1271
A new trolley era (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by mondoman712@lemmy.ml to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 255 points 11 months ago

The autopilot will turn off just before hitting them to make you liable anyway

[-] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 58 points 11 months ago

That’s only if you didn’t subscribe to the Ludicrous package.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 11 months ago

Nah even then. Ain't no way Tesla admits fault for anything

[-] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 11 months ago

Until they go the way of PayPal, at least. Musk’s exit plan is Mars, remember?

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months ago

Can we please speed up his exit plan?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 38 points 11 months ago

It actually does. Teslas are great.

[-] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 10 points 11 months ago

Autopilot turns off because the car doesn't know what to do and the driver is supposed to take control of the situation. The autopilot isn't autopilot, it's driving assistance and you want it to turn off if it doesn't know what it's should do.

[-] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Autopilot also turns off on planes when things go wrong.

[-] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 points 11 months ago

Sure, what meant though was that Tesla doesn't have self driving cars the way they try to market it as. They are no different than what other car manufacturers got, they just use a more deceptive name.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hux@lemmy.ml 121 points 11 months ago

This reminds me of that Chinese law about being personally responsible for all medical debts of a person you run over—incentivizing killing the person, rather than injuring them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 72 points 11 months ago

You will be liable either way. If you don’t do anything, you broke the terms of not being attentive enough.

[-] Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m not aware of a single jurisdiction on the planet that makes Tesla liable for what the vehicle does when autopilot is enabled. In order to activate autopilot you have to accept about 3 different disclaimers on the car’s screen that state VERY clearly how you are still responsible for the vehicle and you must intervene if it starts behaving dangerously.

I’ve been driving with autopilot for over 2 years, and while it has done some stupid stuff before (taking wrong turns, getting in the wrong lane, etc.), it has NEVER come close to hitting another vehicle or person. Any time something out of the ordinary happens, I disengage autopilot and take over.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 74 points 11 months ago

Condolences on owning a tesla

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 41 points 11 months ago

Bro bought a Tesla just 2 years ago. Long after it was very widely known just how much of an arsehole Musk was, and after many other excellent EVs were on the market.

I'll let you draw the conclusions from those facts.

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Hate Musk or not, the Tesla is still a very good car. In many markets still the better value often times.

[-] pufferfisherpowder@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Yeah and while Elon is the fucking worst I assume not everyone knows that he is the Tesla man. It's incredible actually how much he's intertwined with the brand. I would totally buy a Toyota or whatever and I couldn't tell you the name of their CEO, nor of any other car manufacturer, nor would I look up who they are beforehand.

Granted the poster above is on Lemmy so I assume he knows more about musky boy than he would like.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 13 points 11 months ago

Everything I've heard says that Teslas have had huge reliability problems.

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

These days not really. I'm gonna get downvoted to oblivion obviously because this is Lemmy, but generally the cars are more than fine these days

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

When I bought my car, there were no widespread plans for other manufactures to adopt NACS, you couldn’t get your hands on a Rivian for less than $100k, and I was commonly driving long distances for work so I needed a vehicle with long range that I could charge quickly on trips. Tesla checked all the boxes.

I haven’t experienced any of these super widespread quality or reliability issues people on the internet talk about. It was delivered with no issues, has needed very little maintenance (just tire rotations basically), and it’s not falling apart like some would lead you to believe. I don’t know what to say other than that my personal experience with the vehicle has been great, and that’s what I really care about in a vehicle. I don’t buy cars based off what the CEO says on Twitter.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 59 points 11 months ago

I hope this isn't law anywhere. You're liable for your car no matter what. You have to take control if necessary

[-] uriel238 40 points 11 months ago

I saw a headline about Mercedes offering an autopilot that doesn't require the driver to monitor, so it's going to be interesting to see how laws play out. The Waymo taxi service in Phoenix seems to occasionally run in with the law, and a remote service advisor has to field the call, advising the officer the company is responsible for the car's behavior, not the passenger.

[-] Cyclist@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

So in theory the manufacturer takes responsibility because they trust their software. This puts the oness on them and their insurance, thereby reducing your insurance considerably. In actuality your insurance doesn't go down because insurance companies.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm not trying to be the grammar police, just thought you might like to know that it's "onus".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 47 points 11 months ago
[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 11 months ago

WRONG!!!

Hard braking may increase your insurance costs: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html

TL;DR: General Motors was selling customer driving data to LexisNexis which provided them to insurance companies. Hard braking also contributed to a higher risk factor.

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 29 points 11 months ago

Nah bro if it's the choice between raising insurance cost vs killing people + jail time for manslaughter + eating the guilt for the rest of my life, i'll take the insurance.

Also wth america your capitalism and your priority is wack.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 13 points 11 months ago

I don't like the spying aspect but it is unironically true that if you slam your brakes at every red light you are driving in a dangerous fashion. It's more so about the pattern than a one off event though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Woah woah woah. I'm 99% certain that's not how cars work.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] CCF_100@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 months ago

Slam on the breaks but oh no you drive a cybertruck and the break petal stops working

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 months ago

"break" pedal is a Freudian slip there

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 11 months ago

this is funny and all, but it doesn't matter what you're doing here, you're technically liable for all of them so uh.

I'll wait for a better version of this.

[-] uriel238 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The cover-your-ass scenario.

In the Philosophy Crash Course there was a scenario like this. I'll paraphrase:

You're a traveler exploring a semi-devloped nation in South America. Coming out of the wilderness you come across a squad of soldiers. They are forcing twenty villagers to dig a mass grave. The officer to the soldiers tells you these villagers committed the state crime of supporting a rival to their leader, and are to be executed. But as you are a guest in their country, he will make you an offer: if you shoot one of them, yourself, he will set all the rest free, and then can hike to the border and beg for asylum. (A rough trek, but the neighboring country may take them).

Do you shoot one of the villagers?

Actually killing someone is rather hard on the psyche, and most of us cannot bear the thought (and might suffer from trauma as a result). But then, perhaps this is a small price to pay for nineteen human lives.

Thomas Aquinas and Kant were happy to let the soldiers kill the villagers so as to avoid committing the sin of murder, themselves. Aquinas and Kant even would not lie to the murderer at the door, or Nazi Jew-hunters to save the lives of fugitives hidden in their home, since lying was sin enough, and they would count on God to know His own. Both had contemporaries who disagreed, and felt it was proper to suffer the trauma and do what was necessary (assuming the officer of the soldiers seemed inclined to keep to his word and actually spare the remaining villagers.)

So, the cover your own ass response has a long history of backers, including known philosophers.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The funny part will be once the car doesn't have a driver and is full autonomous. If the car kills someone, who's to blame?

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

The company that rented it to you, because fully self-driving cars won't be for private ownership, they'll just replace rideshare drivers.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 11 months ago

You treat it like any other traffic accident, except if a self driving car is responsible, that responsibility lies with the vehicle's owner.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 8 points 11 months ago

I'm sorry, but this is the vanilla trolley problem. Save all but one or avoid going to jail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DNOS@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago

Immagino having a car that doesn't pretend to drive herself but it's enjoyable to drive, a car that doesn't pretend to be a fucking movie because it's just a car, a car without two thousands different policies to accept in wich you will never know what's written but a car that you will be able to drive even though you decided to wear a red shirt on a Thursday morning which in you distorted future society is a political insult to some shithead CEO, a car that you own not a subscription based loan ,a car that keeps very slowly polluting the environment instead of polluting it with heavy chemicals dig up from childrens while still managing to pollute in CO2 exactly the same as the next 20 years of the slow polluting one not to mention where the current comes from, a car that will run forever if you treat it well and with minor fixes with relative minor environment impact and doesn't need periodic battery replacement which btw is like building a new vehicle ... This are not only a critical thoughts about green washing but are meant to make you reflect on the different meanings of ownership in different time periods

And yes I will always think that all environmentalists that absolutely needs a car should drive a 1990s car, fix it, save it from the dump fields and drive it till it crashes into a wall ...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1271 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

10394 readers
1 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS