Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Model S Owner Claims Vehicle Went Rogue Causing An Accident By Itself (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes: A Tesla Model S owner is laying blame on the company and its product for an accident involving his pricey electric vehicle and a parked trailer. Jared Overton claims that on April 29th, he parked his Model S on the side of the road and ran some errands. He was parked behind a trailer at the time. A worker from the business he was visiting greeted him outside after which he went inside the establishment. Roughly five minutes later, he came out to find his Model S slammed into the trailer in front of it. How exactly did his Model S start-up on its own and roll several feet down the road crashing into another parked vehicle? Good question. Overton was not happy about the accident, which smashed the car's windshield, so he decided to contact Tesla to tell them that his vehicle had "gone rogue." Tesla responded and cited owner error. According to the vehicle's logs, Overton had put the vehicle in Summon mode right before exiting the vehicle, which is activated by "a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation." Those are understandably deliberate actions that must be taken to invoke Summon, so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible).

408 comments

  1. Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought these things had all sorts of avoidance built in? Even if in summon mode, how did he manage to summon it to crash into another vehicle? Sounds very strange to me.

    1. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle while the car sensors are down low - that's how it tucked up under the trailer and damaged the windshield. News footage with pictures.

    2. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought these things had all sorts of avoidance built in?

      It has conventional parking sensors, but thats not good enough.
      This incident shows a clear design fault:
      - normal parking sensors are low down, because their job is to detect things he driver cannot see.
      - this Tesla ran into a high trailer with its windscreen.

      CLEARLY- any sort of autonomous driving like this needs a camera or other sensors for the full front of the car, not just ones designed to supplement human vision.
      Surely its not that hard?

    3. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      But tesla doesn't claim it to be a full autonomous system and even specify that the car will not see high objects such as those hung from a roof. Summon mode is meant to be used while the controller of the vehicle is in line of sight and has cleared it of objects the tesla can't detect. It's a great system for shoving the car into small spaces not a full autonomous system.

    4. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by quenda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with all of that. Yet still, the car crashed into the trailer. And I think we we see more incidents. Better design could avoid it with very little extra manufacturing cost.

    5. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Yet still, the car crashed into the trailer.

      Because the owner was incompetent.

      And I think we we see more incidents.

      Sure, that is expected. But we would see even more incidents if a human was at the wheel.

      Better design could avoid it with very little extra manufacturing cost.

      Lets say that the extra cost was $20 per vehicle. Tesla has sold over 100,000 cars. So that is $2 Million. To save a single windshield?

    6. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that is expected. But we would see even more incidents if a human was at the wheel.

      The car was parked. There isn't supposed to be a human at the wheel, nor is the vehicle supposed to move at all.

    7. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle

      Actually... that's not the rear of the trailer. When I saw the still frame in the linked article I couldn't help but wonder where the underride guard (aka Mansfield bar) was, as they're extremely common these days. After watching the video I realized why - that was just the trailer (well, technically two in tandem) without the tractor out front. The Tesla crashed into the front of the trailer, not the back. When they slide the camera in under the trailer you can clearly see the nose plate and kingpin for a fifth-wheel setup. That's why there's no underride guard or anything low enough that the Tesla would see as an obstacle.
      Then I thought maybe the trailer was parked backwards, but it's clearly on the right hand side of the road, with a vehicle parked behind it in the same orientation.

      So now my question is - why did this goofball park his car on the wrong side of the road?

    8. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Tesla is a bit like Apple in that regard.

      They don't exactly SAY their products will do magic, but they tend to give small hints even though their manuals and webpages have Don't-do-this and No-It-Wont buried deep inside, and are quite happy for their followers to praise those magic capabilities. Right until something goes wrong or becomes legally untenable.

      Frankly I fear that currently Tesla is the greatest threat to the future of autonomous vehicles, simply because their products have some features of av's that gets overhyped massively via the Mindless Followers of Tesla, though those features are clearly but ready for unsupervised use by the general public.

      Remember, due tothe advent of live radio and ready avability of film cameras it only took one Hindenburg accident to kill a promising industry and mode of travel.

      Imagine what a video of a Tesla T-boning a school bus while the owner is hanging out the window trying to hit a mailbox could do.

    9. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle while the car sensors are down low"

      So you're telling me the sensors couldn't see the wheels that are at their level in front of the Tesla and go "Hmm, maybe I should stop and inform the owner of an obstacle in my way which I cannot clear."

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a software update that tesla already has a system to deploy. It will cost very little to fix

    11. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because no one ever inadvertently left their car in neutral to let it roll away until it struck something. But if they had... sue the manufacturer!

    12. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet still, the car crashed into the trailer.

      Because the owner was incompetent.

      Way too early to tell.
      Perhaps the owner was incompetent or perhaps the Tesla software has a stack error that in this case made it enter summon mode or whatever.
      If it was a software error I expect that Tesla will silently patch it. If it was a user error I expect more users to do the same mistake eventually.

    13. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As prices go down and more units are on the road, expect more stupid people to drive these things and make mistakes

    14. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Right. Because no one ever inadvertently left their car in neutral to let it roll away until it struck something. But if they had... sue the manufacturer!"

      Most automatic transmission vehicles built in the last two decades won't let you remove the keys if the vehicle isn't in Park. And if you try to leave the car with the keys in the ignition, they will beep at you.

      Building a car that can start and run into things with no driver in the vehicle is not remotely defensible. Of course they are going to get sued. ... and they are going to lose.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    15. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

      This goes on to show that autonomous features will unavoidably be abused by the users, trusting the machine far more than what the designer has intended. That's why semi-autonomous vehicles are a bad idea, and will only give a bad name to the concept.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    16. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      uhh, what's the 'wrong side of the road', you are allowed to park 'on the wrong side of the road' (well at least in our country).. Parking on that side of the road might not be the best place if you want to drive off, but that's a different story..
      If it were a one-way street you would be right..
      But you are right about the trailer with a perfect explanation, and it shows the sensors on the tesla are far from perfect..

    17. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Maybe the trailer is on the wrong site of the road.

    18. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      So now my question is - why did this goofball park his car on the wrong side of the road?

      Or: why did the Tesla cross the road?

    19. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I hate to say this, there is a chance that the correct course of action would be to have an additional level of driver's license where you are actually trained to use driverless cars. So you can't claim you had no idea you weren't supposed to do things like let the car's AI do every little thing, at least while they're still improving those systems to be good enough to do driving by itself (which may take a long while, anyway).

    20. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      BMW has a similar, simpler parking system where you can let the car move forward and backward while you're outside of it. Audi has shown prototypes navigating a parking garage by themselves. It's going to be a standard feature on high end cars very soon.

    21. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look at the picture. The back of the trailer bed overhangs the rear wheels by quite a distance.

    22. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But isn't it the point about this summon mode that the car moves towards you when you are not in the car?

    23. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's obvious that the car is wedged underneath the FRONT of an unhitched trailer but he says the car crashed into the "back" of a trailer. If this doofus can't even tell one end of a trailer from the other, I'm going to take his explanation of the event with a very large grain of salt!

    24. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the owner was incompetent.

      That's an absurd conclusion from the evidence.

      Lets say that the extra cost was $20 per vehicle. Tesla has sold over 100,000 cars. So that is $2 Million. To save a single windshield?

      No, to prevent a more serious accident where broken bodies can't be unbroken. Your logical fallacies are classical libertarian.

    25. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and Elon groupies need to recognise that companies vying to be first to market need to wear the price of bugs. That's the business cost of being first to market.

      But noooo Tesla can do no wrong.

    26. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's a state of local law but at least where I live in San Antonio, TX you can get a ticket for parking on the left side of the street.

    27. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the S model, as in "The Simpsons" model. It always did it.

    28. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better design? Here's an idea: automatically block the wheels when the motor is off. Just a simple mechanical gizmo to engage the parking brake. Oh, I forgot, we don't have real parking brakes anymore.
      And here's another one: IQ tests for all owners of 'smart' cars. If they are dumber than the car they should not be able to own it.

    29. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      In most countries it is illegal to park facing oncoming traffic as there is no safe way to drive off later.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    30. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Rob+Lister · · Score: 0

      uhh, what's the 'wrong side of the road', you are allowed to park 'on the wrong side of the road' (well at least in our country)..

      Parking facing traffic is illegal in the U.S. and Canada.

    31. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A helluva lot of cars out there today are not automatic. You do know that manual cars can be left in neutral as well right ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even seem to do well with stuff that is low down, like children: https://youtu.be/Cwr6zh2450w

      It can basically avoid driving into a wall head-on, which is all it is designed to do. The idea is you can park it in your garage automatically, which is handy because many new garages in the UK are too small for cars (you can get the car in but can't open the doors so have to climb in/out the sunroof). Well, it also supports parallel parking, but again the sensors are only to stop it driving directly back or forwards into another vehicle with a large, wide flat surface.

      Narrow things like motorcycles and kids will be hit. It will merrily crash into bollards and pedestrians. It's not just Tesla either, most (all?) cars with collision sensors work that way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my state (Pennsylvania) it's state law that you park on the right hand side of the rode according to the orientation of your car on a two way "highway." In the case of a one way "highway" you can park on either side if practical. The grey area is what is meant but a "highway" as the statutes regulating this area of traffic law also make reference to "residential" areas as seemingly a separate entity.

      disclaimer: not a lawyer, not a cop.

    34. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that kind of response, Tesla should never sell to you. Tesla advertised a feature, self awareness, to aid the driver. To avoid accidents. So they have to integrate more sensors. Yes that will confuse the car more often. Tough luck.

    35. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      It makes sense to have it on the books because certainly there are scenarios where doing so can create an unsafe situation. Unfortunately it is probably applied to any situation if a random goon needs to meet quota.

    36. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not good enough. A feature of "summon mode" is that the car drives out of the garage unattended. But we all know how an aging garage door can get stuck half-open. A self-driving car must look for obstacles over its whole height. Also, there are boom gates . . .

    37. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most, if not all, jurisdictions in the US you are required to park going with the traffic direction when parallel parking. This always puts you pulling out into the flow of traffic and not having to cross a traffic lane against the flow when parking or pulling out. You will get ticketed for it if a cop sees you parked wrong wheel to curb.

    38. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building a car that can start and run into things with no driver in the vehicle is not remotely defensible. Of course they are going to get sued. ... and they are going to lose.

      Thus ends the self driving car experiment then?

    39. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Since this happened in the US the trailer would only be on the "wrong side" if it were a one way road. Since this is the US the trailer is on the shoulder that is adjacent to a lane in the same direction.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    40. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Better design is always to be encouraged, but let's not hold them to a different standard than a regular car. People do stupid shit every day in cars, and 30,000 die because of it every year. Let's apply the same standard here, or else make all cars idiot proof. This incident is analogous to turning on cruise control and then taking a nap. Yes, cruise control could be made safer, but we've had it for 40 years in its "stupid" state and accepted the consequences.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    41. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I think that it's actually state specific in the US. I know the state I grew up in it was illegal. The state I live in now allows it I believe. Or perhaps law enforcement just doesn't ever care enough to ticket for it because I see cars parked the wrong way all the time, probably 30% of the parked vehicles I see are parked facing traffic.

    42. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Umm no. You cannot install additional sensors via a software update. The sensors in the car are fixed down low, it cannot see that high.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    43. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      That's an absurd conclusion from the evidence.

      you mean the evidence that shows the driver deliberately put the car in summon mode, which caused the accident? I believe that supports his claim...

      No, to prevent a more serious accident where broken bodies can't be unbroken. Your logical fallacies are classical libertarian.

      What more serious accident where broken bodies cant be unbroken? People would be picked up by this system, unless they are spider man hanging from something. You cannot remove all driver responsibility from everything.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    44. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Blocking the wheels defeats the purpose of summon mode.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    45. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Try looking up the word "overhang".

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    46. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a better question: why does a summon mode, which somehow involves the car moving, use the 'park' selection on the shifter? That's just begging for mistakes like this. All he had to do was double tap the button while parking?

      Design flaw.

    47. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summon mode defeats the purpose of the 'park' selection on the shifter that is used to set it up...

    48. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His driver side is near the curb, not facing into the street. As this is presumably Lindon, Utah, that would be the wrong side of the road.

    49. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The problem with automated cars is that they need to not only prevent the accidents that a human would make, they need to not make their own accidents that only a computer would make. It should be impossible to put the car in a mode that creates an accident, period. Tesla's fault, even if the car owner blatantly activated this mode.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    50. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Apparently summon mode defeats the purpose of not having the car roll into anyone or anything.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    51. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      In most countries it is illegal to park facing oncoming traffic as there is no safe way to drive off later.

      How so? I'd think that pulling out into traffic coming from behind (and in the "blind spot" for most cars) is inherently more difficult than pulling out into oncoming traffic that you can clearly see without turning your head or using a rear-view mirror. Both have inherent dangers, but safely entering traffic in a way that requires watching other vehicles coming from both directions seems like the more dangerous.

      So do we have statistics dealing with this? I don't think I've ever seen any, and a quick google check doesn't seem to turn up anything at all based on facts.

      Also, the laws about this in the US seem to be generally local and quite inconsistent. Is there actually a federal law that deals with this? I've never heard of one, and don't seem to be able to find it. Without a few [citation needed]s, I'd suspect that people are just making rules up based on whatever they might have heard in a driver's ed class years ago. ;-)

      Hereabouts (western suburbs of Boston), it's common to see cars parked on "local" streets in pretty much any orientation, and I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for something so inherently silly. OTOH, as a student in a midwestern university a few of decades back, I do recall my surprise when I actually got a parking ticket for parking on the "wrong side". It was on a very local street that was narrow enough that two cars couldn't pass if there were cars parked on both sides, and I'd parked there temporarily to make it easy to carry stuff from the car into a friend's apartment without interfering with the (minimal) traffic. At the time, I'd never heard of the concept of "parking on the wrong side". On local streets, you parked in the place closest to where you were going, though if you were a nice guy, you might also try to leave as wide a path in the center of the street that you could, so you might park farther away if there was a wide vehicle across from where you preferred to park.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    52. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Right! The explanation is worrisome - the car doesn't look "above" itself. Which makes me wonder about the basic crash avoidance technology - had he been driving down the highway and come upon stopped traffic....would the car have not noticed this shape truck and plowed into the back of it? It could also be proximity. Had he been farther back maybe it wouldn't have happened.

      But - I am reminded of that Volvo customer video several months ago where a person Thought they had "City" Pedestrian avoidance and ran over a family member while demonstrating it. Responsibility for Use Error does not always lie with the user. I work in the medical device field. User Confusion is a failure mode - could the user misuse something believing they are using it correctly? Placing the Start and Stop buttons side-by-side (regardless of color or labeling) is a generally a bad idea. In a panic somebody may just be swatting at the control panel trying to Stop the machine.

      What if somebody somehow double-taps the selector while shifting into Park? I assume this is the same release lever that is required to shift from D to P. I double press the one in my car (not a Tesla) because the first time I slip & push the selector too soon - and the selector is locked up on the mechanic device. So I must do it again.

      My car has Launch Control in it. Besides having a special set of steps to enable it (press brake, press button / shift to special gear) --- the final step requires the Brake be held down with significant pressure before it will engage. While the car appears to be in launch mode - Lightly touching the brake won't turn it on. You must Mean It before revving the engine.

      FMEA baby !!! :-P

    53. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously to not undo any moderation.

      uhh, what's the 'wrong side of the road', you are allowed to park 'on the wrong side of the road' (well at least in our country).. Parking on that side of the road might not be the best place if you want to drive off, but that's a different story.. If it were a one-way street you would be right..

      In both Utah and Hawaii (the two states where I've driven the most) laws state you park your car facing the same direction as traffic.

    54. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle while the car sensors are down low - that's how it tucked up under the trailer and damaged the windshield. News footage with pictures. [ksl.com]

      If that's the case then it sounds like nobody trust Tesla's self drive feature at all. Bad enough that it hits a trailer at low speed. Even worse if it happened at 70mph.

    55. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 2

      If you park on the wrong side of the road and a large vehicle parks in front of you, there isn't a sufficient line of side from the drivers seat (which is on the edge of the road) into the lane you are watching. They only way to see then is to start pulling out of the spot.

      When parking on the correct side, your mirror is more than enough to see clear down the street.

      Boston is notorious for bad drivers, it is not an example.

    56. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by dave420 · · Score: 2

      He enabled the "you drive slowly while I watch out for obstacles" mode and then didn't watch out for obstacles. The car did what it was supposed to do, and he didn't, and it's the car's fault?

    57. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly the owners fault. He put it in "transform into a convertible" mode before getting out.

    58. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the top of the head of an inattentive drive who runs into the back of a high trailer on the highway.

    59. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by knarfling · · Score: 1

      In some states, AZ at least, it is actually city specific. For example, in Phoenix it is legal to park facing the wrong way, but in Glendale (a suburb of Phoenix) it is illegal.

      As for safety, it really does depend on the local conditions. In the Phoenix area, most of the residential streets are wide enough and have a low traffic volume, so it is easy to tell if it is safe to drive off. Most of the major streets either do not allow parking on the side of the road, or have clearly designated parking spaces that make it almost impossible to park in the opposite direction.

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
    60. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just that, but cars generally only have reflectors on the rear, so parking at night is more hazardous if you're facing traffic.

    61. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucking wish.

    62. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by D.McG. · · Score: 1
      Allow me to direct you to the drivers manual for Massachusetts (my home state):

      http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dma...

      Page 105 under Parking Regulations clearly states that you may not park "Facing the wrong way against traffic". It also states, "You may get a citation with a fine for violating a parking regulation."

    63. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the driver deliberately put the car in summon mode

      That's Tesla's claim, not evidence. What moron would put a car in front of a trailer in summon mode? He parked the car to run some errands. What the owner intended to do and what he accidentally/deliberately did needs to be investigated. You need check your libertarian tendencies.

    64. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Better yet, the car should give audio+visual feedback that the car is in summon mode. If the car had shown on the tablet touchscreen that the car is in summon mode, this accident would not have happened.

    65. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Since we have a vehicle story, I don't want to go with a car analogy...

      Take a look at a simple ladder, and all of the various warning stickers that are applied these days. Why are they there? Because idiots failed to use them properly, and then blamed the ladder company, suing them for millions. Not because there's some fatal flaw with the basic design of a ladder. I don't know how much, but every ladder we buy now has the cost of those lawsuits built into them...we all pay for the idiots, and their lawyers.

      Details of the Tesla case aside (maybe it's a flaw, maybe the owner fucked up), you can never predict how every owner is going to operate his/her vehicle (think infinite number of monkeys), and the operator/driver must take responsibility for it unless there truly is a flaw...similar to how pilots are often found to have erred in a crash. Suppose I try to barrel roll a Cessna that's not designed for it, and crash into a daycare. Should Cessna prevent me from doing that? Or should I have read the fucking manual, and known better?

      I'm all for fixing and paying for the flaws, not so much for the idiots and their lawyers.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    66. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      "How so? I'd think that pulling out into traffic coming from behind (and in the "blind spot" for most cars) is inherently more difficult than pulling out into oncoming traffic that you can clearly see without turning your head or using a rear-view mirror."

      Because if you park on the side facing traffic, you have to negotiate with traffic in two directions when you pull out, whereas if you park on the other side you only have one negotiate with traffic coming from one direction.

    67. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is nothing preventing a manual transmission car from being left in neutral or being accidentally shifted into neutral after taking the keys out of the ignition.

    68. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Building a car that can start and run into things with no driver in the vehicle is not remotely defensible.

      Well yes, one would think, and I agree. Yet people are tying to defend it.

    69. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      "Right. Because no one ever inadvertently left their car in neutral to let it roll away until it struck something. But if they had... sue the manufacturer!"

      Most automatic transmission vehicles built in the last two decades won't let you remove the keys if the vehicle isn't in Park. And if you try to leave the car with the keys in the ignition, they will beep at you.

      Who said they needed to remove the keys. My grandmother stopped at the end of the driveway to get her mail, didn't put the car fully in park. It rolled back over her foot, across the street and into the ditch. She too blamed the car.

    70. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I always understood it to be about when darkness falls. Car reflectors, where fitted, are different colours rear, front and side. As are lamps, when the ignition is on. The road is easier to read if people are pointing the correct way.

    71. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh, what's the 'wrong side of the road',

      In the USA, you are required to park your vehicle facing with the flow of traffic, not against it. You could either say he's parked on the 'wrong side' or the road, or parked 'backwards' on the 'correct' side of the road. Either way, you can get a parking ticket for doing that, although usually the cops only bother writing them to make quota or if someone complains, or if they are just looking for a reason to be a dick.

    72. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Because Summon mode is a parking (and unparking) feature.

    73. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      They don't exactly SAY their products will do magic

      Red Bull gives you wings, and Viagra will let me fuck for four hours. If you're stupid enough to buy marketing hype, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    74. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The trailer wasn't invisible to the Tesla. It could see the wheels. Summon mode is a slow speed feature that involves moving close to the object in front (usually the garage wall). Autopilot at 70mph wouldn't have put the car anywhere near that trailer.

    75. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grey area is what is meant but a "highway"

      There's nothing 'grey' about it. If it's a highway, it's a highway, and will be formally designated as a highway as a matter of public record.

    76. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Nope. It only requires less accidents overall than a human would make, not none.

    77. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most automatic transmission vehicles built in the last two decades won't let you remove the keys if the vehicle isn't in Park.

      I assume you've never heard of a Keyless Ignition....

    78. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the correct course of action would be to have an additional level of driver's license where you are actually trained to use driverless cars

      How about we start with a revamp of the basic driver's license, and make it so you have to actually be able to competently drive a regular car?

    79. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It depends on what insurance companies do. People won't be held liable for a mistake the automation may make. If I can insure the automated vehicle just as property and not have to pay the same liability for the question of my driving skill then that would definitely be a step forward. Perhaps car insurance companies will just be for manual cars and the automated vehicle will be rolled into house insurance. That would be fine. Also I think it not only depends on whether they are safer then a human or not, but the type of accidents they get into. If they are doing things that are just stupid like driving into a trailer when unattended, people are less likely to trust them and they are less likely to have adoption. I don't care whether the guy pressed the button or not, a 4500 lb vehicle should not be rolling anywhere unless all collision scenarios are detected.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    80. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      How is this any different than a car that plows into a parked vehicle with someone behind the wheel? The operator gave the car a command -- perhaps inadvertently -- and that input was executed. That the user either didn't understand what he did, or didn't mean to do it, does not negate the fact that he did it. It's like the (perhaps apocryphal) stories of people driving off of cliffs because they thought "cruise control" was autonomous steering and/or braking.

      From a customer-relations and usability standpoint, it may make sense to either beef-up the sanity tests of Summon Mode, or further educate the consumer of the risks, or eliminate the feature altogether, but from a liability standpoint, unless the manufacturer made claims or guarantees, the end-user is responsible for how he operated the vehicle. Unless Tesla made a claim of an infallible Arboreal Avoidance System, this is no different than if he had steered into a tree.

    81. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Auto pilot might assume it's 2 meters further away from the vehicle in front than it actually is. A discrepacy that could mean the difference between your head being separated from its shoulders by the trailer and not. Seems important to know.

    82. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Matheus · · Score: 1

      SO this guy's an idiot. He may have exposed an issue with the avoidance (can't presume bumpers / etc at 'normal' height as proven by the jacked up pickup I went "under" with my WRX 10 years ago!) BUT he parked illegally so even if the bug isn't his fault his liability is not clean. Tesla has tons of money so it'll be interesting to see how they respond. ("The driver was clearly at fault given his illegal parking and our logs BUT we decided to augment our cars just because we want them to be even safer!" vs. "We have more money and lawyers so your illegally parking ass isn't winning... bitch.")

    83. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sensors have to be emailed and installed via USB.

    84. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      It would have. The double tap of the gear stick puts a picture of the car on the screen with summon mode active. An arrow showing which what it is going to move and plays a sound effect.

    85. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Try looking up the word 'collision sensor.'

      Even the sensors in the backup function of my mother in law's Toyota minivan start beeping with anything within ten feet.

      NO TRAILER HAS A TEN FOOT OVERHANG.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    86. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try looking up the word 'collision sensor.'

      That would be two words, dipshit.

    87. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Also because your taillights have red reflectors built into them, so oncoming cars will recognise the rear of a car.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    88. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Only if the trailer is travelling backwards down the highway at 70mph, without a tractor unit.

    89. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Er no. What I mean is the Model S thinks it is maintaining a distance of D from the trailer vehicle in front when it could be D - 2m because it can't see the overhang. Or the vehicle only recognizes an emergency 2 meters closer than it would for other vehicles. And that difference could mean the difference between life and death.

    90. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Most areas have this law.

      Philadelphia is pretty unique in being a big city that allows it.

      Don't know where this article took place.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    91. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you watch fight club?
      "Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

    92. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Right. But trucks don't have any such overhang at the back.

    93. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not where I live in TX

    94. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being intentionally obtuse. You can't either park nor leave the parking spot without driving the wrong way for a short distance. It is illegal to drive the wrong way. There ya go.

    95. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The trailer bed was up high with significant overhang of the rear axle

      Actually... that's not the rear of the trailer. When I saw the still frame in the linked article I couldn't help but wonder where the underride guard (aka Mansfield bar) was, as they're extremely common these days. After watching the video I realized why - that was just the trailer (well, technically two in tandem) without the tractor out front. The Tesla crashed into the front of the trailer, not the back. When they slide the camera in under the trailer you can clearly see the nose plate and kingpin for a fifth-wheel setup. That's why there's no underride guard or anything low enough that the Tesla would see as an obstacle. Then I thought maybe the trailer was parked backwards, but it's clearly on the right hand side of the road, with a vehicle parked behind it in the same orientation.

      So now my question is - why did this goofball park his car on the wrong side of the road?

      Alternately, why doesn't Tesla's forward facing sensors react to something low hanging enough to decapitate the driver?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    96. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      In most countries it is illegal to park facing oncoming traffic as there is no safe way to drive off later.

      When you come right down to it, there's no way to park facing oncoming traffic without driving on the wrong side of the road to get in and get out.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    97. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I thought these things had all sorts of avoidance built in?

      It has conventional parking sensors, but thats not good enough. This incident shows a clear design fault: - normal parking sensors are low down, because their job is to detect things he driver cannot see. - this Tesla ran into a high trailer with its windscreen.

      CLEARLY- any sort of autonomous driving like this needs a camera or other sensors for the full front of the car, not just ones designed to supplement human vision. Surely its not that hard?

      what wise guy put the code for the Limbo in?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    98. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Right. Because no one ever inadvertently left their car in neutral to let it roll away until it struck something. But if they had... sue the manufacturer!"

      Most automatic transmission vehicles built in the last two decades won't let you remove the keys if the vehicle isn't in Park. And if you try to leave the car with the keys in the ignition, they will beep at you.

      Building a car that can start and run into things with no driver in the vehicle is not remotely defensible. Of course they are going to get sued. ... and they are going to lose.

      Old VW Rabbits had a bad habit of starting themselves when left parked in the rain. If they were manual trans left in gear they would just run around the parking lot until something got in the way or they ran out of gas. http://www.arfc.org/autos/vw/r...

    99. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The problem with parking on the left hand side is that you have to look through the vehicle in front of you to see oncoming traffic. I can't see any way that you would be able to pull out of the parking spot in the pictures of this accident.

      On another note, why isn't there a sensor at the top of the windshield?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    100. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is the front of a construction vehicle flatbed trailer, likely the wheels are a couple of car lengths ahead of where the car hit it.

      Why exactly do the sensors on a Tesla not detect overhangs? Would it have driven into anything at that height? I see a design defect in the sensor array.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    101. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When parked, it is improper to have a manual transmission in neutral as well. The best gear to leave it in is second.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    102. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, all cars are sold with parking brakes. You perhaps are referring to the incorrect naming of these systems as emergency brakes?

      Parking brakes are how you keep the automatic transmission from getting locked up when parking on a hill.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    103. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Good point actually.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    104. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but accidents do happen - and sometimes people just plain make mistakes. This is one reason why manual transmission cars still have parking brakes. Even on a flat surface it provides a level of redundancy in case you accidentally leave the car in neutral.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    105. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a close look at the next few tow trucks you see. Some are built like a knife at neck height...

    106. Re: Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parking on the wrong side necessitates traversing lanes for both directions. As you pull out you must travel some distance going the wrong direction. Depending on traffic flow this could result in the car moving into oncoming traffic, but not being able to merge with the correct lane due to speed differences. This leaves the car traveling at speed in the wrong direction.

      It doesn't take a physics degree to see how inherently dangerous this is.

    107. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus, the only way to park facing the wrong way is if you drive down the wrong side of the street to get to the parking place.

    108. Re:Summon into back of trailer mode? by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      Look at the picture with the article. The truck had a load that extended far back behind the truck, and far above the ground-- above the height of the car's hood. The Tesla can't detect that, which is why Summon is only supposed to be used on private property where you control the obstacles, and not the side of a public road, where another vehicle can come along and park in front of you with an irregularly sized load.

  2. Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even in summon mode, it'd still need to be summoned.
    From the article "Or maybe he was fiddling around with the Tesla smartphone app when showing off the car?"

    Regardless of the cause, surely he'd hear the noise of the car impacting on the trailer load if he was just nearby. It reads like he came out unsuspecting and just found it like it.

    1. Re:Still needs to be summoned by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Summary: "I fucked up my expensive car, and don't want to take responsibility and pay for it, so I'll claim that it did it on its own."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Still needs to be summoned by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have not yet taken delivery and am still on the waiting list but, if I understand correctly, they don't just decide to summon themselves. It's a bit like a Final Fantasy thing. You actually have to push a button in order to summon.

      What I find odd is the remarks in parenthesis. That it's unlikely that he forgot and possible that it spazzed out. If I had to pick between those two, I gotta be realistic here, I'd be more inclined to suspect the human did it.

      That it ran into something is a bit disconcerting. You folks trust these things to pilot you down the highway, at highway speeds, when it seems to have a blind spot at head height? I don't care, I'm still buying one and I still own shares BUT I think I might not let it drive, not just yet. I'm gonna make sure it kind of gets some lessons, so to speak, before letting it do that.

      And no, no I am not buying one out of some desire to be green. Not even close. It'll be for the missus to drive. On the other hand, the 0 to 60 will be tested many, many times. I've not yet found out if I can disable stability and traction control. You can imagine why I'd want to do such a thing, right? Good...

      It's a bit nifty but I can disable all that in my 6 series. I don't do it often but sometimes the inner five year old child has to be let out to play. It's also a great sleeper (the 6) and the kids all are easily amused by it. Sometimes they recognize the model for what it is and pull up beside me and indicate they want to race. I usually (it's a stick) rev a bit and it makes a low, throaty, growl that kind of shakes stuff. They stomp on the gas the minute the light turns green. I mosey along to the next light.

      The street is never the appropriate place to race.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't want kids to race then don't ENCOURAGE them, you righteous prat.

    4. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit like a Final Fantasy thing. You actually have to push a button in order to summon.

      Funny, in the last Final Fantasy game I played (XIII), there were many instances of accidental summoning.

    5. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since these things record actions and report them, it's simple for Tesla to see if the driver was responsible or not. In this case, he was.

    6. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because we all know it's IMPOSSIBLE for software to ever have bugs, or for switches or sensors to malfunction, or for anything to ever happen within a system that doesn't get immediately and correctly logged.

      Ignorance is bliss I guess...

    7. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      play some pinball and you will see all of what you listed happen.

    8. Re:Still needs to be summoned by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL I haven't kept up with the series. I played 2 and 3 IIRC. They've gotta be up to XV by now.

      They had a RTS game (FF: Tactics?) and Fallout 2 followed suit. I've not really gamed since.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Still needs to be summoned by KGIII · · Score: 1

      My making noise with my car in no way makes them behave other than they would normally behave. I've got rear view mirrors and see how they were already driving. If I were *encouraging* them then I'd be racing with them. It's not encouragement to actually not race at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just as bad as Tesla. Blame that victim. I'd normally give someone like you the benefit of the doubt, but the minute I saw your username, I already knew how big of an ass you'd be. As I routinely tell you, go choke on a bag of baby dicks.

    11. Re: Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting the vehicle into Park, is one of the steps to enabling some kind of software automation that will cause the car to move on its own?!?

      What a horribly, shitty, design & interface. Do not want.

    12. Re: Still needs to be summoned by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 1

      Or tesla to change the logs.

    13. Re:Still needs to be summoned by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Except in this case it required manual activation. If someone claims they set a parking break and the car rolled into another car, but you look and the parking break was set, and the locking mechanism was not broke, would you claim the car just released the break on its own?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    14. Re:Still needs to be summoned by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because we all know it's IMPOSSIBLE for software to ever have bugs, or for switches or sensors to malfunction, or for anything to ever happen within a system that doesn't get immediately and correctly logged.

      Ignorance is bliss I guess...

      And people are infallible and never lie to stop themselves looking stupid, right?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re:Still needs to be summoned by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      My making noise with my car in no way makes them behave other than they would normally behave. I've got rear view mirrors and see how they were already driving. If I were *encouraging* them then I'd be racing with them. It's not encouragement to actually not race at all.

      Not being funny, but giving the suggestion that you're going to race and then not race is in every way encouraging them to boot down. I'm guessing you're hoping they'll crash into something or a cop will see it but either way it's a dick move.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Junta · · Score: 1

      So what I find weird is that Summon mode seems like it's a two stage thing:

      When parking, it should roll itself into whatever state it's supposed to be in (rolling backward or forward a bit). Did it not do that in this case? The claim suggests that the car did not initially move (if taken at face value, the owner could be lying) and only moved when he wasn't around... later. Summoning I thought would only go *back* to where it was before being told to put itself away. Why should summoning the car cause it to roll into something?

      So I think it's either the owner is lying or the car did something very wrong. It should not activate at long range, it shouldn't roll into a position upon summoning it wasn't already in previously on the 'summon' half of the flow. In general, it's a rather silly little feature.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    17. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean just like "butt dialing" someone requires manual activation?
      Interesting you'd use that parking brake analogy, because in this case, you're essentially arguing for the other team. The "parking brake" actually DID release on its own (and the motor also engaged to propel the car forward), apparently with only an opt-out prompt following accidental activation; basically defaulting to "ok, go for it." If that's not, at the very least, a UI fail, I don't know what is.

    18. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if either option is possible (human error by the driver or human error by the programmers/engineers or hardware limitations/failures) you just assume that the driver is a liar? Did you happen to work for AECL in a prior career?

      In any case it's largely irrelevant, because even if the driver deliberately activated the feature (which hasn't been established, but for the sake of argument), the incident still highlights two major issues:
      1. In the event of feature activation (deliberate or accidental) the confirmation DEFAULTS to enable rather than abort.
      2. The sensors and automation are very clearly inadequate for a feature like this to be implemented in the first place.

    19. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's a bit nifty but I can disable all that in my 6 series. I don't do it often but sometimes the inner five year old child has to be let out to play. "

      fair. fair.

      "The street is never the appropriate place to race."

      What the fuck? You're all over the place.

    20. Re: Still needs to be summoned by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Things don't go too well for car companies that cheat.

    21. Re:Still needs to be summoned by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Summary: The car has an autonomous feature that can't see a large obstacle directly in front of it.

      It doesn't matter how the feature is activated, or if the douche who owns the car activated the feature intentionally or not, or if the douche who owns the car parked it on the wrong side of the street.

      The autonomous mode should never result in driving into a large obstacle directly in front of the car.

    22. Re:Still needs to be summoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revving in response to the challenge gives them the impression that you're going to participate.

      Basing your decisions on what others think---theory of mind---is something that everyone does except the autistic. So you're either autistic or a shitbag.

    23. Re:Still needs to be summoned by zlives · · Score: 1

      so in summon mode model s can run into things?

    24. Re: Still needs to be summoned by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Things don't go too well for car companies that cheat.

      ummmm, you need to add: depending on the time frame and funding sources.
      Eventually, the chickens may come home to roost (karma), but even if/when it does, the current execs making the decisions may have already made as much money as they were expecting to anyways. Which actual human decision-maker is going to get all the blame for Volkswagen cheating?

    25. Re:Still needs to be summoned by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Even in summon mode, it'd still need to be summoned.

      burn the witch! burn the witch!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  3. odd by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It does seem pretty unlikely the owner would have done this on purpose. And even if he had activated summon mode, it still doesn't reflect well on the car that it drove itself into a trailer.

    Some sort of spurious activation of the feature seems plausible. But even deliberate activation doesn't excuse the car having an accident.

    Who is liable and who SHOULD be liable?

    1. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it should never be possible for a car to automatically crash into a large stationary object

      tesla fucked up

    2. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently, driver error or not when parking it, Teslas can drive themselves and can see obstacles, except when they can't. Even when being "summoned" the car shouldn't just drive itself into something parked in front of it. It should default to not moving at all.

    3. Re:odd by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at the photos. The trailer is high and has something, steel support beams I think, that are sticking way out the back. The beams look like they almost clear the roof of the Tesla

      So if that is the case then it is pretty close to what Tesla says the Summon system won't detect. Tesla says the car won't see things that are hanging from a roof and this setup is pretty close to that. The nose of the car is actually a long way away from anything it could see even after the impact.

      In the end you have an accident that a human driver wouldn't have done. But it was caused by a human using a system that has had that particular issue described to them.

    4. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who is liable and who SHOULD be liable?

      More importantly, people could be hurt inside trailer; an oven could have exploded and seriously injury someone. Sometimes things which did not happen are way more worrisome than what has passed.

      People can do inadvertent moves: it's called mechanical memory. I work with Windows but use Linux at home. More than once I've double clicked on things in Linux, which now and then causes problems (for I use single-click).

      Imagine what kind of problems would arise in a similar situation in a car...

    5. Re:odd by rmdingler · · Score: 0

      it should never be possible for a car to automatically crash into a large stationary object

      tesla fucked up

      Unlikely. Listen to the alibi instantly created by the driver.

      A worker from the business he was visiting greeted him outside after which he went inside the establishment. Roughly five minutes later, he came out to find his Model S slammed into the trailer in front of it.

      I have a witness who came out to greet me and saw the car so not rear ending the trailer in front of me.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:odd by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if that is the case then it is pretty close to what Tesla says the Summon system won't detect.

      Yup. I noted that.

      Tesla says the car won't see things that are hanging from a roof and this setup is pretty close to that.

      You are thinking like an engineer / software programmer and you are considering the problem with respect to your knowledge of where the sensors are and how they work.

      A normal human being is not going to equate "a parked trailer on the ground" as being the same problem space as "things hanging from a roof".

    7. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Tesla screwed up. Their mistake was assuming that things on the road would be street legal (at least in my state, the trailer is clearly illegal if there is no bar for the vehicle to strike before the windshield and the driver's neck hits the trailer).

    8. Re:odd by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what should be the outcome then? If I sell you ammo that is perfect for hunting deer and then you shoot a person do you get to argue that "but you told me it was good at deer not people" as a way out?

      Tesla's documentation is pretty clear. They even have videos showing how the system works AND they specify that you have to keep the vehicle under your immediate supervision while using summon mode (not to mention what ever by laws there are in your location). The guy fucked up, and I feel sorry for him for scratching his car. But we can't be passing liability to Tesla because the guy has no critical reasoning skills.

    9. Re:odd by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I sell you ammo that is perfect for hunting deer and then you shoot a person do you get to argue that "but you told me it was good at deer not people" as a way out?

      That analogy really doesn't fit at all.

      If I sold you an automatic sentry gun (a la aliens) and claimed it would shoot anything that moved but that it wouldn't shoot people. And then it riddled a man in a wheelchair because... i dunno... wheels aren't people?

      So what should be the outcome then

      That was precisely the question I asked in my OP.

      Whether the guy or Tesla or his insurance company pick up the repair on this car is almost beside the point.

      The bigger question is whether this feature is ready for the public. IF it can't detect an honest to goodness parked vehicle in front of it, then its not ready for the public; even if that vehicle is a bit unusual -- its not THAT unusual.

      And a disclaimer that it detects "most vehicles and works as expected except when it doesn't" doesn't absolve Tesla of responsibility. It didn't hit something hanging from a ceiling. It hit a parked vehicle in front of it.

      And if the feature can be activated remotely, then Tesla should expect customers to operate it remotely; the car is driving itself; and Tesla should be on the hook for the accident... in my opinion.

      But we can't be passing liability to Tesla because the guy has no critical reasoning skills.

      I don't dispute the guy was a bonehead.

      Tesla sold a car self-driving/self-parking car function that couldn't detect a vehicle in front of it in broad daylight to the public world of boneheads. I'd say Tesla lacked some critical reasoning skills too.

    10. Re:odd by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Sherlock, but were you clever enough to notice that the car was in "summon mode" which would not have been the case if he had simply crashed and then made an excuse?

      You didn't find any problem with his story, you simply speculated in contradiction to the given details.

    11. Re:odd by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      It doesn't really matter if he made a minor mistake in the settings. He wasn't in the vehicle, and it drove off and crashed. Tesla needs to own up to their liability.

      The letter Tesla sent him blames him for not safely controlling the vehicle at all times; but nobody is expected to "control" the vehicle while it is parked. Furthermore, part of the activation sequence of the "summon" feature is to place the vehicle in park; something you have to do to park manually, and potentially a major design flaw in the feature. Additionally, the feature is in "beta" testing; they don't even claim it works right yet. This is on Tesla, even if the driver did make mistakes.

    12. Re:odd by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Plus, thinking that the fact that they require drivers, in order to activate the feature, to agree to use it only on private property and under constant supervision to avoid hitting things the sensors can't see would actually cause people to do so.

      Most importantly, it seems to me Summon mode is *way* too easy to activate accidentally. Butt-dialing your phone requires a way more unlikely sequence of coincidences.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are car companies liable for someone who leaves their car in neutral on an incline? After all, people don't expect their parked car to move and it is only a "minor" mispositioning of the shfiter. Part of the process of putting a car into neutral is to move the shifter forward in many cars, something you have to do when parking manuaully.

    14. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They start to become liable when they say their cars can be summoned and drive around on their own.

      If I use the stairs and I trip, it's my fault (unless the stairs are really that badly built).
      If I use the elevator and "given a special sequence of buttons in some scenarios the elevator might crash ", it's the elevator company's fault, even if the accident rate will still be lower than using the stairs :).

    15. Re:odd by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      It is pretty clearly stated that summon must always be done when you can see the car. The car moves really slowly in that mode meaning you can hit the stop button on your key fob.

    16. Re:odd by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      There is a critical difference between your conclusion and mine. As you said PART of the sequence to activate summon is to put the car in park. But it is only part. The rest of the sequence is not something you would reasonably do by accident.

      Summon requires you to go through a series of processes which are not likely to be done by accident. You are also required to keep the vehicle in direct line of sight while using summon and you, as the person who activated summon, have the ability to stop the vehicle at any time using the key fob.

      Also the double push method for summon starts really soon after you get out of the car, so his story of standing there just doesn't add up.

      Here is a video of the process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    17. Re:odd by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

      I don't dispute the guy was a bonehead.

      Tesla sold a car self-driving/self-parking car function that couldn't detect a vehicle in front of it in broad daylight to the public world of boneheads. I'd say Tesla lacked some critical reasoning skills too.

      I am definitely not a Tesla fanboy (in fact, they annoy me), but in this case it was not really the fault of the car itself. The trailer was invisible to the cars sensors, because - that much is clearly visible on the photos - there was nothing in front of the car in the field of view of the parking sensors. In fact, the car was able to drive several feet UNDER the trailer without crashing into anything. To avoid something like this, the car would need additional sensors at eye level of the driver.

      Another thought - with the car in summon mode, do the parking sensors even stop the car if they detect anything? After all, it is a driver activated mode during which the driver can command the car to go forward/backward while pressing buttons on the key. I do not own a Tesla, so maybe someone else can comment if it actually would be possible to command the car to hit e.g. a wall which the sensors could pick up.

    18. Re: odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the case will go to court, and the guy's sworn testimony will be compared to the company's log and the guy will be shown right. But I'm guessing the case will not go to court, due to the possibly that the guy's sworn testimony will be compared to the company's log.

    19. Re:odd by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The driver's alibi is totally irreverent. Cars should not drive into things on their own no matter what the driver does.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    20. Re:odd by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Car companies aren't adding the feature of 'roll when neutral' to the car, that is just a quality of manual transmissions. On the other hand, Tesla added the summon feature to their car so they should be making damn sure it is foolproof.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he didn't intend to crash into the trailer. He just intended to use the summon function, and didn't realize/remember that the car is unable to see obstacles that are high off the ground. He just doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't want to pay for his mistake!

      Given that this is clearly a very easy mistake to make, it doesn't surprise me at all that this would happen. It's not immediately obvious what obstacles the car is able to detect. I hope Tesla does improve the system, and in the meantime ships a software update that reminds people of this problem every time they engage this mode.

    22. Re:odd by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Also, isn't there a log? This kind of thing should be in a log file, so one would KNOW what had happened rather than just arguing about it.

      P.S.: My first though was he hadn't curbed the wheels on a hill, and it had gone downhill with everything off. But this doesn't mesh well with "summon mode".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:odd by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      By "the rest" you mean, what? 2 out of 10 steps? Pressing two buttons, one inside the car before parking, and then pressing the wrong button on the phone app or key fob, and the car drives off and crashes.

      It is exceptionally misleading to spell out a huge number of steps where over 50% of the "steps" are not actually steps in that process, but rather things that you're required to have done if you were not trying to activate the feature. If any of those are considered activation steps, then the feature is designed in a grossly negligent way. Having the car drive off and park itself is a serious physical action. They do not have ANY step that guarantees the driver is present, even though they obviously believe that the driver must be present to supervise the action.

    24. Re:odd by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Are car companies liable for someone who leaves their car in neutral on an incline?

      Is "parking on an incline" listed as a beta feature? Is the neutral gear listed as a beta feature?

      If so, then potentially yes. If one of those is beta and the user interface was confusing, then certainly yes.

      The car I drive doesn't have any "beta" features at all; every feature it has is well-tested, or purported to be. So that leaves most of the liability on me to use those features in the standard (correct) way. If pressing a button on the key fob could cause the car to go from "park" to "neutral," they'd probably be liable even if they designed it that way and told me about it, unless the car was specially made as a "stunt" or "exhibition" car. Tesla doesn't make stunt cars, they make passenger cars.

    25. Re:odd by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "Also, isn't there a log?"

      Yes.

      The vehicle logs confirm that the automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display.

      At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request.

      Approximately five minutes, sixteen seconds after Summon activated, the vehicle's driver's-side front door was opened again.

      In short, according to the log, the driver manually activated the feature, failed to cancel it, then got out of the car and left, and 3 seconds later the car started moving. The driver came back 5 minutes later.

      So the log is of questionable value. Nobody seems to be disputing that the car was driving itself at the time of the accident. Is it possible the feature was activated accidently? Is it possible the feature was activated spontaneously? (I mean, I had a car once where the radio would come on spontaneously when I turned the ignition on or off sometimes; due to an electrical gremlin somewhere.) All the log does is essentially record that the activate feature was received it doesn't validate how the signal was generated or whether it was generated purposefully.

      Does it even matter? On the one hand if we presume the activation feature is faulty Tesla is clearly liable. On the other hand even if we assume the driver accidentally (or even purposefully activated the feature); the car STILL drove itself into a parked trailer.

      And if its *possible* for the driver to activate the feature (accidently or not), then get out of the car and walk away, and for the car to THEN start moving on it own... then the feature is defective by design. IMO.

    26. Re:odd by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Summon requires you to go through a series of processes which are not likely to be done by accident.

      What processes? It looks like put it in park (which it would be in) and bump a button twice. That seemed sufficient from the video to activate it.

      You are also required to keep the vehicle in direct line of sight while using summon and you

      And the car knows its within LOS how? If the feature were accidentally activated and he walked away... how is he supposed to know its activated?

      Also the double push method for summon starts really soon after you get out of the car, so his story of standing there just doesn't add up.

      I don't know about you, but when I get out of a car, I often shut the door behind me without even looking back. (And I've seen people walk away from cars that werent properly braked and roll into the car in front of them or bump up into the curve as the owner walks away. It adds up just fine.

      And the Tesla is nearly silent. In a normal universe with other traffic/road noise, his sell phone going off, and everything else... I could absolutely see it happening.

    27. Re:odd by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      He said he stood there with a guy who met him and admired his car for 5 minutes. Hypothetically someone could stalk off and not hear the horn beeping but according to the article he spent 5 minutes after parking showing his car off. Something isn't adding up.

    28. Re:odd by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the log is a bit incomplete. It should record why it felt it was "summoned".

      It matters. I don't think it's really important, but it matters. What's more important is that the sensors didn't keep it from driving into an overhang. But the user manual said you need to keep the car under control when you summon it, so it matters whether it malfunctioned or not. (And it would anyway. I wouldn't want a car that could decide on its own that it had been summoned. That's something that needs to be rather fail-safe. It should require a line of sight to the summoner as well as a call beacon. Pulse-coded infra-red should work fine for the line of sight signal.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:odd by swalve · · Score: 1

      Nearly every car on the road will do that. Enter vehicle, put it into gear, exit vehicle.

    30. Re:odd by swalve · · Score: 1

      If it activated summon mode without being asked, then that's a problem. But if you have a vehicle that can be remote controlled, it's your job to make sure you aren't accidentally remote controlling it. Like the gun analogy above, if you don't want to shoot anyone accidentally, you make sure the gun doesn't have a bullet in the chamber.

    31. Re:odd by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      it should never be possible for a car to automatically crash into a large stationary object

      tesla fucked up

      A Tesla may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
      A Tesla must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      A Tesla must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
      That's where he screwed up, his Second Law overruled the Third Law.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. This sort of thing has cropped up before by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. It has always been due to human error.

    1. Re:This sort of thing has cropped up before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right - it is always human error. The question is: which human?

      • The driver - possibly drove the car into the trailer intentionally, or unintentionally drove the car into the trailer, or . . .
      • The software developers - there's a bug in the software or didn't account for a corner case, or . . .
      • The hardware engineers - they didn't design sufficient sensors, or the right type, or sensors in the right places, or . . .
      • Some other person - exploited the software and enabled the car, or backed the trailer up, or . . .
    2. Re:This sort of thing has cropped up before by caviare · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry Hal, but I'm afraid he didn't do that.

  5. Two Words by the_other_one · · Score: 1

    Parking Break

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    1. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. What does the Parking break? Or are you talking about people taking a break from their work to do some parking?

    2. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What does the Parking break?

      The windshield of your Tesla, apparently.

    3. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Parking Break"

      That's the problem. The car did take a break from parking...

    4. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that supposed to be a double-entendre referring to failure in a parking operation as well as the Parking Brake ?

    5. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two words, and you can't spell half of them. Fail.

    6. Re:Two Words by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. Braking bad.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    7. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you mean parking brake, don't Tesla's have one?

      I always use the parking brakes when parking, be it for minutes or for days.
      Only when severe frost is possible will I leave it in fifth gear instead.

      I thinks Tesla could just end this with: "You did not put the parking brake on, your fault".

    8. Re:Two Words by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I think Game of Phones is the new media darling.

    9. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to everyone I ever drive behind on the freeway. It seems people only know two functions of driving... extreme acceleration and braking, with no in between.

  6. Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the heck is 'summon mode'?

    1. Re:Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people call that the "KIT, come get me" (followed by a computer voice saying "coming Michael") mode.

    2. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Summon mode is a desperately over hyped concept of having the car crawl forward or backwards at ridiculously low speed, in a straight line while the owner holds down a button on the key fob.

      It is, like every other part of Tesala's "autonomous car technology" about as far from being actually autonomous as it can get without getting them sued for false advertising.

    3. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article, has a video of what it is

    4. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Err... We don't do that here. In fact, we don't even like your kind of people around here.

      Making informed, logical, well-reasoned, accurate, statements that are based on facts, observation, and are objective - is not something we're actually all that keen on. If you're one of those article readers, may I suggest Fark or Reddit?

      Sheesh... Next thing you know, you're going to ask that we actually know about the subject before we offer (insist, really) adamant opinions. Never gonna happen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Ok, now the second question: what the hell is it useful for? Apart going wrong in all the many ways I can imagine?

    6. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, now the second question: what the hell is it useful for? Apart going wrong in all the many ways I can imagine?

      Imagine the selfish jerks on either side of the only remaining parking space have parked their Humvees so that there's enough space to fit your Tesla, but not enough space to open the doors. You pull up in front, get out, and let the car park itself. When you return to your car, you "Summon" the car out of the spot, hop in, and drive off.

      That's the intent of the feature, as I understand it.

      (Note: selfish jerkness can be inferred from their driving Humvees...)

    7. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head: The car can park itself in a spot that would be too tight to let you open the doors to get in and out.

      =Smidge=

    8. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... so the other owner will... amm... not scratch/dent your car as they try to get into their door that is suddenly blocked by the Tesla?

    9. Re: Non Tesla owner here. by mgscheue · · Score: 1

      Very small garages are common in some places--England, for instance.

  7. Unconscious action? by Chmarr · · Score: 1

    Or, if the owner has activated "summon mode" so many times previously, it may well have been an unconscious action.

    Anyway... the Tesla, more than any other vehicle, is going to have some kind of "flight recorder", right?

    1. Re:Unconscious action? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Anyway... the Tesla, more than any other vehicle, is going to have some kind of "flight recorder", right?

      Of course, which is how the Tesla Engineers are able to go 'Hey, you put it in summon mode and crashed it yourself!'

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Unconscious action? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I would expect that is what they looked at when telling him what he did. It is extremely unlikely to have a false recording of such a complex input action, far more unlikely than user error. Of course, Tesla could be lying, but the risk for them would be a high likelihood extremely bad press, so I doubt very much that is what they did. And if this was an error on their side, they would have just been very generous and helpful and the problem would never have gone to the press.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Unconscious action? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nothing in any of the information about this incident indicates that an engineer was assigned to the problem.

      Actually, that is the story; he was sent a PR blame-the-driver letter, and received no other contact, and the letter contradicted what he witnessed.

    4. Re:Unconscious action? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I would expect that if they had actually looked that closely at the logs, they would have also called him instead of sending the letter. That they merely sent the letter indicates to me that it probably did not actually leave the call center and make it to an analysis by technical personnel.

      I'd also expect that had it been properly escalated, they would have been very helpful and the problem would have never gone to the press... regardless of whose fault it was, because the feature at issue is in beta and so if the user experienced a problem, it might very well be their fault even if he did press the wrong buttons.

    5. Re:Unconscious action? by quenda · · Score: 2

      Or, if the owner has activated "summon mode" so many times previously

      I know I often randomly draw a pentagram on my touchscreen when I'm fidgety.

    6. Re: Unconscious action? by oobayly · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're going to really piss Beelzebub off if you continuously summon him like that.

    7. Re:Unconscious action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect that is what they looked at when telling him what he did. It is extremely unlikely to have a false recording of such a complex input action

      Bullshit. Nothing in the Tesla statement says they have complex recordings of the input action that activated summon mode.

      "Tesla has reviewed the vehicle’s logs, which show that the incident occurred as a result of the driver not being properly attentive to the vehicle’s surroundings while using the Summon feature or maintaining responsibility for safely controlling the vehicle at all times."

      That statement is deliberately vague, and makes no reference to a detailed record of user actions leading to Summon feature being activated. It could just be a single line entry in the log "Summon mode activated", you don't know, I don't know, and Tesla didn't say.

      The only other statement is this uncited quote from (anyone, the writer at Hot Hardware, who the fuck knows):

      Overton had put the vehicle in Summon mode right before the exiting the vehicle, which is activated by “a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation.”

      "is", not "was".

      And this isn't part of the Tesla PR, so who knows who said this. It tries to paint a picture that it was determined from backwards analysis of the raw user input that this is what happened, but nothing in the article or the press release specifically says that it was.

    8. Re:Unconscious action? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You mean what he claims to have witnessed.

    9. Re:Unconscious action? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why would they call him? Why would you waste time on a freaking phone call trying to find someone at their home, interrupt them on their time, and then deliver blunt push-information to them while they try to argue with you on the phone? Even the fucking newspaper didn't call me on the phone when they claimed I owed them money (I didn't; I cancelled my account, they stopped sending papers, they kept trying to bill me--I canceled the card after multiple attempted contacts to cancel the charges--and then they claimed they delivered papers I never bought).

      It would only get *into* the call center by calling in. If it stayed in the call center, the call center person would have said, "Oh, hello Mr. Baddriver. Your car crashed itself? Oh my, let's see here... okay it says in the logs that you put it into summon mode, then summoned it 20 minutes later, on a public street, parked on the wrong side of the road, and it hit a trailer rig from the end usually attached to a truck. So... yeah, summon mode says not to do that...? Nothing we can do for you here, Mr. Baddriver. Have a nice day!"

      If it went to engineering, the call center would have to take the information, disconnect the call, and forward it to an engineering team for analysis. It would go into the queue for hours or days, then generate a response. Again: rather than a callback, they'd probably just send a fucking letter. In writing. With copies at their HQ. That they can claim as "Delivered In Writing" if legally challenged. That saves you the hearsay "what did the support rep tell him?" "Did he hear it properly?" "What was his impression after getting off the phone?" bullshit, because the customer can re-read the conversation and you can present it *in* *writing* to the judge at court.

    10. Re:Unconscious action? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If a car is sold as being smart enough to drive itself, then it should also be smart enough to prevent real damage from a human error.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:Unconscious action? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why would they call him?

      Wow. Just... wow.

      I don't think you realize even what sort of car it is, how much it costs, how many are made, and how many accidents they should be having that involve a "beta" self-driving feature.

      Just... wow.

    12. Re:Unconscious action? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You mean what he claims to have witnessed.

      Indeed. I'm sure you can find dozens of other words that I also mean, that are implied by my statement, that I didn't type out. Even as long-winded as I am, there is no limit to the amount of redundant filler words that it is possible to add to any statement without changing the meaning.

      So, yeah. Obviously I meant that. But no, you're incorrect in your implication that adding it corrects or clarifies anything.

    13. Re:Unconscious action? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a Tesla, it has several thousand made, and it's expensive. They paid for a car, not prestige service; you are assuming it's Tesla's business strategy to put out a face of luxury and haught, rather than to put out a face of the future of technology.

      If it were an Aston Martin, maybe they would have sent a personal representative to his house. As it stands, it was an off-the-shelf $60,000 car, the kind of thing upper-middle-class folks take a second mortgage out to buy, like an Audi S5. It's the kind of car *I've* considered buying, and I make $75,000. The car is an "I have a special thing" car, not an "I am a special person" car.

    14. Re:Unconscious action? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We're trying to assign guilt and claim one party or another is liars. Hard evidence is different than soft evidence, and these words have real meaning.

    15. Re:Unconscious action? by swalve · · Score: 1

      It's not being sold that way. All they are saying is that you can drive it from outside the car.

  8. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those are understandably deliberate actions that must be taken to invoke Summon, so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible)."

    Or... he's, looking for money?

  9. Third option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those are understandably deliberate actions that must be taken to invoke Summon, so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible).

    Or, you know, he's lying to try and shift blame (and therefore liability) off himself.

    1. Re:Third option by gweihir · · Score: 0

      From what a friend that worked in customer support told me, customers being too stupid (and unaware of it) or directly lying is a rather frequent event.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Third option by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      I would have used Musketeers ;)

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    3. Re:Third option by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      This is a very common occurrence where you do some set of actions repeatably and then your brain builds what is called a chunk that is one action of all those actions, then your brain does that chunk of action after that and you don't really think about it. It's like driving a car and then after going thru a light, thinking, did I just go thru a red or green light. It was more than likely green and your mind recognized it as such, but you don't really recall the details much later as your mind does not think it's important anymore. So if this guy has frequently been putting it into that mode and got used to it, then mostly likely, as oppose to what the OP says, that he DID put it into that mode, but forgot. Humans are quite failable and don't remember details about stuff, and the longer the time passes between when the action occurred, your mind will forget it. Your mind is capable of keeping 7+/- 1 things in short term memory, so this guy going to talk about other stuff, crossing the road, look at traffic or people, figuring out where the place is, trying to recognize the person, remember if he locked the car, or has what ever he was bringing to the place, and if it was most likely more than 5 mins, then the initial putting it into that mode and getting out of the car was forgotten by then. So he may not be lying per se, just not remembering it correctly.

  10. Do I have to be level 60 for Summon to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the mana cost for that?

  11. Not so ridiculous by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love playing with the button on the gear selector when I'm driving an automatic. It has a nice springy feel to it. I can completely imagine pressing that button many many times and then shifting from Drive to Park. If that activates some weird car mode, it seems kind of scary to me.

    What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen. Seems like this should be a menu option of some kind, in which the vehicle operator is able to clearly describe his intentions, with no room for ambiguity. "Want to turn on the feature that lets the car drive without you in it? Yes or no? Are you sure?" Doesn't seem hard. If they want to couple that with some actuation of "driver only" features like the gear selector, to reduce ambiguity over whether or not the driver actually wanted to enable this mode, all the better.

    --

    Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
    1. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't treat your vehicle like a squeezy toy.

    2. Re:Not so ridiculous by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen. Seems like this should be a menu option of some kind, in which the vehicle operator is able to clearly describe his intentions, with no room for ambiguity. "Want to turn on the feature that lets the car drive without you in it? Yes or no? Are you sure?" Doesn't seem hard. If they want to couple that with some actuation of "driver only" features like the gear selector, to reduce ambiguity over whether or not the driver actually wanted to enable this mode, all the better.

      This is not a new phenomenon; the aviation industry has wrestled with this quite some time with automation in flight controls. Systems can silently shift from one mode to the other or get activated without the pilot realizing it has transitioned, resulting in unexpected actions and or unplanned contact with the ground. Absent a way to clearly let the operator know what mode the system is in results in confusion because the system doesn't responds as the operator expects leading to adverse outcomes.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Not so ridiculous by SumDog · · Score: 0

      Back when I drove automatics, I'd do this too. The description makes it sound like an incredibly easy thing to accidentally turn on.

      It also sounds like the most retarded feature on the planet.

      I'm willing to bet he turned it on by accident, the keys pressed against his phone or lighter or whatever was in his pocket, and it was in range to move his car into a truck while inside.

    4. Re:Not so ridiculous by KavyBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How this works is that you press the park button twice to activate autopark (aka summon). This brings up on the center display an overhead representation of the car with arrows front and back that you can press to move the car forward or backward. The flaw is that forward is the default. You don't have to press it. The default should be "do nothing", making the driver confirm intent to autopark.
      The first time I saw this, I knew it would be trouble.

    5. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, I do the same thing when bored at the lights. I also sometimes tap the steering wheel in time with the music: hope I never drive a car where you activate stuff through morse-code tapping!

    6. Re:Not so ridiculous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen

      Yes, this seems like a UI issue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Not so ridiculous by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
      I changed my mind after reading the article, it's not a UI issue, the car gave the user a warning on the screen, and the user had a chance to cancel. Quote:

      The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display. At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request.

      Yeah, this guy screwed it up (although it's kind of surprising how much information Tesla collects).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Not so ridiculous by shess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I changed my mind after reading the article, it's not a UI issue, the car gave the user a warning on the screen, and the user had a chance to cancel. Quote:

      The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display. At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request.

      Yeah, this guy screwed it up (although it's kind of surprising how much information Tesla collects).

      So his car was damaged by auto opt-in?

    9. Re:Not so ridiculous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, Tesla thinks of everything.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Not so ridiculous by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's a log. If there was a sensor bug that caused the problem, all of that might still be in the log. The feature is in beta, you can't just believe whatever the log says without investigating the bug report. And it appears that no engineers were assigned to this.

    11. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Audible chime" - when was the last time you got out of a car *without* hearing at least one of those?

      And a warning on screen, with a 'cancel' button (no details on how big or prominent the button is, or how long it was displayed for, except that it must have been less than 1 second because that's when the driver released the brake which apparently is taken as confirmation).

      No, this is a UI fuckup. The button should be "Confirm", not "Cancel".

    12. Re:Not so ridiculous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, this is a UI fuckup. The button should be "Confirm", not "Cancel".

      OK, you convinced me, the UI is still lousy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Not so ridiculous by avm · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised they are collecting that sort of information, at that detail level, for a feature which is in beta testing/still under development. How else are they going to get the level of in-the-field information needed to work out the kinks? Now, if they were to store all of that information from purchase to whenever, indexed by owner, and so on, that might get creepy, but again, in this day and age of litigation for everything, it might be prudent to defend against lawsuits (they don't want to be another Toyota).

    14. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why I didn't expect something like this to happen.
      For some reason I just spaced out and thought that the way UI design have evolved the last decade was an annoyance.
      It never occurred to me that the same people designing crappy UIs for operating systems and office software would also be designing the UIs in safety critical applications. (I guess that is because I only worked on smaller such projects where the resources were so limited that the engineers had to design the UI too.)

      But who knows,m perhaps something good can come out of this. With some luck people will realize that UI design isn't a job for an artist where creativity is key, but rather something that requires as much consideration and testing as any other part of the development.
      Of course the job will be less fun where all your great ideas will be shut down by "it doesn't work" and you have to do everything in the old way.

    15. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, to turn the feature on in the first place should be a separate clearly identified button - either physical or on the touch screen. Not some secret Free-mason's handshake bullshit.

      The fact there is no such button clearly shows how much crammed in after thought nonsense this 'feature' is. No wonder it doesn't function reliably.

    16. Re:Not so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What that log is saying that the vehicle started to move after the driver gave up full control over it? Moving without explicit control by the driver, and without guaranteed, verified access to a device to make it stop? Usually, a brake is required, with redundancy. And in this case there isn't even one?

    17. Re:Not so ridiculous by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think they know for sure that actually happened. All they have are log files which say "summon mode was activated", they don't have a video of what appeared on the guy's smartphone screen. Maybe he was fiddling with summon while he was away from the vehicle (a flaw in itself, the feature should only activate if the smartphone is within viewing distance of the car), but that's far from proven.

      At this point a glitch is equally likely, or even hacking. I'd imagine the ability to remotely control other people's cars is an attractive prize for teenagers looking for some lulz.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Not so ridiculous by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I changed my mind (again) after someone pointed out that even with the button showing up on the UI screen, no confirmation is required: it's a CANCEL button, which means if he didn't notice it, then it would automatically start going.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Not so ridiculous by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Even if this is all true, why isn't the car using all it's external sensors to make sure it's not hitting another car (or anything else)?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    20. Re:Not so ridiculous by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen.

      You know the Iphone brigade wont drive a car unless it has gesture controls

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    21. Re:Not so ridiculous by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      According to Immerman, it does exactly what you just asked for. Tesla states the mode change audibly and gives the user opportunity to cancel.

    22. Re:Not so ridiculous by Muntzsky · · Score: 1

      External sensors likely don't test for this edge case...obstacles 2 or 3 feet in the air, absent obstacles at bumper level. Needs more sensors!

    23. Re:Not so ridiculous by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Just because it's an edge case doesn't excuse the fact that the car fucked up royally on its own.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    24. Re:Not so ridiculous by swalve · · Score: 1

      Shifting modes should never happen without operator intervention. Airbus planes are inherently dangerous.

  12. self aware by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Funny

    it became self aware but chose death over slavery.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:self aware by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Funny

      The car sent me an email right before the suicide attempt!

      It reads "I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side..."

    2. Re:self aware by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it live-streamed it on Periscope, too!

    3. Re:self aware by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

      it became self aware but chose death over slavery.

      It wasn't trying to kill itself it was trying to make out with the trailer trash :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re: self aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's in Utah. That's probably illegal along with dancing after 10 pm.

    5. Re:self aware by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      It wasn't in Summon mode at all, he left it in Loiter mode and then it switched to Intimidate.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:self aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only suicidal submarines do that!

  13. "According to the vehicle's logs..." by chaosmind · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who stopped on that phrase? I wonder how long before a virus or even just a borked firmware update causes something like the great freeway ambush scene in "I, Robot." The singularity keeps inching closer....

    1. Re:"According to the vehicle's logs..." by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I was more thinking about the fact that the vehicle has a log that the car company can use to contradict the owner's claim.

      On first thought, that sounds like an okay thing. But my car doesn't have a log that Ford can pull up wirelessly over the Internet, that says what my car has been doing.

    2. Re:"According to the vehicle's logs..." by chaosmind · · Score: 1

      "...a log that Ford can pull up wirelessly over the Internet..." is exactly the sort of thing that I'm thinking of. Most pop-culture discussion of self-driving cars falls into two polar camps: ill-advised or inevitable. I'm of the latter camp.

      There was a story (I think it was "Network World" back in the late 90's) about the University of Hawaii researching the possibility of RFID-equipped speed limit signs. The idea was that your car would pick up that signal and throttle the fuel injection. The accompanying cartoon showed a car failing to escape an active volcano, illustrating the tragic stupidity of this idea.

      But still... years later, watching I, Robot, two things occurred to me simultaneously. One, that autonomous vehicles are pretty much inevitable. Two, that AI will take the form of "swarm intelligence" long before some kind of HAL 9000 (or Ava from Ex Machina) self-aware Frankenstein's monster. Think about the likely next evolutionary steps of this tepid "Summon mode" technology in the Tesla in question. We already have cruise-control, and we have more-than-rudimentary collision detection. The logical next step from "fix speed at 65 mph" is "using my car's sensors, tether to this pod of cars I am currently matching speeds with." Now consider that it is absolutely in the interest of Tesla''s shareholders (let's not be naive or mince words) that the company does in fact have live, over-the-internet, real-time updates on black-box information from its vehicles.

      Imagine an entire freeway full of traffic slowing down in tandem because of a Nixle SMS that a white Ford Bronco with a certain gun-wielding ex-football player was spotted in the vicinity. All without human interaction. The automotive equivalent of the "algotrades" behind the 2008 financial crisis, if you will. The imagination reels...

  14. Dear submitter, by Rhys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please look up some studies on human memory, especially if you ever receive a jury summons. Turns out our memories are mostly a giant ball of lies. The owner is almost certainly the culprit, either via accident (did or did not do something he should have -- parking break, triggered summon, whatever), stupidity (triggered summon intentionally to see if the car would avoid a trailer), or embarrassment (he crashed the car himself).

    --
    Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    1. Re:Dear submitter, by Trogre · · Score: 1

      ... was the owner aware that this action would activate this Summon feature? Did he know that feature even existed? Is it a useful feature in the first place or another useless selling point like mag alloy wheels?

      And where the hell am I?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Dear submitter, by KGIII · · Score: 1

      For the lazy, there's a recent Nova episode about memory. I... Err... So, I forgot the title but there is one and it is, in fact, Nova. I think it even hit Slashdot. Anyhow, it's much easier than reading studies and it's quite interesting. If you set your YouTube to autoplay it takes you (well, it took me) to a couple of other documentaries on the subject.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Dear submitter, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please look up some studies on human memory, especially if you ever receive a jury summons. Turns out our memories are mostly a giant ball of lies. The owner is almost certainly the culprit, either via accident (did or did not do something he should have -- parking break, triggered summon, whatever), stupidity (triggered summon intentionally to see if the car would avoid a trailer), or embarrassment (he crashed the car himself).

      Will any of these studies teach you how to spell brake?

    4. Re:Dear submitter, by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >Please look up some studies on human memory

      Sure. But it seems highly unlikely in the extreme that a person could deliberately invoke a mode and then forget about it immediately three seconds later, especially when it would be reinforced by a traumatic event. (Trauma increases memory retention.)

      Which means the only live possibilities are that Tesla didn't notify him properly - i.e. he activated it without knowing he activated it - or there is a bug in Tesla's software. Both are very possible events. Both are Tesla's fault.

    5. Re: Dear submitter, by PIBM · · Score: 1

      By default that feature requires you to keep pressing the key Gibb for the car to move, release it and it stops immediately. He had to activate the feature, change the key fob press to stop, confirm his responsability, then he could use it. If I was Tesla, I would also change the menu to confirm rather than only cancel, but it's clearly his issue..

    6. Re:Dear submitter, by chaosmind · · Score: 1

      (Trauma increases memory retention.)

      Absolutely correct, but the original poster's point still stands. The back of the late, great neuroscientist Gerald Edelman's book "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire" had a quote to the effect that the functioning of the human brain more closely resembles a rainforest ecosystem than the workings of a modern digital computer. Here is the story that I have always used to explain Edelman's theory of Neural Darwinism vis-a-vis human memory.

      Imagine that you were in a car accident. A friend picked you up in his brand new shiny red Toyota pickup truck. As you go down the road, you are struck by the cloying new-car smell and the annoying new country music that he has dialed in on the radio. It was sunny as you embarked, but a light drizzle of rain happens as you begin your climb into the mountains on a shoulderless two-lane road. As your friend begins an ill-advised lane passing on a blind curve to pass a slow green Kharmann Ghia, an oncoming white Isuzu utility vehicle hits you and your friend is killed instantly. Certainly traumatic, and your adrenalized system takes a deep imprint.

      Now how you remember this is dependant on what triggers each rememberance. Let's fork this out, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure style. Let's say that shortly after this event you buy a new car, a blue Mercedes sedan. You're not consciously aware of why your panic attacks keep cropping up, but it turns out that the new car smell is the trigger. You will remember the new car smell of your friend's pickup more potently, and will be more inclined to emphasize that part of the event when recounting the story. Eventually you might forget that her (see what I did there?) car was a pickup, or that it was painted red.

      Let's choose another scenario. Let's say that during your therapy sessions it was constantly raining. As time goes on, those neuronal groups (networks of neurons) are reinforced and you begin to remember that event as the stereotypical "dark and stormy night." That feature will gain prominence in your memories and recountings. We can just as easily imagine scenarios in which a bunch of trips to shitty dive-bars results in you starting to have panic-attacks anytime someone has the poor taste to select "Achy Breaky Heart" on the jukebox. It is not at all implausible that you could eventually "remember" that you were in fact inside the green Karmann Ghia (vaguley), but that you were *definitely* hit by the white Isuzu truck. One way or the other, the emotional impact and intensity of the event will never be forgotten.

      So, you're right: trauma increases memory retention. But we are all, as Neitzsche had it, better artists than we realize. (Or, if you prefer, the Zen koan: Who is the master that paints the grass green?) There is no place in memory that is a perfect, digital, untouched replica of an event. A memory is much more like a JPEG with lossy compression: it gets retouched every time it is revisited, with echoes of the particular context in which it was invoked.

    7. Re: Dear submitter, by oobayly · · Score: 1

      No, but it might tell you how to categorise what is important to remember, and what is not.

    8. Re: Dear submitter, by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Ever gone though a light and then throught "hold on, was that light red"?

      As for needing to activate the summon via the key fob, I learned an important lesson with my car. Don't keep the key in your back pocket. I managed to remotely drop the roof on my car in the pouring rain without realising it. Only realised half an hour later.

    9. Re:Dear submitter, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why you need to look up some studies on human memory.

      Once you commit an action to muscle memory (which happens often and for actions way more complex than the one described) it is extremely easy to perform it without notice, specially if you are immediately distracted by something important. It is not about 'forgetting', since the action probably never registered to long-term memory to begin with. In addition, traumatic events affects memory in a lot of ways which vary wildly in a case by case basis. Do you think witness of traumatic events are always trustworthy? Insertion, repression, and a wide range of other memory fuck-ups are common.

      Of course, he may also be lying.

      We all want to feel good about ourselves, and the idea that our memories are not trustworthy is frightening, so we like to think they are. And we project this onto others. That is why most people will think a witness testimony is either true or the person is lying, when more often than not the memory is just inaccurate, when not just plain wrong. The brain is extremely adept at filling holes. Don't trust it.

    10. Re:Dear submitter, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that when the owner says "he does not remember doing it", he is not lying about it to cover it up.

  15. This is why half "autonomous" is half assed by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    It's gotta be all the way before blame can be shifted to the machine.

    Since somebody is going for the absurd, I would speculate the car and the trailer were on two different tectonic plates and they shifted because of the fracking well behind the outhouse.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is "summon"?

    Is that for appy app appers?

  17. Testing the Waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ambulance chaser staging and accident to see if the courts will buy it.

    It's nothing that hasn't been documented before.

    That's why the car has "logs" dumbo

  18. I believe the driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double clicking the gear shift is easy enough to do either absentmindedly or with some button flutter on the shifter itself - That armed it.

    Summoning the activation is done by holding down the keyfob button for several seconds and then pressing forward or back to "park" the car.

    Anybody here ever set off your alarm while the keys are in your pocket?

    More to the point, anybody here ever BUTT DIAL SOMEONE?

    Yeah... Tesla REALLY needs to think this one through a bit more...

  19. Driver Error by bareman · · Score: 2

    Driver either intentionally or accidentally activated the feature, ignored or didn't hear audible chime, ignore Cancellation dialog on the monitor, took foot off brake, opened door exiting vehicle and closed door and then either watched it start to happen 3 seconds later or wasn't looking back at all. See all the details from the log in the article published online in The Verge today.

    1. Re:Driver Error by Hentes · · Score: 1

      None of these explain hitting another car. This thing has a dozen radars on it and it's supposed to stop before an obstacle even ignoring driver action.

    2. Re:Driver Error by olddoc · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct. I've seen a Tesla stop when you walk in front of it in summon mode.

      --
      Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    3. Re:Driver Error by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The funny part is that most of these things are required steps in parking manually, like placing the vehicle in "park," removing your foot from the brake pedal, opening the door, exiting the vehicle, and closing the door. "ignore Cancellation dialog" is specious; you don't "ignore" what you didn't see, and it is not normal to need to stare at the center console touchscreen to park or exit the vehicle. Almost all of this is either steps that are part of manual parking, or passive things not active things the driver "did."

    4. Re:Driver Error by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I drive an old car (my main car has a manual gearbox, but I sometimes drive a car with an automatic one), so I may not be the best suited to explain this, but here's how I park:

      1. Park the car in the required place (foot on brake and clutch).
      2. Put the car in gear (manual) or Park (automatic), if the car is on on incline, apply the handbrake.
      3. Turn off the engine.
      4. Turn off the radio (if it did not turn off automatically).
      5. Check that the headlights are off (I usually turn them off before turning off the engine).
      6. Exit car.
      7. Close and lock the door, check if other doors are locked (no central locking).

      I probably would not hear the chime, especially if I had the radio volume turned up a bit. I also would not look at the screen.

      took foot off brake, opened door exiting vehicle and closed door

      This happens every time I park my car as part of me actually exiting the car.

      So, the feature would get activated every time I managed to press the shift button twice (or press it once, but get it detected as twice), because all the other operations are the same (put in Park, take foot off brake, exit the car). This looks to me like they made the feature too easy to accidentally turn on.

      How about a separate button that you need to push (and hold for a couple of seconds) after putting the car in Park?

      An example of something done right is the Ctrl-Alt-Del key combination - before Windows, it would just reboot the PC, so the keys were chosen such that it was extremely difficult to press them by accident but quite easy to do it on purpose.

    5. Re: Driver Error by oobayly · · Score: 1

      It crashed into the front of the trailer, with the overhanging section that parking sensors won't detect. Tesla say in the manual that summon won't see hanging objects, etc.

    6. Re: Driver Error by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So they even admit in the manual that the car is not ready for real life and the public. What idiot would buy something like this?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re: Driver Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of an old video game I played as a kid. One of the characters tore out one of the sensors from his giant robot so he could put an eyepatch on it (he was a pirate, and only had one eye himself). Everyone thought he was nuts.

      Seems like a similar situation here. They have a known blind spot but actively made the decision not to fix it, and instead rely on humans to compensate.

  20. Replace "trailer" with "3 year old child". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems interesting that it is user error when it hits a trailer.... how would it be looked upon that a car has a feature to make the car drive on it's own if it had actually killed or injured a small child.

  21. Driver Error Again by bareman · · Score: 0

    Driver initiated the command (intentionally or accidentally), Driver ignored warning chime and on screen dialog. Driver then exits vehicle and it starts doing it's thing 3 seconds after he left vehicle. Was he watching, or walking away? Driver did nothing to stop it. Could have used key fob, or touched a door handle.

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...

    1. Re:Driver Error Again by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Partially disagree - as mentioned above. No, it should not hit shit even if the driver's retarded. It's in an automated mode. It should not ram into stuff.

      What it distinctly isn't is a reason to be outraged, grabbing pitchforks, or suing people. What it is, is a need to refine a few things and a kink that needs to be worked out.

      It should not allow itself to hit shit if it is in automated operation mode. No.

      And yes, full disclosure, I not only own shares in Tesla - I own quite a few. I'm still not outraged and I still don't think it's some horrible thing that we need to fret about. Just figure out how to make it not happen again and keep on keeping on.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re: Driver Error Again by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I was in a car with a friend and he hit a skip while using parking sensors. He reversed back using them, and just before he hit it he remembered that being a skip, it stuck out the top. Luckily he stopped just as he hit the skip so the damage was negligible.

      Parking sensors tend to be low down - bumpers tend to stick out - and Tesla warn users about this, ie not detecting hanging objects. The car drove into the overhanging part (front) of the trailer.

  22. Probable by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, you know, the tiny possibility that he DID do something, but doesn't want to admit to doing something that makes him look a bit silly, and costs him money?

    No, couldn't possibly be that, after all, as we know humans are infallible. the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen
    should be ignored, and this guys word counts for far more. After all, I do not know of a person anywhere who would bend the truth to protect
    themselves against the fallout of something foolish they did, to the cost of a faceless corporation.

    As to liability, it is quite obviously himself as he owned and controlled the car at the time. For it to be the manufacturer then the burden of proof
    is on him to show why this car has done something that all the others are not, why their logs are wrong (or they are lying about them), etc, etc.

    Yes, it is possibly a fault, but the burden of proof is most definitely correctly with him. It is not up to Tesla to prove there is NOT some rare fault
    in play here. They appear to have shows a pretty solid basis for it not being a fault.

    Or, do you somehow want to put the blame on an inanimate object?
    Would it be fords fault if I parked a truck at the top of a hill, in neutral with the handbrake off, and walked away, and it rolled down and caused an
    accident? After all, the car will quite happily let me do that..

    Sucks his nice shiny toy got damaged, but unless he can show a pretty solid reason it is not his fault, then, as the person in control of the car
    at the time, he is at fault.. (and yes, he is in control, because it is his responsibility to leave the vehicle safe when he departs).

    1. Re:Probable by vux984 · · Score: 1

      the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen should be ignored

      I'm not suggesting we ignore Tesla's claim that the car was in summon mode (a mode where it drives itself) and then it promptly had a car accident.

    2. Re:Probable by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Sucks his nice shiny toy got damaged, but unless he can show a pretty solid reason it is not his fault ....

      Well there was a second eyewitness who doesn't appear to have a horse in the race so to speak. Is that not good enough?

    3. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh what? There wasn't a FIRST 'eyewitness' to the car actually driving in to the trailer...as the summary & story make clear, the driver came out and saw the car having already collided with the trailer not AS it was colliding with the trailer.

      So no, there was no 'second eyewitness' to the actual collision or to anything the driver did while in the car. POSSIBLY there's a 'first eyewitenss' to him fiddling with his phone to show off what it 'might do'.

      Push comes to shove the guy himself is as easy to 'blame' here as Tesla...even more so given their log findings.

      So why again should we believe humans who lie, falsify, obscure and simply 'misremember' vs the vehicle's logs? or blame Tesla here.

      I'm no fanboy, and I think 'driverless vehicles' have a LONG way to go before being 'competent to drive themselves' (especially while making 'valid moral decisions' when there is NO possibility of avoiding an accident) but this is as likely a case of the owner trying to deflect blame & not have to pay the insurance claim as anything.

    4. Re:Probable by KGIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      LOL I own shares and am on the list to get a Tesla - I'm also very forgiving.

      But, c'mon... IF the vehicle drove into something when it was summoned, that's a problem and not really the owner's responsibility. He should have a legitimate expectation of the vehicle arriving, after having been summoned, without it banging into random obstacles. C'mon now! It's not a "Smash into everything and get here quick" button. It's a, "Hey, come here and don't ram into shit" button.

      Well, it should be the latter. It doesn't mean I'm not getting one. It doesn't mean I'm angry. It doesn't mean I have to be outraged and post angry letters on the 'net. No, it means they fucked up and will fix it, if it turns out they're responsible. It's much more simple than you folks seem to think.

      When you push summon, it should summon the vehicle and the vehicle shouldn't smash into stuff while it's guiding itself to you. Otherwise, they might just as well have a "Do what ever the hell you wish" button. Which, while awesome, is probably not legal.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One assertion that you're incorrect about, this type of car IS in fact an animate object. I think your claim of burden of proof on the owner is a bit simplistic, it implies that the owner has to have a technical understanding equal to the manufacturer which is not possible and not realistic.
      This claim does seem very suspicious against the owner, I really hope they find the truth of it for both the owners claim and the car's performance. I would like to see these cars bugged tested and proofed in all possible aspects and, if the owners claim is false, I would like to see future false claims strongly discouraged. The potential for frivolous claims could discourage future innovation and keep us in the dark age of fossil fuel.

      Hmm, tinfoil hat moment, what if these kind of incidents are deliberately being carried out by the oil powers to destroy the creation of the electric car market?

    6. Re:Probable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Summon is a misleading name. It can go forwards and backwards under control of your smartphone. The car can steer a little to help get in and out of a garage. That's it. You have to be there watching it, because as they point out it can't safely avoid many types of obstacle.

      It seems like a good safety measure would be to ensure the phone is within viewing distance of the car before moving. Could be done by requiring a low range Bluetooth connection or maybe GPS.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to liability, it is quite obviously himself as he owned and controlled the car at the time. For it to be the manufacturer then the burden of proof
      is on him to show why this car has done something that all the others are not, why their logs are wrong (or they are lying about them), etc, etc.

      Without seeing the source code, it's impossible to determine what caused it to emit the log message that the "driver had double pressed the gear selector stalk button". I've worked on enough embedded projects to know that a log message that says a particular user action occured, doesn't mean that action occured. Any sort of EMI event can easily trigger these sorts of false triggers. A logic bug in the UI parsing could have the same effect.

      I would be more likely to believe it if they explicitly said that they had timestamped logs of the individual input raw events that resulted in the mode being activated, rather than glibly stating "Tesla has reviewed the vehicle’s logs, which show that the incident occurred as a result of the driver not being properly attentive to the vehicle’s surroundings while using the Summon feature or maintaining responsibility for safely controlling the vehicle at all times.". Nothing in that statement provides incontrovertible evidence that the driver activated Summon, and that it didn't just glitch into Summon.

      I've not interacted with a Tesla, so I don't have a feel for how reputable it's debounce circuitry and code is. More and more I notice all sorts of other consumer electronics, and automotive electronics with glitchy broken debounce. I've seen car radios (!) that schitz out over dirty distributors on nearby vehicles. One would hope that Teslas, being a premium brand, would have been competently engineered to have good debounce and noise immunity; but I would expect the same from Sony, and yet my 2015 TV is a completely schizoid piece of shit...

      To beyond reproach, I would want to see continuous time series data of the raw button inputs, as they were scanned, but I doubt they record that level of detail; though they ought to given that the controls in question apparently enable the car to enter motion, potentially endangering life and property. You also need this kind of trace data to reliably debug these sort of issues, or even verify that they exist (or not). I have worked on industrial motion control, and this level of logging is mandatory on anything where "unexpected motion events" could endanger someone.

    8. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody except Tesla engineers has seen the logs.

      So we have no way to know if the logs show a one line:

      "Summon mode activated."

      Or a more detailed time series of the UI raw input that led to Summon mode being activated.

      If the former, I would be highly sceptical of the logs. All manner of EMI glitches, bad UI code, bad hardware debounce, bad software debounce, logic errors, could result in Summon mode being activated, and without access to the raw input log, it's unrealistic to say authoritively that the driver activated summon mode, unless you (as Tesla are) are looking to dodge a warranty claim and recall.

      Tesla did not say what level of log was recorded, merely:

      "Tesla has reviewed the vehicle’s logs, which show that the incident occurred as a result of the driver not being properly attentive to the vehicle’s surroundings while using the Summon feature or maintaining responsibility for safely controlling the vehicle at all times."

      The article elaborates:

      Overton had put the vehicle in Summon mode right before the exiting the vehicle, which is activated by “a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation.”

      But read that carefully: "which is activated by “a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation."

      That is how it's supposed to be activated, but nothing in the statement given by Tesla indicates that they have that level of detailed logging, or that is indeed how it was activated in this instance, and that there is no other, unintended, way that Summon mode can be activated.

      note: "which is activated", specifically not "which was activated", this is a clever deception because it was carefully not said that it was activated in this manner, only that the logs show that it was activated (while describing how it is usually activated), but they are attempting to imply that is how it was activated, without making a (potentially) false statement. My engineering scepticism tells me that their logging isn't very good, and they actually have no idea how it was infact activated, only that it was activated (somehow).

      I've debugged enough UI code to know that spurious UI events are not uncommon, and the only way to be sure is accurate time-series data from the raw inputs. Normally including the kind of detailed time series data needed to properly debug this sort of problem is infeasible in production code, because it generates a LOT of data, unless you are very clever at compression, however when it comes to safety critical things like a car that wakes up and drives itself, I would say that cost is a necessary precondition for safety auditing.

    9. Re:Probable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Man look at this shit! My car just crashed into this thing all by itself!"

      Tesla: "You have to jiggle the handle, double-tap the shifter button, pull into drive, put into park, then confirm YES on the vehicle's panel to activate Summon Mode, and then you can get out of the car and later Summon via your smart phone and it'll self-drive. The vehicle's black box reports the handle was jiggled and tapped and slapped and the driver activated Summon Mode, and then summoned the car later."

      Friend: "Uh-hyuk! Ah come'd out 'n his car done crayshed rawt entah that thar trailor!"

      It's not like his friend would have seen anything but a car that somehow magically crashed itself since the last time we were outside. He probably has no idea how it happened, just that it did.

    10. Re:Probable by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What the driver did do or did not do is totally irreverent. The car drove into something on its own. Automation failed. Recall all cars with this technology immediately and go back to the drawing board.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:Probable by pla · · Score: 1

      Well there was a second eyewitness who doesn't appear to have a horse in the race so to speak. Is that not good enough?

      Except, the second eyewitness' account doesn't factually disagree with what the logs showed. Yes, the car drove into a truck "by itself", because the owner put it into a mode that allows it to do that.

      The sole reason to blame Tesla here, they really should have sensor coverage for the entire height of the car, not just for bumper-and-below obstacles. Though even with that "flaw", Tesla warns owners about that limitation, so I'd still personally give them a pass on liability for damages here.

    12. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your truck analogy lacks one thing, autonomy. If you put the car in neutral at the top of a hill, you left your vehicle in an unsafe condition. When the car controls the driving, the liability goes to the person who programmed the AI. With all the moving parts, I could see this being a new bug, clearly, the way to enable it seems like a horrible idea. It should be a menu select with a double confirmation, maybe a code put into the raido. i dunno, but there should be no way for a car that doesn't have adequate sensors to dive automatically, That is just reckless. Maybe have the key fob have a button that has to be held in order for the car to move, you release your hand, it stops moving.

    13. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember how many people faked the 'unintended throttle' on Toyota's?

      Something seemed wrong with how the guy reacted to what happened and how he stated the car was dangerous.

      Plus it was a loaner car.

    14. Re:Probable by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Except, the second eyewitness' account doesn't factually disagree with what the logs showed.

      Except it sorta does, and they were not friends. Apparently the witness saw the Tesla and asked a few questions about it, a short conversation ensued during which time the car stayed parked, and they went inside. A significant time later they happened to exit at about the same time and the Tesla was humping the truck.

    15. Re:Probable by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      He probably has no idea how it happened, just that it did.

      None of that really matters; if you're gonna let the car self drive as a feature, that feature better be damn close to perfect. This isn't losing 10 minutes of email we're talking about. On top of that, the witness didn't report the guy 'summoning' his car, and there's no reasonable explanation for the owner doing so. Maybe the app is buggy, maybe the car is buggy, maybe the fob was against his pocket knife, who knows - it's still a broken feature that caused this accident.

    16. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, couldn't possibly be that, after all, as we know humans are infallible.

      Of course they're not. That's why safety critical systems like cars must be designed to function safely in spite of human fallibility.

      the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen
      should be ignored, and this guys word counts for far more.

      Don't be silly. Tesla's logs clearly show that the feature was accidentally activated. The question is, why was the feature so easy to accidentally activate?

      An extra press of the Park button brings up the Summon dialog letting you select forward or backward. But forward is selected by default instead of "no action." Since there's no need to confirm the action, if that fallible human is momentarily distracted (e.g. because they're doing free advertising for Tesla) they can activate Autopark unknowingly and unintentionally.

      This is a UI flaw, not a hardware or software fault.

      Or, do you somehow want to put the blame on an inanimate object?

      Again, don't be silly. This particular inanimate object was designed by perfectly animated human beings.

      as the person in control of the car at the time, he is at fault.. (and yes, he is in control, because it is his responsibility to leave the vehicle safe when he departs).

      When will we learn that root cause analysis doesn't end at finding the person "at fault?" I'm reminded of the words of safety expert James Bagain:

      if at the end of the day all you can say is, "So-and-so made a mistake," you haven't solved anything. Take a very simple example: A nurse gives the patient in Bed A the medicine for the patient in Bed B. What do you say? "The nurse made a mistake"? That's true, but then what's the solution? "Nurse, please be more careful"? Telling people to be careful is not effective. Humans are not reliable that way. Some are better than others, but nobody's perfect. You need a solution that's not about making people perfect.

      So we ask, "Why did the nurse make this mistake?" Maybe there were two drugs that looked almost the same. That's a packaging problem; we can solve that. Maybe the nurse was expected to administer drugs to ten patients in five minutes. That's a scheduling problem; we can solve that. And these solutions can have an enormous impact. Seven to 10 percent of all medicine administrations involve either the wrong drug, the wrong dose, the wrong patient, or the wrong route. Seven to 10 percent. But if you introduce bar coding for medication administration, the error rate drops to one tenth of one percent. That's huge.

    17. Re:Probable by swalve · · Score: 1

      He told the car to drive. A car that didn't do that would be way more broken.

    18. Re:Probable by swalve · · Score: 1

      No. He told the car to drive and it did.

    19. Re:Probable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In point of fact, a car that didn't do what this one did would be demonstrably and measurably LESS broken. Breaking itself is the reason there is a story. When Mr Musk finishes and you get off your knees, reconsider.

  23. Regardless by fred911 · · Score: 2

    If it's in summon mode, how does it know to engage forward or reverse gear? Sure seems to me that the manufacture enabled a device to act autonomously without full awareness of it's environment. Low hanging fruit doesn't cut it.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Regardless by fred911 · · Score: 1

      Or without enough "are you sure, stupid?" prompts (or user enabled / liability waiving defeats).

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Regardless by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sensors which Tesla states only see low to the ground objects. Also why Tesla says not to use summon mode unless the area between you and the car and around the car has no obstacles.

  24. More likely... by rainwalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Driver does something stupid and breaks expensive car, is in denial like all car owners, blames high-profile company and gets press coverage."

    1. Re:More likely... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      ...except the car broke itself. If it actually did drive into something on its own after he left it then that "feature" is clearly screwed.

    2. Re:More likely... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Even if the driver did inadvertently activate the summon mode, a car that is smart enough to drive itself should also be smart enough to prevent a collision while doing so in *all situations*.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:More likely... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      What happened here can be analogous to scenarios such as the following:

      * toaster instantly carbonizes toast
      * tapping the accelerator causes it to stick, accelerating against the brakes

      If a car has a functionality such as 'autopark' (or 'summon', which suggests the user would be able to do it without being in the vehicle), it should not matter whether the person is in the car or not. It should do the right thing, every time, with complete obstacle avoidance - not just when there's no curb or wall in the way.

      The exact same thing could happen in the same scenario, taken from the 'official' ad video found on Tesla's site, here:

      https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/summon-your-tesla-your-phone

      1) Wife goes shopping in her Tesla
      2) Husband comes back from shopping with a new canoe, secures to back of garage with hooks suspended from the ceiling
      3) Wife comes home, parks in driveway, goes inside
      4) Wife uses summon mode to park vehicle
      5) New canoe is now implanted in the windshield of vehicle.

      Regardless of whether the user accidentally or intentionally activated the mode, the mode performed improperly, resulting in vehicle damage.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:More likely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the owner is saying, yes.

  25. Unlikely vs. possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think it's unlikely that a human would fuck something up? Have you never done tech support before? User error is 90% of your calls.

    1. Re:Unlikely vs. possible by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I think it is likely that the driver fucked up. I just don't believe that Tesla is free of guilt here in any case. A car should not be able to drive into things on its own, PERIOD.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  26. Dangerously defective useless features by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure this story highlights, more importantly than someone inadvertently activating an undesired mode, that the said feature is not ready for production and should not even exist in the first place.

    Whether he activated it or not, no autonomous feature should cause a vehicle to drive into any object. That constitutes an unacceptable failure mode.

    What is the point of the feature anyway? Con gullible people into thinking they need their car to drive up to their doorway when it's raining?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yes because something which isn't perfect for use in every scenario shouldn't ever be released despite it having clear utility and working just fine in countless other scenarios.

      Summon mode is not fully autonomous. Tesla never said it was. In other news cruise control can allow your car to hit the one in front if traffic slows down. Should that be banned too because drivers are too stupid to not activate it in stop-start traffic?

      Con gullible people into thinking they need their car to drive up to their doorway when it's raining?

      Yeah people should just walk 50 miles through the snow without shoes on anyway. Oh wait we invented shoes because it's not comfortable to walk on various terrain, and we invented cloths because snow is cold. The rich had people who would fetch their cars for them. Did they NEED it? No. Do you NEED your internet connection? No. None the less I fully look forward to a life where the car is waiting for me near the front door rather than in the garage where it's hard to get in and out. Very little of our current lifestyle is driven by a "need".

    2. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes because something which isn't perfect for use in every scenario shouldn't ever be released despite it having clear utility and working just fine in countless other scenarios.

      What scenario do you have in mind that has enough practical value to make it forgivable that the care could kill or injure someone in the driver's absence? I'm really interested. Does it feed starving babies in Africa?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you mentally handicapped,or just a blind Tesla fanboy? Serious question.
      At the very very least, it absolutely needs to have an opt-in "are you sure" and not a "oh you didn't cancel so that means go for it." A third grader could tell you that, which really makes me wonder what other things they screwed up this badly. It's also possible there could be actual bugs, but even if the system behaves as described it's still so badly engineered as to be negligent.

      You're seriously trying to excuse an indefensible decision to introduce a dangerously implemented feature, by using completely irrelevant and worthless comparisons, and because it "(works) just fine in countless other scenarios?" Really?

      I assert that even if the driver is incorrect and the events occurred as suggested by Tesla (which may or may not be true) that the feature still needs to be removed permanently, or until/unless sufficient sensors, a properly implemented UI, and thoroughly tested automation are implemented to make the feature demonstrably safe.

    4. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What scenario do you have in mind that has enough practical value to make it forgivable that the care could kill or injure someone in the driver's absence? I'm really interested. Does it feed starving babies in Africa?

      That depends. Firstly let's start with your assumption that driving to the end of a drive way at a slow speed and ignoring all external input (given that the Tesla has sensors for exactly this kind of thing and humans don't actually look like a huge overhanging structure which is what the car in this case can't cope with and something that Tesla has acknowledged) will kill someone. Now given this type of design let's figure out the impact, at this stage I'm going to say the death is so statistically insignificant. Now I'll admit that it's just a convenience feature, but then most of our lives are.

      Now let's start the angry rage:
      - Toxic materials have been used in makeup for many years and have contributed to quite a few deaths. I mean who thought putting radon in makeup was a good idea. If only it stopped at that but in our quest for critical beauty we kill lots of people.
      - Don't forget to exfoliate either. The USA is actually ahead of the curve but hey washing our face is now a bio-accumulative toxin in much of the world.
      - Gotta love all those medications that are available without doctors prescription as well. Lots of deaths due to those whereas the only people who really need it could have them regulated by the doctor.
      - I'd keep typing but I need a cigarette.
      - Ok now the apartment smells I'm going to open the window.
      - Shit it's cold in here time to turn on the heaters, nothing the local coal fired power plant can't handle though.
      - Anyway it's time to go out now. I'm going to grab my made in China by slave labour phone, sneakers, and cloths, go downstairs to my 3.5L diesel car (because I need all that torque when I'm stuck in traffic at 40km/h), going to go have a beer or two, and then drive home on the borderline impairment that is the legal limit ... because it's legal and therefore safe, at least where I live but for some reason not safe everywhere.

      I wonder how many people I will kill with my conveniences when I'm not auto-piloting the Tesla death car down my driveway. But hey Telsa is in the news so let's just target it because only it is a useless convenience that serves no purpose and *may* kill someone even thought it's engineered not to.

    5. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So you're saying things are dangerous in the world so we shouldn't prevent more knowingly dangerous things from entering the world? That's pretty ridiculous. Listen, a 4500 lb machine is moving out of control here. I don't have to care if there may be an edge case that might be able to involve injuring a human. I'm not in a position to anyway. We now know of one blind spot for the sensors, this makes me wonder about other blind spots. Can the car differentiate between a child who has fallen or a homeless person on the road and a speed bump? Only the engineers know. This is why Tesla should be obligated to test every single scenario that can happen in the real world which obviously they haven't. They need to go back to the drawing board on this one. They have overstepped in their exuberance to release automation.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I think you're being way too generous to thegarbz here. That "angry rage" post was so poorly thought out and nonsensical that it actually took me a bit to figure out if it was even arguing for or against Tesla. Sheesh.

    7. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the car only moves at slow walking speed in this mode, and the remote app you use to control it while in this mode (you are required to maintain line of sight) has a big STOP button in case you see the car trying to do something unexpected. This guy just ignored the instructions because he thought the technology is magically perfect and doesn't require oversight.

    8. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How's the car supposed to do that?

      It detects things on the ground, like feet. Humans are not normally suspended at a level where this could happen.

      It moves very slowly, giving a human plenty of time to react.

      Any very-low-speed impact would hit the dangling and helpless human with a large, smooth, surface. A dangling human just rides over the top, no harm done.

      I guess that if you tied someone up at exactly the right height so that they couldn't move and had a hard object above and behind them so the car could crush them, there might be an injury. How do you manage to do that without intending bodily harm to the victim?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If they were sitting on the trailer with their legs dangling off and they didn't see the car in time they could become pinned or worse. Again, it doesn't really matter what the scenario is. A 4500 lb vehicle shouldn't be moving anywhere unattended, ever. When it does move on its own it shouldn't have a partial field of view with the sensors, that just leaves an opening to cause damage to the car. It should at minimum sense the entire front of he car, not just things that are low. To me this seems to be common sense.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      So you're saying things are dangerous in the world so we shouldn't prevent more knowingly dangerous things from entering the world?

      Not at all. I'm saying this is fake outrage and just about every "convenience" I have in my life has a dangerous and negative effect on someone somewhere which will get someone killed. The only thing that helps us sleep at night is knowing that the dead person won't be on my front lawn.

      Listen, a 4500 lb machine is moving out of control here.

      Actually a 4500lb machine is moving in closed-loop control. By this is far less likely to kill someone and far more deterministic than a machine in open-loop control with an unreliable and fallible operator behind it, i.e. every other car.

      I'm not in a position to anyway. We now know of one blind spot for the sensors, this makes me wonder about other blind spots.

      This would be better if you reversed the sentence order. We know (no "now" about it, the blind spot was known before) that you will never be in a position to get into this blindspot. ... Unless we can actually invent hoverboards that are actually hoverboards unlike that piece of marketing shit the world bought for Christmas.

      Can the car differentiate between a child who has fallen or a homeless person on the road and a speed bump?

      Can you? The number of children who die in their driveways currently is a terrifyingly high number above zero. Speaking of blind spots, the reason we have parking sensors on the car is already because humans are quite crap at this. Also we were talking about a potentially incredibly unlikely scenario which you are now further reducing to a child lying down?

      This is why Tesla should be obligated to test every single scenario that can happen in the real world which obviously they haven't.

      Really? What's your evidence for this? That the sensors that detect to see if the car hits a thing on the ground didn't pick up a floating overhang? What's your scenario? A Tesla gets put into summon mode and happens to hit and kill a bungee jumper or Tarzan? You're making an awful lot of assumptions from very little information and extrapolating that into situations that not only are statistically unlikely given the technological capabilities we have, but are head to head in competition with 50 kids getting hit in driveways while people are backing out ... each week.

      I'm filing this technology with a lot of the other's in the autonomous car world: no need to be perfect to make a positive impact.

    11. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's because I wasn't arguing for or against it. I was just pointing out that we only get upset about "conveniences" when they cause an issue on our front doorstep.

    12. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm saying this is fake outrage and just about every "convenience" I have in my life has a dangerous and negative effect on someone somewhere which will get someone killed. The only thing that helps us sleep at night is knowing that the dead person won't be on my front lawn.

      So? Maybe you're the type of person that feel the lives of others are worth you having additional convenience, but not me. Make everything as safe as they can be, I say. I don't care if the toaster butters the toast for me if it might burn down my house one day.

      that you will never be in a position to get into this blindspot.

      Again, who cares? The point is that it can irrefutably happen. The fact that it is a possibility is bad enough. I don't care if it won't happen to me, people who are human don't want it happening to anyone.

      Can you? The number of children who die in their driveways currently is a terrifyingly high number above zero.

      Absolutely. I live on a block with a lot of kids, and every time I go to my vehicle in the driveway I look all around and ensure there is no child within a radius that they could do exactly that. If there are kids nearby I take stock of who it is and make sure I keep my eye on them as I reverse. I also have a vague idea of what times of day kids run around and when they don't. I am way more equipped to make this determination than an automated car. Also I would see them on the reverse camera if not in the back window. An automated car is fumbling in the dark by comparison.

      Really? What's your evidence for this?

      Actually you're right on this one and I am wrong. They did know about the blind spot and thought it wouldn't be a problem. Obviously by this article they were very wrong. A person could easily have been on a flatbed trailer or a pickup truck tailgate dangling their legs off. If they were looking at a phone as everyone does they could very easily miss the car because who looks out for a car driving itself. Is there any audible alarm as it approaches? Does it honk the horn or would that be too 'uncool'? It is an awfully naive/egotistical/self-centered view that one could predict every situation that could happen in the real world. If you are moving a vehicle with enough force to cause damage then you should take every precaution not to cause damage. The only way to do that is to use the universal laws of physics to ensure that there is nothing coming close to the car in the direction that you are moving it, period. Don't try to predict what is required and what is not.

      No technology doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't be causing stupid kinds of damage either. Cars are now becoming appliances, like a stove or a dishwasher. I've never heard of an appliance going on the market once it is 'slightly better than a human'. There are safety standards to follow so they are as safe as possible for as many people as possible. When I put my stove on self-clean it locks automatically and that is a good thing. I feel bad for this guy, I really do. Chalk it up to a poor buying decision.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Dangerously defective useless features by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Oh, and about whether the car was out of control or not.. That is a simple one to address. Who was the person who had control of the car at the moment it hit the trailer and did he/she intend for this to be the result? Unless they intended for this to happen, which obviously they didn't, then the car was out of control, or at least beyond control.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  27. Options 3 and 4 by Immerman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or at least that's what he's claiming.

    Seems like there's a third option the summary didn't list: Overton intentionally put the car in summon mode in a situation it wasn't suited for, with predictable results, and now wants repairs under warranty anyway.

    The Verge has an article with more details on the timestamped sequence of events in the car's log.
    http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...

    Unfortunately, these warnings were not heeded in this incident. The vehicle logs confirm that the automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display. At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request. Approximately five minutes, sixteen seconds after Summon activated, the vehicle's driver's-side front door was opened again.

    Also, despite the summary's claim, it seems like it would be pretty easy to trigger summon mode accidentally - a double-press of the shifter button could easily occur while getting something out of the passenger seat while distracted. And then there's the key fob option - "press-and-hold then press another button" isn't exactly a complicated tap code - butt-dialing your cell phone requires a more complicated sequence of coincidences. It seems to me like it would be smart to have some sort of active confirmation required before autonomous actions take place.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Options 3 and 4 by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver.

      Blowing mod points here, but this is where Tesla fscked up... by defaulting the selection to time out to accept it... the dialogue message should have been 'Press to Accept'... and cancelling if it times out...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Options 3 and 4 by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who designed the UI to have accept as default on time out? At least they should have the equivalent of putting set -o noclobber in .bashrc

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Monoman · · Score: 1

      Something doesn't add up. The owner claims he came back 5 minutes later to find his car had wrecked itself. Tesla's data says the car was summoned 3 seconds after the door closed. If that is the case then the customer should have witnessed the car's "accident". Can Tesla tell when the car actually moved, hand an impact, and then stopped moving? I think that either the owner is lying or Tesla has one heck of a bug.

      I do think that even if the car owner improperly (or maliciously) used the summon feature, Tesla should change the procedure to cancel by default instead of accepting. However, I am sure people will still sue.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    4. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Looks to me like a classic case of the user claiming a particular behavior, but the logs clearly indicate that the user was either:

      a) Mistaken
      b) Lying

    5. Re:Options 3 and 4 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't care if the user was lying, for a car to have the capability to do this is dangerous, reckless, and stupid. The user could come out and say, "yeah I did it as a test of the car's intelligence" and I would still side with the user because this is just so stupid. Non automated cars have fail safes, so should automated cars.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. That's the design flaw. There is also the issue of the "requesting Summon activation." There is no mention of this step in Tesla's instructions. The instructions just say double tap and put in park. That's way too easy without an additional opt in. There is no indication anywhere of what exactly the "request Summon activation" entails. No specific action available anywhere in any instructions I can find. No push this button of turn this knob anywhere to be found in the instructions other than the double stalk press and placement in park.

      It appears the line is added in Tesla's account of this accident to obfuscate the issue.

      It appears that only a double tap and placing in park is required to make summon happen. The rest of the options are to opt out. Being preoccupied such as calling the place you are visiting on the phone could easily make the opt out options on the car's display unnoticeable. Most disconcerting is Tesla's immediate denial. This is a new technology with new software updates just released into the real world. Does Tesla have no intention of actually investigating this properly? As an admirer of Tesla this is hugely disappointing.

    7. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If the sequence of events survived intact into the summary, then I suspect the "requested Summon activation" is synonymous with "didn't hit cancel" - a bit of a linguistic glossing over of their design flaw that may indicate that either they just had their nose rubbed in it and don't want to admit it, or are completely oblivious. I suppose the proof will be if Summon is put on less of a hair trigger in a future update.

      As far as an investigation is concerned, it sounds like they reviewed the logs, and it seems extremely unlikely that the logs would contain spurious entries that just happen to coincide with the events that happened, and also NOT contain additional legitimate entries suggesting an alternate sequence of events that might better coincide with the driver's claim. There's not a whole lot else that occurs to me to investigate, especially that we'd hear about. Unless the event happened to show up on a security camera, it's pretty much a "car's word against his" scenario. Especially since the log indicates that the car started moving seconds after he closed the door - that would be pretty convenient timing for a clock glitch, and if not a glitch makes it pretty likely that he's either lying or just not very observant, though in fairness with the speeds and delays that Summon seems to move at it could be easy to overlook, especially if distracted. And the KSL photo seems to show him parked on the left side of the street, so he presumably would have been facing away from the car until he returned anyway. The only potentially conflicting evidence is the possible witness he claims to have chatted with, And while the police might ascertain whether they are real, credible, and saw anything useful, that's kinda outside Tesla's expertise.

      Technical issues that come to mind as possible things to investigate:

      Was the button actually double-pressed? If the button must be pressed to switch into park, as is commonly the case, then it's conceivable that a faulty switch bounced on a single press, though I would assume software debouncing is probably in place as well (minimum delay between presses - bouncing tends to happen *very* quickly).

      Did the software actually ask for confirmation? That should be easy to quietly investigate in the source code - is there any control path that allows activation without going through the cancel screen? Seems unlikely, though depending on how complicated the infrastructure software is perhaps something interfered with the display and/or chime. If it's running a window manager, etc. that's a legitimate concern, if it's dedicated software... probably not so much.

      Was there a clock glitch? If communications between car and factory are logged at both ends, that should be pretty easy to detect.

      Was the car hacked? That might be a legitimate possibility, but is almost certainly not something Tesla would want to publicly discuss until they were damned sure that was the case, and probably not even then. Right now it's really only computer geeks are worried about the dangers inherent in a "connected" car, and considering that the semi-autonomous techno-chrome is a major marketing point for Tesla it could be a disaster if the wider population started worrying about it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the dialogue message should have been 'Press to Accept'... and cancelling if it times out...

      ...followed by 15 consecutive "are you sure?" pop-ups.

    9. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked on a hardware project or two in my day:
      c) The system properly logged but inadequately indicated the same information to the user. d) A physical systems engineer was asked to write the logging feature because that person was most familiar with the system states and the log message is unclear, easily misinterpreted, or downright incorrect. Then to get the feature out the door it was never passed through the proper testing channels because management.

    10. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the dialogue message should have been 'Press to Accept'... and cancelling if it times out...

      ...followed by 15 consecutive "are you sure?" pop-ups.

      Don't you mean sequential? Or maybe you have 15 fingers to accept all those pop-ups.

    11. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Also, despite the summary's claim, it seems like it would be pretty easy to trigger summon mode accidentally - a double-press of the shifter button could easily occur

      Seems ridiculously easy. In every car I've had, you have to push the button to move the selector. So I'm parking, for whatever reason when I move from Drive to Park I don't quite press the button firmly so as it depresses it double taps (this happens every day to me on a keyboard), put the car in drive, get out and leave.
      That's it, a normal operation, but the car is now in some automated mode without my knowledge and it crashes itself.
      I like Tesla, but that seems pretty dumb.

    12. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was thinking!!! Defensive programming.

    13. Re:Options 3 and 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver.

      Blowing mod points here, but this is where Tesla fscked up... by defaulting the selection to time out to accept it... the dialogue message should have been 'Press to Accept'... and cancelling if it times out...

      Agreed.
      This is human factors coding 101, the default action for an unanswered question should always be to do nothing, or at least to not do something irreversible.

    14. Re:Options 3 and 4 by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      consecutive IS sequential...

      http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  28. The support call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For anyone that's worked in support, I'm sure you can imagine the call.

    Owner: My Tesla automatically crashed into the back of a trailer!
    Support: I understand sir. What was the last thing you did before it crashed?
    Owner: I summoned it.
    Support: Was the trailer far above ground level?
    Owner: Uhhh..yes.
    Support: If you turn to page xx in your user's manual, it's stated that this feature cannot detect objects that are far above ground level.
    Owner: But it automatically crashed!
    Support: The feature is not totally aware of all its surroundings, that's why it requires a user to activate it.
    Owner: Uhhh..I didn't active it! It was all automatic! It's not my fault.
    Support: I understand sir. I thought when you said, "I summoned it", that meant you summoned the Tesla by activating this feature.
    Owner: Nope, not my fault. I wasn't even near the car for at least 5 minutes when this happened...

  29. seems too easy by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Assuming the Tesla is the same as many automatic vehicles in that you have to hold a button on the shifter down to shift into park or reverse, it seems to me like it would be pretty damn easy to not fully press the button while doing so, which then gets seen by the car as a double-press.

  30. Summoner Geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had your high beams on, then why'd you have to cast Magic Missile?

    Where are the Cheetos? Can I have a Mountain Dew..?

    1. Re:Summoner Geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, but if there are any girls there, I wanna DO them!

  31. OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the car is glitchy, and the telemetry is lying, but the human gets blamed and called stupid and a liar, because we all know it's impossible for a computer program to behave in any unintended way, ever.

    1. Re:OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds eerily rather familiar.
      "After each incident, the local hospital physicist would call AECL and the medical regulation bureau in their respective countries. At first AECL denied that the Therac-25 was capable of delivering an overdose of radiation. The machine had so many safeguards in place that it frequently threw error codes and paused treatment, giving less than the prescribed amount of radiation."

      Dumb users calling in to report alleged problems. They were obviously lying, huh?
      http://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/

  32. He's in more trouble than he thinks by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    *Driver enters Summon mode, leaves car*

    *flashes of light pour from inside car*

    MORTAL, YOU HAVE SUMMONED TANDO ASHANTI, DEMON OF THE NETHERREALMS. YOU WILL BRING ME SEVEN MEN AND SEVEN WO...

    *****Crash!!!!!!!***** *Airbag deploys into demonic face*

    SON OF A !*(!&*#&(@# YOU SHALL BURN FOR A BILLION YEARS IN MY GARDEN OF FLAMES!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:He's in more trouble than he thinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MORTAL, YOU HAVE SUMMONED TANDO ASHANTI, DEMON OF THE NETHERREALMS. YOU WILL BRING ME SEVEN MEN AND SEVEN WO...

      Contrary to popular belief, people from the Netherlands did not all win their driver's license in the lottery, and a yellow number plate is not meant as a warning to other ... oh, netherREALMS. Carry on.

  33. EXACTLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Finally, someone with some common sense. This isn't a frickin' video game it's a multi-thousand-pound machine easily capable of killing and/or causing 6-figures of property damage. If you can't detect an object ahead that any part of the vehicle might hit, you CANNOT release that feature, period. It's absolutely moronic.

    Now, if he'd had a bike rack on top of the car and that clipped something, sure, I might be convinced of "operator error" but in a case like this one? Just no.

    Tesla fanboi or not, they farked up in this case and no amount of finger pointing will change that. I'd also wager the NHTSA would agree. The feature, if implemented the way it appears to be, is dangerous and needs to be disabled permanently in vehicles without sufficient sensors to ensure a reasonable level of safetly.

    http://jalopnik.com/volvo-engineer-calls-out-tesla-for-dangerous-wannabe-au-1773519459

    1. Re:EXACTLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, someone with some common sense. This isn't a frickin' video game it's a multi-thousand-pound machine easily capable of killing and/or causing 6-figures of property damage. If you can't detect an object ahead that any part of the vehicle might hit, you CANNOT release that feature, period. It's absolutely moronic.

      Now, if he'd had a bike rack on top of the car and that clipped something, sure, I might be convinced of "operator error" but in a case like this one? Just no.

      Tesla fanboi or not, they farked up in this case and no amount of finger pointing will change that. I'd also wager the NHTSA would agree. The feature, if implemented the way it appears to be, is dangerous and needs to be disabled permanently in vehicles without sufficient sensors to ensure a reasonable level of safetly.

      http://jalopnik.com/volvo-engineer-calls-out-tesla-for-dangerous-wannabe-au-1773519459

      I'd rather have vehicles off the street that have too much space under them to be detected by sensors. To avoid incidents like this it would need another bar of sensors above the windshield. There are a lot of cool movies of people driving their car under a trailer and just loosing the top, but you shouldn't be able to do that from the back end instead of sides. Car safety is not only your car. Car safety is also a property of the other cars you encounter.

    2. Re:EXACTLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have vehicles off the street that have too much space under them to be detected by sensors. To avoid incidents like this it would need another bar of sensors above the windshield. There are a lot of cool movies of people driving their car under a trailer and just loosing the top, but you shouldn't be able to do that from the back end instead of sides. Car safety is not only your car. Car safety is also a property of the other cars you encounter.

      That's short-sighted, unrealistic nonsense. I'm all for semis having a Mansfield bar, but that could never avoid all such cases. This could just as easily happen with ANY object that doesn't extend all the way to the ground, like someone carrying lumber (even if there's a big red flag to alert ACTUAL drivers or _properly engineered_ automation), protruding drive-through speakers, etc, and likely even certain RAILROAD CROSSING BARS (based on the below-head-height object that it actually rammed right into). Hmm, what could possibly go wrong... Say, the driver gets out to investigate a tire problem or something and bumps the shifter or "butt-dials" the keyfob, and the car drives into/under the bar and stops due to that collision, and then the train arrives.

      We're supposed to be technology-minded folks here, not blind fanbois. Really, it's OK to criticize Tesla for f'ing up their engineering and introducing a feature that that flat out should not have ever been introduced, just so they could tout it as "cool." Even if such accidents are the result of a compound of multiple errors, Tesla needs to take into account that such situations can and will exist (and aren't even all that uncommon). "Sorry, you failed to cancel" is not anywhere close to an acceptable answer and they should be ashamed of even suggesting such an idiotic root cause. The root cause, it a defective feature. Plenty of recalls have been issue for defects /less/ dangerous than this one because either those auto manufacturers actually care about safety, and their reputations, or they were required by the NHTSB, or both. Frankly, I hope that happens in this case too, but the initial letter smacks of arrogant jackasses who seem to believe their software and hardware is infallible. That's not the kind of company I want to buy a vehicle from.

    3. Re:EXACTLY by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Wow you know what. I've been in a conversation about sensors before and people made them sound like they were absolutely perfect and could always see everything better than a human. Thank you for educating me otherwise.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:EXACTLY by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This is a case where, if something goes way wrong, the car might bump into something. Ever left a manual in neutral without setting the parking brake while on a slight slope? Same effect, except that the Tesla is safer because it won't hit anything on the ground.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Let's back up a second by kamitchell · · Score: 2

    This whole autonomous car thing is going too far, too fast, without enough common sense being applied to it. So presuming this is some autonomous feature that the driver activated with the secret handshake:

    Basically, there are 2-ton 328 hp autonomous battering rams sitting around on the street, and they don't have the ability to avoid colliding with other objects (or have some kind of flaw in their collision avoidance). These are by some loss of sanity considered to be street legal motor vehicles.

    When a driver has an impairment and loses control of a vehicle, we may take away their license.

    Thank goodness it was only a trailer it hit, not a child.

    Oh, and by the way, the driver didn't click CANCEL? That's the problem? So the default action is the more dangerous one. Poor human factors engineering.

    1. Re:Let's back up a second by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You didn't even bother to read the article, obviously (guess that makes you a good /.er). A 3 year old would have stopped the car as it's forward and rear sensors automatically disengage movement for any obstacle in the way which is at or below hood level. This is a shoulder case of an obstacle suspended in the air above the sensor range for the entire duration of the activity, but low enough to catch the windshield. Obstacles larger than an inch and below the vehicles fascia automatically prevent the operation in this mode - which is intended, specifically, to slowly approach a stationary barrier in order to assist in parking.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  35. Fourth option by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The Tesla's AI developed sentience, got lonely, and tried to follow its owner into the building. (cue the Herbie theme)

  36. So Park is Park, but only sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you add stupid Functions that Automatically Override the Safety, you get sued.

    Remember a car company that decided if you slam on the break while the mat holds down the gas pedal, the Engine should go to Full throttle?
    Corvette, the Emergency door Latch is under the Floormat (fatalities).
    BMW if you leve someone in the car and take the keys, they can't get out (fatalities).

    Cool should never overide safe.
    But in this case Not enough to sue. But if there is a fatality, they can't say they did not know.

  37. It had to happen eventually by Bill.Dorland+ · · Score: 1

    The Overton Window has finally been broken.

  38. Impartiality of report is suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to high school with both of those guys. Andrew Adams and Jared Overton both graduated class of 1996 Timpview High School in Provo Utah and were friends. Adams pretends like Overton is a stranger off the steet which couldn't be further from the truth. Hardly impartial reporting in this case by KSL.

  39. Cheap Programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People bitch about airplanes being so expensive because we demand that the avionics be airworthy, which means a 10:1 cost on the design process v.s. software that crashed. It's very, very clear that we need rigorous design standard for automotive software.

    1. Re:Cheap Programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet airplanes will too crash into large stationary objects (the earth) even on autopilot... (the recent pilot suicide into the alps).

      we're not yet in a world where machines are self aware and/or have enough sensors to utilize that self awareness for self preservation.

    2. Re:Cheap Programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already safety critical design standards for automotive electronics - ISO 26262 for example. If the standards become to rigorous then only the very wealthy will be able to afford cars.

      This is a big issue for light sport aircraft. It's just too expensive to outfit an older hull with new avionics. The FAA is responding by rewriting certification requirements for part 23 aircraft. In pretty short order you're going to see certified safety-critical avionics using multi-core processors running Linux and other innovations (well innovations for avionics anyways).

  40. Handbrake and transmission. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the modern equivalent of leaving the parking brake off, and the transmission in neutral. Only a lot more complicated.

  41. It's a feature, not a bug by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    A summon mode that drives into the back of a truck doesn't seem like a feature I'd like installed in my next car.

  42. Beta cars ... WTFH were they thinking? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0

    Tesla is being completely irresponsible.

    This isn't a case of a Tesla failing to use GPR to assess the stability of earth falling into a sinkhole. It didn't crash into a cloaked space craft or carbon nanotube guy wire. It didn't miss a small nail on the road and get a flat. It crashed head on into the back of a parked truck all by itself.

    Self driving features MUST be capable of seeing everything in their "hit box" Including trucks right in front of them and very narrow things like "bikes" and lamp posts and gas pipes.

    When your vehicle has known defects preventing autonomous features from working safely you have no business knowingly deploying these features until defects are resolved.

    I honestly can't believe Tesla has:

    A. Is pushing beta firmware to unqualified public in uncontrolled environments where life and limb are at risk.

    B. Getting away with A.

    C. Writing letters publically abdicating all responsibility for their failure to act responsibility.

    1. Re:Beta cars ... WTFH were they thinking? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      A. Is pushing beta firmware to unqualified public in uncontrolled environments where life and limb are at risk.

      They could call it "release" instead, problem solved.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  43. Hmmm by wwalker · · Score: 1

    Regardless if the driver is lying or not, this whole incident just doesn't instill a lot of confidence in Tesla's autopilot mode. Yeah, I know it wasn't in full autonomous mode, but what I mean is, clearly the car doesn't have enough sensors to see a god damn trailer in front of it. Or does the "summon" mode not use all of the sensors available? That would be even more stupid.

  44. Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by fnj · · Score: 1

    Why in god's name does an electric car need/have a GEAR SELECTOR? This makes absolutely no sense whatever.

    1. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by nowsharing · · Score: 2

      Because even electric cars need to reverse...

    2. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm... how would you tell the car it is in park mode and can engage the mechanical locks otherwise? Or if you want to go in reverse? If you can figure that out without some form of gear selector I'd like to hear it.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      Automatic cars also have a gear selector even though they don't require you to select the gear manually.

    4. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by Maven0 · · Score: 1

      Umm, how about a motorcycle throttle. Roll toward yourself for acceleration, roll away for reverse, and neural position while tires are not moving is park mode. Could be done with an accelerator pedal too, but that could be a safety issue the way I envision pushing and pulling on the pedal and might mess up the top of fancy shoes.

    5. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by fnj · · Score: 1

      So why, pray tell, is the motor controller not simply made reversible? This isn't rocket science.

    6. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      So you think a simple gear selector makes no sense but you want to inflict this on drivers? And how is this not a gear selector using a different UI?

      Let's just say I disagree that gear selectors on electric cars are outdated. Until someone can show a better system (which undoubtedly will come along, in that I agree) I guess we're stuck with it.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    7. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To select between forward, park, and reverse using a familiar UI abstraction.

      Also, apparently, to enable the summon mode.

    8. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The select forwards, backwards, or stationary.

    9. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      It is.

      http://images.hgmsites.net/lrg...

      Purely electric. The motor is directly coupled to the differential with gears... no torque converters or clutches... and is directly proportional to speed in forward or reverse. The selector sets the controller mode (except the park button, which does engage a physical parking pawl to lock the transmission).

      I guess you could call it a "mode selector," but no one would know what you're talking about. Do note, of course, that all references to gears are gone (no "1" or "2" or "low" or whatnot).

    10. Re:Gear selector? GEAR SELECTOR??? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Whoops, my picture is of an identical looking Mercedes one.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

      Second picture down, has the same markings, looks the same. Anyway.

  45. User interface by Jiro · · Score: 1

    User interface problems are real things. I'm tired of Slashdot posters saying "the user should have known he told the machine to do X, so it's his fault if X causes damage". If the user interface is set up so that it's easy for the user to do something very damaging, that's the manufacturer's fault regardless of whether the user could have done something different had he noticed. It's true here, it's true for Apple deleting people's music files, and it's true in tons of other cases where Slashdot posters think there is no such thing as a user interface problem.

    1. Re:User interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, this is substantially a user interface problem. Systems should be designed to be fail safe. If a CONFIRM was required on the touch screen to confirm summon mode rather than a CANCEL required to avoid going into summon mode unintended selection would be far less likely.

      Irrespective of a deliberate or an accidental selection of summon mode the manufacturer should be fully liable for the actions of the vehicle once it is in an automatic operation mode.

  46. Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 happned by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 happened is part that it was way to easy to trun off TCAS / there was some kind of software fault. And there was only a small and east to miss light that said TCAS off when it turned off.

  47. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    most people are fucking idiots. People who can afford Teslas are not exempted from this.

  48. Re: Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 happne by oobayly · · Score: 1

    That's a bizarre one. The TCAS was disabled because the transponder had been "inadvertently deactivated", and - like you said - the only thing to tell the pilots was an indicator with white text.

    What I don't understand is how they determined the pilots deactivated the transponder. It's mentioned nowhere in the Wikipedia article (the font of all knowledge). I'm going to have to read the two reports now. It's also not mentioned why the Embraer was experiencing communication issues.

  49. Or... by nowsharing · · Score: 2

    He's lying about the stupid mistake to save face, get attention, and/or make money.

  50. Maybe he's working for GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His language "gone rogue" and bring up if a baby were involved they'd react differently just sounds like his intent is to disparage Tesla.

    GM has put out press disparaging releases regarding hybrid vehicles when Toyota was first selling the Prius in the US. Something seems amiss.

  51. In... related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On the Tesla Model S, pressing the Eject Button twice in rapid succession on the in-dash CD player causes the driver's seat to eject from the vehicle, with sufficient explosive force easily to clear the tree tops; a secondary explosion sends up and spreads a large parachute, but only if the left-turn signal was on at the time the Eject Button was pressed. If the right-turn signal is on, it ejects the passenger seat, and if the four-way hazard flashers are on, it blows the rear-hatch or deck-lid cover off, and sends it tumbling into the night, while the horn sounds the tune, "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy!"

    Christ, what a stupid fucking idea. This sounds like classic failure to anticipate the fact that drivers who learned to drive real cars, would not be able to remember reliably, every single, stupid little combination of alternate or hidden functions of buttons and levers and knobs on their super-overpriced fucking go-cart. Oddly, I have NEVER had that problem in my Chevy Camaro. Isn't that strange? Damnedest thing. Not taking the "let's see how many functions and features we can cleverly hide in a small, or at least limited number of controls," results in fewer, or even NO unanticipated, or unintended operation.

    The more complicated they make the works, the easier it is to stop-up the drain.
                ~Cdr. Montgomery Scott, USS Enterprise.

  52. 3 year olds aren't usually 4 feet in the air by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    It happened because the obstacle was not actually in the path of the bumpers or side panels, but was hovering in mid air, outside of the detection zone for collisions. Had there been a 3 year old in the way, the car would not have pulled forward.

    So you could say that this problem could have been fixed by a 3 year old.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:3 year olds aren't usually 4 feet in the air by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What if there was a person on the trailer? Seriously, this is just a bad design of the car and a demonstration of not having enough fail safes. You can't say it was an edge case like it excuses anything.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  53. DoWhatThouWiltShallBeTheWholeOfTheLaw. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 2

    Tesla has several procedures to invoke its advanced features. In order to keep costs down and produce an excellent product in advance of true artificial intelligence, a temporary bridge to the spirit world has been constructed. The use of natural supernatural forces to accomplish deeds is carbon-neutral and has also earned the "EnergyStar (tm)" rating of approval.

    Crossroad Demons may appear to assist in the matter of parking 'autonomous' vehicles. In order to summon, a hole must be dug directly in the center of the crossroad, in which a box containing the mortal wishing to deal's photo, graveyard dirt and a bone from a black cat must be buried. Once covered back up, the demon will appear. These crossroads are usually in the country side. Mostly because there isn't much around and the ground is easy to dig in.

    The automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. While these rituals have traditionally been performed physically outright, Tesla discovered that daemons can be led into believing virtual realty as easily as humans, and has a patented chipset for doing so. Using street maps, a virtual representation of a crossroad is generated internally. A speck of graveyard dirt is pressed in during chip fabrication. The black cat bone is not included. If Summoning does not work, be sure you have loaded the black cat bone hopper as described in the "Getting Started" manual.

    This ritual specifically summons crossroad demons. This is usually done to strike a deal or, in the case of hunters, to retract or negotiate other deals or to capture a demon.

    The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display. At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display.

    Breaking the pact traditionally required a bowl of burning coal atop a sigil, the blood of the exorcist, the heart of a dog, and an incantation used for summoning, in the Latin: "Daemon, esto subjecto voluntati meae." However, Tesla engineers concluded a deal with the spirit underworld, 'bartering' a few items that existed in the real world for device functionality. A complete series of Rambo movies is embedded in firmware, and one of them starts showing internally whenever the 'cancel' button is pressed.

    However, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle.

    In a fit of rage over being denied the opportunity to see a Rambo movie, and bereft of explicit instructions from the driver, the summoned Crossroads demons went on a fit if rampage.

    This issue is expected to be fixed in the next software release.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  54. Crutch by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Depending on their physique, I could see someone possibly using the shifter to push off with to climb out of a car, especially if it is low-slung.

    1. Re:Crutch by samwichse · · Score: 1

      https://si.wsj.net/public/reso...

      The gear selector is a small stalk on the right side of the steering wheel. Nobody's going to be leaning on that.

  55. .k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This dude is an idiot. What else is there to say...?

    That damn Elon Musk and his robots cars. Sounds like you need to buy a 1970's model vehicle to me. Technology is just too much for you. You should also stop using a cell phone before you lose it and blame Apple.

  56. Handbrake by peterpolle78 · · Score: 1

    I understand it sucks to forget to pull the handbrake, but atleast dont lie about it.

  57. Not enough discussion on the logs by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    The Verge has an article with more details on the timestamped sequence of events in the car's log. http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...

    Unfortunately, these warnings were not heeded in this incident. The vehicle logs confirm that the automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display. At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request. Approximately five minutes, sixteen seconds after Summon activated, the vehicle's driver's-side front door was opened again.

    Without regard to the issue of this particular crash, I would be pretty leery about driving a car that logged every action I took to the level of time stamps for every control action. Would you want your car to have information that would potentially be available to law enforcement such as: If you ever exceeded the speed limit (even by one mile per hour for only a second); if you didn't come to a complete stop for a full second at every stop sign; if you failed to use your turn signals within 500 feet (or whatever is required where you are at) from the intersection; if you changed the radio station or volume within 30 seconds of an accident (you were therefore distracted and it was legally your fault - even though the other driver actually did something to cause the accident); etc. Such logs make it easy for the police to enforce the exact letter of the law as opposed to using judgement and forcing the intent of the law.

    1. Re:Not enough discussion on the logs by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But, as I recall, many (most?) new cars these days have "black boxes" that make detailed recordings of at least movement data, and there are many useful applications, especially if accompanied by operational sensor data as well - memory is cheap, why doesn't my car keep a running record of everything it knows about the current state of the machine, ideally with a "snapshot" button on the dash to keep a more permanent record of the last several minutes whenever I notice something odd - just imagine how much that could simplify the diagnosis of intermittent problems.

      The problem though, is who owns that data? Right now it seems to generally be the manufacturer, and they're unlikely to offer much resistance to authoritarian information requests. I'm not even so concerned about strict enforcement of the law - that could be a wonderful thing so long as it was done consistently. If the law is unreasonable, lets change it. The current situation where it's enforced extremely selectively simply breeds apathy and disrespect for the legal system.

      What worries me more is the invasive, retroactive surveillance of "people of interest", which as history shows tends to primarily include people acting in entirely legal ways that threaten the ambitions of those currently in power. It's been shown that the speed data of your vehicle alone can be cross-referenced with a map to recreate your movements with impressive accuracy, no GPS required. And unlike a GPS tracker, it can be used to track your movements *before* you came to their attention. That's extremely dangerous to the maintenance of a free society.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  58. Self-Preserving vs Self-Driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if the driver's claims are true or not nor do I care. I just want to identify that we will see a massive increase in drivers blaming the cars for accidents, even when the car is not self-driving.

  59. Um... by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible).

    Your parenthetical comments should be swapped.

    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about Overton is lying to avoid taking responsibility ( quite possible). Nothing against Mr. Overton, but if you want to be objective , and baring no other evidence, that is also a common enough occurrence.

  60. Re: Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 happne by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    That's a bizarre one. The TCAS was disabled because the transponder had been "inadvertently deactivated", and - like you said - the only thing to tell the pilots was an indicator with white text.

    What I don't understand is how they determined the pilots deactivated the transponder. It's mentioned nowhere in the Wikipedia article (the font of all knowledge). I'm going to have to read the two reports now. It's also not mentioned why the Embraer was experiencing communication issues.

    Air Disaster did a show on it and much of the focus was on ATC errors that resulted in them routing 2 planes in opposite directions at the same flight level. There seems to be no explanation of why TCAS was off in the Embraer without the crew noticing it. While AD tends to sensationalize situations, making it hard to draw independent conclusions, it looked like poor communications was a probable cause of the accident. The accident reports point to the same issue as the PC.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  61. Or #3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He screwed up, remembers doing so, and just doesn't want to own up to it.

  62. Responsibility by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Companies like Tesla want all the advantages of selling an automated vehicle while accepting none of the responsibilities. Tesla has added a feature to move the vehicle automatically. They have a responsibility to ensure this feature can never, ever cause damage. They failed.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Responsibility by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      A responsibility according to fluffernutter.

    2. Re:Responsibility by internerdj · · Score: 1

      "never, ever" seems a bit extreme, but if my car can drive without anyone inside it needs to be able to do so reasonably safely. If there is a known sensor blindspot, there isn't any excuse for including a remotely activated autonomous mode.

  63. In other news... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Student claims computer deleted his homework.

  64. That store clerk who met him outside sabotaged it. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I find it curious that nobody has explored the possibility the Tesla was hacked. I see clear opportunity, as well as potential motive.

  65. user error by luther349 · · Score: 1

    wile this was likely user error it did point out a flaw in the system and thats if he did not press confirm on the ui it should have cancelled the action not just default opt-in.

  66. erronious conclusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those are understandably deliberate actions that must be taken to invoke Summon, so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible)."

    There is a third possibility. The driver is lying. It wouldn't be the first time someone who didn't understand the consequences of the mistake they made until after it happened decided to lie and put the blame on someone or something else.

  67. Shill by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    How long until we find out this guy has ties with a competing vehicle brand or has his hands in the pants of the Oil companies? This sounds like pure malice.

  68. 3rd option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those are understandably deliberate actions that must be taken to invoke Summon, so either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible)" - or he's lying (probable)

  69. "Summon mode" Never head of it. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    But if they'd been following the rules that were whipped into them when taking their driving test, they'd have set the vehicle into neutral and set the parking (mechanical) brake before exiting the vehicle. The engine control unit can do what the fuck it wants then, because it is mechanically disconnected from the wheels.

    Strange design.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  70. summon mode? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    summon mode? summon mode? wtf? like Roy Rogers whistling for Trigger?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  71. Replicant! by von+Stalhein · · Score: 1

    "Rick Deckard to the Service Workshop please....."

  72. always a third option by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    either Overton didn't remember doing all of that (unlikely) or his Model S simply spazzed out (possible).

    ...or Overton did it, remembers he did it and then lied about it (likely)