8 ms·

Electric cars are quiet, it's conceivable that he was walking away, unaware his car was moving behind him.

by kylec 10y ago

freehunter 10y ago
But enabling Summon mode is not quiet nor automatic. It's a manual process and it dings and shows a light on the dashboard. Tesla is saying the guy turned on Summon mode in a place where he wasn't supposed to, in a situation it was never designed to work in, and that's why the driver is at fault. The software worked as designed, but the driver didn't pay attention to its limitations.
- dimino 10y ago
  The software did not work as designed, because it is designed, above all else, to not hit stationary objects.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision, and the autonomous collision avoidance is a supplement to that supervision, not a substitute. You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.
    - dimino 10y ago
      > That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision It was not designed to work under human supervision, but even if it was, that design was wrong, and the design was broken from the start.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        What is your basis for the statement that it was not designed to work under human supervision? The documentation is quite explicit about needing human supervision, and I see nothing whatsoever indicating anything otherwise.
        dimino 10y ago
        https://www.teslamotors.com/models https://www.teslamotors.com/models "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road." It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.
        mikeash 10y ago
        The use of the word "helps" makes it pretty clear that it's not intended to be the only thing working to avoid collisions.
        dimino 10y ago
        No it doesn't. And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Really, you think that "X helps Y" is compatible with X being intended as the sole thing performing Y? If so, we clearly speak fundamentally different languages, despite the superficial similarities in spelling and such. As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
        dimino 10y ago
        I didn't say "x being intended as the sole thing performing Y", I said, "It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.", which it was.
        mikeash 10y ago
        You said it's designed to work without human supervision. Unless you're proposing some third entity besides the car and the human which would be responsible for collision avoidance, then what you said is that the car is fully responsible for it.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I mean, my laptop is designed to detect a fall and park the hard drive automatically to avoid damage. But if I throw it off a cliff, it's probably still going to get damaged, and the Western Digital is going to laugh at my warranty claim. Because the software worked as designed, I just ignored the limitations and took the hardware outside of the design spec. Yes, the hard drive can protect against falls, up to a certain amount of G forces. Yes the Tesla can move itself around stationary objects, within the limitations of where the sensors can read. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.
    - dimino 10y ago
      The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
      - cynix 10y ago
        > The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff? They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
        dimino 10y ago
        That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
        cynix 10y ago
        The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it. Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.
- kylec 10y ago
  From the accounts here, it sounds like it's pretty easy to activate Summon when you just want to park your car, by accidentally pressing "park" twice instead of once. This is compounded by the fact that there is no "off" for Teslas, you're expected to park it and get out. Sure, there might be dings and dashboard lights, but I can easily see how someone might not see them, or might not know what they signify is about to happen. Finally, as far as I'm aware, there is no external sound or indication that the car is in Summon mode, it just starts to move, so I can easily see how, once you exit the vehicle, you'd be unaware of it happening behind you.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Activating Summon by double-clicking the Park button is an optional feature that's off by default. In addition, Summon itself is an optional feature that's off by default. Both settings come with warnings about appropriate use. So while the feature is fairly easy to activate once you have the settings enabled, the easy answer to it is to leave it disabled.
    - kylec 10y ago
      Is it possible that those safeguards were deactivated by the Tesla delivery specialist, or by the customer at the suggestion of the delivery specialist, in order to demonstrate how the feature works? I genuinely don't know if that's something the delivery specialists do, but I think it's plausible. Tesla demonstrates Autopilot on test drives as a matter of course, and I could easily see them wanting to demonstrate Summon to new customers. If so, I think it's possible the customer was not made aware of the safety implications and limitations of the system.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        It's possible, in that it's not against the laws of physics or anything. I've never heard of anyone having such things enabled by anyone from Tesla, though, and I suspect that if they did it for this person, he'd be telling everyone who will listen.
      - 10y ago

Electric cars are quiet, it's conceivable that he was walking away, unaware his car was moving behind him.

by kylec 10y ago

Electric cars are quiet, it's conceivable that he was walking away, unaware his car was moving behind him.

But enabling Summon mode is not quiet nor automatic. It's a manual process and it dings and shows a light on the dashboard. Tesla is saying the guy turned on Summon mode in a place where he wasn't supposed to, in a situation it was never designed to work in, and that's why the driver is at fault. The software worked as designed, but the driver didn't pay attention to its limitations.

dimino 10y ago
The software did not work as designed, because it is designed, above all else, to not hit stationary objects.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision, and the autonomous collision avoidance is a supplement to that supervision, not a substitute. You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.
  - dimino 10y ago
    > That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision It was not designed to work under human supervision, but even if it was, that design was wrong, and the design was broken from the start.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      What is your basis for the statement that it was not designed to work under human supervision? The documentation is quite explicit about needing human supervision, and I see nothing whatsoever indicating anything otherwise.
      - dimino 10y ago
        https://www.teslamotors.com/models https://www.teslamotors.com/models "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road." It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.
        mikeash 10y ago
        The use of the word "helps" makes it pretty clear that it's not intended to be the only thing working to avoid collisions.
        dimino 10y ago
        No it doesn't. And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Really, you think that "X helps Y" is compatible with X being intended as the sole thing performing Y? If so, we clearly speak fundamentally different languages, despite the superficial similarities in spelling and such. As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
        dimino 10y ago
        I didn't say "x being intended as the sole thing performing Y", I said, "It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.", which it was.
        mikeash 10y ago
        You said it's designed to work without human supervision. Unless you're proposing some third entity besides the car and the human which would be responsible for collision avoidance, then what you said is that the car is fully responsible for it.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I mean, my laptop is designed to detect a fall and park the hard drive automatically to avoid damage. But if I throw it off a cliff, it's probably still going to get damaged, and the Western Digital is going to laugh at my warranty claim. Because the software worked as designed, I just ignored the limitations and took the hardware outside of the design spec. Yes, the hard drive can protect against falls, up to a certain amount of G forces. Yes the Tesla can move itself around stationary objects, within the limitations of where the sensors can read. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.
  - dimino 10y ago
    The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
    - cynix 10y ago
      > The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff? They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
      - dimino 10y ago
        That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
        cynix 10y ago
        The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it. Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.
kylec 10y ago
From the accounts here, it sounds like it's pretty easy to activate Summon when you just want to park your car, by accidentally pressing "park" twice instead of once. This is compounded by the fact that there is no "off" for Teslas, you're expected to park it and get out. Sure, there might be dings and dashboard lights, but I can easily see how someone might not see them, or might not know what they signify is about to happen. Finally, as far as I'm aware, there is no external sound or indication that the car is in Summon mode, it just starts to move, so I can easily see how, once you exit the vehicle, you'd be unaware of it happening behind you.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Activating Summon by double-clicking the Park button is an optional feature that's off by default. In addition, Summon itself is an optional feature that's off by default. Both settings come with warnings about appropriate use. So while the feature is fairly easy to activate once you have the settings enabled, the easy answer to it is to leave it disabled.
  - kylec 10y ago
    Is it possible that those safeguards were deactivated by the Tesla delivery specialist, or by the customer at the suggestion of the delivery specialist, in order to demonstrate how the feature works? I genuinely don't know if that's something the delivery specialists do, but I think it's plausible. Tesla demonstrates Autopilot on test drives as a matter of course, and I could easily see them wanting to demonstrate Summon to new customers. If so, I think it's possible the customer was not made aware of the safety implications and limitations of the system.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      It's possible, in that it's not against the laws of physics or anything. I've never heard of anyone having such things enabled by anyone from Tesla, though, and I suspect that if they did it for this person, he'd be telling everyone who will listen.
    - 10y ago