this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1329 points (97.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9784 readers
5 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Even with autopilot I feel it's unlikely that driver would not be liable. We didn't have a case yet but once this happens and goes higher to courts it'll immediatly establish a liability precedence.

Some interesting headlines:

So I'm pretty sure that autopilot drivers would be found liable very fast if this developed further.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

They're most likely liable. "FSD" is not full self driving, it's still a test product, and I guarantee the conditions for using it include paying attention and keeping your hands on the wheel. The legal team at tesla definitely made sure they weren't on the hook.

Now where there might be a case for liability is Elon and his stupid Twitter posts and false claims about FSD. Many people have been mislead and it's probably contributed to a few of the autopilot crashes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It was possible to let Musk dealt with his own mess before, but after the last demands for false advertisement they changed the wording from "fully automated" to "assisted driving", and now even the manuals says;

"dude, this is some fucky woocky shit, and is gonna kill u and everyone involved if u let us in charge. So... Pls be always over the edge of ur seat ready to jump! We warned u (even if we did everything to be as misleading as possible), u can't pass us the bill, nor sue us now.

K, bye."

So yeah, they ain't liable anymore.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am not a lawyer.

I think an argument can be made that a moving vehicle is no different than a lethal weapon, and the autopilot, nothing more than a safety mechanism on said weapon. Which is to say the person in the driver's seat is responsible for the safe operation of that device at all times, in all but the most compromised of circumstances (e.g. unconscious, heart attack, taken hostage, etc.).

Ruling otherwise would open up a transportation hellscape where violent acts are simply passed off to insurance and manufacturer as a bill. No doubt those parties would rush to close that window, but it would be open for a time.

Cynically, a corrupt government in bed with big monied interests would never allow the common man to have this much power to commit violence. Especially at their expense, fiscal or otherwise.

So just or unjust, I think we can expect the gavel to swing in favor of pushing all liability to the driver.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Making that argument completely closes the door for fully autonomous cars though, which is sort of the Holy grail of vehicle automation.

Fully autonomous doesn't really exist yet, aside from some pilot projects, but give it a decade or two and it will be there. Truly being a passenger in your own vehicle is a huge selling point, you'd be able to do something else while moving, like reading, working or sleeping.

These systems can probably be better drivers than humans, because humans suck at multitasking and staying focused. But they will never be 100% perfect, because the world is sometimes wildly unpredictable and unavoidable accidents are a thing. There will be some interesting questions about liability though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're still in control of the vehicle, therefore you're still liable. Like plopping a 5 year old on your lap to drive while you nap, if they hit people it's still your fault for handing over the control to something incapable of driving safely while you were responsible for the vehicle.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But a reasonable person would not consider a child capable of driving. An "extremeley advanced algorithm that is better and safer than humans and everyone should use it" is very different in this case. Aftet hearing all the stupid fluff, it is not unreasonable to think that selfdrivong is good.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Teslas own warnings and guidance assert that drivers should remain ready to take control when using the features. They do not claim it is infallible. Oversight and judgement still need to be used, which is why this argument wouldn't hold up at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

@stom @Norodix Pity Tesla hasn't taken reasonable precautions to ensure the driver is driving.

It isn't unreasonable to have customers expect the thing they were sold to do the thing they were told it does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Despite that, FSD does in fact drive better than a 5 year old child who cannot even reach the pedals.