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

841–850 of 864 posts

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

#841

Post by diebeforei485 »

buffington wrote: post #833
diebeforei485 wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Tesla replaced the actual computer that runs the software that they're recalling, would you consider that a recall? Yeah, it requires physically taking the car to a mechanic or dealer who does this. Very different from using the software update button on the car touchscreen. > Improperly adjusted steering components. The company is offering to make the correct adjustments for free. Nothing is being replaced. Thi…

> it requires taking the vehicle to a mechanic or dealer. Nope. If you insist on believing this, I'd recommend reading the document found here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...

How exactly are the steering adjustments done? I figure a handful of car owners might have the skills and tools to work on the steering column themselves, but that's not at all the average car owner.

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

#842

Post by adwn »

saboot wrote: post #795
adwn wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have free roam then. Current state of technology and failures be damned That's not what I'm saying at all . Please read again.

I was specifically referring to "do the same" as in reducing the number of auto accidents, which the parent comment I replied to mentioned. Is that the source of confusion?

My point was that although public transit can reduce car accidents, it cannot and will not ever completely replace individual transportation, so FSD cars which are safer than human drivers would still be a benefit to road safety.

I did not mean to suggest that this end justifies Tesla's reckless means.

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

#843

Post by noduerme »

gwbas1c wrote: post #797
noduerme wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned to drive stick on the hills in LA, and owned a manual in SF... not rolling backward is part of being a good driver. I'm just saying I'd like the option to turn it off w/o disabling antilock brakes. For me, the feature creates unpredictable stalls or dangerous situations, because you never know if it's engaging. It engages on a 4% grade or something; it's hard to know if you're at 3% or not before you take y…

Oh, yeah, I see why you don't like it. In the Subaru when it would engage it would turn on a light on the dashboard. It also only engaged on very steep hills where you would always be stomping on the gas no matter what. I think the Subaru just had a much better execution of it than the Fiat. Edit: Maybe call the dealership and see if the level sensor can be adjusted? It really should only hold the brakes if you are o…

That's an interesting idea, mangling the level sensor ;)

The other quick-fix is to always hold the e-brake up just enough to turn on the light when you think the grade might be >3%. This is apparently because whoever designed the system assumed that people who use the handbrake on a hill know how to release it and drive better than people who don't - whereas if you grew up driving on really steep hills in the US you weren't taught that method. The other way around it is to hold the brake w/o the clutch, keeping the car in neutral, and then unbrake-clutch-shift-gas really fast before the car rolls backward (more dangerous, but acceptable as heel/toe practice). I really wish it only happened on a very steep hill; it's the very mild slopes that caused me the worst surprises when I first bought the car and almost got into several accidents.

At least the thing doesn't have GPS ;)

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

#844

Post by anticensor »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #303
ajross wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence for "clearly more dangerous"? Because what numbers exist say the opposite. They are now pushing a million (!) of these vehicles on US roads and to my knowledge the bay bridge accident[1] is the only example of a significant at fault accident involving the technology. It's very easy to make pronouncements like "one accident is too many", but we all know that's not correct in context. Right? If FSD…

It's called FSD as in Full Self-Driving. If it does one single "accident" where it's unable to see a totaled car with hazard lights on right in its face [1], then it's not really full , is it now. Not to mention the hilarious contradiction in terms: Full , but Beta . No one would have any major issues if this (self)killing system was called "Extended Driver Assist" and it had implemented the minimal safety features l…

Faux Self Driving.

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

#845

Post by ajross »

clouddrover wrote: post #836
ajross wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a "me or your lying eyes" argument. It drives my kids to school . Why is it so important to you that I not enjoy the product I purchased and love? You realize you aren't going to win an argument like that, right? You think I'm going to just wake up and realize that it can't do what I see it do?

It doesn't matter how you rationalise it to yourself or how irresponsible you are in using it. Your car does not do full self-driving. It is stranded on Hardware 3. It will not get Hardware 4 unless a lawsuit enforces it: https://electrek.co/2023/02/15/tesla-self-driving-hw4-comput... Tesla has lied about full self-driving for years: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... Tesla has admitted t…

> Your car does not do full self-driving.

It literally drives itself. You're hiding behind a semantic argument about what "full" means, and how autonomy is deployed. It's the "Money Printer Go Brrr...." meme.

You don't seem to be able to understand that the product as deployed has value to its purchasers, and that's leading you to some really emotionally dark places. I mean, it shouldn't be this upsetting to you that I like my car, and yet it clearly is. Just... maybe just don't? Let it go. You know these cars are safe as deployed. Let the Tesla nuts have their fun.

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

#846

Post by buffington »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #841
buffington wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it requires taking the vehicle to a mechanic or dealer. Nope. If you insist on believing this, I'd recommend reading the document found here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...

How exactly are the steering adjustments done? I figure a handful of car owners might have the skills and tools to work on the steering column themselves, but that's not at all the average car owner.

Can the average car owner adhere a sticker to the underside of their hood? Or read a paragraph that corrects a mistake in the user manual? Or read a few sentences that say "it is possible that in extremely cold environments that the emergency brake release lever can require more effort to operate. This does not indicate a faulty emergency brake. Applying more force than usual will not harm the emergency brake system", followed up with diagrams describing the issue, along with toll free phone numbers offering assistance, as well as phone numbers for the NHTSA, the authority coordinating the recall. No part of the official recall notice instructs consumers to replace or even repair anything.

Again, the nature of the issue a recall addresses is wholly independent of how that issue is remedied. Why? Because a recall is a legal process that, by design, is meant to accomplish one thing: motivating a company to correct an issue that the governing authority considered important enough to correct.

If you choose to believe otherwise, I doubt it matters in the grand scheme of things.

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

#847

Post by Zanneth »

InCityDreams wrote: post #479
paxys wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’d prefer to make an appointment at a dealership and have to physically drive it in?

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

#848

Post by Zanneth »

orthecreedence wrote: post #444
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…

If we're actually serious about this, we should get rid of roads altogether and replace them with rail tracks. That solves 95% of the automation problem anyway.

Replacing roads with railways means nearly complete reliance on a central authority for all transportation needs. This authority decides who gets to leave town and who doesn’t, which companies have priority when delivering goods, how or if the parallel railways should scale to meet more transportation demand, etc.

Transportation safety is important but it shouldn’t be considered in isolation when there are potentially catastrophic consequences to prioritizing safety at the cost of everything else.

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

#849

Post by panick21_ »

parentheses wrote: post #827
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…

We’re not talking about road safety. Road safety relies on a baseline amount of driving safety (car hardware + car software). If a car doesn’t stop at a stop sign, no amount of “safe roads” prevent it from mowing down a cyclist. Saying this is like saying we should ignore sex offenders in favor of reworking our society. Instead, we should solve both problems rather than bicker over priorities.

Ok we should be solving both problems, I agree, but the reality is agencies and political processes have limited capacity. And how much society and influential people in that society is consumed with one thing, the less they do about the other.

And I would say that I'm not proposing to rework society in sociological sense, but rather to throw out the standard engineering standards and replace them with better standards.

And actually it does matter even in the case you suggest. If a car rolls into an intersection, what speed that car is matters. It matters from what points it is clear that the car is out of control. It matters if there are speed bumps or something along those lines that can send strong signals to a driver.

If you have all raised intersection then the top speed of cars will simply be lower and if somebody human or AI makes a mistake that lead to a crash, that crash will be at far lower speed.

And proper road design also leads to less intelligence and fancy car design being required. I rather get hit by a shitty designed unsafe old car at 20mph then a fancy new car at 30mph.

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

#850

Post by panick21_ »

2h wrote: post #708
ignormies wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a book called "There Are No Accidents" that goes into depth discussing this fallacy that you should read. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/02/15/excerpt-there-are-no-...

apparently youve never heard the phrase "texting while driving" or "drunk driving"

Its just how incredibly wrong you are.

Go look at Salt Lake City. Its is true, Salt Lake City despite horrible bad road design, like Huston. But because people drink less they have slightly less accidents. However international they are still terrible. And that is with there being very little walking.

If they had pedestrian and cyclist numbers like Amsterdam it would be 24/7 mass murder.

Post reply on HN