Law Firm Claims Tesla Is Falsely Advertising What Autopilot Can Do

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Did anyone actually buy a Tesla thinking it was going to be a fully autonomous car? The law firm that is behind the class action lawsuit against VW and Mercedes for emissions-cheating software thinks so, claiming that Autopilot 2 isn’t working as advertised. Sure, some aspects of AP2 are late, but I think these lawyers are confusing their own fantastic expectations with what Musk actually said.

It’s not clear what the investigation is based on for them to determine that customers “thought” they were buying a self-driving car. The ordering page for the both the Model S and X has a warning written in bold font saying that the feature is “dependent on extensive software validation and regulatory approval.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk warned when releasing the feature that he thought the first version would be ready around the end of the year for a demonstration, but he didn’t even say when he expected the regulatory approval to be ready, which Tesla also warns that it depends upon jurisdiction.
 
they really shouldn't call it autopilot, and something a bit more mainstream like lane assist
 
Hypergreatthing said:
they really shouldn't call it autopilot, and something a bit more mainstream like lane assist
Click to expand...

Autopilot and autonomous are not the same thing. Autopilot even in aircraft still REQUIRE a pilot, it is meant as an aid so the pilot can focus on other aspects, without having to give constant input correction. Tesla, unless things changed as of late, also gives a warning every time the system is used stating that it is NOT to be used as an autonomous car and that the system is more or less beta on top of that.
 
Are these lawyers stupid? Tesla clearly said that the car has self driving capabilities that will be slowly enabled over time.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Autopilot and autonomous are not the same thing. Autopilot even in aircraft still REQUIRE a pilot, it is meant as an aid so the pilot can focus on other aspects, without having to give constant input correction. Tesla, unless things changed as of late, also gives a warning every time the system is used stating that it is NOT to be used as an autonomous car and that the system is more or less beta on top of that.
Click to expand...
Autopilot can fly the plane. Planes don't normally need immediate attention.
Autopilot on a tesla requires the driver to be actively paying attention to the road. There have been cases where autopilot on the tesla was immediately disabled and caused fatal accidents.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Autopilot can fly the plane. Planes don't normally need immediate attention.
Autopilot on a tesla requires the driver to be actively paying attention to the road. There have been cases where autopilot on the tesla was immediately disabled and caused fatal accidents.
Click to expand...

And autopilot on on the Tesla can also drive the car, and in both cases explicitly state that a driver/pilot is still needed, whats your point?

Autopilot on a plane also requires a pilot to be paying attention, where do you get the notion that they do not?

And again, you are given a warning every time you use this system on the car that you have to agree to just to be able to use it that states that the system is NOT autonomous.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Autopilot can fly the plane. Planes don't normally need immediate attention.
Click to expand...
The simplest autopilot just controls the roll axis, it goes up to fancier systems that can land a plane (still no takeoffs though).
Granted you do have more time in a plane to react, but you're still going to be paying attention...
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Autopilot can fly the plane. Planes don't normally need immediate attention.
Autopilot on a tesla requires the driver to be actively paying attention to the road. There have been cases where autopilot on the tesla was immediately disabled and caused fatal accidents.
Click to expand...


never flown a plane with an autopilot feature have you? it's not a set and forget feature you still have to pay attention to it the entire time because the auto pilot will automatically hand over flight control if it detects turbulence or a situation it can't handle.. this is essentially what Tesla's autopilot is designed to do so the name is still fine.. the problem is people are stupid and that includes these moronic lawyers trying to make a dime off dumb consumers.. not once has Tesla advertise their autopilot as fully autonomous driving. so i hope these lawyers enjoy going bankrupt trying to fight this, lol.
 
I pick up my S next week. The website is super fucking clear on what the car can and cannot do.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
never flown a plane with an autopilot feature have you? it's not a set and forget feature you still have to pay attention to it the entire time because the auto pilot will automatically hand over flight control if it detects turbulence or a situation it can't handle.. this is essentially what Tesla's autopilot is designed to do so the name is still fine.. the problem is people are stupid and that includes these moronic lawyers trying to make a dime off dumb consumers.. not once has Tesla advertise their autopilot as fully autonomous driving. so i hope these lawyers enjoy going bankrupt trying to fight this, lol.
Click to expand...

So much this. Even in a plane that can land itself the system will GTFO and hand over to the pilot if things go pear-shaped. The Tesla system does the same and it is obvious it is not finished, and that is clearly communicated on the website.

Vehicles with the gen 2 hardware should be capable of level 5 autonomous control but the software is not there yet.
 
Tesla needs to understand that people in general are stupid and will punt responsibility anytime they can and that money grubbing lawyers are everywhere.
 
They definitely need to change the name to anything but Auto-Pilot, and maybe after a few more deaths and lawsuits they will.
 
One big difference between autopilot for a plane and a car is the time the pilot has to recover the vehicle if the autopilot says "It's yours boss!" Most situations in a plane, the pilot will have many seconds and sometimes minutes before the plane will impact something. With a car, could well be fractions of a second before metal starts bending. Most humans take several seconds after being interrupted from a non related task to assess the situation and take action. Expecting a car pilot to always be instantly ready to assume control from a self driving car is stupid and will continue to get folks killed and injured.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Autopilot can fly the plane. Planes don't normally need immediate attention.
Autopilot on a tesla requires the driver to be actively paying attention to the road. There have been cases where autopilot on the tesla was immediately disabled and caused fatal accidents.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the fatal accident you are referring to is the one where the Tesla driver was *watching a fucking harry potter movie* and letting the car drive for him?

When you say "immediately disabled" --- did you actually mean to say "gives you almost exactly 30 seconds worth of messages and beeps that increased in severity before it disables the system and requires you to take over.



(fast forward to 4:50 to see this demonstration live and exactly how the system works)

Until every car on the road is under full autonomous driving mode, networked, talking to each other, and doing awesome efficient computer stuff... there will always be problems/incidents/accidents/deaths for one simple reason: humans are generally selfish idiots.
 
I despise these devious fucks, whose only purpose in life, is to find someone they can sue for something, who they can extort money from. This is nothing but a legal extortion racket. Fuck all law firms that actively seek these opportunities. Siphoning funds into their own greasy hands while providing no value to society.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Autopilot and autonomous are not the same thing. Autopilot even in aircraft still REQUIRE a pilot, it is meant as an aid so the pilot can focus on other aspects, without having to give constant input correction. Tesla, unless things changed as of late, also gives a warning every time the system is used stating that it is NOT to be used as an autonomous car and that the system is more or less beta on top of that.
Click to expand...


You can argue the technicalities of the definition all you want, when 90% of the public hears the word "auto-pilot" they translate it to unassisted driving.

So I agree, auto-pilot was an incredibly stupid name choice. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that their "auto-pilot" was never intended to be enough to drive 60 on a highway going over a twisted hill while banging in the back seat and pouring a cup of coffee. But plenty of people are stupid... And apparently you guys are underestimating the stupidity of the human population. That's a deadly sin.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Autopilot and autonomous are not the same thing. Autopilot even in aircraft still REQUIRE a pilot, it is meant as an aid so the pilot can focus on other aspects, without having to give constant input correction. Tesla, unless things changed as of late, also gives a warning every time the system is used stating that it is NOT to be used as an autonomous car and that the system is more or less beta on top of that.
Click to expand...
This is why language and understanding it is important. Tesla isn't responsible for the uneducated masses buying their cars. They already give owners plenty of warning about what the system actually does.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Until every car on the road is under full autonomous driving mode, networked, talking to each other, and doing awesome efficient computer stuff... there will always be problems/incidents/accidents/deaths for one simple reason: humans are generally selfish idiots.
Click to expand...
Which is never going to happen. You realize that the "generally selfish idiots" are also developing and programming autonomous cars? You realize that self-driving cars are going to be expensive and only available to the wealthy? In order to transition to an "every car on the road" situation it will require removing all older, used cars that represent "affordable" cars for the lower and lower middle classes. What you are envisioning represents a fascist totalitarian dream comprising a small elite class and a huge underclass of unemployed people living a drone-like existence for whom owning a car and the freedom it represents will be a denied privilege.

You might suggest this transition will occurs slowly... The resulting accidents and deaths will taint autonomous cars as dangerous and promote a predictable backlash. It will not help that this will pit wealthy autonomous owners against the working and lower classes.

Developing the technology is only part of the equation. Market forces and political realities are obstacles unconsidered by most. Folly...
 
Armenius said:
This is why language and understanding it is important. Tesla isn't responsible for the uneducated masses buying their cars. They already give owners plenty of warning about what the system actually does.
Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't familiar with our legal system... Because all of that gets thrown out the window immediately....
 
thejokker said:
Which is never going to happen. You realize that the "generally selfish idiots" are also developing and programming autonomous cars? You realize that self-driving cars are going to be expensive and only available to the wealthy? In order to transition to an "every car on the road" situation it will require removing all older, used cars that represent "affordable" cars for the lower and lower middle classes. What you are envisioning represents a fascist totalitarian dream comprising a small elite class and a huge underclass of unemployed people living a drone-like existence for whom owning a car and the freedom it represents will be a denied privilege.

You might suggest this transition will occurs slowly... The resulting accidents and deaths will taint autonomous cars as dangerous and promote a predictable backlash. It will not help that this will pit wealthy autonomous owners against the working and lower classes.

Developing the technology is only part of the equation. Market forces and political realities are obstacles unconsidered by most. Folly...
Click to expand...

you are right evry new expesive technology for the "Elitist" that oyu mentioned has shown to always stay that way. technology never got cheaper and cheaper and in the end almost everybody had
Just looke at those million dollars buildigne size computers.. its not that almost everybody has one today
Same with mobile phone still only the elitist has those.
 
SvenBent said:
you are right evry new expesive technology for the "Elitist" that oyu mentioned has shown to always stay that way. technology never got cheaper and cheaper and in the end almost everybody had
Just looke at those million dollars buildigne size computers.. its not that almost everybody has one today
Same with mobile phone still only the elitist has those.
Click to expand...
The error in your logic is the previous technologies you cited co-existed with the existing technology. This allowed a gradual acceptance and increasing momentum towards mass production. As acknowledged by collegeboy69us there will be major problems mixing autonomous and human controlled cars. Unless autonomous cars gain some momentum towards mass acceptance they will never be mass-produced and the price will never fall. Google-glasses never gained a gradual acceptance and zero momentum towards mass production and failed for reasons that also apply to autonomous cars.

"Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
 
Cyraxx said:
You can argue the technicalities of the definition all you want, when 90% of the public hears the word "auto-pilot" they translate it to unassisted driving.

So I agree, auto-pilot was an incredibly stupid name choice. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that their "auto-pilot" was never intended to be enough to drive 60 on a highway going over a twisted hill while banging in the back seat and pouring a cup of coffee. But plenty of people are stupid... And apparently you guys are underestimating the stupidity of the human population. That's a deadly sin.
Click to expand...

Technicalities? It's literally the meaning and use of the system...I am not sure what you mean?

If they are assuming the wrong meaning of a word, but the release forum they sign at buying stating its not to be used that way, and the prompt that comes up every time you use the system that you have to click agree to that also states this again, well.... you deserve whatever Darwin award you get by doing so.

If we followed this same mind set that "someone" will do something stupid, we will NEVER have nice things. Teslas autopilot fits the term autopilot in almost every single way, so saying that naming an autopilot system, autopilot was stupid makes no sense.
 
People don't pay attention to the road in regular vehicles, that's the whole problem to begin with. Not so sure the solution is to give them less of a reason for them to pay attention when they still need to. But hey, they got more important things to do than be responsible for their safety while flinging down the road at 60mph in a 2-ton box.
 
thejokker said:
The error in your logic is the previous technologies you cited co-existed with the existing technology. This allowed a gradual acceptance and increasing momentum towards mass production. As acknowledged by collegeboy69us there will be major problems mixing autonomous and human controlled cars. Unless autonomous cars gain some momentum towards mass acceptance they will never be mass-produced and the price will never fall. Google-glasses never gained a gradual acceptance and zero momentum towards mass production and failed for reasons that also apply to autonomous cars.

"Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Click to expand...

Google glasses failed because it could;t co exist with not having ones? maybe it failed because it was a crappy product at the time and served no real purpose for most people.

I do see you point that the new technology has to coexist with current one. but i think you are exaggerating the coexistence issues and based way to much just on what is going on right now and fail to see down the road.

I guess we just not ageing on how technology unfold in general. but i also come from a country where technolgy integration into the community has been done for a long time with great success. Which is why living in the states feels like a 3rd would country to me.
Maybe if i had been born in the states i would fell different as technology just does not seem to work right here.
 
Last edited:
I guess average person is so stupid tesla should start the auto pilot warning saying: YOU WILL DIE.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
they really shouldn't call it autopilot, and something a bit more mainstream like lane assist
Click to expand...

Wait up a second.

Are we going to start holding all companies responsible for how they name all their products cause .....

Crazy Glue doesn't do any deranged shit

Ford Mustangs don't eat oats

And although people have used Mr. Clean since I was a kid, no White dude in a T-shirt shows up to clean your kitchen no matter what the commercial shows you.


Scrubbing Bubblessssss.......................
 
I like these lawyers. Maybe I can get a free Tesla out of it.

Redbull didn't give people wings. False advertising, free Redbull. :)

How many other advertisements show things that just aren't real.

Coors Light and enjoying yourself.
Finding love on eHarmony.
Most movie previews (that looks good to what the fuck did I just watch!?).
Food. Nah, it tastes like shit.
'Healthy' food.
Diet/health supplements.
Penis enlargers... Nevermind, those do work. Monster over here. 2.5" of hard goodness, ladies. :)

Advertising likes to exaggerate. However, I never in one minute thought that a Tesla 'autopilot' would mean an autonomous car. Not only that, if you're buying a car, you're going to do some research to find out what shit means.

This is how I view their lawyers:

giphy.gif
 
Dashcam or not, how do we even know if autopilot was enabled or just somebody wanting to make money out of a tragedy?
Because of the damage caused by the collision, the car was physically incapable of transmitting log data to our servers and we therefore have no way of knowing whether or not Autopilot was engaged at the time of the crash. We have tried repeatedly to work with our customer to investigate the cause of the crash, but he has not provided us with any additional information that would allow us to do so.
Click to expand...

btw there is a longer shot of that video here
 
I got hurt really bad trying to herd cats ...................... :whistle:

Anyone know a good injury lawyer :D
 
Ur_Mom said:
....................Advertising likes to exaggerate. However, I never in one minute thought that a Tesla 'autopilot' would mean an autonomous car. Not only that, if you're buying a car, you're going to do some research to find out what shit means.

This is how I view their lawyers:
Click to expand...


Actually I think the Tesla sales people spend a good bit of time explaining the system to their customers when they buy if they opt for the AutoPilot feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top