Texas cops sue Tesla claiming 'systematic fraud' in Autopilot after Model X ploughed into two parked police cars

Five Texas residents have filed a lawsuit against Tesla and a local restaurant after an alleged drink-driver ploughed a Model X into the back of two parked police cruisers. The complaint [PDF] accuses the company of "defects in Tesla's safety features," the functionality of which has been "vastly and irresponsibly overstated" …

[CCCP]

Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

It's a stretch to argue it's Tesla's fault a driver get's into a car intoxicated and is not aware enough to avoid a crash.

Having said that, no cars, Teslas incuded, are self driving today, so Full Self Driving (FSD) is massively over-selling the ability. I base this on owning a Tesla model 3. It's very, very clever, but you need to be aware at all times.

Tesla finds itself leading the pack of car makers by some distance, and therefore becomes the first to defend itself as we test the legal boudaries and responsibililty. I for one, am glad Tesla is shouldering that role, even though I disagree how they promote their cars' capabilities.

[DS999]

Yes it is Tesla's fault

They are marketing a system that drives the car without requiring a driver pay attention, or even remain awake. Other systems like GM's Supercruise have cameras that check the driver's eyes to make sure he's paying attention. Tesla doesn't even require your hands on the wheel, it only complains after 30 seconds and is easy to defeat - and Tesla knows it is easy to defeat but does nothing to address that.

That's even besides calling their systems "Autopilot" and "Full self driving" when they are neither.

It isn't Tesla's fault someone tries to drive their car drunk, anymore than it is Ford's fault or Toyota's fault. It is Tesla's fault they make it possible for a drunk driver to let the car drive them using a system that is not even alpha quality and has had many reported incidents of the same sort of thing (crashing into stopped cars / stopped emergency vehicles)

Given that the car didn't even try to slow down for two cop cars with emergency lights going, I wonder if the driver was even awake when this happened? I mean, in my younger stupider days I drove drunk sometimes, and one thing I can say for sure is if I saw cop cars with their lights flashing up ahead I would have double checked to make sure I was driving the speed limit, given them a wide berth, and prayed whoever they pulled over was worth their full attention!

[Valeyard]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

in my younger stupider days I drove drunk sometimes

I've been unbelievably stupid when I've been young and drunk, but I've never put other people at risk of death. I'm not sure alcohol should carry all the blame for that.

Once you did it that first time you should have completely removed either your car or the booze from being in the same equation at any one time thereafter...

[Geez Money]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

I'm baffled that you're getting downvotes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

In my case because of the holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude, with a garnishing of the suggestion that young people are stupider than older ones.

Being self-righteous about how responsible someone is when they are being unbelievably stupid and drunk probably just means they were so drunk they can't even remember what happened. You really don't need a car to endanger someone's life, just suggesting something stupid to one of your drunk friends is often enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Downvotes are simple, Tesla state you should keep hands on the wheel, and the system warns you if you don't. They overhype the abilities but do not state you cannot keep paying attention.

[EricB123]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

"I'm baffled that you're getting downvotes"

Probably Texans

[ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

While driving drunk is incredibly stupid, many of us have done so in the past.

However, with a normal vehicle there's a certain pychological threshold which you need to overstep, i.e., do the actual driving. And if you're drunk, you pretty quickly see that you're doing not a great job at that.

On the other hand, a car marketed as self-driving and auto-piloted, lulls you in a false sense of security, and makes it much easier for a drunk to drive. After all, you're only supposed to oversee and react. "I can do that", says the drunk. And when everything goes swimingly, the cars drives normally and drunk doesn't even recognize that he's doing no job at overseeing.

This dangerously lower the psychological threshold for driving under the influence, since "everything worked out fine", instead of "I'm glad nothing happened"

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

So basically, without the Tesla 'autopilot and self-drive facility, it would have crashed long before it got as far as the police emergency vehicles?

[Paul 195]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

It might have crashed long before it reached the police vehicles, or quite possibly the driver would not have thought "I can get drunk, my self-driving car will take me home".

[Potty Professor]

Giving up the booze.

I gave up the booze on Christmas Eve 1963. I was 16 at the time, and my family had moved temporarily to Louisville KY on a one year Teacher Exchange. I was invited to a Christmas Party at the Uni, during the four hours I was there I drank three Mint Juleps, and then drove home. Upon arriving home I noticed that there was only one set of tyre tracks in the snow, and they were on the wrong side of the road. I followed the tracks back down our suburban street to the main road, they were consistently on the left of the road, but I lost them in the slush of Frankfort Avenue. On walking the 1¼ miles back to our rented house, I arrived stone cold sober and frozen to the bone, and resolved then and there never to touch alcohol again.

Many years later I was stopped by a Warwickshire Constabulary patrol car, the driver of which accused me of DUI, but when I blew in their bag, the result was negative. I said that I had not had a drink since 1963, to which the officer replied in astonishment that that was 16 years previously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Giving up the booze.

Wow. You haven't had the ability to control yourself and your drinking quantities in all those years? That is a shame. A lot of people (the majority, I think), find it no problem to have a drink or two to relax without getting slammed.

[Nunyabiznes]

Re: Giving up the booze.

2 drinks in a normal sized person within an hour puts them over the legal limit here. 0.08 BAC.

So legally, if you've had 2 drinks and driven home you were "slammed". Shame on you.

[cyber7]

Re: Giving up the booze.

2 drinks = .08 BAC at 100Lbs body weight, if slammed down at once...It's significantly less for a guy say, 200Lbs and drinking over 1hr or two. #'s also depend of the qty of alcohol per drink. Shame on you for oversimplifying the facts.

[JohnG]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Autopilot is a term to describe pilot aids in aircraft, which maintain constant speed, altitude and bearing and not systems which will avoid hitting objects in their path. It doesn't seem unreasonable to use the term to describe Tesla's driver aid.

While Tesla will sell an option for FSD, they are clear that FSD has not yet been delivered to anyone. (Personally, I think people are crazy to pay for something that doesn't exist and that they may never have). All drivers are also warned that Autopilot is just a driver's aid and that they should remain alert, aware and ready to take control at any time.

At the end of day, the driver is the one with the driving licence.

[DS999]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

That argument is old and tired. The general public thinks of it as "computer flies the plane" and that's exactly why Tesla picked that name. Saying "well what autopilot actually does isn't what the average person thinks it does" is irrelevant.

Just like they picked "Full Self Driving" when that isn't automated driving that doesn't require people to remain in control either.

Telsa's marketers want people to think their systems do more than they do so they can claim they do more than other "Level 2+" systems like GM Supercruise.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

"Autopilot is a term to describe pilot aids in aircraft, which maintain constant speed, altitude and bearing and not systems which will avoid hitting objects in their path."

They can also be engaged for take off and landing too. Technically, they may be different systems, but there's no technical reason why it can't be all one single "auto-pilot" that can theoretically handle the entire flight.

[werdsmith]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Nissan call theirs "ProPilot". Does Nissan suffer the same problems?

I am having trouble believing that anybody is stupid enough to think their car will drive itself in all situations it may encounter. Especially when their car warns them repeatedly that it can't do that.

[DS999]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

You massively underestimate the stupidity of the average person, let alone those at the lower end of the IQ scale who are still able to function apparently normally in society.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

"I am having trouble believing that anybody is stupid enough to think their car will drive itself in all situations it may encounter. Especially when their car warns them repeatedly that it can't do that.

"

The problem is that, by many accounts, Teslas will navigate very well on maintained motorways (freeways). Over time people get complacent and start believing it's magic. They start ignoring those occasional times when the car does something incredibly stupid. The warnings the car may throw up get incorporated into muscle memory just like dismissing the annoying "Clippy" popups on old M$ OS's. People rush to Facebook to find ways to fool the system with a clamp or an offset weight on the steering wheel so keep the beeping and flashing lights away.

If all you have is bog standard cruise control, you still have to be looking out and making decisions about which way to twist the steering wheel and whether to raise or lower the speed setting. If you could have total automation, you don't have to pay attention at all. In the middle, you get a danger zone where you don't have enough to do to stay focused and will have a tendency to find another task to keep you occupied.

About as far as I want to go is adaptive cruise control. Invariably, if I'm coming up on a HGV going slow on a toad with another lane, there will be some d*head that will be pacing me so I can't move over to pass and I have to slow down. With ACC, the car would at least slow down and keep the distance I have programmed in. I don't want auto-steering, lane centering or auto-braking. There are times when it's better to speed up than to slam on the brakes and where being center in the lane is not a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

>Autopilot is a term to describe pilot aids in aircraft, which maintain constant speed, altitude and bearing and not systems which will avoid hitting objects in their path.

The Airbus AP/FD (Auto pilot/flight director) traffic collision avoidance system provides automated responses to collision resolution advisories when the autopilot is engaged. i.e. At least one autopilot really does manoeuvre the plane to avoid collisions.

[Paul Smith]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

That system only avoids collisions with other planes that have TCAS equipped and operational, and at no time in the entire flight is the pilot not in charge.

[Geez Money]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

It's funny, in the 50s cruise control systems came out and the first was actually called Auto-Pilot. But because it was still an era where personal accountability was a thing nobody rammed their car into stuff and blamed the car, and if they did they'd have been mocked mercilessly instead of having people rationalizing on their behalf.

[AdamWill]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Right, it was an era was personal accountability was the only thing - and hence cars and roads were comically unsafe, and fatality rates were astronomical.

When we stopped pretending that you can solve everything by blaming individuals and started making safer cars and safer roads, said rates dropped substantially to the point where they are now merely still tragically higher than they could be.

[fuzzie]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

That's a hugely important point you make. The steady decrease in driving-related fatalities over the past decades have not been because humans magically became much better at driving. It's because we've learnt how to built better and safer roads, improve signage, made cars safer and make it easier, sometimes trivial for humans to do the right thing not get themselves or others killed.

We're now entering the uncanny valley where cars appear to be better than they really are at self-driving and the responsibility is on the manufacturer and car to ensure the human is always fully aware of the limitations. We lob large sue balls at companies about "water proof" vs " water resistant", but somehow in this case the distinction is not important enough.

[Geez Money]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Arguing from diminished responsibility is pretty well always wrong. Cars getting safer and personal responsibility are largely orthogonal concepts, trying to tie the two together so you can have some cute rhetorical wordplay ain't it chief.

It's not your personal responsibility to not fly through the windshield, it is your personal responsibility to have a basic knowledge of the functions you plan to use on the dangerous high speed vehicle you plan to drive. Distinction is simple.

[James Ashton]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

That's even besides calling their systems "Autopilot" and "Full self driving" when they are neither.

I don't have a problem with "autopilot"; it provides a similar level of automation to the autopilots in aircraft. Calling it "full self driving" would be a problem ... but they don't sell that, so it's not relevant in this case.

[Mark 65]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

I have a problem with the use of the term autopilot setting as how it doesn’t seem to be able to avoid stationary objects

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

Simple wrong. Promise of FSD as an expensive extra option hit 46% peak in Q2 2019. Currently at 11.1%. But because they they had to release, and currently a subset of customers are driving with FSD (limited release).

Here you can see a video of Stephen Pallotta turning a corner with FSD. [https://twitter.com/stephenpallotta/status/1441090286604587014]. He'd turned the same corner safely many times with auto pilot, but with FSD the car quickly crosses the double yellow line into oncoming traffic. Fully aware and alert, Stephen Pallotta only corrects it after crossing the line, it happened so quickly.

Having sold many FSD promises, Telsa is under pressure to release.

[Muscleguy]

Re: Yes it is Tesla's fault

NZ deters drunk drivers with random stops. I was once giving a university lady friend (genuine your honour) a tour of Auckland on the back of my motorbike (Kawasaki 440). We encountered one such. I reported truthfully I had not touched a drop. They descended on my bike like a flock of vultures (young man, girl on the back) to find I had a brand new warrant of fitness (MoT) sticker on the rear plates as required. Quite took the wind out of their sails. Have a safe evening sir they said as I got ready to ride off.

Group I did not marry her, we never even kissed, as I said we were just friends. She reminded me too much of one of my sisters. Rather fatal and not her fault. Her father had a high govt regulatory office. Nice man, was introduced.

[jmch]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

As the article said, useless to sue the guy who is likely skint, and it is 100% his fault. After all, if it were any other car and not a Tesla, the outcome would likely have been the same.

Having said that, Tesla IS over-marketing / hyping it's 'Autopilot' abilities, and it has repeatedly refused to tone down it's marketing claims, however much caveats they add in their small print. Also, this isn't the first high-profile case of Teslas completely failing to identify emergency vehicles on the roadside, so it DOES seem like there is a systemic failure on their part.

[John Robson]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"After all, if it were any other car and not a Tesla, the outcome would likely have been the same."

Probably not - there would have been a different crash earlier in the proceedings.

[Kristian Walsh]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Yes, the driver here was seriously drunk - drunk enough to not react as his car was heading straight into the back of a pair of police cruisers parked on flashing blue lights... that takes a lot of obliviousness.

If he had to pilot the car himself in that condition, it’s very unlikely he would have reached the freeway. Even negotiating the parking lot would have been a challenge.

I’ve no doubt the occupant of the Tesla was criminally charged for the accident - after all, if you leave your car unattended and it rolls into someone else’s and damages it, that’s usually your responsibility... this is no different.

The civil cases are against Tesla and the restaurant chain for not making even the most basic checks that would have prevented the crash. Driver attention detection is a must for anything below full autonomy (and Tesla is far below that level) but Tesla refuses to put it in; similarly, an establishment that serves lots of alcohol to a customer who drove there is supposed to make sure that that customer doesn’t drive drunk afterwards, but the operator of this restaurant didn’t seem to be bothered.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"Yes, the driver here was seriously drunk - drunk enough to not react as his car was heading straight into the back of a pair of police cruisers parked on flashing blue lights... that takes a lot of obliviousness."

Not paying attention, certainly, but do we know he was "seriously drunk"? In other instance of Tesla crashes, the drivers were simply not aware of their surroundings while definitely not being drunk or drugged. On the other hand, either this guy didn't care about being a drunk driver or was in the mistaken belief that if he was too drunk to drive, his "autopilot" Tesla would take him home like a taxi.

[big_D]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

but do we know he was "seriously drunk"?

According to the article, that would be a big fat yes.

The article states that the man was obviously intoxicated and the cantina carried on serving him, long past the point where the law says they should stop:

and Pappas Restaurants, on allegations that the driver of the Tesla had "consumed alcohol to the point where <u>he was obviously intoxicated, and he presented a clear danger to himself and others</u>" yet "Pappasito's Cantina continued to serve alcohol to him."

[MachDiamond]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"an establishment that serves lots of alcohol to a customer who drove there is supposed to make sure that that customer doesn’t drive drunk afterwards, but the operator of this restaurant didn’t seem to be bothered."

That can be very hard on a busy night. Servers can be run off their feet to try and get to everybody and return their orders quickly. I know people that seem to be rock steady up until the point where they're falling down and others that go through a long phase of slurred speech and incoordination.

[DS999]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

useless to sue the guy who is likely skint

Never heard of a broke guy owning a car that sells for nearly $100K

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"Never heard of a broke guy owning a car that sells for nearly $100K"

Hard to imagine someone's broke after spending 100k on a car? (Smartass remark)

It's actually closer to 80k (know-it-all remark)

The dude with the 100k car and the legal bills from the DUI is far less loaded than the company owned by someone launching rockets into space all the time. (Financially savvy but snarky remark)

[imanidiot]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

If it had all the bells and whistles it was definitely well over the 80k bare-bones baseline model.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Was there something I missed in the article that said he owned it? Could have been borrowed, rented, stolen.

[werdsmith]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Never heard of a broke guy owning a car that sells for nearly $100K

Even after he's destroyed the car that he still has to pay for, injured himself so badly he can't earn money and is facing the bills for extensive use of the US healthcare system?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"Also, this isn't the first high-profile case of Teslas completely failing to identify emergency vehicles on the roadside, so it DOES seem like there is a systemic failure on their part."

While I agree with you on the whole, I'd be wary of calling it a systemic failure without seeing evidence which may show that in many, most, or even the vast majority of cases that the Tesla cars do see and avoid emergency vehicles with their lights on. After all, "Tesla autopilot avoids emergency vehicle" isn't exactly headline news.

[DS999]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

It is a systemic failure if just ONE TIME it slams into stopped emergency vehicles their lights flashing. There are multiple solutions to that including radar (you'd see it even without lights in pitch dark) LIDAR (ditto) and visible light (you'd see flashing emergency lights even if everything else was pitch dark)

The fact they have designed their car so poorly it can't recognize a stopped vehicle and not brake AT ALL makes it unfit for purpose and shouldn't be allowed to drive in that mode until they better enforce full driver awareness by checking the driver's eyes as all competing systems already do. They refuse to do so because 1) they would be forced to admit not doing so was a failure and probably be forced into retrofitting existing cars or disabling Autopilot on them, and 2) they LIKE that their drivers let it drive without any intervention, as it gives them better data that will get them to a working autonomous driving system more quickly.

Who cares if a few people have to die on the way, so long as Elon isn't one of them?

[James Hughes 1]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

In the UK, there are often reports of lorry drivers crashing in to the back of stationary vehicles whilst driving down the hard shoulder of motorways, causing a number of deaths. So humans have done this multiple many many times over the years. Why do you expect a computer controlled car to be able to achieve zero when humans cannot even achieve it?

[DS999]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Because the humans who do it do so because they aren't paying attention (i.e. texting while driving or similar) or impaired (drunk / sleepy) or have some type of medical issue (heart attack while driving)

No human giving their complete attention to driving while fully alert is going to ram into the back of a stopped emergency vehicle at full speed without even attempting to brake.

Machines don't get drunk or sleepy, there is no excuse for it happening even once.

[werdsmith]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

however much caveats they add in their small print.

And however many warnings come up on the big screen in the car everytime you switch it on.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"As the article said, useless to sue the guy who is likely skint, and it is 100% his fault. After all, if it were any other car and not a Tesla, the outcome would likely have been the same."

Well, after the attorney fees he will be skint but there aren't many poor people buying Teslas. They aren't cheap cars.

The driver is still legally responsible so he's going to wind up in a whole bunch of trouble for drunk driving that causes an accident with significant injuries. That's a criminal suit. The civil suit written about here is different and, yes, it's likely that the driver doesn't (or isn't going to have) pockets deep enough to spend time on naming in the suit. Attorneys are full of themselves and charge an order of magnitude more than what a rocket engineer makes. I know whereof I speak on this one.

[Annihilator]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

It's also odd that they're suing the restaurant. And the drink driver. But then it's odd it's the police officers suing and not the police department suing.

But in summary, it's showing the US legal system as odd. Which I'm fairly sure everyone knew already.

[TaabuTheCat]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

They are suing the Pappas restaurant chain because they own a LOT of very popular and profitable restaurants. They are no mom and pop organization - I think at one time (and maybe still) they were one of the largest employers in the Houston area. Just going where the money is...

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

True,, but I think it may be a high burden of proof to claim the restaurant employees are to blame. First they have to prove they knew they guy came by car. He might have walked, or been with others and there was a "designated driver" staying sober. I think the prosecution will have to clearly demonstrate that the staff serving the drinks saw him drive in alone and there was no chance that anyone other than he was planning on being the driver on leaving.

[Geez Money]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

I'm not sure how it works where you are, but in most western countries serving alcohol requires you to have certification that includes training on cutting people off and preventing them from driving drunk. You are typically liable by default if you let someone drive drunk. Where I am (and I believe also in the states but I may be wrong) there's a doctrine of social host liability which also makes you liable if someone leaves a party at your home drunk and drives.

[werdsmith]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

In the UK bar staff are supposed to stop serving alcohol to people who are obviously intoxicated. That's not to say that your friends who are still lucid can't buy the drinks for the person that is kaylied.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Yes, and the estimation of how drunk someone is before you are supposed to stop serving them is well over the drink/drive limit. You'd still have to prove the person serving the drinks *knew* the customer was planning on driving or had observed them leaving and heading to the drivers side of the car.

[jtaylor]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"You'd still have to prove the person serving the drinks *knew* the customer was planning on driving or...."

Nolo summarizes it well. "The dram shop law says alcohol providers can be held liable for damages caused by the intoxicated patron if: it was apparent to the provider that the patron was "obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others," and the intoxication of the patron was a proximate cause of the damages suffered."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dram-shop-laws-social-host-liability-alcohol-related-accidents-texas.html

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

That statement doesn't appear to define how the patron might be a danger to themselves or others. Someone served four or five whiskies and than walking home isn't likely to be danger to themselves or others and isn't breaking any laws, whereas someone drinking the same and then driving home not only likely is a danger to themselves and others but is also over the drink/drive limit. Two very different circumstances and any prosecution would have to show that the person serving the drinks knew the patron was going to be driving or saw them heading to a car and didn't try to stop them.

If that law actually states that *anyone* served alcohol who then goes on to commit a crime of some sort, including drink driving, as a result of drinking said alcohol is a very unbalanced and unfair law and puts a huge onus on all establishments serving alcohol. I don't see how a bar tender or their employer can be held responsible for a drunk driver if they had know inkling that the patron had parked around the corner and walked in, had a few drinks and walked out.

Of course, all that may be moot in this case, since it might be the case they knew he was driving. The point is, a prosecutor has to prove that knowledge was evident at the time.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

I think it's just following on from other product liability litigation. So my usual example of 'May Cause Death or Serious Injury' warning stamped on the barrel of a Ruger GP100 I used to own. Part of a settlement where firearms manufacturers had to place warning lables on their product.

But to carry on a theme, this seems a bit of a shotgun approach. There are several issues, ie fraud/mis-selling on the availability & capability of FSD, and probably product liability per-se where collision avoidance systems don't. Especially I think given changes to the sensors used by Tesla. One would have hoped a LIDAR/Radar system could detect large, stationary objects in the path of the vehicle, but AFAIK those are being removed and replaced with camera-based detection systems.

[ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

In a land which is on the RHS of the pond notorious for requiring safety statements along the lines "don't dry your cat in the microwave", it's a stretch to imagine Tesla as an innocent party.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

Tesla finds itself leading the pack of car makers by some distance

Not with auto pilot - self driving was demonstrated some four years earlier elswhere.

Tesla's only lead is their willingness to kill their customers while using them as guinea pigs and blaming them if it goes wrong - traditional car manufacturers pay a little bit more attention to the amount of people killing and and by their vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

You're probably referring to this one. That did take a lot of gear at the time (as it was new), but it did work.

BTW, they have stuck with LIDAR and its extra costs (IMHO the main reason Tesla sought to remove it) exactly because it sees things that camera-only systems miss, like friggin' big lorries across the motorway or, more embarrassing, a worrying amount of active police cars, which is now the subject of a new investigation in the US. The current theory is that apparently cameras get blinded by their flashing lights.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous

"Tesla finds itself leading the pack of car makers by some distance ..."

Leading in what direction? Different companies are heading in different directions, which is good actually. Tesla's direction seems to be "first to CLAIM level 5" (while in the small print making clear that is not true and Tesla has no liability).

Here [https://twitter.com/stephenpallotta/status/1441090286604587014] is a video of customer driving with the latest release of "FSD". Going around a corner, the FSD crosses over the double yellow line into the face of oncoming traffic. The driver states it is only the latest version - until this time the self driving software had managed the same turn many times never crossing over the double line. It happened so fast that the driver, paying full attention, could only correct after the double yellow line had been crossed.

[xyz123]

They're going to ask for signed, dated medical records of treatment that came to several million dollars.

The lawyers are gonna fake signatures which Tesla will check, and the hospital will throw them under the bus.

They can then sue the bus company.....

[Must contain letters]

"six people and a German Shepherd."

Regardless of where they are from, why aren't shepherds recognised as people like the other 6?

[Valeyard]

Re: "six people and a German Shepherd."

we're still bitte about daylight savings time

[steelpillow]

Re: "six people and a German Shepherd."

Oh, PLEASE!

[DS999]

Telsa's requiring "Full self driving beta" customers sign an NDA

They can't talk to the press, or give people rides. Telling them they should be careful what they post on social media, making sure not to post things that could be read the wrong way.

Tesla knows exactly how bad their system is, they just hope that with enough real world data and enough other people who pay for their mistakes they can get it working well enough before the regulators catch up with them. Basically it is a race to see if their system can stop injuring and killing people before the government reins them in, giving them an advantage over those who are proceeding more prudently.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Telsa's requiring "Full self driving beta" customers sign an NDA

Fail often, fail fast? Might work for SpaceX, but not a great philosophy when it comes to self-driving on the public roads with paying customers as crash test dummies.

[ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo]

Re: Telsa's requiring "Full self driving beta" customers sign an NDA

We're all potential casualties in somebody else's beta test

(c) someone, somewhere on this site, as far as I know

[Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse]

Re: Telsa's requiring "Full self driving beta" customers sign an NDA

Agreed. A whole product line of Boeing aircraft were grounded globally after two high profile crashes due to software incidents.

I'm struggling why the regulators in the US haven't done the same with Teslas.

[DS999]

Re: Telsa's requiring "Full self driving beta" customers sign an NDA

Because Boeing was getting a black eye worldwide and they are much more important to the US economy (and US defense industry) than Tesla. The US government can't afford to let Boeing fail, so regulators will step in and save them from themselves when forced to. If Tesla goes under, they don't care.

The body count is also a lot higher with a single plane crash than a single fatal car crash.

[Arthur the cat]

Which group kills more people?

Tesla cars on autopilot or US police officers?

[Version 1.0]

Re: Which group kills more people?

Sure, but the police officers don't get prosecuted most of the time because they turn their body cameras off, maybe the Tesla driver had turned the car's cameras off to avoid any risk of a prosecution too?

[DS999]

Re: Which group kills more people?

Clearly the latter, but even if the Tesla had run into a carload of convicted serial killers on their way to death row it wouldn't make it OK to foist that criminally marketed system on a mostly clueless public.

[James Hughes 1]

Re: Which group kills more people?

Wow, you really hate Tesla. "Criminally marketed system" - If you feel that strongly, take them to court and prove your case.

I think you are wrong, but hey ho.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the police should tone down their lighting, if it's causing accidents due to blinding computer vision systems? No need for seizure-inducing trillion-candela strobing is there? Surely the police owe a duty of care to other road users? They know their lights cause accidents yet continue to use them. The driver should be suing the police department for using a knowingly-dangerous strobing intensity and pattern known to cause autopilot failures that led to injury.

[SuperGeek]

"Maybe the police should tone down their lighting, if it's causing accidents due to blinding computer vision systems?"

No. The strobes are designed for human vision. Camera vision systems are a small minority.

[martinusher]

Actually they're too bright at night. We haven't got used to the idea that you can dim lighting or traffic signals at night and they'll still be effective. We keep the lights on and crater everyone's night vision. (The cops probably think it gives them an edge, intimidates people.(

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough cops crippled by cars on autopilot crashing into them, they'll soon change their mind.

[John Robson]

My local authority claims to have dimmed a set of lights at night, but they’re still blinding - I crawl by them at only a few miles an hour - it’s a popular crossing point and I can’t see anything other than a bright green haze

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the beacons on to top go, that is not true. They are very useful, no drawbacks. As far as headlights in general that is absolutely true. LED headlights on modern cars are blinding, far exceeding original legal limits because a loophole was opened to let the manufacturer decide. So now we have headpower escalation, and in the case of SUVs also headlight evalation.

The increased accidents don't show up as a correlation between headlight brightness and safety because it is not the headlight owner who are put at risk when pedestrians or bicyclists become invisible as the opposing headlights saturate other drivers vision.

[Fr. Ted Crilly]

Indeed, not to mention the obscuring of turn signal flashers too close to the arc light led headlight and 'running' lights to make the flashing visable.

[steelpillow]

I've got a better idea. Maybe - just maybe - Tesla should hold back their software until it responds safely to the real world and is not riddled with lethal bugs.

[MachDiamond]

"I've got a better idea. Maybe - just maybe - Tesla should hold back their software until it responds safely to the real world and is not riddled with lethal bugs."

My idea was that a certification track could be built on disused military bases and makers would have to certify their driving systems for a third party/government authority before it can be used on public roads. The course could be modified at random to see how well the system copes with anomalies. Does the system recognize a stopped school bus with its flashing lights on? If there is a lorry across the road backing into a loading dock, does the car stop a safe distance back and wait until the road is clear again (or does it try to shoot the gap underneath)?

[lglethal]

Surely if a camera control system finds itself blinded for even a second, it should sound alarms and hands back control to the driver.

That would, you would think, be one of the first rules of the programming!

[MachDiamond]

"Maybe the police should tone down their lighting, if it's causing accidents due to blinding computer vision systems?"

There were two lawsuits in the same courthouse once regarding police/fire sirens. One case was they are too loud and caused hearing loss and the other case centered around the siren not being loud enough and a person didn't hear it and there was an accident.

I don't have an issue with the flashing lights, it's the spot lights that the police will aim at you that hit every mirror forcing you to duck and contort so you aren't completely blinded. The roadworks crews will do the same thing at night by orienting work lights into the opposite traffic lanes. I realize that it can be challenging to work at night, but a little thought please.

[steelpillow]

Texas cops

Not often I see news items where you are the good guys. Best of luck to you - and your German Shepherd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Texas cops

Local cop just got a specially equipped car now that she's able to get back to work after two years of rehabilitation. Seems getting your leg chopped off between two bumpers after a drunk driver mistakes a highway breakdown for a party he's heading towards is not exactly a surgical amputation.

There's good and there's bad, everywhere. Yes, some bad cops, and some bad comentards too, from some of the above.

[KSM-AZ]

Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

Really people?

First off I've driven a Tesla with auto-pilot. Anyone who would just let that thing do whatever it wants is an idiot, and shouldn't be driving period. Blaming inanimate objects for human failure and stupidity is not productive or legitimate. I cannot stop idiots from buying a Tesla, and I can't stop fools from smoking cigarettes. You don't have to be the Amazing Kreskin to know that inhaling smoke in your lungs cannot be healthy. You don't have to be an aerospace engineer to know that the enhanced driving features of a Tesla are going to have some severe limits. I'm not sure that *TESLA* hyped the tech as much as the press. At this point I seem to see TESLA continually playing it down.

I do like the lane assist features on my Niro EV, but people need to use things as intended. In the case of hazmat, "Using any product in a manner not consistent with it's labeling" can lead to criminal liability on the user. Having worked for a pest control outfit at one time, I can tell you this is item #1 in the training classes... and item #5 and item ... and the last item covered. If someone does not use a product as intended, that is not the fault of the manufacturer. Like smoking, by now if you are unaware of the risks associated with this tech,it's not the techs fault, it's yours.

Sheesh,

[Alumoi]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

If someone does not use a product as intended, that is not the fault of the manufacturer.

Tesla is selling me a car with AutoPilot. So, I'm going to use my car as intended, I will engage the AutoPilot, take my hands off the wheel, close my eyes then sue the fuckers for selling me a thing that doesn't work as intended.

[JohnG]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

"Tesla is selling me a car with AutoPilot. So, I'm going to use my car as intended, I will engage the AutoPilot, take my hands off the wheel, close my eyes then sue the fuckers for selling me a thing that doesn't work as intended."

Tesla explicitly tell drivers that Autopilot is a driver's aid and that they must remain alert, aware and ready to take control. They also signal drivers to apply pressure to the steering, to indicate their presence at regular intervals.

The term Autopilot comes from aviation, where such systems maintain speed, altitude and bearing. Just as with Tesla, pilots using autopilot systems are required to remain alert, aware of their surroundings and ready to take control at all times.

"I'm going to sue Apple because they sold me a computer with an assistant that can respond to voice commands but when I told Siri to write my PhD thesis, she didn't"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

> Tesla explicitly tell drivers that Autopilot is a driver's aid and that they must remain alert, aware and ready to take control. They also signal drivers to apply pressure to the steering, to indicate their presence at regular intervals.

For my sins (and the tax benefit) I have a Model 3 and I have to say Tesla have implemented the adaptive cruise control* in the most annoying way possible. The reminder to waggle the steering wheel is at the bottom of the display, well out of your line of sight. Do nothing, and a few seconds later a blue glow appears nearer the top of the screen but it's still out of your line of sight. Ignore that for long enough and suddenly a loud buzzer sounds, the cruise control disengages and - as a result - the car starts braking at full regenerative braking level so the car behind better be paying close attention as well.

Gee thanks Tesla - ever heard of an audible warning? You know, a gentle, melodious bong that drivers can respond to while following your own instructions to pay close attention to the road?

It's just too much faff and I've stopped using it. When the lease is up I'll probably get another EV but it's unlikely to be a Tesla.

[*] UK model so FSD not available

[werdsmith]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

A Honda flashes a big orange rectangle, and makes a noise. You don't have to put any pressure on the steering wheel but you do have to have a hand on it.

[Jim-234]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

In my 2017 I'll often get the steering required warning even when I have had both hands on the wheel for a very long time. It seems if you don't move the wheel at all because you are driving down a long straight stretch of road, the system gets nervous that a human shouldn't be able to keep their hands still for that long...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

Never thought I'd see someone welcome Bing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

So inside smoking has been largely banned, but outside or in your own home is OK.

See the difference?

[lglethal]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

One difference between your pest control example and a tesla,and you mentioned it yourself - training. You are forced to do training to be able to use the pest control equipment. No one gets training to use a tesla. If you are lucky, the salesman might tell you verbally to be careful. But it's not drilled into you. Plus he's not going to push the point because he's trying to still you the Illusion that this is the safest car in the world.

If people were forced to undergo training in its use then you would have point. But since they don't, you have to account for the public perception. People perceive that autopilot controls the car. You need to make that clear that it is not the case, but tesla do not. Therefore tesla really are to blame in a lot of cases. Not wholly to blame but they are selling the illusion and doing very little to try and counter it.

[DrewWyatt]

Re: Tesla's auto-pilot works flawlessley, Smoking cigarettes is good for you.

If you so much as use an aerosol in a manner other than directed.....

- Gone in 60 seconds

[Mike 137]

"seemingly as a result of the camera-based vision system being confused"

A verified example of such confusion shows how little it takes to accomplish - a short piece of black sticky tape on a 35 mph sign resulting in autonomous acceleration to 85 mph.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: "seemingly as a result of the camera-based vision system being confused"

On the other hand, my SatNav has the start and end points of speed limits stored in the map data. There's no AI there to get confused. On the downside, it's not always fully up to date with the posted limits.

[Martin an gof]

Re: "seemingly as a result of the camera-based vision system being confused"

On the other other hamd, our Berlingo has similar, yet it overlays that with speed sign recognition from the single camera behind the rear view mirror and 'general knowledge'. This leads to ridiculous situations where you are driving happily on the ring road at 40mph and the system recognises a 20mph limit on a side street.

Or driving through roadworks with temporary speed restrictions where the initial sign is recognised, but if it doesn't spot another one within a few hundred yards, it puts the limit back to the 'normal' for that road.

Or the almost total imability to recognise illuminated signs on motorway overhead gantries, which combined with the above could lead to the thing happily recommending 70mph in a 50mph speed-controlled zone.

Or the 'common sense' which tells it that 'country lanes' are usually 'national speed limit' and insists we can do 60mph ouside our front door in a residential area.

And the thing has the ability (thankfully off by default) to tie this in with the speed limiter, so you could be cruising along nicely on the aforementioned ring road at 40mph and suddenly find the car refusing to respond to the accellerator and slowing down to 20mph.

And the same camera runs the lane departure/nudge-you-back system which gets confused just as easily, particularly where roads narrow and occasionally (but reproducably) has a nasty habit of attempting to steer you into the path of oncoming traffic.

Me, I bought a Dacia with none of this frivolity.

M.

[werdsmith]

Re: "seemingly as a result of the camera-based vision system being confused"

if it doesn't spot another one within a few hundred yards, it puts the limit back to the 'normal' for that road

The Honda won't go back to normal speed until it sees the NSL black diagonal stripe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "seemingly as a result of the camera-based vision system being confused"

Wow, how things have changed. Several years ago, when we had a Berlingo, it was arguably the spiritual successor of the 2CV. Very practical, but not the sort of car you'd expect a speed limiter on, let alone have cameras that read speed limit signs...

[FeepingCreature]

Confusion vs Vandalism

Add two more small black pieces of tape, and even human drivers will be "confused". Clearly the human vision system is fatally flawed - it cannot even tell a 3 from an 8 when you make the 3 look like an 8!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Confusion vs Vandalism

> Add two more small black pieces of tape, and even human drivers will be "confused". Clearly the human vision system is fatally flawed - it cannot even tell a 3 from an 8 when you make the 3 look like an 8!

That's very true. But fortunately human memory comes to the eye's assistance because it knows that yesterday that was a 30mph sign and now it's suddenly an 80mph. Also, hopefully, it recalls from the Highway Code that an 80mph sign doesn't exist in the UK!

Glibness aside, my point is that memory and familiarity with a road is a key part of driving safely yet AFAICT every self-driving system treats the road as though it were the very first time the car had been along that section. This seems to be a huge and obvious omission: have the self-driving system be cautious to start with but then learn from experience e.g. "the road narrows just ahead so I know I have to slow gently now (for comfort) rather than sharply later", versus "that bend isn't as sharp as it looks so it's okay to enter at the speed limit".

The car could even learn from the owner's driving and mimic it (within reason) on routes like the daily commute. This seems so obvious and relatively easy (compared with FSD) I don't understand why it isn't being offered already. (It doesn't even need additional compute power because the car could analyse recorded sections of driving while parked overnight. It doesn't have to do the whole route in one go.)

[Icon: the car bonnet :-) ]

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Confusion vs Vandalism

We're getting into (theoretical) AI here. Tesla's car-brain size, memory, sensors, reaction time, are all on a budget.

[FeepingCreature]

Re: Confusion vs Vandalism

From what we've seen at Tesla's last AI Day, their networks now explicitly fill in multimodal maps as they look around. I think it's not a big step from that to persistent long-term memory.

Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z4FweCy4M&t=4133s

[ChrisC]

Re: Confusion vs Vandalism

To any halfway competent driver with a bit of experience under their (seat)belt, the tape would have to be applied fairly accurately in order to make the faked digits look sufficiently similar to the real digits they've been looking at since they started driving. And that's before you get onto the other commenters point re how a human would also a) think "that wasn't the limit when I passed by here last time" and b) "that's not even a valid limit"...

Not saying that it's impossible to fool a human driver by manipulating signage like this, just that in the main it's a bit harder to achieve than for a simplistically-implemented (i.e. overly generous in how precisely rendered a piece of the signage typeface has to be before it'll accept it as genuine) machine vision setup without any other sources of information (GPS-based speed limit database etc.) to fall back on to query whether what it thinks its seen makes sense.

Sure, you'll always get *some* drivers who are so unobservant/inexperienced that they'll just accept everything they see on signage without questioning it, but I think you're doing even the average driver a disservice by suggesting they'd be so easily fooled - even if you don't consciously realise what the problem is with the signage, chances are there'll be some subconscious trigger that gives you an uneasy feeling about it.

[Eclectic Man]

Insurance?

I thought that this situation is exactly what people are required to get driving insurance for. I can only assume that the precedents for an insurance claim against the drunk 'driver' means that less money would be received and also less publicity about the Tesla 'self-drive' capability.

Actually the day I'm looking forward to is when the family of Nicola Tesla sues for bringing the name of that great inventor into disrepute - in America pretty much anything seems to be litigable so it could happen.

[Snowy]

Re: Insurance?

I would assume if your drunk and driving your insurance is going to be cancelled.

[Falmari]

Re: Insurance?

@Snowy “I would assume if your drunk and driving your insurance is going to be cancelled.”

Would it, I not sure. I can see it being cancelled from date of conviction but I m not sure they can rescind cover for the time of the accident.

I know in the UK the insurance company still has to pay out even if the driver is convicted of a road traffic offence like dangerous driving or speeding. I imagine that would also hold true for drink driving which is a lesser offence than dangerous driving.

Of course, it may well be different in the US.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Insurance?

I'm not so sure that is always the case in the UK either. I've not read to entire fine print, but I'd bet there's a clause somewhere along the lines of "knowingly driving while impaired" or something to that effect. But I suspect the "3rd party" bit will still be in force, ie they'll payout for injury or damage you cause, just not for your own car.

[werdsmith]

Re: Insurance?

I would assume if your drunk and driving your insurance is going to be cancelled.

In the UK the insurance is not void for a drunk driver and will still pay out the 3rd party claims promptly, however the insurance company can pursue the guilty driver to recover that money at a later date.

[Boris the Cockroach]

Low hanging fruit

Lets sue the people with some money instead of a dumb ass who gets drunk at a bar and then runs into a couple of police cars while trying to drive home.

Most likely said dumb ass is now in jail for DUI and has lost his job/home as a result and has no money either.... so its not worth sueing him.

[Anonymous Coward]

On a lighter note

"Tesla has admitted that its Autopilot system will occasionally fail to identify a stopped emergency vehicle. But yet, Tesla made the decision not to recall any of its vehicles"

'But yet'. BUT YET??? Clearly no grammar police involved with this case. Book 'em, Danno.

[martinusher]

Not fair

Its not possible to directly sue a police officer in the US, all claims are made against their employer. This custom is designed to protect officers who are going about their duties. Because we can't sue them you'd expect the reverse to apply -- they can't sue us. Heads they win, tails we lose, I suppose.

US cops have a habit of using excessively bright lights. I think its an intimidation tactic because you don't need that level of lighting to see and be seen. Its actually really distracting -- its late at night, you're dark adjusted, you make a turn and suddenly you're blinded by intense lighting. I've fortuantely not been stopped at night by the cops but I've been past many and through DUI checkpoints and it really is difficult to see where you're going. Cameras often take several seconds to adjust from dark to light (look at video from a train leaving a tunnel -- it takes 3 or 4 seconds to adjust which is more than enough for an incident to unfold).

[ThinkingMonkey]

Re: Not fair

I don't know what state you're in but in mine, an individual officer can indeed be sued. The reason you mostly hear of a party suing the city, county, or state is the exact same reason as in this article where they didn't bother to sue the driver: the larger entity has the ability to pay more in the case of a lost suit. I know of at least one local case recently where a lady was injured and sued the police officers and firefighters who were present, as well as the city.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Not fair

Not to mention that it's more usual to sue an employer when an employee causes damage or injury in the course their duties for that employer. If a cop does something bad while on duty, sue the employer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not fair

The human eye has a much higher dynamic range than it's possible to replicate with tech, so obviously the strobes are set to a level that is blinding the computer vision system used, and short of magic/new physics, that isn't going to change. The cops need to stop killing people and dim their strobes.

[werdsmith]

Re: Not fair

If I'm driving and I'm blinded by a low sun I'm inclined to attempt to make a safe stop, not plough on at full speed.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: It is indeed Tesla's fault

Are Tesla actually advertising "full self driving"? I thoiught that was still a "coming Real Soon Now" paid for upgrade, which at least one poster above has indicated may be in beta testing with some drivers. I'm only aware of their "Autopilot" system, which is very definitely NOT Full Self Driving, nor advertised as such (although hinted at in the headline advertising and is what the cops are suing over in the first place)

[werdsmith]

Re: It is indeed Tesla's fault

Can you show us an example of Tesla claiming their cars are "full self driving" ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It is indeed Tesla's fault

Tesla most certainly does NOT claim their cars are "Full Self Driving." Only idiots in the public think they say that. Complete and utter morons who wouldn't know technological innovation from their Big Macs if you FORCED them to physically separate their cell phones and burgers... :P

[Trollslayer]

Arizona

Is where testing of Tesla is carried out.

It also has the lowest standards in the US for testing and this is not an expectation in safety testing standards for other things.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Arizona

It's being tested everywhere. Hence the lawsuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chase the money! Proof positive is the fact they're only suing the people with deep pockets, not the pauper who actually IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE ACCIDENT.

I wish it were only in the USA, but it is just *more* *often* in the USA. We have similar money-grubbing leaches here in Canada, too. :(

[Man inna barrel]

I have no idea why you got thumbs down for this comment. It looks more realistic than most. The lawyer is going for the money, not the person responsible, i.e. the driver.

It has to be repeated: the driver was responsible for the vehicle while driving it. Tesla was not driving the vehicle, not even by remote control. If some malfunction of the vehicle prevented the driver avoiding an accident, then the driver could sue Tesla. But it appears that the driver could have avoided the accident, autopilot or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Several decades ago I was driving a taxi at 5:00 am at the end of a 14 hour shift, and fell asleep at the wheel. Crossed 3 lanes of freeway before I awoke to the sound of truckers air horn blasting behind me. Bloody thankful and lucky.

I've always thought since then that the first step in assisted driving should be monitoring driver awareness. But Tesla has skipped over that completely.

[Henry Wertz 1]

i saw one...

I saw one, some Tesla made a right turn, kept turning right until it hopped the curb and drove onto the sidewalk. At which point the driver finally paid attention and grabbed the wheel.

I read about whole waves of programmers resigning, tesla would want features shipped asap while the programmers pointed out they could not guarantee any level of safety shipping that fast. i'm sure having waves of new replacement programmers come in to work on it has REALLY helped that code quality.

[cyber7]

...drunks and flashing lights

There's established evidence that drunks are drawn to flashing lights. So, on the one hand, the driver may have a predisposition based on his inebriated disposition, to 'go towards the lights'. On the other, the Tesla is apparently blinded by the lights. Frankly, I've been blinded by those damn new LED lights police cars now favor at night, so I can sympathize with the autopilot.