Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 864 posts

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#471

Post by vel0city »

mrb wrote: post #126
adoxyz wrote: post #44

I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. I've had it since day 1, and oh my god. It behaves worse than a drunk teenager. All the updates since, have made it barely better. This needs to be pulled entirely and rethought.

I have FSD too, and my opinion is that although it takes unsafe actions almost on a daily basis, most of these errors are minor, easily rectified by me the driver, and most of the time it drives just fine, in fact better than a human driver. I witnessed FSD avoiding me a collision by responding faster than I could have by auto-braking when another driver ran a red light. FSD doesn't need to be perfect to avoid accide…

> easily rectified by me the driver

So, not Full Self Driving...

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#472

Post by mrguyorama »

reilly3000 wrote: post #229
sentientslug wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is most likely a legislative issue with NHTSA, I don't think they have a mechanism by which they can enforce a software update since the concept didn't exist when recalls were first implemented.

This is the correct answer. The question is, how do we get better at regulating reality faster?

Recalls about car software, and about updating car software, have existed since shortly after OBDII was a thing.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#473

Post by freejazz »

JoshCole wrote: post #462
freejazz wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please ignore all the times I'm wrong in favor of all the times I'm right!

I agree that people who don't cite the evidence are ignoring the evidence? Are you trying to say I'm doing that by pointing to relevant datasets which track the number of accidents and the probability of injury? If so, why are there accidents tracked in the datasets such that the rate can be calculated? This kind of contradicts the claim that I'm asking to ignore, but I definitely agree that other people are ignoring…

No, your argument is just ridiculous. The standard isn't and shouldn't be how much they get right. It should be what they get wrong and how they do that. I completely disagree with your point, and phrasing it obtusely just makes you obnoxious from a conversational standpoint.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#474

Post by myko »

xdavidliu wrote: post #202
belter wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can kill people the other not. Guess which one. >> "...The FSD Beta system may cause crashes by allowing the affected vehicles to: “Act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution,…

> One can kill people the other not. No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car or a software update.

> whether it's a true physical recall

I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means at all.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#475

Post by kibwen »

maxdo wrote: post #287
pclmulqdq wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that the people who want one of those will want them if: * they are not the first (or in the first ~50 or so) to get there * they have a lot of money and a lot of income on Earth This is kind of a glory-seeking thing for people who haven't made a name for themselves otherwise. Rich people would want to have a return flight. That is not a recipe for making a ton of money.

Think of it as a startup, everyone who will go first will use benefits, own land, know how to do business of constantly growing colony.

Of all the possible reasons to go to Mars, "economic opportunity" is not even remotely one of them.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#476

Post by jjcon »

2h wrote: post #434
panick21_ wrote: post #410

I wish all the ink spilled on controversy over Tesla would instead be spilled on doing basic safety improvement to the road system that are cheap and proven to save many lives. Lets be real here, automated driving or not, having actually save roads helps prevent death and harm in many cases. The hyper focus on high tech software by all the agencies engaged in 'automotive security' is totally wrongly focused. What the…

I disagree. If someone is a bad driver, and causing crashes, we don't say "we need to improve the road system". We suspend the drivers license until they can prove they are capable of being a safe driver. We should hold this software to the same standard. Until it can demonstrate safety at or above human level, it should be outlawed. Road systems should always be worked on, but when a crash happens its usually the dr…

Tesla publishes their safety data quarterly no need for your many assumptions and speculations - Teslas are already much safer than the average driver, especially when autopilot is on

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#477

Post by mrguyorama »

sixQuarks wrote: post #216
diebeforei485 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recall implies something being returned. This should be called a mandatory software patch, or something like that. The problem is Tesla owners repeatedly see "recall" to mean "software update", so this might lead to a lot of confusion if a physical recall is actually required in the future.

I agree. It’s like crying wolf, eventually you start ignoring it

Recalls happen in other product spaces all the time, and they often have "fixes" that say "stop using our product and throw it away". That's still a recall. The word "recall" in relation to this regulation is simply a term for "something is broken in a way that a merchant should not have sold"

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#478

Post by prewett »

JoshCole wrote: post #411
panick21_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have actual knowlage of Tesla internal QA processes, any kind of source at all? Based on there presentation, they for sure have a whole load of tests, many built directly from real world situation that the car has to handle. They simulate sensor input based on the simulation and check the car does the right thing. They very likely have some internal test drivers and before the software goes public it goes to t…

I strongly feel people ought to have these discussions while consistently citing actual data sources relevant to the discussion. For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that they have the lowest probability of injury scores of any car manufacturer? Because they do. Did you predict, based on speculation about Elon Musk's incompetence in predicting that s…

Interesting graph, I like that it's broken out into quarters. But,

1) those are statistics for the old version, the new version might be completely different. I've had enough one-line fixes break entire features I was not aware of that my view is that any change invalidates all the tests. (Including the tests that Tesla should have but doesn't) Now probably a given update does not cause changes outside its local area, but I can't rely on that until it's been tested.

2) the self-driving is presumably preferentially enabled for highway driving, which I assume has fewer accidents per mile than city driving, so comparing FSD miles to all miles is probably not statistically valid.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#479

Post by InCityDreams »

paxys wrote: post #233
jlv2 wrote: post #154

There really needs to be a distinction between an actual recall (my Model S had one to change the latch on the frunk) and this type of "recall" that is nothing more than an OTA software update.

The majority of "actual recalls" is you taking your car to the dealership and them plugging into the diagnostic port and running one line of code. So this one is the same, just that Tesla is able to do it over the air.

>just that Tesla is able to do it over the air.

...and that's one reason why I would never purchase a Tesla.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#480

Post by jeffbee »

t0mas88 wrote: post #431
jeffbee wrote: post #378

The word "assertive" does not appear in the comments but this recall is about the "Assertive" FSD profile, which speeds and runs stop signs. It is not a defect it is a design flaw.

It's a defect in Tesla's engineering teams to release that kind of thing. Their self driving is a fraud, it does not work. Their CEO has claimed "it will be ready next year" for literally 8 years now. How much more bullshit is he going to sell?

Yeah. I'm just saying it's not a mistake, they did this on purpose.

Whatever PEs were involved in shipping this need to have their licenses reviewed.

Post reply on HN