruise before you find a safer situation than simply shutting off the system.

      With that said, it does seem like when the system shuts off, it should continue lane keeping and automatic braking, and simply disable acceleration - activating the hazards and coming to a gradual halt. Beginning deceleration slowly will give a driver who is not fully incapacitated a chance to regain control of the vehicle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. You just wanna punish Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are clearly not an engineer. There is not a transducer around that I can't fake out. It's my job- I do automation. The easiest way to turn that shit off yourself without hanging weights on it is to simply short the sensor wire to ground or connect it to battery voltage depending on their wiring style. Cars have to be simple to fix. Auto techs aren't engineers.

    Your idea only punishes Tesla and that may be your desire. But your solution is stupid. Man, where's that stupid idea form we used to always post when ya need it? Should someone actually enact your suggestion it would be trivially easy to shut your competition down regardless of the product. Just make a device that makes thiers unsafe and bam, impromptu injunction from sales.

  14. Better idea. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    What if it just pulls over to the side of the road and stops instead. The driver might be asleep or dead. Just disengaging could cause an accident.

    1. Re:Better idea. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Tesla's autopilot isn't capable of doing that, and a fully self-driving car is capable of taking its passenger someplace cleverer than the side of the road.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. So if Autopilot thinks I'm not paying attention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...its automatic response is to disengage and put the fate of the vehicle in the hands of a driver who is presumed to be inattentive?

    I understand the rationale, but at the same time, I can also see how this might go wrong...

  16. Re:A weighted hoop for $199? For $199, I'd rather by nazsco · · Score: 1

    This sounds like the Companion Cube's misdirection.

    There's no talk about that device being involved the current high profile investigation. It probably was not present but they are doing that now to divert attention.

  17. Re:Drive around dead by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Better than having a dead guy driving around town until his battery runs out.

    --
    [($)]
  18. [OFFTOPIC] by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    What happened to SongCue?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:[OFFTOPIC] by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I got too busy with my actual job. I wouldn't want to touch it with a ten meter pole now, since it's all fairly close to the metal Xlib from almost two decades back.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:[OFFTOPIC] by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's too bad. Looked interesting, thought it might be fun to play with sometime. (I used to work in the industry.) Cheers.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  19. Just why? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Its bad enough that "autopilot" lets the driver take their hands off the wheel for up to 30 seconds. But using a device to defeat even that amount of time is just plain stupid.

    1. Re:Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that it isn't very good at detecting when the driver has their hands on the wheel. It relies on the driver providing some torque to the wheel, but not enough to cause it to disengage, which is somewhat counter-intuitive when the car is supposed to be steering itself, and your job is just to ensure it doesn't do something stupid like drive you in to a concrete barrier.

  20. Re: A weighted hoop for $199? For $199, I'd rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not that much, but a skinny one with big tits and a pretty face will cost you. Double if it has a nice dick, too.

  21. Let Darwin sort it out by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The sooner the people who think it's safe to not pay attention while driving are taken off the road the better.

    If that happens because their Tesla autopilot drives out the lane, speeds up and crashes into a safety barrier while still accelerating, so be it.

    1. Re:Let Darwin sort it out by sjames · · Score: 1

      Will you say the same when crashing into you is their mode of exit?

    2. Re: Let Darwin sort it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin is still sorting it out, just selecting for those willing to expend their (and the planet's) resources on giant SUVs with enormous crumple zones.

      You're an evolutionary dead end if you drive an econobox.

    3. Re:Let Darwin sort it out by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I don't live in a country full of Tesla's

    4. Re:Let Darwin sort it out by sjames · · Score: 1

      So as long as the innocent person who dies isn't you you're in favor?

    5. Re:Let Darwin sort it out by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Tesla's prefer to target crash barriers, fire engines and semi truck tailors, not light passenger vehicles.

  22. Re: So if Autopilot thinks I'm not paying attentio by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    That's because autopilot isn't paying attention to the road either.

    Have you noticed how Elon Musk had stopped tweeting about how safe autopilot is? That's because more people die in a Tesla when it's turned on then when it's turned off.

  23. $199 for THAT!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the C&D to protect stupid people from getting fleeced...er...on second thought, scratch that! They should be allowed to sell it so the stupids continue to get fleeced!

  24. Re: So if Autopilot thinks I'm not paying attentio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GM's "Super Cruise" will intentionally, though slowly, stop the vehicle in the lane. Not sure that's much better.

    They should all turn in the hazard flashers and dial 911. If you have a good reason for not being attentive you need medical care, if you don't, then you need a punishment to fit the crime of potentially killing someone with an out of control vehicle.

  25. False flag to divert attention from problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False flag to divert attention from real problems.

  26. Re: Drive around dead by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    There's an urban legend in the making. Self driving car pulls in at its destination, no-one gets out.

    "Why isn't grandpa getting of the car, Mommy?"

    Turns out grandpa died 6 hours ago, just after he set out.

  27. Re: 6.5 hours ago by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    He died before he set out and placed in the Tesla, set on autopilot and the evidence was destroyed in a fiery crash... :)

    --
    [($)]
  28. Let them grease the sides of our highways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just Darwins way of cleaning out the crap.