Technology

59377 readers

6811 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

786

US to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' system after pedestrian killed in low visibility conditions (apnews.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, the "reasonable person" would be a competitor who generally follows standard operating procedures. If they're lagging behind the industry in safety or something, that's evidence of criminal negligence.

And yes, the C-suite should absolutely be the first to look at, but the problem could very well come from someone in the middle trying to make their department look better than it is and lying to the C-suites. C-suites have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, whereas their reports don't, so they can have very different motivations.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The c-suites have the ultimate power and therefore ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in their organization. Similar to how parents can be held criminally liable for their children's actions. It's just that much more incentive for them to make sure things are in order in their organization.

Also, Citizen's United ruled that corporations are people, so they can be held to the same standards of responsibility as other people.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

parents can be held criminally liable for their children’s actions

It's a pretty limited liability, as can be seen in a lot of incidents (e.g. mass shootings). You have to prove a pretty high standard of negligence for a parent to be responsible for their kids' actions.

The same should be true for anyone else as well, if the C-suite is unaware that something negligent or illegal was going on two levels below, they shouldn't be held liable for that. You should only be liable for a crime that you are aware of, or should have been aware of if you were doing your due diligence. But yes, in many cases, the C-suites should be held to task here.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's the thing though...I think it is part of their due diligence to know what's going on in their own business. If they can't guarantee that it's safe, they shouldn't release it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

If their reports are lying to them, and not in a way that they should have detected, then I don't think it falls on them if things go sideways. And that happens somewhat regularly, when you have a VP or something somewhere painting a much rosier picture that what is actually happening on the ground.

At that point, it comes down to a call on whether they were negligent.