Punished by Autosteer for no reason!

[rxlawdude]

Thanks for explaining how my argument was a "ridiculous assertion" and focusing on the content not the messenger.

To upgrade your content, would you like to explain why the Tesla driver presence system is well designed in your opinion?

Using the current FSD features, following instructions and reading the limitations, I've had almost perfect results from NoA on highway and rush-hour freeway traffic. Disengagements are very rare. Do they happen? Yes, but that's why we PAY ATTENTION when using any automation feature.

I suspect there are, ahem, people that don't seem to understand that purchase of FSD is a work in progress and incessantly whine and complain. You know, the kind that don't read their contract prior to purchasing it. The kind that point to Elon's promises (and it not being delivered) as proof that FSD will never reach at least L3.

Elon's a gasbag of optimistic speculation and suppositions. He does NOT speak the official policy of Tesla, and his tweets and comments do not create a binding contractual obligation on Tesla's part.

I'm confident that Tesla will deliver. Eventually. You don't. And some posters simply hate to see Tesla succeed.

 

[gearchruncher]

Using the current FSD features, following instructions and reading the limitations, I've had almost perfect results from NoA on highway and rush-hour freeway traffic. Disengagements are very rare. Do they happen? Yes, but that's why we PAY ATTENTION when using any automation feature.

I suspect there are, ahem, people that don't seem to understand that purchase of FSD is a work in progress and incessantly whine and complain. You know, the kind that don't read their contract prior to purchasing it.

Umm, we were discussing how NoA is useless because it changes lanes too early, and how hands on the wheel detection is a hack. What does this have to do with disengagements? Why are you ignoring my request for you to explain why I am making "ridiculous assertions" about the human presence detection and changing the topic?

Can you show me what is in your 2017 Model 3 purchase contract around what should be expected from FSD and when? I keep hearing this, and I have my 2018 contract right here and don't see anything that pertains to future software features in general nor AP/FSD in specific. And I did read it enough to opt out of arbitration, but I'm not a lawyer. I'd love to hear one explain how this 2017 contract protects Tesla.

Elon's a gasbag of optimistic speculation and suppositions. He does NOT speak the official policy of Tesla, and his tweets and comments do not create a binding contractual obligation on Tesla's part.

Plenty of statements are made by Tesla directly- most recently "City streets coming later this year" was on the order page as part of the FSD description in both 2019 and 2020- can you explain why that does that not form a contract and what language in the final purchase agreement gets them out of factual statements they made during the purchase process?

 

[gearchruncher]

In case you can't find your purchase agreement, I've attached my mid-2018 agreement (18+ months after FSD was first sold) so you can more easily point out where the language is that makes it clear FSD is a work in progress and that an indefinite amount of time may pass before an individual customer gets any benefit from their purchase.

Also interesting is that once you own a car, you can buy FSD in the app. Two clicks. No contract, no disclaimers. Only legal language is no refunds after 48 hours. No new purchase contract if you bought in 2017 and that's the only thing you ever signed. If Tesla is so good at contracts, why doesn't their FSD purchase require one?

 

[rxlawdude]

Umm, we were discussing how NoA is useless because it changes lanes too early, and how hands on the wheel detection is a hack. What does this have to do with disengagements? Why are you ignoring my request for you to explain why I am making "ridiculous assertions" about the human presence detection and changing the topic?

Can you show me what is in your 2017 Model 3 purchase contract around what should be expected from FSD and when? I keep hearing this, and I have my 2018 contract right here and don't see anything that pertains to future software features in general nor AP/FSD in specific. And I did read it enough to opt out of arbitration, but I'm not a lawyer. I'd love to hear one explain how this 2017 contract protects Tesla.


Plenty of statements are made by Tesla directly- most recently "City streets coming later this year" was on the order page as part of the FSD description in both 2019 and 2020- can you explain why that does that not form a contract and what language in the final purchase agreement gets them out of factual statements they made during the purchase process?

Subject to the disclaimer you seem to forget about, not p If Tesla never delivers anything close to L3, there could indeed be reason for legal options. But never is not here. Kapish?

In case you can't find your purchase agreement, I've attached my mid-2018 agreement (18+ months after FSD was first sold) so you can more easily point out where the language is that makes it clear FSD is a work in progress and that an indefinite amount of time may pass before an individual customer gets any benefit from their purchase.

Also interesting is that once you own a car, you can buy FSD in the app. Two clicks. No contract, no disclaimers. Only legal language is no refunds after 48 hours. No new purchase contract if you bought in 2017 and that's the only thing you ever signed. If Tesla is so good at contracts, why doesn't their FSD purchase require one?

And your purchase agreement is exactly what I said it was: the binding contract. Please show me the reference on that document specifying functionality of FSD.

 

[gearchruncher]

And your purchase agreement is exactly what I said it was: the binding contract. Please show me the reference on that document specifying functionality of FSD.

Are you saying that because it doesn't mention FSD, Tesla owes you nothing, ever?
Isn't that a violation of the definition of a contract? You paid for FSD, but Tesla never owes you anything. That's not a contract with bilateral benefits, which I understand is not generally allowed. It also seems to go against the UCTA, where reasonableness applies, and a reasonable purchaser who sees "coming later this year" during the checkout process would be able to assume that is true, not that because the purchase contract fails to mention it means nothing is owed. The contract doesn't say my car will come with 4 tires either. Why am I owed that but not FSD? Why I am I owed the 7 seats I ordered or the paint color, both that I paid extra for?

How does this change when I make the purchase separately in the app after I bought the car and in 2019 and 2020 said "coming this year" for features that are not yet out in mid 2021?

I am seriously hoping for a good legal explanation on how Tesla doesn't owe anyone anything for the money they were given, and how the variety of messages from Tesla over the years on dates (which were often specific) and capabilities don't form a contract given the absence of any other language. I'll admit that I don't fully buy that things Elon tweets don't matter, given Tesla said in 2013 that it intended to use Musk’s Twitter account as a means of announcing material information to the public about Tesla and its products and services, but I think things on the Tesla website are specific enough here to avoid that issue for now.

I'm uniquely lucky to have a law expert here to help explain it. Show me the way and take me to school- this will significantly help me and my annoyances with Tesla's autonomy processes if there is a clear, concise path how they made it clear they don't have to deliver anything to every purchaser since 2016, even if it's only something lawyers can understand.

 

[dhrivnak]

took a trip to LA in the M3 and had a good time charging at the massive new SC at Firebaugh... on the trip home the autosteer kept complaining that my hands were not on the wheel... they absolutely were - it seems to want way more steering input than is necessary to detect hands on the wheel.

to my surprise eventually AS punished me with the "disabled for the rest of this trip" message. i get that the M3 is all about cost reduction but they really need a better driver attention/hands on wheel system. i wasn't about to pull over to end the trip so i had to keep driving I5 manually (well, the speed control worked, but no more auto steer) until the next SC stop.

that sucked. hope future software releases can refine this somehow.

Yes quite annoying as I DO have my hands on the wheel.

 

[rxlawdude]

Are you saying that because it doesn't mention FSD, Tesla owes you nothing, ever?
Isn't that a violation of the definition of a contract? You paid for FSD, but Tesla never owes you anything. That's not a contract with bilateral benefits, which I understand is not generally allowed. It also seems to go against the UCTA, where reasonableness applies, and a reasonable purchaser who sees "coming later this year" during the checkout process would be able to assume that is true, not that because the purchase contract fails to mention it means nothing is owed. The contract doesn't say my car will come with 4 tires either. Why am I owed that but not FSD? Why I am I owed the 7 seats I ordered or the paint color, both that I paid extra for?

How does this change when I make the purchase separately in the app after I bought the car and in 2019 and 2020 said "coming this year" for features that are not yet out in mid 2021?

I am seriously hoping for a good legal explanation on how Tesla doesn't owe anyone anything for the money they were given, and how the variety of messages from Tesla over the years on dates (which were often specific) and capabilities don't form a contract given the absence of any other language. I'll admit that I don't fully buy that things Elon tweets don't matter, given Tesla said in 2013 that it intended to use Musk’s Twitter account as a means of announcing material information to the public about Tesla and its products and services, but I think things on the Tesla website are specific enough here to avoid that issue for now.

I'm uniquely lucky to have a law expert here to help explain it. Show me the way and take me to school- this will significantly help me and my annoyances with Tesla's autonomy processes if there is a clear, concise path how they made it clear they don't have to deliver anything to every purchaser since 2016, even if it's only something lawyers can understand.

What part of your contract and supplemental disclosures don't you understand, bud? "Coming this year, SUBJECT TO SOFTWARE VALIDATION."

There is no firm delivery commitment. There is also no guarantee that self-driving cars will be subject to regulations that don't exist today, but that can affect the design and functionality in ways that further delay it. Unlike you, I'm patient. I can wait. I can read, too.

The funny thing about you is you bitch that FSD's late, and then you bitch it's so terrible. You're like the two old ladies at a Catskills resort: "The food here is terrible," one says. The other remarks, "yes, and the portions are so small."

 

[gearchruncher]

What part of your contract and supplemental disclosures don't you understand, bud? "Coming this year, SUBJECT TO SOFTWARE VALIDATION.".... I can read, too.

Ok, I'll play. Here's the page, from April 2019. Where does it say "subject to software validation"?:

Autopilot

Learn how to use Autopilot on the Model S, Model X and Model 3.

web.archive.org

It still doesn't say it: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability

The app also has no statement about "subject to validation" when you check out. It just lists it as "coming soon" (where it used to say "this year" in the past). (I fully agree anyone buying in 2021 has nothing to complain about).

The funny thing is that the "Coming this year" statement was only ever on Tesla's website. Not on any contract or "disclosure". So now you seem to agree that statements made outside the contract also matter. Given those words only existed on the website starting in 2019, what about people that bought before that, and had read an official Tesla source of product information say that specific features were only weeks away?

I am not bitching it's terrible. It doesn't exist, so it can't be terrible. I'm saying that all the evidence points to the idea that Tesla is nowhere near any kind of FSD and has highly misled customers about the state of their technology and what/when they were going to get for their $10,000.

I still ask- how is a contract which requires no specific performance from one party legal or enforceable? Are you saying that as long as Tesla is trying with at least one intern to "validate their software" they are in compliance?

 

[BrianBigNFun]

Guys!
There’s a secret slot under the wheel and you just insert this:

 

[qdeathstar]

.

I still ask- how is a contract which requires no specific performance from one party legal or enforceable? Are you saying that as long as Tesla is trying with at least one intern to "validate their software" they are in compliance?

Of course

 

[rxlawdude]

Ok, I'll play. Here's the page, from April 2019. Where does it say "subject to software validation"?:

Autopilot

Learn how to use Autopilot on the Model S, Model X and Model 3.

web.archive.org

It still doesn't say it: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability

The app also has no statement about "subject to validation" when you check out. It just lists it as "coming soon" (where it used to say "this year" in the past). (I fully agree anyone buying in 2021 has nothing to complain about).

From your linked post, "The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."

Sounds to me like they are meeting their obligation. Each statement is true.

You're just so narrowly focused on negativism that don't see the forest for the trees.

 

[gearchruncher]

From your linked post, "The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."

So do words matter in a contract? You said "subject to software validation" and now you are quoting something which doesn't use those words at all, and are focused on regulatory approval and tesla getting Billions of miles of experience (which you can't do without releasing software...).

I'll keep playing. What regulator? How do they have city streets "Beta" out there if they need to work with a regulator?
Tesla's current highway AP, Summon, traffic light detection, or anything else on that page has not been proven to have reliability far in excess of a human, nor is it approved by any kind of regulator in the USA. So why is city streets beta held to a different standard, and what on that page indicates it will be? Why would a customer read this and think that an infinite wait for an unknown regulator is to be expected when it hasn't happened for anything else on that page?

Isn't Tesla kind of violating the contract by NOT working with regulators when they imply via that page that features they release have some sort of regulatory oversight? I mean, a reasonable read of that page by a customer might give them warm fuzzies that anything actually active in their car is well regulated and that could have been part of their purchase decision.

What is clear here is that even you, as a lawyer, can't point out clear and simple reasons that the Tesla contract protects them and doesn't require them to ever deliver anything. You keep pointing to things that aren't in contracts (while saying the contract is what protects them), and the things you point to have performance that cannot be measured and often are provably false. This doesn't convince me that Tesla has been perfectly clear with all customers about what they can expect for the $10,000 they spent on FSD and that nobody should have any complaints about Tesla's marketing, statements, or delivery.

 

[rxlawdude]

So do words matter in a contract? You said "subject to software validation" and now you are quoting something which doesn't use those words at all, and are focused on regulatory approval and tesla getting Billions of miles of experience (which you can't do without releasing software...).

I'll keep playing. What regulator? How do they have city streets "Beta" out there if they need to work with a regulator?
Tesla's current highway AP, Summon, traffic light detection, or anything else on that page has not been proven to have reliability far in excess of a human, nor is it approved by any kind of regulator in the USA. So why is city streets beta held to a different standard, and what on that page indicates it will be? Why would a customer read this and think that an infinite wait for an unknown regulator is to be expected when it hasn't happened for anything else on that page?

Isn't Tesla kind of violating the contract by NOT working with regulators when they imply via that page that features they release have some sort of regulatory oversight? I mean, a reasonable read of that page by a customer might give them warm fuzzies that anything actually active in their car is well regulated and that could have been part of their purchase decision.

What is clear here is that even you, as a lawyer, can't point out clear and simple reasons that the Tesla contract protects them and doesn't require them to ever deliver anything. You keep pointing to things that aren't in contracts (while saying the contract is what protects them), and the things you point to have performance that cannot be measured and often are provably false. This doesn't convince me that Tesla has been perfectly clear with all customers about what they can expect for the $10,000 they spent on FSD and that nobody should have any complaints about Tesla's marketing, statements, or delivery.

Oy vey. You might not want to enter a body of water. Dense material sinks.

 

[gearchruncher]

Oy vey. You might not want to enter a body of water. Dense material sinks.

Solid argument from clearly one of the country's best legal minds. Thanks for the legal education, I got value equivalent to what I paid for, so I guess that would hold up in court.

 

[CyberGus]

You're thinking about it wrong. The FSD software was provided for free, after paying $10,000 for "hardware enablement".

 

[gearchruncher]

You're thinking about it wrong. The FSD software was provided for free, after paying $10,000 for "hardware enablement".

Oh, now it all makes sense! How silly of me. I guess I just needed to read more carefully in the future, and make sure I scroll right past this:

All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time.

(I am aware you are joking)

 

[mhan00]

I can count the number of audible warnings I’ve gotten over thousands of miles on AP on one hand. I just rest my hand on the side of the steering wheel, lightly gripping it while resting my arm on the sill of the door. Don’t jiggle or jerk the wheel if you’re getting a blue flash on your screen, that’s not what the system wants. Just provide light, consistent torque in one direction for a second (either direction works). I’m pretty certain that in circumstances where AP is less certain it is easier to disengage via torquing the wheel, at least in my experience, but the torque required to satisfy the nag is so low that even if the system disengages you should be fine. If it’s requiring so much torque you’re in danger of jerking yourself over into an adjacent lane when the system disengages, then something is wrong with the sensors and you should get it checked.

 

[arnolddeleon]

I decided to try to take a video to show how little movement/pressure I use to satisfy the steering wheel nag. Sorry for the framing on the video, I had to do it blind (paying attention to the road takes precedence). You may need to watch it twice, in my test views the first viewing is black until almost the end. On second play it always seems to work.

If it is not obvious when I apply the pressure you can see it in the description on the video.

I don't think my car is special, my wife complains about satisfying the steering wheel torque requirements. She is a big fan of the volume up/down method.

 

[cybergates]

I decided to try to take a video to show how little movement/pressure I use to satisfy the steering wheel nag. Sorry for the framing on the video, I had to do it blind (paying attention to the road takes precedence). You may need to watch it twice, in my test views the first viewing is black until almost the end. On second play it always seems to work.

If it is not obvious when I apply the pressure you can see it in the description on the video.

I don't think my car is special, my wife complains about satisfying the steering wheel torque requirements. She is a big fan of the volume up/down method.

so there's a trick I learned on a podcast, When it wants you to pay attention, just increase or decrease the volume one notch does it!! It's such an awesome solution to the nag and torque.

Also if you do get autopilot disabled notification, I just take the next exit and at the stoplight put it in park and then immediately back in drive and the autopilot warning is reset!