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

511–520 of 864 posts

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

#511

Post by adamjcook »

mcguire wrote: post #421
adamjcook wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the terminology that exists in US automotive regulations (what little there effectively are). A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related defect existed, the products impacted and what the manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action. Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center due to configuration issues. Only a smal…

No, really, this is true. It has nothing to do with how the defect is fixed. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/573.6 (Except for tires.)

Hmm. Perhaps I should have read the parent's comment more carefully. I think that I might have misinterpreted it.

You (and the parent comment) are correct.

My comment was not intended to argue that a recall prescribed a particular corrective action.

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

#513

Post by mrguyorama »

linsomniac wrote: post #399
mdeeks wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of my cars patched last night with “Bug fixes” as the changelog. I don’t think I’ve seen an update that only said that before. I suspect that was this “recall”. If that’s the case, then the recall (patch) is probably mostly done by now.

I've had 4-6 "misc bug fixes" patches since 2016, just FYI.

If the changelog to my car's safety critical system was limited to "misc bug fixes", I would never touch it again. Either have extreme transparency into the system, or don't have the system.

I leverage this complaint against my own car. The AEB radar just stopped passing start up self tests for a while, and I had no idea why, and could not find out without going to the dealership. While waiting to be able to do that, it started working again. I don't consider it a backup, or a helper or anything. It's an independent roll of the dice for an upcoming crash that I already failed to prevent. If it does anything in that case then that's probably an improvement, but I don't exactly trust it to save my bacon.

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

#514

Post by dmix »

jjcon wrote: post #476
2h wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One interesting bit from a different 3rd party study:

> Cambridge Mobile Telematics also found that people driving Teslas were 21% less likely to engage in distracted driving with their phone in their Tesla compared to when they drove their other car.

Maybe the software integration helps avoid this? Lots of other cars have much more complicated interfaces to hook up calls and reading texts. My mom struggled to figure out her car even supported Android Auto.

It might just be it's a higher end car, but they didn't see it for an EV Porsche

> These findings include an analysis of Tesla drivers who also operate another vehicle. These drivers are nearly 50% less likely to crash while driving their Tesla than any other vehicle they operate. We conducted the same analysis on individuals who operate a Porsche and another vehicle. In this case, we observed the opposite effect. Porsche drivers are 55% more likely to crash while driving their Porsche compared to their other vehicle.

The reduction in speed is likely influenced by automated driving, especially considering how fast a Tesla car can accelerate vs normal cars:

> They were 9% less likely to drive above the speed limit.

https://electrek.co/2022/05/27/tesla-owners-less-likely-cras...

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

#515

Post by jjk166 »

tsgagnon wrote: post #340
reilly3000 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the correct answer. The question is, how do we get better at regulating reality faster? I don't think "Use words that put a more positive spin for Tesla PR" is something regulators should be working faster on.

Inaccuracy is inaccuracy no matter in which direction. If an outdated law made it easier for Tesla PR to spin something in a positive light, would you consider that an issue?

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

#516

Post by mrguyorama »

stonogo wrote: post #403
Reki wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, you think people should be able to breathe for free?

A scene in Heinlein's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls has the protagonist sternly lecturing a ruffian on the importance of paying for air in a domed city on the moon. I still can't tell if Heinlein was serious; a later scene has the same character demanding a transplanted foot be cut off because he felt it indebted him.

Heinlein might be the kind of person to genuinely believe that. He also was the kind of person who would write a book as an excuse to write a manifesto. Starship Troopers was just him bitching about "kids these days"

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

#517

Post by giobox »

winter_blue wrote: post #416
giobox wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or 199 dollars + taxes a month - there is a pay as you go option. Not saying this is great, but you can try it for a month for ~200 bucks. This is how I tried FSD beta for a month - certainly wasn't prepared to pay 15k up front. The safety score check stuff is largely gone away today - anyone who pays 200 bucks can click the beta opt in and get it almost straight away now, there is ~zero risk of not getting the beta…

> The safety score check stuff is largely gone away today - anyone who pays 200 bucks can click the beta opt in and get it almost straight away now, there is ~zero risk of not getting the beta if you really want it, live in US or Canada, and are prepared to pay. Does this recall mean that FSD Beta won't be as widely & publicly available to anyone with FSD anymore?

No - the "recall" here is an OTA software update already scheduled for release. Availability remains exactly the same as far as I'm aware, and existing systems still function until updated.

FWIW, NHTSA "recalls" are often OTA software updates nowadays rather than something the vehicle or feature has to be taken off road for to fix or update. The NHTSA legislation from the 60s was drafted when cars didn't have software and any fix/"recall" likely required "recalling" the car to a shop for a mechanic to perform the change.

> https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol28/iss1/5/

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

#518

Post by Kranar »

saudade97 wrote: post #494

The amount of Tesla apologism in HN is nasueasting. Per the NHTSA, a safety recall is issued if either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determines that a vehicle or its equipment pose a safety risk or do not meet motor vehicle safety standards. On its face, Tesla's situation clearly calls out for classification as a recall.

Meh, the term recall conjures images of vehicles having to be taken back to the dealership to get repaired, replaced, or refunded. The recall announced here is just an over the air software update.

It's worth pointing this out.

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

#519

Post by buffington »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #366
QuercusMax wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the medical device space, and we will often have "recalls", which usually result in a software patch. Recall != return.

Are these delivered directly to the device and installed overnight automatically (like an iPhone iOS update) or do they have to be hooked up to a computer to install the software update?

If Tesla replaced the actual computer that runs the software that they're recalling, would you consider that a recall? What if there was no actual physical fault with the computer, but it just had firmware flashed to a chip that couldn't be reflashed?

I'm looking at a piece of mail right now that's an official recall notice for a different make/model of car I own. The issue? Improperly adjusted steering components. The company is offering to make the correct adjustments for free. Nothing is being replaced.

Whether the recall is to replace a poorly designed physical component, or to make an adjustment, or to apply a software update doesn't make a difference to regulators.

A recall is a legal process that's designed to encourage manufacturers to fix safety issues while also limiting their liability. Companies avoid recalls if they can because it's costly, time consuming, and isn't good PR. But it's worth it if the issue is bad enough that it risks a class action lawsuit, or individual lawsuits, and most desirable when someone like the US government is demanding a recall or risk legal consequences.

When a company issues a recall, they make their best effort to notify consumers of the issue, provide with clear descriptions of how consumers can have the issue fixed, and make it clear that it will be paid for by the manufacturer. In return, the manufacturer is granted legal protections that drop their risk of being sued to nearly zero.

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

#520

Post by heleninboodler »

linsomniac wrote: post #433
alberth wrote: post #271

Dumb question: why would anyone sign-up for a beta program, that could kill you if gone wrong? (maybe people just don't think through ramifications)

How would the FSD beta program kill me? I realize that not everybody is in agreement, but I personally use the FSD beta while remaining fully in control of the vehicle. I steer with it, I watch the road conditions, I check my blind spots when it is changing lanes, I hit the accelerator if it is slowing unexpectedly, I hit the brakes if it is not... You know, basically behaving exactly as the terms you have to agree t…

> how did the driver allow that car to come to a full stop in that situation? ... Even if you were on your phone, you'd feel the unexpected deceleration, a quick glance would show that there was no obstruction

In all honesty, I'd probably spend a few seconds trying to figure out "what does the car see that I don't?" and let it come to a stop. Maybe it's a catastrophic system failure that I can't see. Maybe it's an obstacle headed into my path that hasn't gotten my attention. If my reflexive reaction is supposed to be to distrust the car's own assessment of the situation, then the system isn't good enough yet.

Post reply on HN