[underseacables]

I’m a huge fan of Elon Musk so take this with a grain of salt, but the company has totally misled and overhyped the self driving feature. It’s almost like a wink and a nod, giving people a false perception, and that’s wrong.

[jocker12]

Under a new proposal from the UK‘s Law Commission, the “user in charge” of the vehicle would not be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving, speeding, or breaking red lights when the car was in self-driving mode, the Telegraph reports.

The Law Commission instead suggests that responsibility should fall on the developer or manufacturer of the hardware that enables self-driving functions on the vehicle.

see https://thenextweb.com/shift/2020/12/18/autonomous-vehicle-m...

[webmobdev]

That's a pretty decent idea - if a manufacturer claims his vehicle is "self-driving" then they should be the one accountable for any accidents in case the vehicle malfunctions. (Ofcourse, this would make the vehicle costlier to own - manufacturers may demand regular check and servicing of the vehicle, driving up the total cost of ownership.)

[DanBC]

Here's a link to the documents. This is a consultation document.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsx...

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/automated-vehicles/

[AnthonyMouse]

Does this mean we can get number plates which are issued to the manufacturer, and the same for every vehicle from that manufacturer, so that they're not able to be used for mass surveillance of individual vehicles anymore?

[tjoff]

Tesla doesn't have self-driving though..

[gambiting]

If you go to Tesla's UK page and try to place an order for a brand new Model 3, it uses both "Self-Driving" and "Autopilot" on the same page. How this company hasn't been fined to oblivion yet is beyond me:

https://i.postimg.cc/g0ndzbmL/image.png

[emteycz]

The word 'autopilot' never meant reacting to anything happening around the vehicle, much less intelligently. Not a single autopilot can do more than keep the vehicle going in the direction you set (using a knob). Autonomous features are not called autopilot anywhere, ever.

'Full self driving capability' is a hardware capability, not a feature that you can turn on - it is there so you don't need to replace the hardware when the autopilot software can be replaced with fully autonomous driving software.

Edit: Downvoters, please explain. It is not okay to redefine words for your purposes.

[gambiting]

Imagine I am a John Smith that doesn't know anything about Tesla and how the tech works. I want to buy their car because maybe I like the idea of an electric car and they seem to be well reviewed. I go through the configurator, then tick the box next to the option called "Full Self-Driving capability".

In your opinion, in front of the court of law, would you consider that John Smith has purchased a car that has something called "Full Self-Driving Capability", or not? In front of the same court of law - would you consider that Tesla advertises such a thing when presenting their cars?

>>Autonomous features are not called autopilot anywhere, ever.

You are absolutely correct, other car companies call this what it is - (adaptive) cruise control. Not autopilot.

>>'Full self driving capability' is a capability, not a feature that you can turn on

Well, but the website itself says that at the moment, as-is(not in the future!) the car will be able to autonomously drive from on-ramp to an off-ramp on the motorway - so.....that sounds like a feature to me? It even has a button for it! What is it about turning it on or off?

[emteycz]

Adaptive cruise control is one component of autopilot. Mercedes has "drive pilot" (and ACC is one of the features included in that package), why is that okay? To me that sounds way more autonomous than autopilot - sounds like I don't need to drive (I still need to drive with autopilot, both in a car and in an aircraft).

[eulers_secret]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot#Autopilot_for_ILS_la... Specifically in the case of fail-operational autopilots "[...] the approach, flare and landing can still be completed automatically." There is a whole organization responsible for defining these features of autopilots!

You can argue wikipedia isn't a valid source, but IMO that's not in good faith. So, 'autopilot' has a shifting meaning depending on aircraft capability.

[emteycz]

Well yeah, that's in case of failure - the Tesla autopilot can also save you in case of failure.

[iso1210]

Full Self Driving Capability suggests that the car has Full Capability to drive itself.

That it does so as safely and legally as a human driver is implied by the word "full"

[emteycz]

No, you should read that website, and perhaps try to buy a Tesla and see the materials. It says clearly that it's the hardware and that the software is not there yet.

[jocker12]

Correct. But distracting driving is happening today without allowing the driver to physically disconnect from the driving system. The manufacturers, willing to sell the new Advanced Driver Assisting Systems (ADAS) are saying that it would be safe for the drivers to actually disconnect from the driving systems (hands off the steering wheel and feet away from the pedals) which is simply insane.

ADAS are designed as an additional safety level for ACTIVE driving, when the driver is 100% driving the car, and not for a potentially much more dangerous situation, when the driver (as encouraged by the manufacturer) is completely disconnected but supposedly "alert" at all times.

[sillysaurusx]

Meanwhile, stock go brrr and world go round.

Empirically, you’re absolutely right, except that it’s not wrong.

I’ve come to terms with it. How long are we going to bleat about morals while the world ignores it?

I’m asking genuinely, for what it’s worth. It’s one of the central questions I’ve faced. What are your morals worth? Why cling to them? It feels good to call out Tesla as immoral, but both legally and practically this seems to be mistaken.