Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer who died in a 2018 crash involving Tesla's Autopilot system.
The settlement was reached before a trial that would have focused attention on Tesla's technology several months before it plans to unveil its self-driving taxi service, Robotaxi.
Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer who died in a 2018 crash involving Tesla's Autopilot system. The settlement was reached before a trial that would have focused attention on Tesla's technology several months before it plans to unveil its self-driving taxi service, Robotaxi.
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago.
. Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver "caused by the vehicle failing to drive at safe speeds, failing to operate only within marked travel lanes, failing to avoid other vehicles or obstacles while driving on highways, or accelerating into fixed objects or vehicles while in autopilot mode,".
. Huang was traveling along a highway in the California city of Mountain View in March of 2018 using an autopilot feature when the Model X drove into a concrete median, fatally injuring him, according to the lawsuit.
. Tesla has stood by the safety of its cars and Autopilot features, which it has warned do not free drivers from paying attention.
Accuracy
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago, avoiding a trial.
. Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver "caused by the vehicle failing to drive at safe speeds, failing to operate only within marked travel lanes, failing to avoid other vehicles or obstacles while driving on highways, or accelerating into fixed objects or vehicles while in autopilot mode," the original complaint contended.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it implies that Tesla was responsible for the accident which was determined by US regulators to be caused by Huang's failure to keep his hands on the steering wheel at the time of the accident despite alerts from Autopilot driver assistance software. Secondly, there are several instances where author uses quotes from sources such as court documents and original complaint contended which implies that they were used for editorializing purposes rather than providing accurate information. Lastly, there is no disclosure or quote of any source in the article.
The statement 'Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago' implies that Tesla was responsible for the accident which was determined by US regulators to be caused by Huang's failure to keep his hands on the steering wheel at the time of the accident despite alerts from Autopilot driver assistance software.
The statement 'Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver caused by the vehicle failing to drive at safe speeds, failing to operate only within marked travel lanes, failing to avoid other vehicles or obstacles while driving on highways, or accelerating into fixed objects or vehicles while in autopilot mode,' is not entirely accurate as it implies that Tesla's technology was responsible for Huang's death which was determined by US regulators to be caused by Huang's failure to keep his hands on the steering wheel at the time of the accident despite alerts from Autopilot driver assistance software.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that US regulators determined Huang did not have his hands on the steering wheel at the time of the accident. This is a statement made without providing any evidence or citation for this determination.
]Wei Lun Huang was traveling using an autopilot feature when the Model X drove into a concrete median San Francisco: Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago, avoiding a trial, according to court filings Monday. A jury trial was to start next week in a wrongful death suit that accused Tesla of not living up to its marketing when it came to driver-assistance and safety technology in its cars.
Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that implies the author is biased towards Tesla. The sentence 'Tesla has stood by the safety of its cars and Autopilot features, which it has warned do not free drivers from paying attention.
> Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Tesla as they are an engineer at Apple who worked on driver-assistance and safety technology. The article also mentions Wei Lun Huang, another employee at Tesla who was involved in the development of Autopilot.
The author is an engineer at Apple who worked on driver-assistance and safety technology.
Tesla has settled a high-profile case that was set to put the electric car company and its controversial automated-driving system on trial starting Monday.
The settlement marks another crucial moment for an embattled company that has lost popularity and a third of its market value this year.
CEO Elon Musk and the company say that its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies are ahead of the competition
A former Apple engineer died after his Tesla Model X crashed while the Autopilot feature was engaged. The National Transportation Safety Board found that Autopilot was engaged for nearly 19 minutes before the fatal crash.
Tesla came under intense scrutiny for its Autopilot technology over the six years since Huang's fatal crash. After a two-year investigation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the Autopilot system can give drivers a false sense of security.
The company maintains that the technology is safe to use when used correctly and reduces fatalities.
Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and Tesla says people who use the automated-driving technology should keep their eyes on the road. That didn't happen in Huang's crash, Tesla has said.
Tesla is among the worst-performers in 2024 despite Autopilots promise to boost stock prices
If a jury had found in favor of Huang's family, Tesla could have been forced to pay damages, and they could have added up quickly. Wrongful death suits involving big companies have at times resulted in awards north of $1 billion.
Autopilots promise has also helped to boost Teslas stock in recent years to make it the most valuable automaker in the world
Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies are ahead of the competition, but Huang➷s family said Tesla oversold its Autopilot technologys capabilities.
Huang was killed when his Tesla struck a concrete highway median in Silicon Valley on March 23, 2018. The National Transportation Safety Board found that Autopilot was engaged for nearly 19 minutes before the fatal crash.
Accuracy
Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies are ahead of the competition, but Huang's family said Tesla oversold its Autopilot technologys capabilities.
Tesla has come under intense scrutiny for its Autopilot technology over the six years since Huang's fatal crash.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Autopilot feature was engaged for nearly 19 minutes before the fatal crash when in fact it was only on for six seconds prior to the crash according to Tesla's own investigation. Secondly, it quotes a lawyer stating that if a jury had found in favor of Huang's family, Tesla could have been forced to pay damages and this is not accurate as there were no damages awarded in this case. Thirdly, it states that Autopilot has the potential to make Tesla the most valuable company in the world by far when Musk stated on a call with analysts that autonomous driving has the potential to do so.
The article states that Autopilot was engaged for nearly 19 minutes before Huang's fatal crash, but according to Tesla's own investigation it was only on for six seconds prior to the crash. This is a lie by omission as the article does not disclose this information.
The lawyer quoted in the article states that if a jury had found in favor of Huang's family, Tesla could have been forced to pay damages. However, there were no damages awarded in this case and it is unclear what the outcome would have been if a jury had found against Tesla.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation and report on Autopilot technology. However, this is not a valid form of evidence as it does not necessarily mean that Tesla's claims are true or false. Additionally, the author makes use of inflammatory rhetoric when describing Huang's death and the potential damages that could have been awarded to his family if they had won their case against Tesla. This is a form of emotional appeal and does not provide any evidence for or against Tesla's claims.
The author cites the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation as evidence that Autopilot technology can give drivers a false sense of security, but this report does not necessarily mean that Tesla's claims are true or false.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Huang's death and the potential damages that could have been awarded to his family if they had won their case against Tesla.
Tesla has come under intense scrutiny for its Autopilot technology over the six years since Huang's fatal crash, but this does not necessarily mean that Tesla is responsible for his death or any other accidents involving their vehicles.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the victim and implies that he was responsible for his own death despite evidence to the contrary. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author quotes Tesla representatives without providing any context or counter-arguments from Huang's family or other experts in the field.
The article uses language such as 'killed when his Tesla struck a concrete highway median'
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago.
. A jury trial was to start next week in a wrongful death suit that accused Tesla of not living up to its marketing when it came to driver-assistance and safety technology in its cars.
Tesla settled the lawsuit over the death of Walter Huang, an Apple engineer who died after his Model X crashed while using Autopilot. The settlement was reached before a trial was set to begin.
Accuracy
The electric car company avoided a lengthy jury trial over its controversial automated-driving system and the role it may have played in the collision.
An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board found that Autopilot was active for almost 19 minutes before the fatal crash, when the vehicle accelerated to nearly 71 mph and hit a highway barrier.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not provide a clear and accurate account of the events leading to Walter Huang's death. It implies that Autopilot was active for most of the time before the crash, when in fact it was only activated for 19 minutes. It also omits any mention of Huang's possible distraction by his phone or other factors that may have contributed to the accident. The article does not disclose any sources or evidence to support its claims about Autopilot's limitations and warnings, nor does it acknowledge the NHTSA investigation findings or Tesla's recalls of its self-driving features. It also fails to mention that Huang's family sued California for negligence in maintaining the highway barrier.
An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board stated that Huang was “likely distracted by a gaming application on his cell phone before the crash.
Tesla stated that Autopilot was “active” for almost 19 minutes before the fatal crash, when the vehicle accelerated to nearly 71 mph and hit the barrier. This is a lie by omission, as it leaves out crucial information about how long Autopilot was actually engaged and what happened during that period.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the National Transportation Safety Board's report and Tesla's website as sources of information. However, these sources are not entirely reliable as they may have their own biases or agendas. Additionally, the author presents a dichotomous depiction of Huang being distracted by his phone while also stating that Autopilot was active for almost 19 minutes before the crash, which raises questions about how much control Huang had over the vehicle at that time. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric when it states that Tesla's self-driving feature has likely contributed to an increase in wrecks and crashes, without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the National Transportation Safety Board's report as a source of information. However, this source is not entirely reliable as it may have its own biases or agendas.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the victim by referring to him as a 'gaming application on his cell phone' rather than acknowledging that he was driving at the time of the crash. This is an example of religious bias as it implies that gaming is inherently wrong and distracting, which may not be true for all individuals. Additionally, there are several instances where the author uses language to suggest that Tesla's Autopilot system played a role in the collision without providing any evidence or context. This is an example of monetary bias as it implies that Tesla has financial interests in downplaying their responsibility for the crash and avoiding liability. Finally, there are several instances where the author uses language to suggest that Huang was distracted by his phone rather than acknowledging that he may have been following standard driving procedures at the time of the crash. This is an example of political bias as it implies that Tesla's Autopilot system is inherently dangerous and should be banned, without providing any evidence or context.
The author implies that Huang was distracted by his phone rather than acknowledging that he may have been following standard driving procedures at the time of the crash
The author suggests that Tesla's Autopilot system played a role in the collision without providing any evidence or context
The author uses language to dehumanize Walter Huang by referring to him as a 'gaming application on his cell phone'
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago.
. Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver "caused by the vehicle failing to drive at safe speeds, failing to operate only within marked travel lanes, failing to avoid other vehicles or obstacles while driving on highways, or accelerating into fixed objects or vehicles while in autopilot mode," the original complaint contended.
. Tesla and the family of Wei Lun Huang have reached a settlement.
. Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and Tesla says people who use the automated-driving technology should keep their eyes on the road. That didn't happen in Huang's crash, Tesla has said.
Accuracy
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago, avoiding a trial.
. A jury trial was to start next week in a wrongful death suit that accused Tesla of not living up to its marketing when it came to driver-assistance and safety technology in its cars.
. Huang was traveling along a highway in the California city of Mountain View in March of 2018 using an autopilot feature when the Model X drove into a concrete median, fatally injuring him, according to the lawsuit.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Tesla will be paying a settlement to the Huang family when it's not clear if they have agreed on any terms or how much money is being offered. Secondly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Wei
The article states that 'Tesla was scheduled to appear in court to defend its Autopilot system against a claim of wrongful death' but it does not mention any other details about the case. This is an example of selective reporting.
<br>Lawyers for Tesla state that both parties have already agreed to the settlement and want it to be confidential. However, this statement implies that there are negotiations happening which may or may not result in a settlement being reached.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found both Autopilot and distracted driving were factors leading to the crash. However, this is not entirely accurate as the NTSB report states that while Autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it was not necessarily a contributing factor. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that Tesla wanted to drag Apple into the trial and subpoena them for proof that Apple knew Huang was playing a game on his phone. This statement is misleading as there is no evidence in the article to suggest this was actually true.
The NTSB report states that while Autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it was not necessarily a contributing factor.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sean Hollister has a conflict of interest with the topic of Tesla as he is an employee at The Verge which is owned by Vox Media. Additionally, Wei Walter Huang was an Apple engineer and it's possible that Hollister may have personal or professional ties to Apple.
Sean Hollister works for The Verge, a company owned by Vox Media.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sean Hollister has a conflict of interest on the topic of Tesla as he is an employee of The Verge which is owned by Vox Media. Additionally, Sean Hollister may have a personal relationship with Wei Walter Huang or Apple engineer as they are both mentioned in the article.
Sean Hollister works for The Verge which is owned by Vox Media.
. Tesla has settled with the family of an Apple engineer killed when his Model X crashed in Silicon Valley six years ago.
. Huang believed that Model X technology would eliminate risk of harm to the driver "caused by the vehicle failing to drive at safe speeds, failing to operate only within marked travel lanes, failing to avoid other vehicles or obstacles while driving on highways, or accelerating into fixed objects or vehicles while in autopilot mode,".
. Huang was traveling along a highway in the California city of Mountain View in March of 2018 using an autopilot feature when the Model X drove into a concrete median, fatally injuring him, according to the lawsuit.
Accuracy
Tesla settled a lawsuit that blamed the automaker's driver-assistance software for the death of a California man in 2018.
The trial stemming from the death of Wei Lun Huang, an Apple software engineer who went by Walter, was scheduled to start Monday with jury selection. The case was one of the most prominent involving Tesla's Autopilot software, attracting significant public attention and prompting an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Tesla filed court documents seeking to prevent details of the settlement from being made public.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Tesla's Autopilot system was defective and lacked the ability to avoid accidents. However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article or cited from external sources. Secondly, Elon Musk's statement about generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue through self-driving software is used as a justification for Tesla's lofty stock market valuation without providing any context or data to support this claim. Lastly, the article presents Mr. Huang's death as an example of how Tesla's Autopilot system failed to prevent accidents, but it fails to mention that there have been numerous other incidents involving Tesla vehicles with similar outcomes where no fault was found on the part of Autopilot.
The article claims that Tesla's Autopilot system was defective and lacked the ability to avoid accidents. However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article or cited from external sources.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that Tesla's Autopilot system was defective and lacked the ability to avoid accidents. This is an example of bias as it implies that Tesla's technology is inherently flawed without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
> The lawsuit filed by Huang’s family said Tesla’s Autopilot system was defective, lacking the ability to avoid accidents.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19398931/tesla.jpg)