6 ms·

>This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. Cars have been dependent on software

>This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. Cars have been dependent on software for a long time (literally decades). This isn't something new. Even combustion engine cars have had software inside of them that controls the operation of the engine, and this software is vigorously tested for safety issues (because most car manufacturers understand a fault with such software could result in someone's death). Tesla seems to be the only major car manufacturer that has a problem with this. >So what is the right way to handle these updates? The way that other vehicle manufacturers (car, airplane, etc) have been doing it for decades is a pretty good way. >You mentioned a clear flaw with OTA updates, but there are also numerous advantages. For example, the recent Tesla brake software issue was fixed with an OTA update. That immediately made cars safer. There is no evidence that said OTA update made Tesla cars any safer. There is evidence that similar OTA updates have made Tesla cars more unsafe. The brake OTA that you mentioned has actually potentially done more harm than good. Tesla owners have been reporting that the same update made unexpected changes to the way their cars handle/accelerate in addition to the change in braking distance. These were forced, unpredictable changes that were introduced without warning. When you're driving a 2 ton vehicle at 70mph, being able to know exactly how your car will react in all situations, including how fast it accelerates, how well it handles, how fast it brakes, and how the autopilot will act is crucial to maintaining safety. Tesla messing with those parameters without warning is a detriment to safety, not an advantage.

slg 8y ago
I didn't say no car has ever relied on software. I said cars are becoming more reliant on software. I don't think that is a controversial statement. I also don't think it is controversial to say that other automakers also occasionally ship buggy code. The Toyota brake issue I mentioned in the previous post is one example. Additionally, the argument that we should continue to handle updates this way simply because we have done it this way for decades is the laziest possible reasoning. It is frankly surprising to see that argument on HN of all places. As for the evidence that OTA updates can make things safer, this is from Consumer Reports: >Consumer Reports now recommends the Tesla Model 3, after our testers found that a recent over-the-air (OTA) update improved the car’s braking distance by almost 20 feet. [1] That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact. [1] - https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-gets-cr-recommendation-after-braking-update/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-get...
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  > That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact. There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact. Better braking distance is of course a good thing but if anything, the fact that Teslas were on the road for so long with a sub-par braking distance is more evidence of a problem with Tesla than it is evidence of a benefit of OTA updates. The other factor in that brake story is that it took mere days for Tesla to release an update to "fix" the brakes. This isn't a good thing. The fact that it was accomplished so quickly means that the OTA update was likely not tested very well. It also means that the issue was easy to fix, which calls into question why it wasn't fixed before. It also highlights the fact that Tesla, for some reason, failed to do the most basic testing on their own cars for braking distance. Comparing the braking distance of their cars should have been one of the very first things they did before even selling the cars, but apparently it took a third party to do that before Tesla was even aware of the issue. This doesn't inspire confidence in Tesla cars at all.
  - slg 8y ago
    I simply don't know what to say to you if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer. EDIT: The comment I was replying to was heavily edited after I responded. It originally said something along the lines of improving braking distance is good but there is no evidence that it would improve safety.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      And yet again, the same OTA update changed other parameters about the way the car drives that do make it less safe. I don't know why you're trying to ignore that fact. If I drastically improve the braking distance of a car, but in the same update I also make it so that the car crashes itself into a wall and kills you, is the car safer? Hint: no As for your edit, you clearly misread the original comment, which is why I edited it for you. I said that there was no evidence that the OTA made the car safer. Please try to read with better comprehension instead of trying to misrepresent my comments.
omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago
>Cars have been dependent on software for a long time (literally decades). This isn't something new. Even combustion engine cars have had software inside of them that controls the operation of the engine, and this software is vigorously tested for safety issues (because most car manufacturers understand a fault with such software could result in someone's death). Tesla seems to be the only major car manufacturer that has a problem with this. The TACC offered by most (if not all) manufacturers can't differentiate between the surroundings and stopped vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if their Lane Keeping Assist (LKA) systems have similar problems. https://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/Pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=l541&my=2018&sw=17w46&article=96ad4d2183b62a59c0a8015176bd1b81 https://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/Pages/owners-manual... >WARNING When Pilot Assist follows another vehicle at speeds overapprox. 30 km/h (20 mph) and changes target vehicle – from a moving vehicle to a stationary one – Pilot Assist will ignore the stationary vehicle and instead accelerate to the stored speed. >The driver must then intervene and apply the brakes.
- codedokode 8y ago
  > The TACC offered by most (if not all) manufacturers can't differentiate between the surroundings and stopped vehicles. Software should not be driving a car into any of them. I think that LIDAR would see the obstacle, but as I understand, the crashed Tesla car didn't have it.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago
    LIDAR probably would have seen the obstacle and avoided it, but so would a human driver who was operating the vehicle responsibly and correctly. It sucks that people treat level 2 systems and level 3 or 4, but the same thing applies to many convenience features in a car (cruise control, power brakes, etc...). There's always going to be some bozo doing what they shouldn't be doing with something. I'd love to see LIDAR on consumer vehicles, but AFAIK it's prohibitively expensive. And to be fair, even Level 4 autonomous vehicles still crash into things and kill people. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self-driving-system-saw-pedestrian-killed-but-didn-t-stop https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self... Last but not least, every semi-autonomous system all the way back to Chrysler's "AUTO-PILOT" has had similar criticisms. People in the past even said similar things about high speed highways compared to other roads WRT attention. http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-history-capsule-chryslers-1958-auto-pilot-56-years-before-teslas-autopilot/ http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-histo... https://books.google.com/books?id=YpGkDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=chrysler+imperial+%22auto-pilot%22+dangerous&source=bl&ots=EYrN1Ett0c&sig=cnmHySS-pnBXDBJR-159I7MiV8Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFx6Slg8XbAhUJl5AKHRGXCKwQ6AEIcjAP#v=onepage&q=chrysler%20imperial%20%22auto-pilot%22%20dangerous&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=YpGkDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=...
ploxiln 8y ago
All cars from all manufacturers are running 10s or 100s of times more code than they did 10 or 20 years ago. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39559/does-the-source-code-of-the-software-for-a-high-end-car-contain-on-average-aroun https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39559/does-the-... This really affects the nature of the situation. 20 years ago, cars contained microcontrollers with a tiny bit of code which was thoroughly reviewed and tested by skilled professionals. Today, all cars run so much code, even outside of the entertainment system, that the review and testing just can't be the same. (And there's way more programmers, so the range of skill and care is also much wider.) We're in a new mountain-of-flaky-software world.
- ams6110 8y ago
  When the Toyota electronic throttle "unintended acceleration" accidents were in the news, the software was described as a "big bowl of spaghetti" but the NTSB ultimately determined that it was not the cause of the problems. It was drivers using the wrong pedal.
  - golfer 8y ago
    Wrong pedal? How about faulty pedal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/02/faulty-cars-recalled-toyota-reputation https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
    - dannyfraser 8y ago
      Malcolm Gladwell's podcast had a good summary of the issue, including the pedal confusion. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/08-blame-game http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/08-blame-game
    - freerobby 8y ago
      There are news stories like this all over because it was an ongoing saga. But the DOT's investigation showed that folks were hitting the wrong pedal: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the-dot-renders-its-verdict-on-toyotas-unintended-acceleration-scare-feature https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the...
ataturk 8y ago
The software you speak of is incredibly simplistic, though. Engine management is literally a table of data that matches inputs with what to do. It is not sophisticated software.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
I agree with everything you said except this: > being able to know exactly how your car will react in all situations If one depends on intimate knowledge of his own car for safety then he’s likely already driving outside the safety envelope of the code, which was written to provide enough safety margin for people driving bad cars from 40yr ago.
sokoloff 8y ago
> There is no evidence that said OTA update made Tesla cars any safer. That particular OTA update significantly shortened braking distances. [The update] cut the vehicle’s 60 mph stopping distance a whole 19 feet, to 133, about average for a luxury compact sedan. That's a safer condition, IMO, and I'm uncertain how to argue that it doesn't make the car safer. [0] - https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-model3-braking-software-update-consumer-reports/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-model3-braking-software-up...

slg 8y ago

I didn't say no car has ever relied on software. I said cars are becoming more reliant on software. I don't think that is a controversial statement. I also don't think it is controversial to say that other automakers also occasionally ship buggy code. The Toyota brake issue I mentioned in the previous post is one example. Additionally, the argument that we should continue to handle updates this way simply because we have done it this way for decades is the laziest possible reasoning. It is frankly surprising to see that argument on HN of all places. As for the evidence that OTA updates can make things safer, this is from Consumer Reports: >Consumer Reports now recommends the Tesla Model 3, after our testers found that a recent over-the-air (OTA) update improved the car’s braking distance by almost 20 feet. [1] That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact. [1] - https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-gets-cr-recommendation-after-braking-update/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-get...

txcwpalpha 8y ago
> That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact. There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact. Better braking distance is of course a good thing but if anything, the fact that Teslas were on the road for so long with a sub-par braking distance is more evidence of a problem with Tesla than it is evidence of a benefit of OTA updates. The other factor in that brake story is that it took mere days for Tesla to release an update to "fix" the brakes. This isn't a good thing. The fact that it was accomplished so quickly means that the OTA update was likely not tested very well. It also means that the issue was easy to fix, which calls into question why it wasn't fixed before. It also highlights the fact that Tesla, for some reason, failed to do the most basic testing on their own cars for braking distance. Comparing the braking distance of their cars should have been one of the very first things they did before even selling the cars, but apparently it took a third party to do that before Tesla was even aware of the issue. This doesn't inspire confidence in Tesla cars at all.
- slg 8y ago
  I simply don't know what to say to you if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer. EDIT: The comment I was replying to was heavily edited after I responded. It originally said something along the lines of improving braking distance is good but there is no evidence that it would improve safety.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    And yet again, the same OTA update changed other parameters about the way the car drives that do make it less safe. I don't know why you're trying to ignore that fact. If I drastically improve the braking distance of a car, but in the same update I also make it so that the car crashes itself into a wall and kills you, is the car safer? Hint: no As for your edit, you clearly misread the original comment, which is why I edited it for you. I said that there was no evidence that the OTA made the car safer. Please try to read with better comprehension instead of trying to misrepresent my comments.

omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago

>Cars have been dependent on software for a long time (literally decades). This isn't something new. Even combustion engine cars have had software inside of them that controls the operation of the engine, and this software is vigorously tested for safety issues (because most car manufacturers understand a fault with such software could result in someone's death). Tesla seems to be the only major car manufacturer that has a problem with this. The TACC offered by most (if not all) manufacturers can't differentiate between the surroundings and stopped vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if their Lane Keeping Assist (LKA) systems have similar problems. https://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/Pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=l541&my=2018&sw=17w46&article=96ad4d2183b62a59c0a8015176bd1b81 https://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/Pages/owners-manual... >WARNING When Pilot Assist follows another vehicle at speeds overapprox. 30 km/h (20 mph) and changes target vehicle – from a moving vehicle to a stationary one – Pilot Assist will ignore the stationary vehicle and instead accelerate to the stored speed. >The driver must then intervene and apply the brakes.

codedokode 8y ago
> The TACC offered by most (if not all) manufacturers can't differentiate between the surroundings and stopped vehicles. Software should not be driving a car into any of them. I think that LIDAR would see the obstacle, but as I understand, the crashed Tesla car didn't have it.
- omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago
  LIDAR probably would have seen the obstacle and avoided it, but so would a human driver who was operating the vehicle responsibly and correctly. It sucks that people treat level 2 systems and level 3 or 4, but the same thing applies to many convenience features in a car (cruise control, power brakes, etc...). There's always going to be some bozo doing what they shouldn't be doing with something. I'd love to see LIDAR on consumer vehicles, but AFAIK it's prohibitively expensive. And to be fair, even Level 4 autonomous vehicles still crash into things and kill people. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self-driving-system-saw-pedestrian-killed-but-didn-t-stop https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/uber-self... Last but not least, every semi-autonomous system all the way back to Chrysler's "AUTO-PILOT" has had similar criticisms. People in the past even said similar things about high speed highways compared to other roads WRT attention. http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-history-capsule-chryslers-1958-auto-pilot-56-years-before-teslas-autopilot/ http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-histo... https://books.google.com/books?id=YpGkDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=chrysler+imperial+%22auto-pilot%22+dangerous&source=bl&ots=EYrN1Ett0c&sig=cnmHySS-pnBXDBJR-159I7MiV8Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFx6Slg8XbAhUJl5AKHRGXCKwQ6AEIcjAP#v=onepage&q=chrysler%20imperial%20%22auto-pilot%22%20dangerous&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=YpGkDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=...

ploxiln 8y ago

All cars from all manufacturers are running 10s or 100s of times more code than they did 10 or 20 years ago. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39559/does-the-source-code-of-the-software-for-a-high-end-car-contain-on-average-aroun https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39559/does-the-... This really affects the nature of the situation. 20 years ago, cars contained microcontrollers with a tiny bit of code which was thoroughly reviewed and tested by skilled professionals. Today, all cars run so much code, even outside of the entertainment system, that the review and testing just can't be the same. (And there's way more programmers, so the range of skill and care is also much wider.) We're in a new mountain-of-flaky-software world.

ams6110 8y ago
When the Toyota electronic throttle "unintended acceleration" accidents were in the news, the software was described as a "big bowl of spaghetti" but the NTSB ultimately determined that it was not the cause of the problems. It was drivers using the wrong pedal.
- golfer 8y ago
  Wrong pedal? How about faulty pedal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/02/faulty-cars-recalled-toyota-reputation https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
  - dannyfraser 8y ago
    Malcolm Gladwell's podcast had a good summary of the issue, including the pedal confusion. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/08-blame-game http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/08-blame-game
  - freerobby 8y ago
    There are news stories like this all over because it was an ongoing saga. But the DOT's investigation showed that folks were hitting the wrong pedal: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the-dot-renders-its-verdict-on-toyotas-unintended-acceleration-scare-feature https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the...

ataturk 8y ago

The software you speak of is incredibly simplistic, though. Engine management is literally a table of data that matches inputs with what to do. It is not sophisticated software.

LoSboccacc 8y ago

I agree with everything you said except this: > being able to know exactly how your car will react in all situations If one depends on intimate knowledge of his own car for safety then he’s likely already driving outside the safety envelope of the code, which was written to provide enough safety margin for people driving bad cars from 40yr ago.

sokoloff 8y ago

> There is no evidence that said OTA update made Tesla cars any safer. That particular OTA update significantly shortened braking distances. [The update] cut the vehicle’s 60 mph stopping distance a whole 19 feet, to 133, about average for a luxury compact sedan. That's a safer condition, IMO, and I'm uncertain how to argue that it doesn't make the car safer. [0] - https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-model3-braking-software-update-consumer-reports/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-model3-braking-software-up...