It's all quiet on the western front.
After the second "sudden acceleration" event I eventually decided that a combination of "creep on" and keeping my foot on the brake while slowly moving in a tight space would avoid any accidental full throttle starts. Since then I have had no recurrence of unintentional acceleration.
In response to mknox as to the relevance of "creep off:" When you are driving at 3-5 mph with creep off, the default position of your right foot is on the accelerator. With "creep on" your default foot position is on the brake.
YUP !! Creep off is the primary reason for most of the 'sudden' acceleration in parking lots
But hey, there is the option to turn creep on or off so far be it from me to tell anyone else what their preference should be.
I hope they turn Creep On as the default behaviour and anytime when the user changes the setting they should have a popup with an Accept button that says,
"TURNING OFF CREEP WILL INCREASE THE RISK OF DRIVER SLAMMING THE ACCELERATOR INSTEAD OF BREAKS IN LOW SPEED SCENARIOS. IF YOU DO SO, DON'T BE A DICK AND BLAME TESLA FOR YOUR MISTAKE",
does anyone have latest updates?
...intelligent treatment of car design and the trade off between driver assistance vs. driver input...
There is an interview with McCune where he gets to try out his laughable legal theory as he has to deal with the evidence that will show that his face-loser client stomped on the wrong pedal:
From: [TESLA DEFECT] Full transcript of interview with celebrity’s attorney on Tesla’s sudden acceleration
Q: Tesla has been claiming the sudden acceleration was the result of the driver fully pressing the accelerator pedal. On what ground is Tesla asserting such a position? What kind of evidence is there to prove the accident was not the plaintiff’s fault?In other words, he is saying "we will try to dispute the data logs as unreliable when they show that out stupid client pressed the wrong pedal, but when we lose that fight our real plan is to say that cars should be designed to ignore "AN ERROR IN [DRIVER] INSTRUCTION" and thus overrule the clear driver input and not respond to the driver's instruction.
A: I can tell you from our perspective that Mr. Son knows what he did and what he did not as no reasonable person would just put the pedal all the way down to the floor as they are approaching a garage that goes through their living room. That doesn’t make any sense. I think Tesla will try to resort to the data logs to support their position. I think when we review what they have, it seems like there are some inconsistencies which would indicate to us that it is not reliable.
If this car was properly engineered, it wouldn’t allow someone to drive into the wall of the house. That’s just poor engineering in our view. That doesn’t make any sense to us when the car knows it’s approaching the garage. It knows it’s at home and knows there is a wall. A properly engineered car like the Tesla, which excels for the kind of money that it sells for, would have been programmed to say there has to be an error in instruction. It would not have driven straight in through a wall.
I'll bet that other PI attys, and likely even McCune and his idiotic scriveners themselves, have argued the exact opposite position -- that a car that ignores a clear driver input was in fact a negligent design or defect.