Tesla ‘autopilot’ crash driver to stand trial after critically injuring woman

[Franco Cozzo]

This one doesn't belong in the alternative power section as we're going to discuss the 'auto pilot' function and driver responsibilities rather than the car itself.

We've got a trial coming up in Melbourne about an accident with a Tesla on 'autopilot':

Tesla ‘autopilot’ crash driver to stand trial after critically injuring woman

A woman who claims her Tesla was on autopilot when she struck a nurse trying to board a tram will stand trial after a court heard the 24-year-old driver allegedly fled the scene and left the victim with critical injuries.

Sakshi Agrawal, a loading dock manager contracted by Victoria Police, was travelling along Wattletree Road in Armadale in a Tesla 3 when she hit acute care nurse Nicole Lagos about 6.30am in March 2022.

Lagos was thrown and dragged between 15 and 20 metres along the road, which left her with life-threatening injuries.

Agrawal previously told Melbourne Magistrates’ Court she was driving her Tesla on autopilot.

Following a day of witness evidence on Monday, magistrate Natalie Haynes found there was sufficient evidence to support a possible conviction and ordered Agrawal stand trial in the County Court.

Agrawal has pleaded not guilty.

Earlier in the day, veteran tram driver Glenville Pereira said he was stationary and waiting for a passenger to board when a Tesla vehicle went “whooshing” past and struck Lagos.

Pereira said he had started to slow his tram about 100 metres from the stop when he noticed a woman sitting and waiting on route five.

Pereira said that when he put on the indicators and opened the doors, he watched the woman stand and begin walking towards the tram in the dark, until she disappeared.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...03-p5cxj3.html

Long story short - when the tram stops, you're also supposed to stop to let passengers get on/off the tram.

I learned this one the hard way when I started working in inner Melbourne and started having to share the road with trams for the first time - me and a tram passenger both needed new underwear when I saw the tram up ahead slow down so I got in the left lane and went past it, someone went to get off the tram and nearly stepped off the tram into my A pillar, new underwear required for both of us

Curious to see how this goes in court with this Tesla 'auto pilot' function, if they're just going to blame the driver or this goes further with Tesla in Australia and they're no longer allowed to call this 'auto pilot'.

Also AFF's favorite automotive journalist has his two cents on this one too:



Whats your thoughts, is this one on the driver or is this shared responsibility between the driver and them using a function where the car is supposed to drive itself?

Who remembers when active wear brand Lorna Jane (lol I'm sure we're all subject matter experts on womens activewear here on AFF) got in **** in our courts for claiming their leggings were 'anti virus' and implied their leggings protect the wearer from COVID?

Australian activewear brand Lorna Jane has been slapped with a 5 million dollar fine for falsely labelling activewear as, ‘Anti Virus.’

Last year, Lorna Jane began marketing its activewear as ‘Anti Virus,’ assumedly aiming to appeal to anyone concerned about COVID-19.

The brand advertised that its activewear was sprayed with an ‘LJ Shield’ – the shield was meant to protect wearers from pathogens.

The ‘Anti-Virus Activewear’ positioned itself as a ‘Cure’ for the spread of the highly contagious disease.

Lorna Jane went so far as to use the slogan, “Cure For The Spread of COVID-19? Lorna Jane Thinks So.” The slogan was then featured on advertisements for the brands’ websites, stores and socials.

Unsurprisingly, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took the activewear brand to court over its COVID-19 claims.

Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims said: “It was dreadful behaviour, aiming to make a profit out of peoples’ concerns.”

Lorna Jane admitted in court that its COVID-19 claims were not backed by science and while claims against Lorna Jane Clarkson, as an individual, were dismissed. This honesty did not result in the brand receiving a light penalty.

According to ABC News, Justice Darryl Rangiah handed down his decision on Friday and said: “The advertising campaign was conducted in July 2020, at a time of considerable uncertainty, fear and concern amongst the public about the consequences and spread of COVID-19.

“Lorna Jane sought to exploit that fear and concern of the public through the use of misleading, deceptive and untrue representations about the properties of LJ Shield activewear.

“Lorna Jane sought to profit from the fear with concerns of the public in a way that involves unlawful conduct in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Australian Consumer Law.”

Justice Rangiah reasoned that a large penalty had to apply because of the seriousness of the brands conduct. He then fined the activewear company 5 million dollars.

https://www.bandt.com.au/lorna-jane-...vid-19-claims/

Surely you could extrapolate this to Tesla and its 'autopilot' feature where the car supposedly drives itself? Its literally called 'autopilot'.

[prktkljokr]

Seeing that Tesla states that,
"Tesla’s autopilot mode is designed to enable the car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane. However, the function still requires drivers to actively monitor their surroundings and keep their hands on the wheel"

The driver is responsible for the car they are in charge of, it would be like someone trying to get out of a red light fine by saying auto pilot did it not me.

Pretty sure the law states that ignorance is not a defence, so before using such a function she needed to know what her responsibilities are when in auto pilot.

lock her up

[ford71V8]

And who cares if the nurse is cute?


Sorry, I'll see myself out, I hope she has recovered from the hit and run....unbelievable someone can do that and leave the person injured

[kevino]

Agree-lock her up-manslaughter.

Driving on autopilot on a road in suburbia just irresponsible.

Dangerous careless thoughtless selfish driving.

I lived in Melbourne for two years and knew by prechecking that I had to stop when a tram stops at a stop.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I learned this one the hard way when I started working in inner Melbourne and started having to share the road with trams for the first time - me and a tram passenger both needed new underwear when I saw the tram up ahead slow down so I got in the left lane and went past it, someone went to get off the tram and nearly stepped off the tram into my A pillar, new underwear required for both of us

Its a very unexpected system to someone who doesn't live in Melb. A colleague from the UK came over and did the same thing with a hire car. He had no idea. The tram driver actually got out and threatened to bash him

Unrelated to the autopilot, but I feel everyone has a role to play with this unique system. Tram driver shouldn't open the doors until its all clear, some drivers do actually do this, but I guess it causes delays and probably affects their KPI. Passengers should always check before stepping out. And drivers....well....I say they should know the rules, but if you are not from around here, how are you suppose to know?

[Franco Cozzo]

While this thread is about the Tesla autopilot bull**** claims, I reckon the 'towing capacities' that all the car manufacturers advertise is on a similar path as well, they're making bull**** claims and no one is doing anything about it

Tesla's can drive themselves on 'autopilot' but if you kill someone with it, its your fault, same with utes and their 3500kg towing capacity but you put me and my obese wife and fat kids in it and suddenly we're over payload before we even put our donuts in the car and its my fault when we stack, even though the brochure told me I could tow a 3500kg caravan with it.



I reckon the automotive industry has been taking the **** for way too long with bull**** claims that only work on paper, but all the responsibility is on you when it goes wrong.

[vztrt]

The auto pilot feature has been BS. It's just there to raise money. Kinda like the A.I trend happening now.

But Tesla is now in getting into legal trouble with over stating what it can do.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ms-2022-09-14/

[Fordman1]

The driver left the scene, and ultimately was responsible.

[lra]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

Its a very unexpected system to someone who doesn't live in Melb. A colleague from the UK came over and did the same thing with a hire car. He had no idea. The tram driver actually got out and threatened to bash him

And drivers....well....I say they should know the rules, but if you are not from around here, how are you suppose to know?

I don't live in Melbourne and haven't driven around that city for over 50 years, but I know that you have to stop when a tram stops.
How do I know ? Because I read stuff. Used to be called general knowledge.

Gross negligence on the part of the driver.
Can't blame the car, she was in charge of it.
Who, with a grain of common sense, would 'drive' a car ... on auto pilot .... in those surrounds.
How did she get her licence ?
Perhaps the licence examiner should share a cell with her for a while.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

The driver left the scene, and ultimately was responsible.

I know what you're saying, leaving the scene was absolutely reprehensible,

However - I reckon its rubbery because of the bull**** promises/claims because of 'autopilot'

Lets face it, 99% of the public have zero idea about cars - that's why we see so many SUVs and Thailand Specials so high up in the sales figures (lol).

If you see 'autopilot' advertised, and the car can stop/steer/accelerate and brake itself without you intervening, do you blame people with zero interest and understanding of cars for using these functions? They see 'autopilot' - oh it drives itself.

When was the last time someone read the manual on a car they bought? I never have, except for the specifications where I'm seeing what I'm changing over at how many kilometers and how much oil something takes during services.

Same as when you see terms and conditions for something, no one reads the whole war and peace they just scroll to the bottom and click 'I accept' when they install their iTunes update.

The driver probably shouldn't have been using 'autopilot' (there's that term again, note its not 'cruise control' like everyone else?) in a suburban area with traffic, and she should have been driving with her eyes and hit the brakes before she iced the pedestrian, and then brakes after she hit her instead of dragging the pedestrian along the road for another 100m.

But it happened, I guess she panicked, she eventually did hand herself into police, adrenaline is a hell of a drug.

I do think Tesla needs to have some accountability over the functionality of their vehicles, and how they market it to people - its not 'cruise control', its 'autopilot'.

[prktkljokr]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

However - I reckon its rubbery because of the bull**** promises/claims because of 'autopilot'

Lets face it, 99% of the public have zero idea about cars - that's why we see so many SUVs and Thailand Specials so high up in the sales figures (lol).

If you see 'autopilot' advertised, and the car can stop/steer/accelerate and brake itself without you intervening, do you blame people with zero interest and understanding of cars for using these functions? They see 'autopilot' - oh it drives itself.



I do think Tesla needs to have some accountability over the functionality of their vehicles, its not 'cruise control', its 'autopilot'.

Ok so the next time your enjoying a flight somewhere, have a think if you would be happy if the pilots left the cockpit and went and had a nap for the 4 hour flight and let the plane do the flying?, and if the plane crashed who's fault would it be, Boeing for fitting it?

There needs to be that human element there just in case.

[lra]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

If you see 'autopilot' advertised, and the car can stop/steer/accelerate and brake itself without you intervening, do you blame people with zero interest and understanding of cars for using these functions? They see 'autopilot' - oh it drives itself.

'.

Yes !
I don't use a nail gun and am completely unfamiliar with it, but if I pick one up and then shoot myself in the head with it, who can I blame ?

[Falcon SXR8]

Should be called advanced cruise control or something like that, like franco says people are idiots and will put to much faith in the advertising. The type of person who would hit someone and then do a runner is obviously the type of idiot who would take "autopilot" seriously

[vbomber]

https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhts...shutoff-crash/

One way to get out of it deactivates before it crashes.....

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

Ok so the next time your enjoying a flight somewhere, have a think if you would be happy if the pilots left the cockpit and went and had a nap for the 4 hour flight and let the plane do the flying?, and if the plane crashed who's fault would it be, Boeing for fitting it?

There needs to be that human element there just in case.

Well, if you want to talk about Boeing, look at the Boeing 737-800 MAX issues, they were determined at fault for their systems that caused the planes to crash.

It is nearly four years since Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 crashed minutes after take-off from Addis Ababa to Nairobi. 157 people died when it plunged into farmland outside the Ethiopian capital in March 2019.

The accident involved a new design of aircraft - the 737 Max.

Just months earlier, an almost identical aircraft operated by the Indonesian carrier Lion Air had crashed into the Java Sea on what should have been a routine flight from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang. 189 passengers and crew lost their lives.

It later emerged that both accidents were triggered by design flaws, in particular the use of flight control software known as MCAS.

The system was designed to assist pilots familiar with previous generations of the 737, and prevent them from needing costly extra training in order to fly the new model.

But sensor failures caused it to malfunction, and in both cases it forced the aircraft into a catastrophic dive the pilots were unable to prevent.

Investigations in the US revealed that Boeing had not included information about the MCAS system in pilot manuals or training guidance, and had deliberately sought to downplay the impact of the system in its communications with the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

They had implemented a system that was faulty, that killed 346 people

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64390546

Pilots were there flying the plane, were they not responsible for the deaths of the 346 people? They were at the controls of the plane when it hit the ground.

Originally Posted by lra

Yes !
I don't use a nail gun and am completely unfamiliar with it, but if I pick one up and then shoot myself in the head with it, who can I blame ?

If its at work, then thats the easiest contravention of section 21, 2(e) of the occupational health and safety act 2004 in VIC you'll ever get

Section 21 OHS Act 2004:

21 - Duties of employers to employees

(1) An employer must, so far as is reasonably
practicable, provide and maintain for employees
of the employer a working environment that is
safe and without risks to health.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an employer
contravenes that subsection if the employer fails
to do any of the following

(e) provide such information, instruction,
training or supervision to employees of the
employer as is necessary to enable those
persons to perform their work in a way that
is safe and without risks to health.

You shoot yourself in the face with that bad boy at work and your supervisor is going to be sitting down getting railed

But you could do it at home and its your fault.

[prktkljokr]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Well, if you want to talk about Boeing, look at the Boeing 737-800 MAX issues, they were determined at fault for their systems that caused the planes to crash.



They had implemented a system that was faulty, that killed 346 people

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64390546

Pilots were there flying the plane, were they not responsible for the deaths of the 346 people? They were at the controls of the plane when it hit the ground.



If its at work, then thats the easiest contravention of section 21, 2(e) of the occupational health and safety act 2004 in VIC you'll ever get

Section 21 OHS Act 2004:

Your talking about a actual Boeing fault, that would have happened with or without human interaction, the pilot did not initiate anything that he was not trained for, the software was the cause and the pilot had no control.

this is the other way around, she was driving a vehicle in auto pilot, she was not in a autonomous vehicle where she had no control or was not required to control it.

Even lawyers know that it would be hard to chase Tesla
https://mainorwirth.com/blog/autopil...s-differences/

[Bossxr8]

Tosla have been playing fast and loose with their claims about “not autopilot”, the nthsa has so many on going investigations into numerous deaths it’s not funny, and the germans banned tosla from calling it autopilot cause it’s so misleading.

But in saying that drivers are supposed to watch what is happening and be prepared to intervene, because the system is so crappy and will literally run into solid objects.

And in this case the woman drove off over running the other lady down, so she can rot imo. Scum.

[au2000]

She should give herself half a chance and plead guilty.. her actions ultimately caused the accident .. she was in the drivers seat.. this will be a slam dunk conviction

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by au2000

She should give herself half a chance and plead guilty.. her actions ultimately caused the accident .. she was in the drivers seat.. this will be a slam dunk conviction

So far her lawyers have tried to point the finger at the tram driver, saying he opened the door before the tram came to a stop - which is impossible as they can't actually open the doors before the tram is stopped.

Its going to the county court, I feel like this is one I want to sit in on and watch from the public gallery.

[au2000]

Nah.. be a waste of time.. the verdict is a given.. it’s just how long it will take to get there, that’s the question

[BENT_8]

Im reserving judgement until we see more pictures of hotties in Lorna Jane activewear.

[Citroënbender]

Originally Posted by au2000

Nah.. be a waste of time.. the verdict is a given.. it’s just how long it will take to get there, that’s the question

This might be another Puneet Puneet; leg it and shirk consequences. Already done that once.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

So far her lawyers have tried to point the finger at the tram driver, saying he opened the door before the tram came to a stop - which is impossible as they can't actually open the doors before the tram is stopped.

Really ?

Geez , some defence attorneys are just “bottom feeders” aren’t they ?

[roKWiz]

Just reading the QLD drivers possible verbal re-test thread.
And people question why.....

On the side of every tram, there are several big swing out red signs that direct traffic to STOP and give way to pedestrians alighting from the tram.

Documented in every Vicroads drivers handbook even if you are from another country I reckon you would identify what these signs mean.
This woman must be a clod.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

On the side of every tram, there are several big swing out red signs that direct traffic to STOP and give way to pedestrians alighting from the tram.

The stop sign becomes fully visible when the door fully opens.......its too late. What would make more sense is if the stop sign drops first, then doors open 2 seconds later.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

The stop sign becomes fully visible when the door fully opens.......its too late. What would make more sense is if the stop sign drops first, then doors open 2 seconds later.

Geeze if you can not tell a tram is coming to a stop and prepare yourself to stop, maybe driving isn't for you.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

Geeze if you can not tell a tram is coming to a stop and prepare yourself to stop, maybe driving isn't for you.

People who aren't familiar with trams won't have a clue. You see a tram stop, so what?, they don't expect people to jump out onto the road. We can take the moral and legal high ground, but makes no difference to those who are maimed or killed.

I reckon we don't see more fatalities from these scenarios, is because most of the roads that have trams opening onto passing traffic, are 40-50kmh zones.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

People who aren't familiar with trams won't have a clue. You see a tram stop, so what?, they don't expect people to jump out onto the road. We can take the moral and legal high ground, but makes no difference to those who are maimed or killed.

I reckon we don't see more fatalities from these scenarios, is because most of the roads that have trams opening onto passing traffic, are 40-50kmh zones.

Well yeah you do.

Stupidity ain't an excuse and why do so many make excuses for them.
It's called taking responsibility for your own actions which people don't seemed to do anymore, just blame someone else.

[EBSXR6]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

So far her lawyers have tried to point the finger at the tram driver, saying he opened the door before the tram came to a stop - which is impossible as they can't actually open the doors before the tram is stopped.

Its going to the county court, I feel like this is one I want to sit in on and watch from the public gallery.

I would be hiring another lawyer if that is the best he/she can come up with.
The Lawyer or the subordinates didn't do the research correctly.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

Stupidity ain't an excuse and why do so many make excuses for them.
It's called taking responsibility for your own actions which people don't seemed to do anymore, just blame someone else.

Nothing to do with making excuses. Why are we always looking for ways to improve safety? Because people can't be trusted and common sense is not very common.

Watch what happens as more accidents are "blamed" on auto pilot. There will be more regulations and restrictions introduced on its use, even though the problem might be stupid people using it incorrectly.