5 ms·

Tesla recalls nearly all 2M of its vehicles on US roads

37 points by bigfudge 3y ago

entropicgravity 3y ago
Yes, and CNN wasted tons of ink printing that headline.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bigfudge 3y ago
This seems like quite a big deal. The article doesn't state the likely cost, but that may be less important than the substantial loss of face for Tesla given all the claims that have been made for autopilot.
- rogerkirkness 3y ago
  All they have to do is an OTA update though. It's like a bug fix basically.
  - natch 3y ago
    Like a bug fix, except without the bug.
- natch 3y ago
  No loss of face. Some regulators perceive a problem and have proposed (and mandated) some measures to alleviate their perceived problem. These measures will come in the form of a software update, something that is totally business as usual for Tesla, with zero car owners needing to do anything they wouldn’t already do anyway in the comfort of their own homes, much less needing to take the car in for service somewhere… they don’t need to do that either. Basically zero impact on owners. Tiny tweak for Tesla. Not a big deal. The measures in the update simply add more reminders for humans to do the things they are already aware they are responsible for doing such as watching the road. On top of the reminders that are already given when an inattentive driver is detected.
dheera 3y ago
I'm a cardiac arrest survivor with an implanted defibrillator and although after a cardiac ablation operation and anti-arrythmic medications, I have been incident free for a few years now and medically cleared to drive, I have a LOT of anxiety around the "what if" I went into sudden cardiac death again while driving. The reality is that if I went into sudden cardiac death, my implant would restart my heart within 20 seconds, so with the advent of the implant, the only real death risk is a car crash, not my heart. With a non-self-driving car, you would almost certainly crash if you let go of all the controls for 20 seconds. Tesla FSD has almost FULLY gotten rid of my anxiety because in any random 20 seconds out of a million seconds there's a very high, likely 99.99%+ probability it will drive just fine until I'm conscious again. It would be distressing if they made a software modification that caused it to disable or "give up" if the driver isn't responsive. As of now the car's behavior is to continue self-driving and reducing speed to a full stop and putting on the emergency flashers, which I think is a reasonable way to deal with the situation. Pulling over on the shoulder or at least moving to the right-most lane would be nice, but Teslas don't do that yet. Teslas also punish you by not allowing you to use autopilot for a while, which I hate because it often punishes me on very long straight roads where there is no necessity to apply force to the steering wheel. There is also that if you have 5 "strikes" on FSD you are punished by being forced to use a crappier, worse driving algorithm for a week. That mind-boggles me because as an engineer you'd think you should give the best self-driving algorithms to the least reliable drivers, but Tesla punishes the supposedly least reliable drivers by handing them less reliable software and forcing them to use it for a week. A lot of other cars' active lane keep systems will "give up" and crash the car if the driver goes unconscious and stops touching the wheel, which is about the most unsafe thing it can do. I truly hope Tesla isn't pushed by the NSA toward implementing it that way.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  This is an interesting edge-case, thanks for sharing it. This brings up the point that there are many common medical events that FSD mitigates or contains that receive very little attention. The only one I can remember reading about is from 2016 when someone needed the Tesla to drive itself to the nearest hospital. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/08/tesla-model-x-missouri-medical-emergency https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/08/tesla-mod...
fkarg 3y ago
Discussed already earlier today. Technically a recall, but for Tesla just an OTA.
- metadat 3y ago
  Thanks, here's the discussion: Tesla Recalls 2M Cars to Fix Autopilot Safety Flaws https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652 (200 comments)
  - lbourdages 3y ago
    It was a real frustrating comment section to read. Half the comments being a variation of "it's not a recall, it's an update" while conveniently ignoring that a recall has a legal meaning with obligation to contact vehicle owners by mail and stuff like that. It really felt like a bunch of Tesla owners felt personally attacked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
    - cssanchez 3y ago
      It's a legal term that hasn't caught up to modern standards as that word still implies a physical need to return your vehicle for service. When in reality it's the same as a forced security update on your phone or PC.
      - lbourdages 3y ago
        When a vehicle has a defect that can pose safety issues, a recall is issued. I don't see why we should handle software defects differently from hardware defects. I understand the point you make, but this is entirely semantics and is not a real world issue. Tesla owners will receive a notice of recall that will clearly state that there will be an OTA update, they will read it and move on.
      - moogly 3y ago
        I hope no one tells these guys about other anachronisms like "horsepower".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
leetgirl83 3y ago
Why won't the headline just say "Tesla recalls nearly 2m vehicles by issuing software update". Are they allergic to the phrase "software update" or something?

37 points by bigfudge 3y ago

entropicgravity 3y ago

Yes, and CNN wasted tons of ink printing that headline.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bigfudge 3y ago

This seems like quite a big deal. The article doesn't state the likely cost, but that may be less important than the substantial loss of face for Tesla given all the claims that have been made for autopilot.

rogerkirkness 3y ago
All they have to do is an OTA update though. It's like a bug fix basically.
- natch 3y ago
  Like a bug fix, except without the bug.
natch 3y ago
No loss of face. Some regulators perceive a problem and have proposed (and mandated) some measures to alleviate their perceived problem. These measures will come in the form of a software update, something that is totally business as usual for Tesla, with zero car owners needing to do anything they wouldn’t already do anyway in the comfort of their own homes, much less needing to take the car in for service somewhere… they don’t need to do that either. Basically zero impact on owners. Tiny tweak for Tesla. Not a big deal. The measures in the update simply add more reminders for humans to do the things they are already aware they are responsible for doing such as watching the road. On top of the reminders that are already given when an inattentive driver is detected.

dheera 3y ago

I'm a cardiac arrest survivor with an implanted defibrillator and although after a cardiac ablation operation and anti-arrythmic medications, I have been incident free for a few years now and medically cleared to drive, I have a LOT of anxiety around the "what if" I went into sudden cardiac death again while driving. The reality is that if I went into sudden cardiac death, my implant would restart my heart within 20 seconds, so with the advent of the implant, the only real death risk is a car crash, not my heart. With a non-self-driving car, you would almost certainly crash if you let go of all the controls for 20 seconds. Tesla FSD has almost FULLY gotten rid of my anxiety because in any random 20 seconds out of a million seconds there's a very high, likely 99.99%+ probability it will drive just fine until I'm conscious again. It would be distressing if they made a software modification that caused it to disable or "give up" if the driver isn't responsive. As of now the car's behavior is to continue self-driving and reducing speed to a full stop and putting on the emergency flashers, which I think is a reasonable way to deal with the situation. Pulling over on the shoulder or at least moving to the right-most lane would be nice, but Teslas don't do that yet. Teslas also punish you by not allowing you to use autopilot for a while, which I hate because it often punishes me on very long straight roads where there is no necessity to apply force to the steering wheel. There is also that if you have 5 "strikes" on FSD you are punished by being forced to use a crappier, worse driving algorithm for a week. That mind-boggles me because as an engineer you'd think you should give the best self-driving algorithms to the least reliable drivers, but Tesla punishes the supposedly least reliable drivers by handing them less reliable software and forcing them to use it for a week. A lot of other cars' active lane keep systems will "give up" and crash the car if the driver goes unconscious and stops touching the wheel, which is about the most unsafe thing it can do. I truly hope Tesla isn't pushed by the NSA toward implementing it that way.

1970-01-01 3y ago
This is an interesting edge-case, thanks for sharing it. This brings up the point that there are many common medical events that FSD mitigates or contains that receive very little attention. The only one I can remember reading about is from 2016 when someone needed the Tesla to drive itself to the nearest hospital. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/08/tesla-model-x-missouri-medical-emergency https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/08/tesla-mod...

fkarg 3y ago

Discussed already earlier today. Technically a recall, but for Tesla just an OTA.

metadat 3y ago
Thanks, here's the discussion: Tesla Recalls 2M Cars to Fix Autopilot Safety Flaws https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652 (200 comments)
- lbourdages 3y ago
  It was a real frustrating comment section to read. Half the comments being a variation of "it's not a recall, it's an update" while conveniently ignoring that a recall has a legal meaning with obligation to contact vehicle owners by mail and stuff like that. It really felt like a bunch of Tesla owners felt personally attacked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
  - cssanchez 3y ago
    It's a legal term that hasn't caught up to modern standards as that word still implies a physical need to return your vehicle for service. When in reality it's the same as a forced security update on your phone or PC.
    - lbourdages 3y ago
      When a vehicle has a defect that can pose safety issues, a recall is issued. I don't see why we should handle software defects differently from hardware defects. I understand the point you make, but this is entirely semantics and is not a real world issue. Tesla owners will receive a notice of recall that will clearly state that there will be an OTA update, they will read it and move on.
    - moogly 3y ago
      I hope no one tells these guys about other anachronisms like "horsepower".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

leetgirl83 3y ago

Why won't the headline just say "Tesla recalls nearly 2m vehicles by issuing software update". Are they allergic to the phrase "software update" or something?