A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: “Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility.”

So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

  • bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    What jury results do is cost real money - companies often (not always) change in hopes to avoid more.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah but also how would this work at full driving scale. If 1,000 cases and 100 are settled for 0.3 billion that’s already 30 billion a year, almost a quarter of Tesla’s yearly revenue. Then in addition, consider the overhead of insurance fraud etc. It seems like it would be completely legally unsustainable unless we do “human life costs X number of money, next”.

      I genuinely think we’ll be stuck with humans for a long time outside of highly controlled city rides like Wayno where the cars are limited to 40km hour which makes it very difficult to kill anyone either way.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        We have numbers already from all the human drivers caused death. Once someone makes self driving safer than humans (remember drinkingiisia factor in many human driver caused deaths and so non-drinkers will demand this be accountee for.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          No the issue still remains on who’s actually responsible? With human drivers we always have someone to take the blame but with robots? Who’s at fault when a self driving car kills someone? The passenger? Tesla? Someone has to be sued and it’ll be Tesla so even if its 1% of total accidents the legal instructions will be overwhelmed because the issue is 1000% harder to resolve.

          Once Tesla starts losing multiple 300M lawsuits the flood gates will be open and the company is absolutely done.

          • bluGill@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That is an issue.

            i just realized that I didn’t finish the thought. Once self driving is statistically safer we will ban human drivers. Some places it will be by law, Some the more subtile insurance costs, some by something else.

            We need to figure out liability of course. I have ideas but nobody will listen so noebuint in writting.

            • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              One challenge here is that we generally value human life pretty high, well at least speaking from legal compensation pov. So you can’t sue Joe the drunk driver for killing your husband for 300 million but you can do thay to Tesla.

              In authoritarian states like china maybe society can be forced into accepting “for greater good” sort of mentality but it’s not going to happen in the west imo.