Neighborhood's Parallel Parking Competition Is My Kind of Block Party
Parallel parking is a skill—an art, even—that's slowly becoming extinct in today's drivers. More and more, our cities are designed in ways that parallel parking just isn't necessary, and as a result, BMVs across America are dropping the requirement from their driving skill exams. Despite this, many urban areas still require parallel parking, and a tight-knit community in Portland, Oregon, is making sure neighbors have the skills to park their Subarus.
Daniel Lyman and his husband, Casey Schreiner, along with the help of friend Stefanie Lynch, are going viral for organizing a pretty unique block party, one that's more of a competition than a party, really—though it looks like a lot of fun shenanigans took place. The idea of a Parallel Parking Contest came from Lynch, who heard of a similar event in Pittsburgh, according to OPB , and the three got to work creating the perfect stage (and set of rules) for a fair and fun competition.
A stretch of sidewalk was chosen, the proper chalk markings were made on it to measure the contestant vehicle's length, and pool noodles were taped to the stationary vehicles fore and aft of the open spot. Furthermore, the judges decided to tape a piece of cardboard to the backup cameras to make sure contestants didn't have an edge and relied purely on skill to avoid hitting another car. Needless to say, no automatic parking features were allowed, even though most of those suck anyway.
According to the video shared by Good Morning America , more than 50 people attempted to show off their skills—or the lack thereof—and even an adorable little kid on a G-Wagen ride-on tried their luck on the course. According to the rules, the shorter the vehicle, the fewer points they were awarded, so if you showed up in a Ford F-250 long bed and did a decent job, you probably would've taken home the trophy. And yes, there is an actual trophy, and it being Portland, it's a golden Subaru. GMA/YouTube
As someone who lived downtown and had to parallel park every day for five years before moving to the suburbs and literally never having to do so again, this makes me smile. I kinda miss it, y'know. Pulling off the perfect parallel parking move always gave me a great sense of pride, especially in a huge SUV or mega-expensive exotic press car, so I'm all for folks learning the fine craft that is squeezing a car between two obstacles.
Got a tip? Email us at tips@thedrive.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
10 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Think the Cybertruck looks weird? Check out its wedge-shaped predecessors
The car looked like nothing else on the road. Its sharp lines, flat planes, and pointy edges made it a head-turning sight, but also a head-scratching business decision. Would anyone actually buy such a weird geometric car? If this sounds like the kind of question one might ask when seeing a Tesla Cybertruck for the first time, it's actually just a rhyme of history. That head-turner/head-scratcher was the 1968 Alfa Romeo Carabo, an outrageously pointy concept car that radically diverged from the teardrop designs of the day. It was arguably the start of a bold, if short-lived, new chapter in the history of car design: the wedge. The Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles explores this wildly experimental era in car design with The Wedge Revolution: Cars on the Cutting Edge, a new exhibition now on display. The exhibition features dozens of cars designed between the late 1960s and mid-'80s that used a blocky wedge shape as their defining form factor. They were oddball designs at the time, and most didn't make it past the concept stage, but they heralded a rebellious era in car design that may just be underway once more. Case in point: the Cybertruck. 'That's why Franz was involved in the show,' says Jonathan Eisen, a curator at the Petersen museum. The Franz he's talking about is Tesla's chief designer, Franz von Holzhausen, creator of the Cybertruck, who was called in to cocurate the exhibition. 'He's very enthusiastic about the classic wedge cars.' Subscribe to the Design latest innovations in design brought to you every weekday SIGN UP Like his own design, the wedge cars of the mid-20th century seemed to have come out of nowhere. Eisen says the dominant design approach at the time was either the teardrop-shaped coupes made in France or the bulbous, chrome-laden sedans from American carmakers. But as the main designers behind these cars retired, a new generation came in ready to try something completely different. 'They went the opposite way,' Eisen says. 'They did away with all the ornamentation. And instead of smooth, flowing lines they decided that they were going to use sharp edges and flat planes and base the look of the car on the wedge.' Carmakers including Chevrolet, Honda, BMW, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, and Bertoni all dabbled in wedge-shaped car design. One concept car featured in the exhibition, the 1976 Honda Civic Lady, was an angular version of the Civic, one of the most popular compact cars of the era. With a wedge nose and a station wagon tail, it showed off a combination of design and sensibility. Though never intended for production, its DNA lived on for decades. 'If you then look at Hondas from the 1980s and even into the 1990s, you could absolutely see that they go back to this one car,' Eisen says. Other cars in the show are far less sensible, like the batwinged 1979 Aston Martin Bulldog concept car and the 1977 UrbaCar, a dune buggy meets bumper car. On the extreme end, the 1971 Lamborghini Countach concept car came to define the sharp and wedgy shape of Lamborghinis for decades. These car companies 'weren't afraid to put something out there that maybe isn't traditionally beautiful, but it's still unlike anything else on the road and will absolutely draw your attention to it,' Eisen says. 'A car doesn't necessarily have to be pretty to be successful. The way that SUVs are so popular is proof of that. ' advertisement The Cybertruck, on the other hand? Eisen calls it the only true wedge car on the road today, and possibly the start of a more adventurous era in car design, even if its success is questionable. 'That car obviously has a very controversial design, and you could even say that it's been thoroughly rejected by the mass public,' he says. 'Maybe people aren't ready for it yet. But eventually, I think we will see more creativity.' In recent decades, car design has been very safe, and guided by aerodynamics, efficiency, and, above all, marketing, according to Eisen. The heyday of the wedge was less constrained and, arguably, more interesting. 'I think it's worth celebrating the fact that it's okay to take chances,' Eisen says. The Wedge Revolution is on display through September 2026. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Motor Trend
2 hours ago
- Motor Trend
How the Original Shelby GT350 and GT350R Transformed the Mustang into a Track Icon
It's hard to overstate the sales juggernaut that Ford had on its hands with the original Mustang. After debuting in April of 1964, the new pony car promptly shattered all of automaker's most optimistic sales estimates, and Ford moved more than a quarter-million Mustangs before the end of that year. The company's new Falcon-based 2+2 was a success well beyond anything that Lee Iacocca—Ford's division manager at the time—could have ever imagined. The Shelby GT350 and GT350R transformed the Mustang into a track icon, showcasing Carroll Shelby's enhancements for racing. Initially developed for road course dominance, these models excelled in SCCA races and became collectibles. Ford revived the badge in 2016 for a new generation. This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article. Read Next But in the wake of the muscle car frenzy that Pontiac had helped to ignite with the new GTO, Iacocca saw trouble ahead for Ford's new pony: The Mustang was quickly earning a reputation as an image car as opposed to a serious performer. To remedy the situation, Ford turned to Carroll Shelby, the racing luminary behind the Blue Oval's recent string of motorsport successes with the AC Cobra and its closed-top counterpart, the Daytona Coupe. Shelby—a man who'd made a name for himself racing and developing purpose-built sportscars—initially scoffed at the idea of trying to turn the comparatively massive, sedan-based Mustang into a road course performer. But Iacocca wasn't having it. "In 1964, when Lee Iacocca said, 'Shelby, I want you to make a sports car out of the Mustang,' the first thing I said was, 'Lee, you can't make a racehorse out of a mule. I don't want to do it,' Shelby explained while reflecting on the project during an interview. 'He said, 'I didn't ask you to make it; you work for me.'' Despite his apprehension, Shelby soon set to work turning Ford's new coupe into a formidable machine on and off the track. The result was the road-going 1965 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 and the race-prepped GT350R, the latter of which went on to dominate the SCCA's popular B-Production road racing class as well as the early years of the Trans Am series that took shape a few years down the road. Creating a Road Racing Icon Although the 1965 Mustang Shelby GT350 differed substantially from the GT350R race car, much of the former's development was dictated by the B-Production race class rule set. Those rules stipulated that manufacturers would have to sell at least a hundred examples of a given car to homologate it for racing use, and Shelby knew that trying to sell unadulterated race cars in that quantity would be difficult. SCCA rules also mandated that a race car's road-going counterpart needed to retain either the race car's engine configuration or its suspension setup, so Shelby chose the latter for the GT350. Over subsequent years, the GT350 would evolve into a more civilized performance machine with the addition of creature comforts and an optional convertible body style, but it retained its reputation for thrilling performance throughout. The GT350 bowed out of Ford's lineup after 1970, but the automaker revived badge in 2016 for the S550-based Mustang with the Shelby GT350 and GT350R road cars, which benefited from a similarly track-focused performance treatment. Design and Features The initial batch of Shelby GT350 prototypes were completed by Shelby's team at Ford's San Jose assembly plant, but subsequent examples were produced in semi-finished form by Ford and then shipped to Shelby's manufacturing facility for completion. For 1965, all GT350s were Wimbledon White fastbacks with Guardsman Blue rocker stripes. Roughly a quarter of the 562 cars produced for that model year were delivered with optional Le Mans stripes that ran the length of the vehicle from nose to tail. A fiberglass hood with a functional scoop, unique wheels and side-exit exhaust pipes completed the look. All 1965 GT350 Mustangs were outfitted with black interiors. To qualify as a sports car under race class regulations, the Mustang's rear seat was removed, and a fiberglass shelf was installed in its place to serve as a mounting point for a full-sized spare tire. Performance Specifications All 1965 Shelby GT350 models started life as garden-variety fastbacks equipped with Ford's 271-horsepower, 289 cubic-inch V-8 and a four-speed manual transmission. To enhance the Mustang's acceleration, Shelby's team outfitted the small-block with a high-rise intake manifold, a larger 725cfm carburetor, and low-restriction exhaust system—modifications that resulted in official output numbers of 306 horsepower and 329 pound-feet of torque. In a 2,800-pound car, that proved to be plenty of grunt for the day: The sprint to 60 miles per hour from rest took about seven seconds in MotorTrend testing on the way to a top speed of roughly 140 mph, both of which were impressive figures for the time. But straight-line pull wasn't the GT350's claim to fame. In compliance with SCCA rules, the GT350 was outfitted with a suspension setup nearly identical to the GT350R race car. Compared to the standard Mustang, this included relocating the front A-arms, and adding Shelby-spec springs and Koni shocks, a quick-ratio steering box, and override traction bars. Over subsequent years, the GT350 traded outright track capability for the sake of on-road civility and greater consumer appeal. An automatic transmission became optionally available for 1966 alongside a growing roster of available paint options and creature comforts, while performance-minded modifications like the traction bars and the '65's trunk-mounted battery fell by the wayside. This trend would continue as the Mustang evolved into a larger and more feature-rich performance vehicle in general. Toward the end of the 1960s, Ford itself had taken over most of the design and styling decisions for the GT350, and Shelby broke ties with Ford in the summer of 1969. Racing Success The Shelby GT350R was a contender in SCCA road racing out of the gate, and racers went on to win several regional SCCA championships as well as the national B-Production title piloting GT350Rs in the 1965, 1966, and 1967 race seasons. It was a similar story in the early days of the Trans Am series as well: Ford's factory-backed effort saw racers piloting GT350Rs take the series title in 1967 and again 1968. The Rent-A-Racer In 1966, an unlikely partnership between Shelby American and the Hertz Corporation was established to supply Shelby rental cars to the public. Just over a thousand 1966 Shelby GT350-H Mustangs were added to Hertz's rental car fleet under what would be called the "Rent-A-Racer" program. The GT350-H was more or less mechanically identical to the standard 1966 Shelby GT350, but the black-and-gold livery that the majority of GT350-H Mustangs wore helped them stand out from the pack. A limited number were also available in Candy Apple Red, Sapphire Blue, Ivy Green, and the Wimbledon White and gold scheme seen here. Unsurprisingly, Hertz eventually put the kibosh on the Rent-A-Racer program due to sky-high repair costs. But for a brief moment in time, the general public could rent one of the hottest performance cars around for 17 bucks a day. A Sought-After Collectible Shelby produced just over 7,000 Shelby GT350 and GT350Rs during their five-year production run. Today, well preserved, all-original 1965 GT350s—the rarest road car of the bunch—can fetch half a million dollars at auction. Less than 40 of the GT350R race cars were produced for that model year. As a result, original examples are some of the most valuable Mustangs in existence. Road-going 1966–1969 GT350s are a more reasonable proposition for prospective buyers, but you can expect the price to venture well into six-figure territory for a showroom condition example. Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 and GT350R Fast Facts While the Mustang was an instance success when it debuted in April of 1964, Lee Iacocca—Ford's division manager at the time—was concerned that it would soon be overshadowed by competitors' upcoming high-performance offerings Ford turned to Carroll Shelby, the architect behind the Blue Oval's recent string of motorsport successes, to remedy the situation Despite initial concerns, Shelby soon set to work turning the Mustang into a formidable performance machine on and off the track Although the '65 Mustang Shelby GT350 differed substantially from the GT350R race car, much of the former's development was dictated by the SCCA's B-Production road racing class rule set 1965 Shelby GT350 models started life as garden-variety fastbacks with a 271-horsepower, 289ci V-8 and a four-speed manual transmission. To enhance the Mustang's acceleration, Shelby's team outfitted the small-block with a high-rise intake manifold, a larger 725cfm carburetor, and low-restriction exhaust system, modifications that resulted in official output numbers of 306 horsepower and 329 pound-feet of torque In compliance with SCCA rules, the GT350 was outfitted with a suspension setup that was nearly identical to the GT350R race car. Compared to the standard Mustang, this included relocated front A-arms, Shelby-spec springs and Koni shocks, a quick-ratio steering box, and override traction bars The Shelby GT350R was an instant contender in SCCA road racing, and competitors went on to win several regional SCCA championships as well as the national B-Production title piloting Shelby's latest creation in the 1965, 1966, and 1967 race seasons Over subsequent years, the GT350 traded outright track capability for the sake of on-road civility and greater consumer appeal In 1966, an unlikely partnership between Shelby American and the Hertz Corporation was established to supply Shelby rental cars to the public. Just over a thousand 1966 Shelby GT350-H Mustangs were added to Hertz's rental car fleet under what would be called the "Rent-A-Racer" program Toward the end of the 1960s, Ford itself had taken over most of the design and styling decisions for the GT350, and Shelby broke ties with Ford in the summer of 1969 Although the GT350 would bow out after 1970, Ford revived badge in 2016 for the S550-based Mustang with the Shelby GT350 and GT350R road cars, which benefitted from a similarly handling-focused performance treatment
The Verge
2 hours ago
- The Verge
The lawyer who beat Tesla is ready for ‘round two'
The day after he won an unprecedented $243 million verdict in a wrongful death case against Tesla, attorney Brett Schreiber posted a reel on Instagram celebrating the victory. His song pick: 1992's 'Damn It Feels Good To Be a Gangsta' by the Geto Boys. 'This is a verdict that will change the world,' Schreiber wrote in the caption, as Bushwick Bill, Willie D, and Scarface rap in the background about how 'everything's cool in the mind of a gangsta.' If that sounds like hyperbole, mixed with a dose of macho boasting, you're not wrong. But in some sense, Schreiber earned his right to strut. The day before posting the reel, he stood in a Florida courtroom alongside his clients as a jury handed Tesla a major defeat. The company was partially responsible — 33 percent, to be exact — for a 2019 crash that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. (It was determined that the driver of the Tesla Model S invovled, George McGee, was mostly responsible. McGee settled with the families in 2021.) The company was ordered to pay as much as $243 million in punitive and compensatory damages to Angulo and Benavides' family. It's a huge sum, though one that could be reduced on appeal. The verdict was highly unusual, insofar as the case even went to trial. Tesla has studiously avoided facing juries in fatality cases involving its driver assist technology, preferring to settle with the injured parties. But when it has gone to trial, it typically wins, such as in two previous cases in California. The winning streak came to an end with Schreiber's case. We spoke a few days after the decision about his historic win, how he used Elon Musk's own words to bolster his case, and how Tesla could face even steeper fines in the many lawsuits that are still pending. This transcript has been edited for clarity. I've been following Tesla for a very long time and I know that the company has a pretty solid track record of avoiding these types of judgments. Why do you think this was different? Well, I mean, they did make an overture to settle the case, and for a very large sum of money. Now, it was a fraction of the verdict, but the condition of the settlement was that it would be secret. And my clients were not interested in a secret settlement. They knew that this was a case and a cause that was bigger than themselves. And it was important to them that we shine a light on what Tesla has done. My theme in my closing argument was about Tesla's choices and Tesla's words. And to your point as to why they've been successful, I think it's in part because there are two Teslas. There's Tesla in the showroom and then there's Tesla in the courtroom. And Tesla in the showroom tells you that they've invented the greatest full self-driving car the world has ever seen. Mr. Musk has been peddling to consumers and investors for more than a decade that the cars are fully self-driving, that the hardware is capable of full autonomy. And those statements were as untrue the day he said them as they remain untrue today. But then they showed up in a courtroom and they say, No, no, no, this is nothing but a driver assistance feature. 'My theme in my closing argument was about Tesla's choices and Tesla's words.' Words matter. Choices matter. … Sometime later today or tomorrow, whenever the clerk finally approves it, all of the admitted trial exhibits are going to be publicly filed on the federal docket in Miami. Documents that only I and the lawyers involved in this case have seen, which shows Tesla knew about people's constant misuse of their system. They knew how they were misusing it. They knew why they were misusing it. And they knew when they were misusing it — going back a decade. And I would encourage you and anybody else who's been following these to log on to Pacer and to pull those exhibits down because they have never been seen before. And I have been saying for well over a year that the only way that this information was ever going to become public was inside of a courtroom. And we did that, and the only reason we were able to do that was because the Benavides and Angulo families were courageous enough to stand up to the largest corporation in the world and say, No, you are not going to settle this in secret. This is going to be shared publicly. And the jury saw it with a unanimous verdict. They sent a message to Tesla. Your choices and your words matter. Do better. I wanted to ask you about how you presented this case to the jury. And specifically the role that Elon Musk and his words played. You made a very pointed show of bringing in comments from the Tesla CEO. Can you talk a little bit about the role that you think that his past comments about Tesla's Autopilot and about its self-driving capabilities played in this particular trial? [Musk's words] were central to it. … The jury is asked about the expectation of an ordinary consumer. What would an ordinary consumer expect this vehicle to do? It didn't actually matter what the driver himself thought. Now, his feelings about this were very consistent with Musk's statements, but [Musk] says these things for a reason. He says this to create this idea in the public's mind that these cars are more than they really are. He makes these comments going back to 2015. Autonomous driving is a solved problem. They are safer than humans. It will stop for anything. It knows if there's something metal and something dense in front of it, it should stop. It doesn't matter if it's an alien spaceship, he said. And we played all of those because that aligns with the law. I said, 'Look, you may know that Chick-fil-A has a cow running around telling you to eat more chicken and that LiMu the emu and Doug wants you to buy Liberty Mutual insurance. And that Geico has a gecko that peddles its products.' I said, 'No one knows who Andrew Cathy, Tim Sweeney, and Todd Combs are. They are the CEOs of those companies. And even though no one's heard of them … the decisions they make and the words they speak define what an ordinary consumer thinks of their company and the products they sell.' And I said the same is true of Elon Musk and Tesla. They cannot escape the fact that they have represented for a decade that they have invented and made a vehicle to the public that is the greatest, most advanced, Enhanced Autopilot driving vehicle the world has ever seen. And then they show up in court and they go, Well, there's no vehicle in 2019 that would have ever stopped under this scenario. It's a T intersection. It's a broadside hit. Blah, blah, blah. Well, that opened the door to me to say, 'You cannot make these statements publicly and then use as a defense in trial the fact that the car that you've claimed for a decade you invented doesn't actually exist.' The jury saw through it. This is a type of technology that is used throughout the auto industry. Other car companies have a variety of ADAS technologies that are out there. What's different about Tesla's approach? And how did that contribute to this crash, in your opinion? [GM's] Super Cruise, [Ford's] BlueCruise, right, those were similar vintage-era Level 2 systems. They had driver monitoring systems that actually worked. They use infrared cameras. They had systems that were geofenced. You could only use them on certain roadways that they were designed for. A lot of other systems at the time, I think Infiniti, Nissan, Honda, and somebody else I can't remember right now had a system where if you override the adaptive cruise control, the lane centering shuts off. Because you're either going to use it or you're not. Tesla didn't do any of those things. That was their choice. And that goes back to the whole thing that makes them the outlier. This was not a car company that got into tech. This was a tech company that got into cars. And their production process was unlike what any other responsible automotive manufacturer has ever done. Rather than ensuring that things were ready for prime time, rather than releasing a finished product, they released a beta product. But they tell you, We call it beta, but we don't really mean it's beta. Again, they use words to the point where they become meaningless. 'This was not a car company that got into tech. This was a tech company that got into cars.' I'm sure you've been online and you've seen some reactions to this verdict. I've seen a few from Tesla's fan base, which is quite substantive. And they talk about how the technology in [George] McGee's vehicle, Autopilot, is an outdated system — it hasn't been updated since 2019 — whereas most of the current system, Full Self-Driving or FSD, is supposed to be measurably better. Do they have a point? Or is it beside the point for the outcome of this jury? For the outcome of this jury, it is beside the point. We could not introduce evidence about 2023 and 2024 and later developments. But I got news for the fan base. It's not better. They've actually eliminated radar. They've got cameras only. It doesn't work. Everyone who knows anything and who's been following and paying attention in autonomous vehicle development for the last decade knows that the holy trinity of safety is lidar, radar, and cameras. You cannot create a camera-based-only system that is going to be better than a human driver. It's not possible. It's not done. They sure as heck haven't done it. And their fusion system … continues to fail. You will see internal documents produced by Tesla where they determine that in 6 percent of the crashes that they received information on in 2019, they themselves determined that Autopilot was at fault. It's so stupid, but my point is, it's not better. It's a three-legged stool. If you take one of the legs out, the other two fall down. Like I said, I'll tip my hat to Waymo. I'll tip my hat to those guys. They geofence. They three-dimensionally map, they tie in infrastructure, they use lidar, they use radar, they use cameras. Are they perfect? No. And that's the other thing I want to be really clear about. We are not anti-autonomous vehicle technology. We are not anti-progress. To the contrary, we think this stuff can and will save lives. It just has to be done the right way. And Tesla's done it the wrong way. And this unanimous jury who sat for three weeks listening to 40-plus hours a week of testimony and evidence felt the same way. Can you talk about what the trial revealed about how Tesla handles its Autopilot data, and also how it interacts with law enforcement when incidents arise and they need access to that data? The docket should be fully unsealed in about three weeks. The court has ordered that and has given Tesla an opportunity to file a brief about anything specifically they want to keep under wraps. I am confident that the motion that we brought for sanctions against them for withholding evidence for four years will become fully unsealed. It would be irresponsible for me to say more than what they've said, but suffice it to say, there is more to that story, and it will be set out. But to that end, I can say that Tesla has a system of gathering data. They receive it immediately after crashes. And it is a very fair, I would say almost generous, statement to say that they're not always forthright with that information. And it's in part because people just don't understand it. Law enforcement doesn't understand it. Government investigators don't understand it. Through this case, we actually understood it better than even Tesla's lawyers did. Now, the in-house people knew. And again, I can't say whose decision it was to delete the data. But somebody at Tesla knew that if this information on the heels, six weeks later after the Jeremy Banner crash occurred in Deerfield Beach, Florida, that having another Autopilot fatality, that they knew that law enforcement wanted to share with federal investigators, they knew that would be bad for business. Why they did it? Only they can answer that question. 'I am confident that the motion that we brought for sanctions against them for withholding evidence for four years will become fully unsealed.' Tesla right now is trying to roll out a robotaxi service in a number of cities. What would you say to people who are interested in this, curious about trying out these vehicles, to regulators who are weighing whether to approve Tesla's requests? I would say that this verdict hopefully sends a very clear message to Tesla. That they need to do better. They need to elevate people's lives and people's safety over greed and profits. That's what I told the jury in closing argument, that this was not only just an opportunity. I know that jury instruction talks about punishing Tesla and deterring bad conduct. But I told them really this was an opportunity for them to help Tesla, because when a company gets to a point where they're elevating profits and greed over people's lives and safety, then that is a company that has lost its way. That is a company that needs to have its course corrected. What I hope, through their efforts at developing a Level 4 system, is that Tesla will receive this message for what it was. It's an opportunity and a teachable moment to be better. The problem is … it's my understanding that it is a camera-only-based system. That's a problem. Right, the megapixels on the cameras, on a 2025 Tesla, if they're anything like what they're putting on the robotaxi, have a lower megapixel resolution than my iPhone. The human eye is 250 megapixels. Be better. There's a reason why responsible manufacturers are doing this differently. And again, is it hubris? Is it greed? I don't know. I don't know what this motivation is to double down and just try to do it the way that, Oh, we can do it this way and no one else can. I struggle with that. I'm just a lawyer. What do I know? But engineers, people who have spent decades, careers, lifetimes studying this stuff, have reached the same conclusions. So my hope is that they pause. They look at what they're doing and they find ways to do it better. To do it safer. That's what this verdict was about: sending a message that you cannot use our public roadways as your personal laboratory to test production vehicles. And then when you discover that an incident occurs, that you make an incremental change. That's what their corporate representative said. And as I said a couple of times publicly and told the jury, an incident to the families impacted is known as a funeral. These are people's lives that you're playing with. So my hope is that they really think about their approach. I hope that consumers demand that they rethink their approach. I hope that analysts looking at the impact of this verdict and potential verdicts in the future tell them that they need to do better. Because I think that's the only way that we're going to ever see it really change. It seems likely that there will need to be more of these types of verdicts before we do see some change, either from the company or from the way that the market views the company. 'Is it hubris? Is it greed? I don't know.' Now that we have this verdict, I'm curious to know what you think it's going to mean for future cases pending against Tesla? Round two, Maldonado v. Tesla, Alameda State Superior Court, 75 days from today. Tesla's going to find out. I'm the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. And I am not limited in California to a 3x multiplier on punitives. If I had asked that jury in Florida for a billion dollars, they would have given it to me. But I couldn't ask them for that. Florida law says punitives can only be three times compensatories. I asked for $104 million in compensatories. They gave me $129 [million]. I got to tell you something, as a trial lawyer, to get $25 million over your ask is unheard of. They would have given me anything I asked for, not because it was me, but because of the facts. The facts are a stubborn thing. And we get to tell those same facts with a better Autopilot defect theory. And I get to not only juxtapose Musk's lies in that case, but I juxtapose them with the testimony that I didn't have in Miami. I've only had this case for a year. I worked the Maldonado case from the beginning. And in that case, I have testimony from all of the senior Autopilot leadership: Sterling Anderson, CJ Moore, Andrej Karpathy. And I show them those same quotes that were played to that jury in Miami. I said, 'When Mr. Musk said those things, was that a true statement about production vehicles at Tesla?' To a person, they answer: Absolutely not. He not only betrayed the public, he betrayed his own engineers. Betrayal is the most powerful human emotion there is, especially when it comes to rendering a verdict and holding a company account. That's what round two is going to look like in 75 days. That should be very interesting. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Andrew J. Hawkins Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Autonomous Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Electric Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Elon Musk Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Law Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tesla Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Transportation
