Woman in Texas killed in Tesla car crash. Driver blames car's autopilot feature.

[Cicada 5]

This particular injustice was experienced by a family in Katy, Texas, outside of Houston this weekend, when a driver reportedly traveling at more than 70 mph smashed into their front room, killing 76-year-old grandmother Martha Avila. There were multiple other people present in the same home, including children, who were thankfully uninjured, although they’re now simultaneously left with both a wrecked home and a lost loved one. The footage from outside the house, meanwhile, is utterly horrifying–you will not believe just how fast the car comes barreling into view, like it had been shot out of a cannon straight at this family’s living room.

Immediate news coverage of the story predictably zeroed in on the most juicy, hot-button topic: The fact that the seriously injured driver, identified as a man named Michael Butler, apparently told police/investigators in the hospital that he had been using the Tesla Model 3 sedan’s self-driving feature before the crash. There is no specific, official statement from Tesla on the incident as far as I can tell, although Elon Musk himself predictably leapt into the debate on his own CSAM-generating social media platform to insist that the story “makes no sense” because “FSD drives slowly through neighborhood streets and this was a high speed crash.” In all fairness, that does seem like the sort of safety feature one would want the tools to possess.

The reality is that even a few days after this incident occurred, we don’t possess enough details to genuinely say what happened here. The original “Tesla Autopilot” feature was actually discontinued earlier this year after 13 years in service, in response to a California judge ruling that the “Autopilot” name could constitute deceptive marketing. That presumably means the driver of the car in Texas was claiming he was using the Full Self-Driving (FSD) premium upgrade that can completely take over driving operations. But we don’t truly know if the driver was honest at all, or had any of these systems engaged, although police at least noted that the driver displayed no signs of intoxication. Both the local police, and national auto-safety regulators from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have opened probes into what happened here, to determine what settings the driver was actually using leading up to the crash, which could be necessary in determining various aspects of his legal culpability. Their findings will reshape the tone of who is perceived to be most at fault in this incident.

Lord, Protect My Family from "Autopilot" Teslas Slamming Into Our Homes

Since 2007, Jezebel has been the Internet's most treasured source for everything celebrities, sex, and politics...with teeth.

www.jezebel.com

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Really wonder what his story is. Like surely if he had it on FSD mode he still would have noticed it zooming at insane speeds? Did he just not care? Could he not stop it? Was he asleep? FSD could definitely be at fault I guess but even if it is I'm not sure how he escapes fault if he saw it acting like that

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Self-driving cars do have objectively a safer driving record than humans. However, the way humans see/interpret things is way different than how the AI sees/interprets things and you will always have such incidents like this happen that would never happen with a human behind the wheel (outside of the person having a medical issue like a stroke).

 

[Xprimentyl]

This is why you'll never catch me in or owning a self-driving car. Self-driving functionality created a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and has actually created innumerable other problems in the process. I mean, if you're in a car driving to a destination, what could possibly be more important in that moment than paying full attention and driving? What is so important in anyone's life that they need to be freed up during their commute and require AI to drive for them? The answer is nothing, and now we have stories like this. I saw the video, that car was doing highway speeds when it plowed into that house; what could the owner have possibly been doing not to notice? Not paying attention when he should have been, at the very least. Funny how we can get tickets for looking at our phones or eating while driving, yet we've allowed "drivers" the opportunity to basically completely disengage, and for what? The inevitability that shit like this is going to happen.

As for who's liable, I say the car's owner in every case; they accept responsibility the moment they click the button or whatever and let "Jesus take the wheel." If you can sue me when my dog gets off his leash and bites you, surly you can sue me when my car that I willingly put into self-drive mode drives into your house and kills a loved one.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

This is why you'll never catch me in or owning a self-driving car. Self-driving functionality created a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and has actually created innumerable other problems in the process.

Ain't that the whole issue with AI-esque things. So many non-problems being solved while creating new ones. The only reason self-driving vehicles have developed to this point is because they give companies boners. They can finally get rid of any pesky human salaries. Will any of these meagre savings be passed on to consumers? Doubt it.

 

[Chimpzy]

Coincidentally

U.S. proposes to drop brake pedal requirements for self-driving vehicles

The NHTSA proposed to end a requirement for manual brake pedals in self-driving vehicles, a move that would make it easier to deploy such vehicles on U.S. roads.

www.cnbc.com

All gas, no brakes, baby! Jesus take the wheel!

 

[tstorm823]

As for who's liable, I say the car's owner in every case; they accept responsibility the moment they click the button or whatever and let "Jesus take the wheel." If you can sue me when my dog gets off his leash and bites you, surly you can sue me when my car that I willingly put into self-drive mode drives into your house and kills a loved one.

I would caveat that the car's owner, should the feature do something seriously wrong in a way that was predictable and preventable by the manufacturer, I could see the car owner than pursuing claim against the car company in a separate case. Just like you would for any other sort of car failure.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Really, it's her own fault, thinking that she shouldn't have to watch out for traffic in the safety of her own home.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I would caveat that the car's owner, should the feature do something seriously wrong in a way that was predictable and preventable by the manufacturer, I could see the car owner than pursuing claim against the car company in a separate case. Just like you would for any other sort of car failure.

To my point, what is a driver doing while the autonomous driving is activated that should prevent culpability when it malfunctions? There's no excuse for not having control of the vehicle in emergencies like this. Brake failure is one thing; "I was letting the car drive while stuffing my face with a Big Mac" is a wholly other and accountable level of irresponsibility.

EDIT: I know nothing of autonomous vehicles, but my knee-jerk assumption is that manual inputs override whatever decisions AI makes, i.e.: if my car wants to drive me 70mph into a home, my slamming on the brake should override the AI's determination that everything is kosher. It should be universally expected that whatever features I use in my car, my decision should be the deciding factor, and I should be held accountable when I allow otherwise to be the case.

 

[Gergar12]

Stop using experimental features on cars.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Stop using experimental features on cars.

Better yet, stop investing in developments in experimental features in cars that gain us nothing, but risk us everything. This guy's argument was "the self-driving malfunctioned." My question: what was HE doing when it did? Couldn't be bothered to control his own vehicle for what? What could he have possibly been doing during a bog standard commute that it was more important than controlling the vehicle?

Sci-fi movies show us people reading books, taking naps, casually observing out the window while self-driving vehicles drive flawlessly throughout city streets; is this the expectation people had in real life when they invested in this feature? Well, let this case be a study in "the future is not now;" you need to be aware and in control when you're hurtling a 2-ton missile at lethal speeds around other living beings. It's an idiotic feature that risks WAY more than it reasonably benefits, point in case.

 

[Gergar12]

Better yet, stop investing in developments in experimental features in cars that gain us nothing, but risk us everything. This guy's argument was "the self-driving malfunctioned." My question: what was HE doing when it did? Couldn't be bothered to control his own vehicle for what? What could he have possibly been doing during a bog standard commute that it was more important than controlling the vehicle?

Sci-fi movies show us people reading books, taking naps, casually observing out the window while self-driving vehicles drive flawlessly throughout city streets; is this the expectation people had in real life when they invested in this feature? Well, let this case be a study in "the future is not now;" you need to be aware and in control when you're hurtling a 2-ton missile at lethal speeds around other living beings. It's an idiotic feature that risks WAY more than it reasonably benefits, point in case.

Funny enough as someone who learned about drones from people who use them as well as LIDAR, and Radar, it's funny how people think slapping both, either and or some cameras will majority make it work like a alert human driver. Car crashes for the shareholders is basically what autopilot is in 2026.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house
And you may ask yourself, "Well, how did I get here?

 

[Schadrach]

As for who's liable, I say the car's owner in every case; they accept responsibility the moment they click the button or whatever and let "Jesus take the wheel." If you can sue me when my dog gets off his leash and bites you, surly you can sue me when my car that I willingly put into self-drive mode drives into your house and kills a loved one.

Pretty much this. Potentially the driver might also be able to sue the manufacturer, but that would be a separate case entirely.

The only reason self-driving vehicles have developed to this point is because they give companies boners. They can finally get rid of any pesky human salaries.

Also, potentially massive improvements in safety. Driving is the most dangerous thing most folks do on a day-to-day basis, by such a large margin it's kind of absurd, and we're really actually quite bad at it. Self driving such as it exists now is already safer than a human driving in most conditions, even if the tech isn't remotely mature enough to completely rely on. Let alone when you start considering the possibilities regarding cars that can "see" in directions human drivers can't and even potentially talk to each other sharing where they are, what they see and what they are doing so that they can coordinate with each other to improve traffic flow. The tech just isn't there yet, but it's already better than human drivers in most conditions and it's only going to improve.

I know nothing of autonomous vehicles, but my knee-jerk assumption is that manual inputs override whatever decisions AI makes, i.e.: if my car wants to drive me 70mph into a home, my slamming on the brake should override the AI's determination that everything is kosher.

That's generally how they work, and our driver in this case should have noticed they were flying at highway speeds down a residential street and put a stop to it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Pretty much this. Potentially the driver might also be able to sue the manufacturer, but that would be a separate case entirely.

And to that I'd ask: can you sue the manufacturer over every potential malfunction, or should we put self-driving autonomy in a separate category? Again, I ask: what is any driver who uses the self-driving feature doing that merits them not paying full attention and commanding full control of the vehicle? If brakes fail or a lug nut falls off, that’s one thing, but once I hit a button that gives me confidence that I don’t need to control my vehicle, that’s on me. The question becomes what were you doing when self-driving failed? Heart surgery in the back seat? Delivering a baby? Curing cancer? Because if the answer isn’t anything as pressing or important as those I just listed, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be in full control of your own vehicle. Once you engage self-driving, you are responsible, PERIOD.

If I buy a gun and fail to properly secure it away from a toddler’s reach, can I sue the gun manufacturer if the safety fails, and a toddler blows his face off? I dunno; in our overly litigious society, probably, but my gut says the failure happened well before the mechanical side of things. Self-driving is a first-world privilege that those fortunate enough to partake in it should be ready to accept responsibility when HAL forgets to carry the 1, and your vehicle becomes a tool of unintended destruction.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I saw an anime that came out 16 years ago where a major plot point was a kid being killed by a malfunctioning self driving car. It was a pretty good anime.

And to that I'd ask: can you sue the manufacturer over every potential malfunction

I think the answer is yes, that's why there's so many part recalls.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If I buy a gun and fail to properly secure it away from a toddler’s reach, can I sue the gun manufacturer if the safety fails, and a toddler blows his face off? I dunno; in our overly litigious society, probably, but my gut says the failure happened well before the mechanical side of things.

I think someone in the US tried that, with a Glock that didn't have a manual safety. Not sure what the result was. But yeah, don't trust the machine to be safe, that's basic.

I saw an anime that came out 16 years ago where a major plot point was a kid being killed by a malfunctioning self driving car. It was a pretty good anime.

Also happened in the Supergirl TV series, and New Doctor Who, although they were assassination attempts.

 

[Cicada 5]

The victim's family is taking both Tesla and the drive to court.

In the complaint filed on Tuesday, June 23, in Harris County District Court against Tesla and Butler, plaintiffs Jennifer and Justin Barbour, Avila's daughter and son-in-law, said that she was with them and their children inside the family's home when the crash happened. The Barbours also suffered injuries — including ones on Justin's neck, back and shoulders, according to the complaint.


The Barbours' filing, which PEOPLE obtained, alleged that the Tesla vehicle, which included its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems, "was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous for its intended and reasonably foreseeable use at the time it was placed into the stream of commerce by Tesla."

In addition to Tesla, the complaint accused driver Butler of negligence, claiming that "he had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably careful person would use to avoid harm to others."

 

[Cicada 5]

Also, potentially massive improvements in safety. Driving is the most dangerous thing most folks do on a day-to-day basis, by such a large margin it's kind of absurd, and we're really actually quite bad at it. Self driving such as it exists now is already safer than a human driving in most conditions, even if the tech isn't remotely mature enough to completely rely on. Let alone when you start considering the possibilities regarding cars that can "see" in directions human drivers can't and even potentially talk to each other sharing where they are, what they see and what they are doing so that they can coordinate with each other to improve traffic flow. The tech just isn't there yet, but it's already better than human drivers in most conditions and it's only going to improve.

Self-driving is a fairly new technology so there probably isn't enough data to truly determine if a self-driving car is on average safer than a human-driven one. Humans make stuff that malfunctions all the time. Technology is only as reliable as the people that make it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think the answer is yes, that's why there's so many part recalls.

Recalls occur when a known, potentially wide-spread issue is discovered, and a manufacturer is exercising due diligence; my hypothetical was about common, random, isolated malfunctions. I'm sure people have tried to sue for stuff like that, but my assertion is that it is unreasonable. Otherwise, our courts would be tied up with hundreds of thousands of cases of every instance of negligent people suing when something they didn't inspect or maintain failed.

But yeah, don't trust the machine to be safe, that's basic.