Just a Place Keeper to See if I Am Right About the Future of AP1

[sandpiper]

Except that they promised it would find it's way to you wherever you are on private property. Summon doesn't do anything remotely like that. Now if it was just a debate over how far, or how crowded, sure, you might have a point, but it doesn't do this AT ALL.
Summon pulls the car forward or backward in a straight line while you are standing right beside it and actively controlling it. That functionality wasn't even mentioned in regards to summon, but what they did mention was never delivered.

I will concede that the "summon" is kindof useless - especially outside of the US. And I'll also concede that Elon, in his video, is guilty of getting beyond himself. But, strictly legally, the written "pull out and meet you at curb" has been satisfied in some cases. I think you'll struggle here.

And, if I may be so blunt, who the heck thought that it would find it's way across a property to where you are in complex situations? Nobody with any knowledge of the tech would have believed it. I sure as heck didn't.

For the millionth time, regulators did not have ANYTHING to do with that.
As for what Tesla promised, they never said it could do over the limit, so they didn't have to deliver that. The problem is, that once they DID deliver it, they no longer had any right to remove it.

Did you check with a lawyer on that? I'm sure that they legally have the right to provide software updates that limit the car's ability to do illegal things. You do (and this is uncontested) have the right to not install them.

I will blame Tesla, because they explicitly promised that the vehicle would go from on-ramp to off-ramp without touching any controls. It doesn't do that, therefore they didn't deliver on that promise.

Well.. knock yourself out. Technically it did do that at one point - but not all cases of course. With the last 7.XX release I did it all of the time, on a few km of highway that I travel daily. But with the new nags, it clearly doesn't now.

I'm sorry, I just don't blame Tesla. If people weren't such morons then we would likely still have this feature. I'm sure that Tesla made the pragmatic decision that they'd rather be sued by a few enthusiasts, then have the name of the car dragged through the media by people who thought it a good idea to rip down the highway while watching tv/snoozing/shagging; and who subsequently claimed that they were "never notified" that they shouldn't do that.

 

[green1]

I will concede that the "summon" is kindof useless - especially outside of the US. And I'll also concede that Elon, in his video, is guilty of getting beyond himself. But, strictly legally, the written "pull out and meet you at curb" has been satisfied in some cases. I think you'll struggle here. Plus, if I may be so blunt, who the heck thought that it would find it's way across a property to where you are in complex cases. Nobody with any knowledge of the tech would have believed it.

re-watch what was promised. take another look at the website. They have not satisfied "pull out and meet you at the curb", in their promise they specifically showed a diagram that involved a 90 degree turn, they also talked about it doing it based on a calendar event.
As for finding it's way across a property, we can debate how "complex" things are, but it won't even do it in a straight line if you're more than 3 feet from the car, so it's pretty clear they didn't do that, but that in at least some cases they could have.

Did you check with a lawyer on that? I very much doubt that they don't legally have the right to provide software updates that limit the car's ability to do illegal things. You do (and this is uncontested) have the right not to install them.

Name me a car that can not exceed the maximum allowed speed limit anywhere in Canada. And yet manufacturers keep selling them. It's long been established that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for obeying the law, not the car itself, and Tesla is very explicit in stating that the car is not self driving. Additionally, it doesn't matter what the functionality is, it *IS* illegal for them to remove it. There are explicit laws against mechanics doing ANY changes to a vehicle *INCLUDING SAFETY RECALLS!* without the authorization of the owner. Not to mention, when the car doesn't have a clue what the speed limit is (most of the time) then it can hardly be argued that restricting you to an arbitrary number is stopping the car from doing illegal things. And even if you don't buy that excuse, the fact that they didn't limit the car to the speed limit in all other cases negates that argument completely.

I am happy to not install updates, but as long as they tie existing functionality to updating, then the updates might as well be mandatory.

Well.. knock yourself out. Technically it did do that at one point. With the last 7.XX release I did it all of the time on a few km of highway that I travel daily. But with the nags, it clearly doesn't now.

Actually, no, it technically never did. Sure you could sometimes get away with it, but officially Tesla never released hands free driving, they just didn't enforce arbitrary torque on steering wheel requirements as heavily.

But... I'm sorry, I just don't blame Tesla. If people weren't such morons then we would likely still have this feature. And I'm sure that Tesla made the pragmatic decision that they'd rather be sued by a few enthusiasts, then have the name of the car dragged through the media by people who thought it a good idea to watch tv/snooze/shag while ripping down the highway, claiming that they were "never notified" that they shouldn't do that.

And that's exactly it. Tesla has chosen to satisfy a few journalists at the expense of breaking multiple laws, acting unethically, and screwing over their customers. I *DO* blame Tesla.

 

[Andyw2100]

And, if I may be so blunt, who the heck thought that it would find it's way across a property to where you are in complex situations? Nobody with any knowledge of the tech would have believed it. I sure as heck didn't.

I, like @Canuck and others, do not think that Elon Musk intended to lie when he promised some of the things that are still undelivered.

But your comment above implies that you believe Mr. Musk was lying outright when he said what he did at the D Launch event. Mr. Musk clearly had "knowledge of the tech" as you described it. If you think no one with knowledge of the tech would have believed what he was saying, you are including him in that group.

 

[Canuck]

For the millionth time, regulators did not have ANYTHING to do with that.

How can you say that so categorically? I am of the view that most, if not all, of the AP1.0 restrictions are as a result of Tesla's negotiations with the regulators. Are we really to expect that after the fatality, and Tesla and the NHTSA working with Tesla, and issuing no orders, that they have not come to any agreements with Tesla on changes to AP1.0? That makes absolutely no sense to me. It also goes directly against Elon Musk's words to the effect that the NHTSA are happy with the changes.

However, this is only my view. The negotiations between Tesla and the NHTSA are confidential and behind closed doors. Unless you are a party to those negotiations, you can't say the regulators do not have ANYTHING to do with the changes. And just because we are in Canada, and the changes apply to us too, means nothing at all. It's well known that Transport Canada follow nearly to the letter the NHTSA. There's no way Tesla will allow Canada to avoid any restrictions to AP1.0 it has negotiated with the NHTSA.

And before you call me a fanboy or attack me in another way, as you have done in the past when I challenge you, I agree with you that Tesla oversold and over-promised AP1.0. You point out irrefutable facts in that regard in your very well crafted post above. But I am interested in the "why". I don't see it as avoiding lawsuits since settling AP1.0 lawsuits amounts to less than fractions of pennies in the larger financial picture of Tesla. In fact, insurance will likely cover most of it, including defence costs. Tesla would be a much better position to keep pushing the boundaries and settling the occasional AP lawsuit than cutting back features and exposing themselves to a significant class action suit.

And that's exactly it. Tesla has chosen to satisfy a few journalists at the expense of breaking multiple laws, acting unethically, and screwing over their customers. I *DO* blame Tesla.

That sounds just plain silly to me. Tesla is doing this just to satisfy a few journalists? Why on earth would that even matter to Tesla?

 

[St Charles]

Of course the other question is why the 90mph limit at all. At the D event they specifically mention that the ultrasonics work "at any speed" and mention up to the top speed of the car (155mph). But I guess that was just another Elon lie. For safety, the car should continue on AP, and not disengage at all.

<opinion>
I'm certain that the ultrasonics work up to the top speed of the car. But can the car react to the input quick enough? I'll say that my experience taught me that AP1 was not able to keep up with what the road was doing above around 75MPH. my experience was on a major freeway, not a local road or undivided highway. I'd venture a guess that AP1 isn't really safe to use above 90MPH. Keep in mind that road curves and bends are designed with specific speeds in mind. Tesla has to design AP to work on ANY freeway where AP is enabled, not just the section that you or I drive on daily.

Not that this should absolve them of explaining why they are making these changes. It would be nice to know the thought process behind the decision. Additionally, the company should do what it can to make it right for the people who bought these cars under the promise of capability. Personally, I'd be happy with complimentary maintenance options or free-ish upgrades. I don't care how Tesla spins it.
</opinion>

 

[sandpiper]

re-watch what was promised. take another look at the website. They have not satisfied "pull out and meet you at the curb", in their promise they specifically showed a diagram that involved a 90 degree turn, they also talked about it doing it based on a calendar event.
As for finding it's way across a property, we can debate how "complex" things are, but it won't even do it in a straight line if you're more than 3 feet from the car, so it's pretty clear they didn't do that, but that in at least some cases they could have.

So, I'm not really debating that. Summon is better in the US, completely useless in Canada. But I'm not sure that a diagram at a "reveal" would carry a lot of legal weight - and certainly none in Canada, where our immobilizer legislation limits things further.

Name me a car that can not exceed the maximum allowed speed limit anywhere in Canada. And yet manufacturers keep selling them. It's long been established that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for obeying the law, not the car itself, and Tesla is very explicit in stating that the car is not self driving. Additionally, it doesn't matter what the functionality is, it *IS* illegal for them to remove it. There are explicit laws against mechanics doing ANY changes to a vehicle *INCLUDING SAFETY RECALLS!* without the authorization of the owner. Not to mention, when the car doesn't have a clue what the speed limit is (most of the time) then it can hardly be argued that restricting you to an arbitrary number is stopping the car from doing illegal things. And even if you don't buy that excuse, the fact that they didn't limit the car to the speed limit in all other cases negates that argument completely.

So speed limits are an interesting question. I'm sure the question of electronically monitoring/limiting speed, based on road limits, is floating around the various halls of power. At some point, somebody will put forward a bill requiring new cars to be able to do this. I hate this idea but I'm concerned that it will happen, long before we get truly automated cars.

As to your other points... you can still drive your car as fast as you like. And I don't know where you get the idea that, simply because Tesla didn't limit speed before that they can't do it on new software releases. You would lose, without a doubt. You'd have a much easier argument, convincing the authorities to prevent them from installing software updates without your approval, during a service visit.

I am happy to not install updates, but as long as they tie existing functionality to updating, then the updates might as well be mandatory.

Actually, no, it technically never did. Sure you could sometimes get away with it, but officially Tesla never released hands free driving, they just didn't enforce arbitrary torque on steering wheel requirements as heavily.

And that's exactly it. Tesla has chosen to satisfy a few journalists at the expense of breaking multiple laws, acting unethically, and screwing over their customers. I *DO* blame Tesla.

It's not a matter of a few journalists. It's a matter of company survival. Look at this idiocy in Korea today. Some two-bit local idiot/celebrity decides to sue the company because he steps on the throttle rather than the brake. And it's across the world. The company has to be very very aware of what's being said about them because they can lose a lot of sales if they're viewed as a baby killer without a conscience. Tesla has easy access to logs, and so they know, right away, what happened and can prove it. Without that, they'd be screwed.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

As for what Tesla promised, they never said it could do over the limit, so they didn't have to deliver that. The problem is, that once they DID deliver it, they no longer had any right to remove it.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it. You're looking at "ability to go 5mph above the speed limit on undivided highways" as a specific feature, rather than merely one aspect of how a feature worked. For the latter view, they merely tweaked how the feature functions to improve safety on undivided highways.

Assuming that any loss of a capability is a problem doesn't seem to be appropriate, particularly when it comes to improving safety. After all, improving the functioning of autopilot generally results in the loss of capability of using it to, say, ram another car.

 

[green1]

The negotiations between Tesla and the NHTSA are confidential and behind closed doors. Unless you are a party to those negotiations, you can't say the regulators do not have ANYTHING to do with the changes. And just because we are in Canada, and the changes apply to us too, means nothing at all. It's well known that Transport Canada follow nearly to the letter the NHTSA. There's no way Tesla will allow Canada to avoid any restrictions to AP1.0 it has negotiated with the NHTSA.

It is extremely hard for me to take that sort of conspiracy theory seriously. The NHTSA does not now, and has not ever, worked in that way. They want, and in fact NEED to be open about all of this stuff. There's no way they want to have every single auto maker guessing at what they want, and then negotiate with them in secret for what they should, and should not, do after the fact.

The NHTSA works in the open, with as much publicity as possible, not as little as possible.

They have never in history implemented a mandatory (on the consumer) recall, nor a secret one.

It's just way too far off the conspiracy theory end of the scale to believe they have had anything to do with Tesla removing functionality from the car after sale.

 

[AWDtsla]

I am beginning to think Tesla is starting to see AP1 as a liability. They do not need it to learn from. They do not need it to hype or sell cars. The only thing that can come from AP1 is an accident which basically detracts Tesla from its mission.

There is one thing, that is updating Tesla's high precision maps. Of course the driver has no control of this.

 

[AWDtsla]

That logic should then apply to ALL speed limits where the car is on APx OR TACC. WHY allow ANY speeding if liability is the issue? Do you think fully autonomous cars will be set/allowed to exceed the posted speed limit? I for one do not. That will be step 1 for the regulators.

If fully autonomous cars do not follow the flow of traffic by obeying the speed limit, they cannot be allowed on public roads.

 

[green1]

So, I'm not really debating that. Summon is better in the US, completely useless in Canada. But I'm not sure that a diagram at a "reveal" would carry a lot of legal weight - and certainly none in Canada, where our immobilizer legislation limits things further.

Can you summon it to your front door around a 90 degree corner in the US? Can it find it's way to you wherever you are on private property in the US?
The diagram wasn't at the reveal. It was on the web page when I bought my car. In fact, it was on the CANADIAN version of the web page.
The immobilizer thing is also 100% BS as the US also has immobilizer rules, the only difference is in how long the car can wait after shut-down before the immobilizer kicks in. If that were in fact the reason, then the phone app wouldn't be able to unlock and start the car in Canada, which it can, so using it to move the vehicle has no further immobilizer issues than that.

So speed limits are an interesting question. I'm sure the question of electronically monitoring/limiting speed, based on road limits, is floating around the various halls of power. At some point, somebody will put forward a bill requiring new cars to be able to do this. I hate this idea but I'm concerned that it will happen, long before we get truly automated cars.

And when they do that, and make it mandatory that all older vehicles must be retrofitted with it, and ONLY after that has happened, would Tesla be in the right to make that change.

And I don't know where you get the idea that, simply because Tesla didn't limit speed before that they can't do it on new software releases.

The same place you get the idea that just because you were allowed to shift in to drive yesterday, that you can do so again tomorrow. Because it's a feature you had at that time, and that you didn't give anyone permission to remove, and that you own the car.

You would lose, without a doubt.

We *WILL* see. There is a ton of case law on my side.

 

[sandpiper]

I, like @Canuck and others, do not think that Elon Musk intended to lie when he promised some of the things that are still undelivered.

But your comment above implies that you believe Mr. Musk was lying outright when he said what he did at the D Launch event. Mr. Musk clearly had "knowledge of the tech" as you described it. If you think no one with knowledge of the tech would have believed what he was saying, you are including him in that group.

Not lying. Elon, for all of his great strengths, seems to suffer from some very human faults - one of which is that he runs off at the mouth when he gets over-excited about something. I think he's got people who are keeping him on a bit of a shorter leash now. But in 2014, I think he had more free run and fewer people talking him down to earth.

I'm quite certain that, at that time, they had test cars that could 99% of what Elon was claiming. But that very difficult last 1%, coupled with reality checks from lawyers likely sunk it.

 

[green1]

If fully autonomous cars do not follow the flow of traffic by obeying the speed limit, they cannot be allowed on public roads.

Why are we even discussing what may, or may not, happen on fully autonomous cars? Tesla has never released one of those. And this thread is about AP1 which is very explicitly NOT autonomous in any way.

 

[green1]

Not lying. Elon, for all of his great strengths, seems to suffer from some very human faults - one of which is that he runs off at the mouth when he gets over-excited about something. I think he's got people who are keeping him on a bit of a shorter leash now. But in 2014, I think he had more free run and fewer people talking him down to earth.

I'm quite certain that, at that time, they had test cars that could 99% of what Elon was claiming. But that very difficult last 1%, coupled with reality checks from lawyers likely sunk it.

In all honesty. That's not my problem. That's theirs. They need to deliver what they promised, or they need to refund money. And regardless of which of those options they chose, they need to not steal functionality from any vehicle they no longer own.

They also REALLY need to stop the continual false advertising. It's improved from the lies they used to tell, but they continue to have many outright lies out in public.

 

[AWDtsla]

Why are we even discussing what may, or may not, happen on fully autonomous cars? Tesla has never released one of those. And this thread is about AP1 which is very explicitly NOT autonomous in any way.

Getting prepped for the next big disappointment.

 

[Matias]

If fully autonomous cars do not follow the flow of traffic by obeying the speed limit, they cannot be allowed on public roads.

Are you saying that government would not allow cars to obey the speed limits issued by the same government?

 

[AWDtsla]

Are you saying that government would not allow cars to obey the speed limits issued by the same government?

Same government that will pull you over for driving suspiciously slow if you go the speed limit?

 

[sandpiper]

The same place you get the idea that just because you were allowed to shift in to drive yesterday, that you can do so again tomorrow. Because it's a feature you had at that time, and that you didn't give anyone permission to remove, and that you own the car.

We *WILL* see. There is a ton of case law on my side.

You're guilty of selective quoting. You eliminated my point that they can do whatever they bloody want on new releases. BUT I 100% concur that you should have the right to refuse.

On existing cars, they're applying some additional safety limits on a feature, but ONLY if you choose to install it. That's the same as choosing to install a 3 speed transmission to replace a 4 speed. You should absolutely be permitted to opt out. And similarly, Tesla is not obligated to provide you with any further updates to your car at any time.

They may well be guilty of installing without asking at service appointments. And if they do that, then I have no debate; that should not happen.

 

[sandpiper]

We *WILL* see. There is a ton of case law on my side.

Really? So you've initiated a law suit?

 

[Canuck]

Not that this should absolve them of explaining why they are making these changes. It would be nice to know the thought process behind the decision.

Again, when car makers and the NHTSA come to agreements on restrictions, the agreements are confidential and cannot be disclosed. Tesla's other alternative is not to come to any agreements and just allow the NHTSA to issue orders, one of which could be to order the disabling of AP1.0 entirely. They could play this out in the public, as people seem to want, but I doubt they'd like the outcome of that course of action.

It is extremely hard for me to take that sort of conspiracy theory seriously. The NHTSA does not now, and has not ever, worked in that way. They want, and in fact NEED to be open about all of this stuff. There's no way they want to have every single auto maker guessing at what they want, and then negotiate with them in secret for what they should, and should not, do after the fact.

What are you even talking about? No auto maker is "guessing at what they want". They are working hand in hand with them and they are negotiating each and every step. You even had a member here who worked with them tell you this but you still refuse to accept it.

Even without him telling you that, it is clear that you have no idea about how negotiations with the government work. I do and no conspiracy theory is required. Tesla is right now working with the NHTSA and has been for months. You have to admit that, right? Yet, you expect us to believe nothing at all has come of it even though Elon Musk has said that the NHTSA is happy with the changes? Nothing has been disclosed so nothing must be happening and Tesla is in the dark? That's truly bizarre!

Negotiations with government bodies that result in negotiated resolutions are by their very nature confidential. They are not open hearings! Tesla is entitled to an open hearing but they will be bound by the resulting order. Or they can negotiate in confidence. That is how the government works (as well as private disputes and lawsuits)! I will give you an example to bring it down to your level: Let's say you get audited by Revenue Canada (or the IRS in the States). You can negotiate privately in confidence, or have your entire financial picture exposed in open tax court. Which one do you prefer? The negotiations you and your lawyer will have with Revenue Canada will be without prejudice and confidential. That takes place far more often than open tax hearings!

Or are you going to tell me the government does not work this way and what I am telling you is a conspiracy? Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous.