Tesla owner who falsely claimed car was in autopilot before Melbourne crash pleads guilty

[Futuretech]

A Tesla driver who made false claims the car was in autopilot when she crashed into a pedestrian has pleaded guilty

Sakshi Agrawal, who spent two years fighting charges against her, has entered a last minute guilty plea after she crashed into a pedestrian in Melbourne in 2022 and falsely blamed the car's autopilot feature.

www.abc.net.au

Don't lie about your tesla I suppose is the lesson - but does Tesla collects and stores the sort of data presented to court in their servers (which presumably they had to hand over under subpoena)?

Not a lawyer but if the data is stored locally in the car then hypothetically the driver should not be compelled to hand this over (self-incrimination)?

 

[ewoodrick]

A Tesla driver who made false claims the car was in autopilot when she crashed into a pedestrian has pleaded guilty

Sakshi Agrawal, who spent two years fighting charges against her, has entered a last minute guilty plea after she crashed into a pedestrian in Melbourne in 2022 and falsely blamed the car's autopilot feature.

www.abc.net.au

Don't lie about your tesla I suppose is the lesson - but does Tesla collects and stores the sort of data presented to court in their servers (which presumably they had to hand over under subpoena)?

Not a lawyer but if the data is stored locally in the car then hypothetically the driver should not be compelled to hand this over (self-incrimination)?

It can be subpoenaed and retrieved.

 

[Brian May]

Even if it was true that the car was in autopilot, that only raises questions like "why did you think it was safe to pass a tram in autopilot?" and "where you paying attention to the road?". It is still dangerous driving in either case. Particularly as we don't have anything like Full Self Driving yet in Australia.

 

[Jules22]

Just the go-to excuse for anyone who does something stupid in a Tesla, even if they were twice the speed limit, 3x blood alchohol limit, etc, they somehow think claiming it was on autopilot is a reasonable excuse despite the fact that it's easily proveable and 9 times out of 10 they weren't, the other 1 time doesn't make any difference as they are still 100% responsible.

 

[MickyD]

Cars have been storing data that can be retrieved and used in court long before Tesla… there was a case in Sydney in 2005 where data was retrieved from a Peugeot that proved the driver was speeding at the time of an incident.

 

[cafz]

Not a lawyer but if the data is stored locally in the car then hypothetically the driver should not be compelled to hand this over (self-incrimination)?

Getting a warrant to search your car's memory is no different to getting a warrant to search the papers in your office.

 

[moa999]

Somewhat interesting that driver didn't even press the brake despite the warnings sounding.

The habit in a Tesla need to be to lift at first sign of danger or alerts.
(Well other than phantom braking in which case you need to hit the pedal)

 

[Dangerous Fish]

I bet this result won't get as much press coverage as the original story.

 

[ewoodrick]

Just the go-to excuse for anyone who does something stupid in a Tesla, even if they were twice the speed limit, 3x blood alchohol limit, etc, they somehow think claiming it was on autopilot is a reasonable excuse despite the fact that it's easily proveable and 9 times out of 10 they weren't, the other 1 time doesn't make any difference as they are still 100% responsible.

But it never can be "my" fault.

 

[Quickst]

the driver should not be compelled to hand this over (self-incrimination)

It can be compelled by subpoena and during discovery of evidence

 

[Brian May]

Just the go-to excuse for anyone who does something stupid in a Tesla, even if they were twice the speed limit, 3x blood alchohol limit, etc, they somehow think claiming it was on autopilot is a reasonable excuse despite the fact that it's easily proveable and 9 times out of 10 they weren't, the other 1 time doesn't make any difference as they are still 100% responsible.

I am just waiting for the accidents where the driver blames (whether rightly or wrongly) Full Sell Driving.

Which in turn will be used as evidence by some that Tesla obviously isn't ready for Full Self Driving yet.

 

[Chuq]

I am just waiting for the accidents where the driver blames (whether rightly or wrongly) Full Sell Driving.

It seems they wanted to get on the front foot of this - hence why they've started to call it "Full Self Driving supervised" for the recent wide release. It's very clear, even to the most intentionally obtuse journalists, what it means. My guess is it won't be called "Full Self Driving" until the accident rate is so low that they are happy to take responsibility (and there is a legal framework to allow them to do so).

 

[dronus]

I am just waiting for the accidents where the driver blames (whether rightly or wrongly) Full Sell Driving.

Which in turn will be used as evidence by some that Tesla obviously isn't ready for Full Self Driving yet.

My recent Calais had automatic parking where it would do everything.
I’m pretty sure it would have still been my fault if it hit anything while autonomously parking.
Funny how the media never brings that up

 

[ewoodrick]

I am just waiting for the accidents where the driver blames (whether rightly or wrongly) Full Sell Driving.

Which in turn will be used as evidence by some that Tesla obviously isn't ready for Full Self Driving yet.

Waiting? There already have been a few, one of which was settled a few weeks ago.

Most everything that has been in the courts is using very old versions of FSD which were more like Autopilot.

But there's really no evidence needed to prove that FSD is ready yet. No one says it is, even Tesla, even Elon.
There are still a number of versions in the queue before it will ever be thought of as ready.