16 ms·

summon is the wildest energy. its like handing your keys to a feral racoon on bath salts. i once had to file a claim after a tesla on summon backed out of its

summon is the wildest energy. its like handing your keys to a feral racoon on bath salts. i once had to file a claim after a tesla on summon backed out of its parking space and directly over my motorcycle, crushing it against a barrier wall with such unrelenting force it pushed the cylinder head covers into the gas tank. this claim was a real tit spanner because the owners cut-rate insurance company flat-out refused to cover it since the driver wasnt in the car. it took nearly a year of subrogation but mercifully they settled.

judge2020 5y ago
I wonder if they'd refuse to cover damage from their client's car rolling down a hill in neutral, hitting another car, only because the owner wasn't in it.
noneeeed 5y ago
Well that's disturbing. It doesn't bode well for how they are building their self-driving systems. A simple set of ultrasonic reversing sensors would be enough to prevent this.
- judge2020 5y ago
  The part of the jet it hit was in the air, the ultrasonic sensors are the main way it avoids hitting non-car objects in Smart Summon, and they have those all around the car.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    I feel like there must be some way to detect and avoid objects that occlude space the car intends to occupy but that also don't touch the ground inside that footprint.
    - byw 5y ago
      Maybe a lidar would've prevented these types of issues.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        But how often is a car at risk of not clearing something in a parking lot? I don’t think they should be adding cost (manufacturing complexity, material/part cost) to specifically handle driving around a runway.
        ruined 5y ago
        there are no rules about what kind of objects can exist in a parking lot. if they can't account for hanging obstructions, which are actually quite frequent everywhere, they probably should err on the side of "less likely to kill people" and just not offer it.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        atchoo 5y ago
        Hitting a partially lowered garage door seems the most likely.
        ipython 5y ago
        Not a Tesla, just a plain old fuckup on my part - I backed into a fan box mounted about 3’ off the ground in a parking garage. Was too reliant on cameras and the backup radar- didn’t look and boom - nice big crease in my rear panel. So yes this sort of thing is not some sort of crazy edge case only encountered on airport tarmacs.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Other vehicles can be pretty far off the ground sometimes, and while I don't know if summon can avoid those, autopilot sure doesn't.
        throwanem 5y ago
        I feel like if you need to think about a case like this for its own sake then there may be some more fundamental problem with your approach. I bet it'd work great on Mars, though. Not a whole lot of airplanes there, now or in the foreseeable future.
  - rasz 5y ago
    Jet crushed the upper windshield right in the spot where Tesla hides its monocular camera cluster.
- hosh 5y ago
  Tesla is known to play fast and loose with their driver assist and autonomous vehicle tech and insist on avoiding lidar. Waymo and Cruise are a lot more conservative. As a society, we have not figured out who is liable in cases like this -- the owner or the car company that engineered the AI.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    It borders on reckless than Tesla isn't using LiDAR or a similar sensor. Relying on images only requires you to perfectly identify every object in the scene in order to infer its bounding box. And that's an issue like we see here where you don't expect to see private jets near a Tesla and so it may not be modelled. With LiDAR, Radar etc. at least they know "something" is there even if they don't know what is.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
      You shouldn't need to identify objects using images, just that the parallax shift indicates something there.
      - Commodore63 5y ago
        IIRC their cameras are videoconference grade webcam FHD sensors. Lots of noise in that signal.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      How much would a LiDAR add to the cost of a Tesla?
      - hosh 5y ago
        I don't know about the cost of the hardware itself, but there is also the cost to license the tech, with different lidar companies attempting grab a piece of the patentable space for lidar. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-lidar-elon-musk-autonomous-vehicles https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-li... https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/07/22/lidar-competition-is-revving-up/ https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/07/22/lidar-competition-... https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/09/02/waymo-is-driving-lidars-exclusivity/ https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/09/02/waymo-is-driving-l...
- csa 5y ago
  Tesla says that the owner is supposed to be able to see the car during all parts of the summon procedure precisely to prevent situations like this. Tesla knows that this system is not perfect. Fwiw, the best use of summon is simply getting out of a tight parking spot (e.g., some residential garages). Expecting it to be a valet is ambitious in its current state.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Tesla also says that "your car will come to you while you deal with a fussy child". So which is the definitive statement?
    - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
      There seems to be a very very clear disconnect between Tesla car's actual capabilities, their marketing claims, and the stuff they say to cover their asses legally.
    - csa 5y ago
      Disclosure: I own a Tesla and I love it. I wasn’t certain until I drove one, and then I knew immediately that it was the car for me (and it has been great). That said, some of the Tesla marketing, like in the example you provided, is very far off the mark. I really wish they wouldn’t do that, since it makes people question the other things marketed about the car that are (more or less) accurate. Fwiw, the summon feature is a nice, minor convenience. I would even say that it is well-implemented for simple use cases. That said, the existing feature does not match the dreams that Tesla is currently selling (imho).
- bXVsbGVy 5y ago
  The card could have realized it hit something based on the engine load. I find disturbing how the car just keep going... This is not a sensor issue.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    The owner controls it by holding the button. Like a gas pedal.
    - bXVsbGVy 5y ago
      Your comparison doesn't hold. Tesla stops when it sense a imminent collision even if you have your foot on the pedal. But, based on the incident, it seems to rely on the cameras and radars. Not on engine performance data.
      - ricardobeat 5y ago
        Safety mechanisms don’t remove liability. If a car doesn’t stop of it’s own volition to avoid a crash while the driver continues accelerating (and most cars don’t), the responsibility is still with the driver.
        bXVsbGVy 5y ago
        Fair.
throw0101a 5y ago
> this claim was a real tit spanner because the owners cut-rate insurance company flat-out refused to cover it since the driver wasnt in the car. I thought the official dogma was that when self-driving cars were in "auto-mode" the manufacturers would be the parties held responsible/liable and pay for any damages cause by their systems.
- tantalor 5y ago
  forced arbitration has entered the chat
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    Only in the US, in Europa that wouldn't pass consumer protection laws.
  - danachow 5y ago
    How can they force arbitration with a third party?
- csa 5y ago
  > I thought the official dogma was that when self-driving cars were in "auto-mode" the manufacturers would be the parties held responsible/liable and pay for any damages cause by their systems. See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31129075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31129075 tl;dr — Tesla states the driver is responsible when using this feature.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    Obviously Tesla is just trying to side-step liability for yet another potentially dangerous self-driving feature. It might even sound reasonable reading the disclaimer, but its not like regular self-driving mode where the driver is supposed to be behind the wheel, alert and ready to take over/manually override the system. At least in that situation a driver has at least the minimal training to receive a license for the activity and probably has general familiarity with potential dangers and hazards. Whereas people aren’t trained/licensed to operate their vehicles remotely from outside the vehicle. Sure it might sound dumb, because any observer can reasonably see a potential accident, except that a reasonable person outside the vehicle probably expects the Tesla to also identify the same object the observer sees and avoid it. More specifically, as in this case, the driver probably had zero clue the Tesla was unable to “see” the plane engine because why wouldn’t a Tesla be able to see an object at the same level as the vehicle (a obvious “blind spot” that I’m sure Tesla was well aware of, but didn’t exactly go out of their way to advertise/warn their car owners).
moralestapia 5y ago
>this claim was a real tit spanner because the owners cut-rate insurance company flat-out refused to cover it since the driver wasnt in the car WTF, I'm against self-driving cars now. Glad you're all right.
- dkarp 5y ago
  Even if the insurance refuses to pay, the tesla owner would still have been liable. You'd have to go after them directly.
  - ericbarrett 5y ago
    Lawyer fees to sue over a motorcycle would be more than the cost of a new motorcycle, unless it's a Ducati or something similarly car-priced.
biggc 5y ago
> since the driver wasnt in the car. That's shocking. What does that have to do with liability? Hypothentically if my car's brakes failed while my car was parked, my insurance should cover any damages.
csa 5y ago
I’m surprised that it took so long. Tesla says that the car should be in sight during the whole summon procedure precisely so things like this don’t happen. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-6B9A1AEA-579C-400E-A7A6-E4916BCD5DED.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-6B9A1AE... “You must maintain a clear line of sight between you and Model 3 and closely monitor the vehicle and its surroundings at all times.” “Smart Summon is a BETA feature. You must continually monitor the vehicle and its surroundings and stay prepared to take immediate action at any time. It is the driver's responsibility to use Smart Summon safely, responsibly, and as intended.” I’m surprised that this was not a slam dunk for your insurance company.
- xsmasher 5y ago
  That's Tesla trying to absolve themselves of any blame. It has nothing to do with getting the Tesla owner's insurance to pay. Their insurance says "driver wasn't driving, not covered." Meaning the Tesla owner is still to blame, but you need sue them directly; meaning your insurance needs to sue them directly.
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  I mean, the reason the self-driving community is furious at Tesla (well, Musk) is because they publish half-assed features like this and then push on the responsibility to the owners, and you'll always end up with idiots. (I'm sure the engineers at Tesla are just as dissatisfied about the state of things, but Musk is relentless. I'm glad I chose not to work there)
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
  - tenpies 5y ago
    The main reason isn't that they push responsibility to the owners, it's that they're risking getting the entire sector crushed just because Elon needs to prop his lies to keep the stock up. > “In the U.S., things are legal by default, and in Europe, they are illegal by default,” Musk said last month during the opening of Tesla's factory near Berlin. “We have to get approval beforehand, whereas in the U.S., you can kind of do it on your own cognizance, more or less.” This sums it up. Elon is gambling the entire autonomous industry on the hopes that these crashes never go too viral. That it's never a slow news week when FSD happens to drive like a blind teenager and cremate the driver and murder innocent bystanders. If this ever happens it's the end of autonomous driving. The regulation will be so punitive and the hoops so plentiful that it will be over, for everyone.
peteradio 5y ago
Tesla sounds like the guy who takes money to let someone cut in line behind them.
ajross 5y ago
That sounds very weird. Summon is based on the ultrasound sensors. It will refuse to approach curbs and cones and some speed bumps. If anything it's tuned too tightly to be actually useful in practice (it also has no visual navigation, it just tries to head in roughly the right direction at 3-4mph, it's basically a toy). It's very hard to imagine that it missed something as big as a motorcycle. In the linked case, the car's windshield hit the prodruding tail of the jet, which was maybe 1.5m above the tarmac. I'd be more willing to believe that this is an edge case of the sensors (they aren't tuned for overhangs, and I've heard of people scraping garage doors for presumably similar reasons). But... a motorcycle, really? Are you absolutely sure it was on summon? Likewise I don't understand why you were dealing with the other driver's insurance company anyway. This is what you pay your own insurer for; making you whole without having to do the work yourself is literally what you pay them for.
rzimmerman 5y ago
There are two forms of "summon". There's regular summon, where you have to hold down a button to make the car go forward or back. It does turn to avoid obstacles, but with a very nervous energy. Regular summon is super slow, 1-2 miles per hour. If you let go of the button the car stops, but not as quickly as you'd think. It takes about a full second. Smart summon does have wild raccoon energy. In this case, you need to be within ~200 feet and the car uses its GPS location to plot a path to you. It will back out and turn around obstacles. But it goes kind of fast. Uncomfortably fast. I had my car whip around a turn and nearly hit a parked car. I don't think I've ever seen it work well. Or at least it has always ended with me letting go of the phone kill switch. Which again, takes around a full second to stop the car. Like someone else commented, this is a very different system than "full self driving" (16 year-old that just got their license energy), which is also a different thing than "Autopilot" (works great on highways).
- jaclaz 5y ago
  1 full second seems a lot of time, even at a very low speed, of 3.6 km/h or a little more than 2 miles/hour, that is 1 m/s, i.e. the car will travel a whole meter in that second of delay (to which you may actually need to add some delay for the reaction of the user), I would have thought that releasing the button would result in a nearly instant "emergency braking", after all there is no one in the car and even if it stops abruptly it wouldn't be an issue.
Ekaros 5y ago
And why should it be insurance company's problem if the driver weren't in car operating it? They are still themselves liable and can be sued for damages. Which I think is the more correct route. My and other insurance payers shouldn't be responsible to funding Tesla's fuck-ups. Or their owners idiocy and laziness...

judge2020 5y ago

I wonder if they'd refuse to cover damage from their client's car rolling down a hill in neutral, hitting another car, only because the owner wasn't in it.

noneeeed 5y ago

Well that's disturbing. It doesn't bode well for how they are building their self-driving systems. A simple set of ultrasonic reversing sensors would be enough to prevent this.

judge2020 5y ago
The part of the jet it hit was in the air, the ultrasonic sensors are the main way it avoids hitting non-car objects in Smart Summon, and they have those all around the car.
- throwanem 5y ago
  I feel like there must be some way to detect and avoid objects that occlude space the car intends to occupy but that also don't touch the ground inside that footprint.
  - byw 5y ago
    Maybe a lidar would've prevented these types of issues.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      But how often is a car at risk of not clearing something in a parking lot? I don’t think they should be adding cost (manufacturing complexity, material/part cost) to specifically handle driving around a runway.
      - ruined 5y ago
        there are no rules about what kind of objects can exist in a parking lot. if they can't account for hanging obstructions, which are actually quite frequent everywhere, they probably should err on the side of "less likely to kill people" and just not offer it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - atchoo 5y ago
        Hitting a partially lowered garage door seems the most likely.
      - ipython 5y ago
        Not a Tesla, just a plain old fuckup on my part - I backed into a fan box mounted about 3’ off the ground in a parking garage. Was too reliant on cameras and the backup radar- didn’t look and boom - nice big crease in my rear panel. So yes this sort of thing is not some sort of crazy edge case only encountered on airport tarmacs.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Other vehicles can be pretty far off the ground sometimes, and while I don't know if summon can avoid those, autopilot sure doesn't.
      - throwanem 5y ago
        I feel like if you need to think about a case like this for its own sake then there may be some more fundamental problem with your approach. I bet it'd work great on Mars, though. Not a whole lot of airplanes there, now or in the foreseeable future.
- rasz 5y ago
  Jet crushed the upper windshield right in the spot where Tesla hides its monocular camera cluster.
hosh 5y ago
Tesla is known to play fast and loose with their driver assist and autonomous vehicle tech and insist on avoiding lidar. Waymo and Cruise are a lot more conservative. As a society, we have not figured out who is liable in cases like this -- the owner or the car company that engineered the AI.
- threeseed 5y ago
  It borders on reckless than Tesla isn't using LiDAR or a similar sensor. Relying on images only requires you to perfectly identify every object in the scene in order to infer its bounding box. And that's an issue like we see here where you don't expect to see private jets near a Tesla and so it may not be modelled. With LiDAR, Radar etc. at least they know "something" is there even if they don't know what is.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    You shouldn't need to identify objects using images, just that the parallax shift indicates something there.
    - Commodore63 5y ago
      IIRC their cameras are videoconference grade webcam FHD sensors. Lots of noise in that signal.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    How much would a LiDAR add to the cost of a Tesla?
    - hosh 5y ago
      I don't know about the cost of the hardware itself, but there is also the cost to license the tech, with different lidar companies attempting grab a piece of the patentable space for lidar. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-lidar-elon-musk-autonomous-vehicles https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-li... https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/07/22/lidar-competition-is-revving-up/ https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/07/22/lidar-competition-... https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/09/02/waymo-is-driving-lidars-exclusivity/ https://www.patentforecast.com/2021/09/02/waymo-is-driving-l...
csa 5y ago
Tesla says that the owner is supposed to be able to see the car during all parts of the summon procedure precisely to prevent situations like this. Tesla knows that this system is not perfect. Fwiw, the best use of summon is simply getting out of a tight parking spot (e.g., some residential garages). Expecting it to be a valet is ambitious in its current state.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Tesla also says that "your car will come to you while you deal with a fussy child". So which is the definitive statement?
  - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
    There seems to be a very very clear disconnect between Tesla car's actual capabilities, their marketing claims, and the stuff they say to cover their asses legally.
  - csa 5y ago
    Disclosure: I own a Tesla and I love it. I wasn’t certain until I drove one, and then I knew immediately that it was the car for me (and it has been great). That said, some of the Tesla marketing, like in the example you provided, is very far off the mark. I really wish they wouldn’t do that, since it makes people question the other things marketed about the car that are (more or less) accurate. Fwiw, the summon feature is a nice, minor convenience. I would even say that it is well-implemented for simple use cases. That said, the existing feature does not match the dreams that Tesla is currently selling (imho).
bXVsbGVy 5y ago
The card could have realized it hit something based on the engine load. I find disturbing how the car just keep going... This is not a sensor issue.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  The owner controls it by holding the button. Like a gas pedal.
  - bXVsbGVy 5y ago
    Your comparison doesn't hold. Tesla stops when it sense a imminent collision even if you have your foot on the pedal. But, based on the incident, it seems to rely on the cameras and radars. Not on engine performance data.
    - ricardobeat 5y ago
      Safety mechanisms don’t remove liability. If a car doesn’t stop of it’s own volition to avoid a crash while the driver continues accelerating (and most cars don’t), the responsibility is still with the driver.
      - bXVsbGVy 5y ago
        Fair.

throw0101a 5y ago

> this claim was a real tit spanner because the owners cut-rate insurance company flat-out refused to cover it since the driver wasnt in the car. I thought the official dogma was that when self-driving cars were in "auto-mode" the manufacturers would be the parties held responsible/liable and pay for any damages cause by their systems.

tantalor 5y ago
forced arbitration has entered the chat
- t0mas88 5y ago
  Only in the US, in Europa that wouldn't pass consumer protection laws.
- danachow 5y ago
  How can they force arbitration with a third party?
csa 5y ago
> I thought the official dogma was that when self-driving cars were in "auto-mode" the manufacturers would be the parties held responsible/liable and pay for any damages cause by their systems. See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31129075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31129075 tl;dr — Tesla states the driver is responsible when using this feature.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Obviously Tesla is just trying to side-step liability for yet another potentially dangerous self-driving feature. It might even sound reasonable reading the disclaimer, but its not like regular self-driving mode where the driver is supposed to be behind the wheel, alert and ready to take over/manually override the system. At least in that situation a driver has at least the minimal training to receive a license for the activity and probably has general familiarity with potential dangers and hazards. Whereas people aren’t trained/licensed to operate their vehicles remotely from outside the vehicle. Sure it might sound dumb, because any observer can reasonably see a potential accident, except that a reasonable person outside the vehicle probably expects the Tesla to also identify the same object the observer sees and avoid it. More specifically, as in this case, the driver probably had zero clue the Tesla was unable to “see” the plane engine because why wouldn’t a Tesla be able to see an object at the same level as the vehicle (a obvious “blind spot” that I’m sure Tesla was well aware of, but didn’t exactly go out of their way to advertise/warn their car owners).

moralestapia 5y ago

>this claim was a real tit spanner because the owners cut-rate insurance company flat-out refused to cover it since the driver wasnt in the car WTF, I'm against self-driving cars now. Glad you're all right.

dkarp 5y ago
Even if the insurance refuses to pay, the tesla owner would still have been liable. You'd have to go after them directly.
- ericbarrett 5y ago
  Lawyer fees to sue over a motorcycle would be more than the cost of a new motorcycle, unless it's a Ducati or something similarly car-priced.

biggc 5y ago

> since the driver wasnt in the car. That's shocking. What does that have to do with liability? Hypothentically if my car's brakes failed while my car was parked, my insurance should cover any damages.

csa 5y ago

I’m surprised that it took so long. Tesla says that the car should be in sight during the whole summon procedure precisely so things like this don’t happen. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-6B9A1AEA-579C-400E-A7A6-E4916BCD5DED.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-6B9A1AE... “You must maintain a clear line of sight between you and Model 3 and closely monitor the vehicle and its surroundings at all times.” “Smart Summon is a BETA feature. You must continually monitor the vehicle and its surroundings and stay prepared to take immediate action at any time. It is the driver's responsibility to use Smart Summon safely, responsibly, and as intended.” I’m surprised that this was not a slam dunk for your insurance company.

xsmasher 5y ago
That's Tesla trying to absolve themselves of any blame. It has nothing to do with getting the Tesla owner's insurance to pay. Their insurance says "driver wasn't driving, not covered." Meaning the Tesla owner is still to blame, but you need sue them directly; meaning your insurance needs to sue them directly.
AceJohnny2 5y ago
I mean, the reason the self-driving community is furious at Tesla (well, Musk) is because they publish half-assed features like this and then push on the responsibility to the owners, and you'll always end up with idiots. (I'm sure the engineers at Tesla are just as dissatisfied about the state of things, but Musk is relentless. I'm glad I chose not to work there)
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
- tenpies 5y ago
  The main reason isn't that they push responsibility to the owners, it's that they're risking getting the entire sector crushed just because Elon needs to prop his lies to keep the stock up. > “In the U.S., things are legal by default, and in Europe, they are illegal by default,” Musk said last month during the opening of Tesla's factory near Berlin. “We have to get approval beforehand, whereas in the U.S., you can kind of do it on your own cognizance, more or less.” This sums it up. Elon is gambling the entire autonomous industry on the hopes that these crashes never go too viral. That it's never a slow news week when FSD happens to drive like a blind teenager and cremate the driver and murder innocent bystanders. If this ever happens it's the end of autonomous driving. The regulation will be so punitive and the hoops so plentiful that it will be over, for everyone.

peteradio 5y ago

Tesla sounds like the guy who takes money to let someone cut in line behind them.

ajross 5y ago

That sounds very weird. Summon is based on the ultrasound sensors. It will refuse to approach curbs and cones and some speed bumps. If anything it's tuned too tightly to be actually useful in practice (it also has no visual navigation, it just tries to head in roughly the right direction at 3-4mph, it's basically a toy). It's very hard to imagine that it missed something as big as a motorcycle. In the linked case, the car's windshield hit the prodruding tail of the jet, which was maybe 1.5m above the tarmac. I'd be more willing to believe that this is an edge case of the sensors (they aren't tuned for overhangs, and I've heard of people scraping garage doors for presumably similar reasons). But... a motorcycle, really? Are you absolutely sure it was on summon? Likewise I don't understand why you were dealing with the other driver's insurance company anyway. This is what you pay your own insurer for; making you whole without having to do the work yourself is literally what you pay them for.

rzimmerman 5y ago

There are two forms of "summon". There's regular summon, where you have to hold down a button to make the car go forward or back. It does turn to avoid obstacles, but with a very nervous energy. Regular summon is super slow, 1-2 miles per hour. If you let go of the button the car stops, but not as quickly as you'd think. It takes about a full second. Smart summon does have wild raccoon energy. In this case, you need to be within ~200 feet and the car uses its GPS location to plot a path to you. It will back out and turn around obstacles. But it goes kind of fast. Uncomfortably fast. I had my car whip around a turn and nearly hit a parked car. I don't think I've ever seen it work well. Or at least it has always ended with me letting go of the phone kill switch. Which again, takes around a full second to stop the car. Like someone else commented, this is a very different system than "full self driving" (16 year-old that just got their license energy), which is also a different thing than "Autopilot" (works great on highways).

jaclaz 5y ago
1 full second seems a lot of time, even at a very low speed, of 3.6 km/h or a little more than 2 miles/hour, that is 1 m/s, i.e. the car will travel a whole meter in that second of delay (to which you may actually need to add some delay for the reaction of the user), I would have thought that releasing the button would result in a nearly instant "emergency braking", after all there is no one in the car and even if it stops abruptly it wouldn't be an issue.

Ekaros 5y ago

And why should it be insurance company's problem if the driver weren't in car operating it? They are still themselves liable and can be sued for damages. Which I think is the more correct route. My and other insurance payers shouldn't be responsible to funding Tesla's fuck-ups. Or their owners idiocy and laziness...