Tesla recalls 362,000 cars in US over fears full self-driving software may cause crashes
Look like someone at Tesla forgot to tell Sky there is no FSD Beta in the UK.
Look like someone at Tesla forgot to tell Sky there is no FSD Beta in the UK.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Recall FUD
- Thread starter NewbieT
- Start date
I think they are also stretching a bit to describe Tesla as "founded and run" by Musk.
Tam
Well-Known Member
The title of the article does not say UK and it does say US instead. So this is clearly a US recall.
All the symptoms for this recall have been present since the first day that I got FSD beta in October 2021 in the US:
Yellow Light
Turn-only Lanes to go straight
Speed Limits
Stop Sign...
What is puzzling is: Tesla does not like the word "recall" when it comes to a software recall but now this is the second time that it is using that word. Why Tesla is breaking its own principle of avoiding the word "recall"?
Tam
Well-Known Member
NHTSA recalls only apply to the US but safety concerns are global and not just exclusive to the US.
The recall is specifically on FSD beta but some function are overlapping with FSD, Autopilot, TACC... such as speed sign, phantom brakes...
Thus, this particular and very narrow recall in the US could have an effect globally. It's up to each country to demand safety compliance.
Zilla91
Active Member
Where was this supposed "FUD" in the linked news article?
Everything the true believers don't like is "FUD", isn't it?
Everything the true believers don't like is "FUD", isn't it?
It’s not FUD. It is a recall.
And no one mentioned the UK as being impacted. In fact, it literally says “in the US” in the headline.
Therefore, this thread is FUD.
This story is covered on a variety of sites including Arstechnica...
arstechnica.com
which also mentions...
"This does not mark the end of Tesla's driver-assist woes. NHTSA is continuing to investigate the less-capable but more ubiquitous Autopilot feature after 41 crashes since 2016, resulting in at least 19 deaths."
Tesla to recall 362,758 cars because Full Self Driving Beta is dangerous
NHTSA has concerns about four different kinds of FSD behavior.
arstechnica.com
which also mentions...
"This does not mark the end of Tesla's driver-assist woes. NHTSA is continuing to investigate the less-capable but more ubiquitous Autopilot feature after 41 crashes since 2016, resulting in at least 19 deaths."
The article clearly states the US, the only UK reference is a line about it being unclear if it would eventually apply to the uk
As for the word “recall”, I’m a lot less bothered about whether your definition of a “recall” is “car returns to dealership” or not, and much more bothered about “issue that requires a mandatory fix”, and even more when it’s “regulator forces mandatory fix”,
The latter one suggests either Tesla don’t agree, or couldn’t be bothered to have already rolled out the fix removing the need for the regulator to make it mandatory. They’ve done this before, they changed the nags before the regulator ruled they were insufficient after the Joshua Brown decapitation and Tesla said no cars would require an update (as they’d effectively already done it). Surely it’s the nature of the problem that’s important, and how/why did.it get to the point it has requiring regulator intervention, ESPECIALLY if Tesla can roll out a fix so easily. That’s a question of culture and priorities, or a regulator that’s wrong.
As for the word “recall”, I’m a lot less bothered about whether your definition of a “recall” is “car returns to dealership” or not, and much more bothered about “issue that requires a mandatory fix”, and even more when it’s “regulator forces mandatory fix”,
The latter one suggests either Tesla don’t agree, or couldn’t be bothered to have already rolled out the fix removing the need for the regulator to make it mandatory. They’ve done this before, they changed the nags before the regulator ruled they were insufficient after the Joshua Brown decapitation and Tesla said no cars would require an update (as they’d effectively already done it). Surely it’s the nature of the problem that’s important, and how/why did.it get to the point it has requiring regulator intervention, ESPECIALLY if Tesla can roll out a fix so easily. That’s a question of culture and priorities, or a regulator that’s wrong.
Although I personally don't care, one can look at the recall itself on NHTSA's site and associated docs.
Examples at 2022 TESLA MODEL 3 4 DR RWD | NHTSA for campaign 23V085000. There are currently 2 associated docs (PDFs) w/some more detail. You'll need to click on the recall itself to expand it to reveal the docs.
MrBadger
Badger out
Whilst some bits may be specific to FSD Beta, there are some aspects from the article that would appear to relate to behaviour that we currently see in UK, or may be introduced/changed when singlexstack is implemented, aka parts of FSD beta stack rolled into standard autopilot code. The bit about insufficient speed limit response does imho, might equally apply to current UK spec vehicles, ie too little, too late, if at all with speed limit changes that UK regulators may be equally interested in.
Why bother with regulators at all? What’s the point, just let people do what they want, if they accidently kill somebody in the process you can just quote beta software at the inquest.
As for sky jumping on the bandwagon, are they not allowed to report news in other countries. I’m not sure the Turkish Earthquake is going to make a difference to my life, should I not be told about that either?
Zilla91
Active Member
Sky News' job is to report the news, irrespective of where abouts in the world it is.
I guess they're just jumping into the Turkey and Syria bandwagon because that earthquake doesn't affect us
I would caveat this with the obvious point that regulators occasionally make terrible decisions. Look at the way EAP is crippled in the UK because someone set completely arbitrary time limits for automatic lane changes (the "must indicate for three seconds before moving etc", when on motorways it's sometimes necessary to nip into smaller gaps.
Or failing to oversee that forcing a vehicle to abandon a lane change mid-way because of another arbitrary time limit, leading it to swerve violently and without signalling back into the original lane?
These decisions were clearly made by people with no experience of semi-autonomous driving, and it shows. For what it's worth I think it's going to be necessary to accept that self-driving vehicles will need to bend the rules from time to time, and that deciding that they must behave in a way that's actively unpredictable to other drivers is a backwards decision.
I agree with the first part, regulators can sometimes get it wrong. I'm not concinved on the "crippled" part. I spent some time going through the regulations and they all seem pretty logical to me. Maximum cornering force, change lanes within a given time zone and not just leave the indicator on until the car thinks it can change lane, ask for a driver acknowledgement to change lane, the execution of which is then automatic, ensure summon always has a positive signal and abort if the "move" signal is dropped. I actually think the decisions were made by people that took some time to look at a safe enevlope in which to work and documented it accordingly. Our BMW does much of the same thing Tesla EAP can do, including lane change, and it has virtually none of the issues Tesla has, no aborted lane change. Its the way Tesla just bodge on the rules afterwards rather than think about them before hand. Maximum cornering force in a bend - the BMW seems to calculate it, and even warns you of tight bends ahead, Tesla just seems to abort mid corner.
The regulations we have are largely responsible for our death rate on roads being 1/4 of the US ones per capita, thats the kind of improvement Musk thought was sufficient to justify self driving,
Anyway, we can debate the merits or not of these, thats one for another thread.
Tesla's implementation of the rules comes across as malicious compliance sometimes.. they then blame the rules themselves rather than the implementation.
Jason71
Well-Known Member
I believe Musk is officially credited at Tesla as a "founder" of Tesla even though he wasn't on of the people who started the company The change to the company records/literature was made at the behest of someone called E.Musk and approved unanimously by the CEO.
LiamPope
Member
The automotive industry seems to be trucking along fine sticking to established practice/terminology and still calling recalls recalls even in these modern times when the fix may be delivered remotely by an OTA rather than requiring the car's physical presence. Makes perfect sense to me and is the path of least confusion even though we are deviating from the traditional/dictionary definition of recall.
Imho Tesla, or anybody else, shouldn't be able to protect themselves from the gasps and headlines the word recall generates by calling it something less scary, let's say for example's sake an 'oopsie', simply because they are able to fix the issue remotely. As you say what matters is the nature of the issue and that all important safety issues are addressed/publicised equally no matter how the remedy is delivered. If someone can call it an oopsie just because it is fixable by OTA, all that does is serve to trivialise the issue, and also create an unfair playing field where the exact same issue would have to be a recall for manufacturer A because their platform doesn't do OTAs, but is just an oopsie for manufacturer B because they can do OTAs. That would be stupid!
Similar threads
