[didbdidnd]

I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is.

Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided.

Could be a fiefdom for all I care.

But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”.

But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.

[bigiain]

Agreed.

And when it's the marketing department saying "X" in big print in flashy brochures and ads, and the legal department and their small print saying "not X in ways that kill purchasers expecting X", I'd expect company officers to be facing jail time.

I'm old fashioned that way too.

[OnlineGladiator]

I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.

[salawat]

Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print?

Hell, both Boeing and Tesla can be said to have indulged in the same sin: not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user

Taking the viewpoint that caveat emptor absolves the manufacturer of any complicity in mass producing and delivering for use dangerous systems without clearly communicating the underlying implementation details to a reasonable operator is just beyond naieve to the point of asking bad actors to take these types of risks in the least responsible way possible. In fact, the only reason Boeing is getting slammed so hard and Tesla isn't is entirely due to extra regulatory burden that aircraft manufacturers have to deal with that automotive don't.

Now, I personally take the onus of understanding my vehicle seriously, but not everyone does, and nevertheless, they still must be able to drive. Therefore I personally hold manufacturer's responsible for being good corporate citizens and not indulging in deceptive practices.

Not that that gets me or anyone else anywhere. It's the principle of the thing though.

[OnlineGladiator]

> Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print?

Because we're talking about legality, not morality. I have said in my original comment I hate how Tesla markets this, but that does not absolve the driver of responsibility for piloting their multi-ton metal box at high velocity on public roads. What you're effectively saying is you want some entity, likely the government, to hold Tesla accountable for their claims. Except you will never find an official statement from Tesla saying you can drive without paying attention (there are numerous unofficial statements, and even a video of Elon Musk personally demonstrating the technology without paying attention on national TV) - so it's a question of proving fraud at that point. And proving fraud is an insanely difficult process, because you have to prove intent. Even proving neglect in this instance is challenging. I do wish there were more stringent regulations about advertising for driver-assist systems, but currently they do not exist.

Yes, in a perfect world, I would love for Tesla to not get away with this shit. But rather than only blame Tesla, perhaps we should recognize that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get your driver's license. You are responsible for the car so long as you are driving. If you are so easily duped that you can be dissuaded otherwise, you are likely not fit to be a safe driver.

Ultimately what I care about is how safe the roads are. I care much less about pointing the finger. Tesla deserves criticism for their disingenuous marketing, but so do lazy drivers who literally fall asleep at the wheel without even checking to see if that's okay.

[bigiain]

> not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user

I think it's becoming clear that at least Boeing have also indulged in "actively deceiving the regulator" as well as the end user.

(It may be that Tesla have also done that, but at least so far nothing like as egregiously as Boeing's recently revealed internal comms...)

[bumby]

What do you base the "active" part of your assertion on?

I'm curious, because what I've read as a layman led me to believe Boeing legitimately didn't know how dangerous it was and their processes/culture helped undermine facilitating a better understanding. Still not good, but a different world than actively deceiving regulators. It almost seems like their cognitive biases deceived themselves

[braythwayt]

“Onus” is an exclusive term. It’s on one party, or another.

Onus does not apply to the safety of consumer products. For example, it is the responsibility of an automobile owner to drive a car with brakes in good working condition. Period.

But it is also the responsibility of an automobile manufacturer to issue a recall and fix faulty brakes in a car they sell.

It’s not an either-or. We don’t say, “Because the onus is on the driver to drive a safe vehicle, there is no fault to be laid at the manufacturer’s door. Caveat emptor.” We hold both parties responsible to some degree or other.

In sum, yes, drivers are supposed to know the limitations of their equipment and operate it responsibly. But also yes, manufacturers have responsibilities around the safety of the hardware and software they sell to people to operate as motor vehicles.

The driver’s responsibility does not absolve the manufacturer of its responsibilities.

[bigiain]

I agree that higher standards for getting (and keeping) driver's licenses is a good thing to discuss. (It's political suicide, which is why it never gets acted upon in spite of the thousands of road deaths every year.)

But I think the solution to the problem describe upthread is more along the lines of "we need higher standards of truth in advertising".

While I agree that "the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works" - I think it's entirely understandable that drivers base that understanding on what the sales guy and marketing team told them when they researched and bought it, and that if they use works like "self driving" and "autonomous" and "autopilot" that it's reasonable for drivers to interpret them in their commonly understood meanings. Disclaimers in legal documentation redefining commonly understood English words are _not_ OK in my opinion.

[bryanrasmussen]

Luckily the modern automobile is so simple in all its functionality that anyone who wishes to purchase one can learn everything about the workings in a half hour over coffee!