Featured Tesla Autopilot recall probed by safety regulator following new crashes

I have lots of contradicting feelings about the glass roof right now. I'm not sure if the color changing ability is helping me with those feelings.

 

I think they stopped around 2020. My 2021 doesn't do that.

 

Tesla is finally going to release everything we want to know about Autopilot/FSD as NHTSA forces it | Electrek

"Tesla is finally going to release everything we always wanted to know about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD), but it’s because NHTSA is forcing the automaker to do it."

"Now, it is finally going to have to release everything as NHTSA warns that Tesla can face up to $135 million in fines if it doesn’t comply."

"Tesla’s reluctance to release any data on Autopilot/FSD being the very limited “safety report”, which Tesla itself stopped reporting more than a year ago, is a real red flag."

 

Yeah, I already posted that in the Tesla sub forum.

However,

"Subject System: Suite of software, hardware, data, and any other related systems on or off the vehicle that contribute to the conferral of any vehicle capabilities that Tesla labels Level 2 or above, including but not limited to the various “Autopilot” packages, but not including Full-Self Driving Supervised/Beta"

So Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and TACC, not FSD.

Will the NHTSA asks for the same data for other "Level 2+" data from other manufacturers? How many will be able to give the same amount of data Tesla can? What if they can't? Will they be fined for not providing the same data?

 

The linked article states: "Most other companies working on self-driving programs have consistently released disengagement and driver intervention data in order to track progress, but Tesla has always resisted that."

Im not sure what exactly that means but you might be able to find out more if youre interested. The level 2 "only" is probably even more interesting for now given the worldwide availabitlity - especially compared with Tesla which doesnt even offer 2+ so far.

 

Yeah, but they are specifically not requesting FSD data. All other automakers beside Mercedes (and in very limited circonstances) simply have lane keep (with and without auto lane change) and adaptive cruise control, which is what they are requesting data about from Tesla (AP, EAP and TACC). Will they request the same data from Ford after their two BlueCruise fatalities? Can Ford provide all the data the NHTSA is asking from Telsa? What if they can't?

 

I think you're taking this a bit too personally.

I found an article that was a bit more clear on the issue at hand with key parts pulled out below. They're specifically worried about "autopilot" which is the advanced TACC system. Given Tesla isn't sharing as much as others on similar systems, and given that they pushed a recall that seems to have workarounds, and that NHTSA has concerns about the default behaviours being changeable on the fly while driving too. In essence, they're offering a level of customizability that allows drivers to make the system weaker if they so choose, but the default is being set as a form of compliance with the NHTSA via recall updates.

It's not exactly in the spirit of things to say "ok we see the concern you have Mr. Regulator, and we'll address it" and then say "but we're gonna let people roll it back if they want after though".

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-seeks-answers-tesla-autopilot-recall-probe-2024-05-07/

 

The others already incidences involving their Level 2.

As for the hypotheticals, we'll have to wait until they are required to do a safety recall for the ADAS, and the government then has questions about that recall's effectiveness.

 

I'm not sure how disengagement data would be reported or help. I've been using FSD beta (not supervised) for 2.5 years. Almost every trip has a disengagement. This is because, for example, it doesn't know how to park in my driveway and stops at the curb or in the street, so I must disengage via brake or steering wheel to go where I want to actually end up.
In the first year or two I would rarely make a trip without some issue that caused me to take over mid trip. But in the last 3-4 months (with v12) I am able to make almost all trips with no mid trip disengagements. How would the data report this...I don't know.

Mike

EDIT: I meant NOW supervised instead of NOT

 

That's the thing, they are asking for data about AP, EAP and TACC, not FSD. It's written very clearly in the document and yes, Cruise and Waymo are sending their data but these are Level 4 system while AP, EAP and TACC are level 2 and what other level 2 systems have telemetric data to the NHTSA? Heck, many of their cars are not even connected to the network to send their telemetric data in the first place. Look here

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf

A majority of peer L2 companies queried by ODI during this investigation rely mainly on traditional reporting systems (where customers file claims after the crash and the company follows up with traditional information collection and/or vehicle inspection).

Tesla is already sharing the most of all the Level 2 ADAS manufacturers, not the less.

 

Lay down on my couch, and tell me when it all started

 

The disengagement data is coming from test programs and fleets working on Level 4 and higher autonomous driving.

Based on how Tesla presents and wants of FSD, it too should be under such requirements. But then they couldn't sell it for $6000 to $15,000 with every new and used car they sell.

You should continued reading the comment.

"...given that they pushed a recall that seems to have workarounds, and that NHTSA has concerns about the default behaviours being changeable on the fly while driving too."

Teslas on Autopilot were getting into crashes. A fix was sent out as part of a safety recall. The crashes are still happening. The NHTSA is now asking for more data from Tesla as part of the investigation as to why that is.

If this was happening with another car company, they would be asking for more data. Whether they could or couldn't provide it has no bearing on the case with Tesla.

If the fix had worked, they wouldn't be asking for more data. Tesla is not being picked on. Tesla should want to figure out why the crashes are happening as much as the NHTSA.

 

has it been determined the crashes were due to the cars software? Or to the driver?

has it been determined it was because of the car's safety software? Or the drivers still finding a way to defeat the system? Or something else like the unavoidable driver plowing into you from the side?

i know regulatory groups serve a purpose but shouldn't NHTSA really not need to get embroiled if driver's are defeating a car's driving system when/if cars with a system are shown to help more than bad drivers are capable of causing accidents?
Especially if in part or in whole - the system is causing a "non-event" ie; accident mitigation.
Is NHTSA even capable of making such conclusions w/ precision ?

 

The workaround they are talking about is to return AP activation to two pushes instead of one (the first being TACC only). With two pushes to actvate AP, people that disengages AP means TACC remains engaged and for some reason, some will think AP is also still engaged and could go offroad. With a single push, you disable both AP and TACC, bringing the car to manual driving, which to me, sucks because when changing lane, with TACC also disengaging and with Regen braking, it means if you didn't prepare by pushing the accelerator before disengaging, you'll slow down at max Regen, which is probably the reverse of what you were trying to do while changing lane in the first place. That's why people are deactivating it IMHO.

Have you seen the amount of data they are requesting? It's insane.

Edit: I'm not formating it, it's way too long. That's a copy/paste

1. State, by model and model year, the number of subject vehicles Tesla has manufactured for
sale or lease in the United States. Separately, for each subject vehicle manufactured to date
by Tesla, state the following:
a. Vehicle identification number (VIN);
b. Model;
c. Model Year;
d. Subject component trade/trim name, part number and design version installed as original
equipment, including:
i. Software version;
5ii. Firmware version;
iii. Hardware version;
iv. Cabin Camera installed (yes/no);
e. Date of manufacture;
f. Date warranty coverage commenced;
g. Date subject recall was sent to the vehicle;
h. Date subject recall was installed on the vehicle;
i. The number of strikes the vehicle has received related to Autopilot;
j. The date(s) of the strikes;
k. The number of strikeouts the vehicle has received related to Autopilot;
l. The date(s) of the strikeouts;
m. The number of suspensions the vehicle has received related to Autopilot;
n. The date(s) of the suspensions;
o. Date and mileage of Cabin Camera Data Sharing enabled;
p. The state or territory in the United States where the vehicle was originally sold or leased
(or delivered for sale or lease);
q. Latest known vehicle mileage and commensurate date;
r. Subject component trade/trim name, part number and design version installed as an
aftersales customer-requested upgrade; including:
i. Software version;
ii. Firmware version;
iii. Hardware version;
iv. Cabin Camera installed (yes/no);
s. Whether the vehicle ever had Full-Self Driving Supervised/Beta including free trials;
i. Start date of Full-Self Driving enrollment Supervised/Beta;
ii. End date of Full-Self Driving Supervised/Beta enrollment;
t. Date and identities of the most recent software, firmware, and hardware updates,
including but not limited to all such updates related to the subject recall.
Provide the table in Microsoft Access 2010, or a compatible format, entitled
“PRODUCTION DATA.”
2. Provide the cumulative mileage covered by Model/Model Year and HW (Autopilot
hardware) version in the following categories:
a. January 2021 through December 12, 2023 by month starting on the first of the month;
i. With the subject system in use; and
ii. Without the subject system in use.
b. Post December 12, 2023 by week, with a week defined as seven days starting on Sunday;
i. With the subject system in use and the subject recall remedy installed;
ii. With the subject system in use and without the subject recall remedy installed; and
iii. Without the subject system in use.
A pre-formatted data collection file, which provides further details regarding this submission,
will be provided to you.
63. Describe in detail the process (including supporting engineering and safety assessment
evidence and any other relevant information) by which Tesla decided to file the Part 573
Safety Recall Report assigned No. 23V838.
Provide copies of all documents related to Tesla’s decision, regardless of whether the
documents are in interim, draft, or final form.
4. Describe in detail, separately for each non-remedy update relating to the subject system, the
process used to formulate and deploy that update (including supporting engineering and
safety assessment, evidence and any other information) including but not limited to:
a. The reasoning regarding why the update was not included in Recall 23V838;
b. How the update relates to crash types investigated in EA22002;
c. How the problem/issue was identified;
d. The expected crash reduction related to the update;
e. The actual crash reduction related to the update;
f. Tesla’s assessment regarding the safety implications of the update; and
g. State whether Tesla intends to file a safety recall pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30118
covering
this update. If not, please furnish Tesla’s technical and/or legal basis for declining to do
so.
Provide copies of all documents related to these updates, regardless of whether the
documents are in interim, draft, or final form.
5. Furnish a count of Hands-on-Wheel warnings displayed by the subject system by
Model/Model Year and HW version in the following categories:
a. January 2021 through December 12, 2023 by month starting on the first of the month;
b. Post December 12, 2023 by week, with a week defined as seven days starting on
Sunday;
i. With the subject recall remedy installed; and
ii. Without the subject recall remedy installed.
6. Explain and describe in detail the process, engineering and safety explanation, evidence, and
information used for design decisions regarding Tesla’s decision to implement a single-pull
activation option for the activation of Autopilot as part of the remedy for recall 23V838,
including but not limited to:
a. Explain how this aspect of the remedy addresses the defect;
b. All reasoning, engineering rationale, and all relevant information used to design this
feature;
c. What human factors4 considerations and principles were used when designing this
feature;
4 See, e.g.,
What is Human Factors and Ergonomics | HFES
.
7i. Explain how the design was validated using human factors (including, but not
limited to human participant evaluations);
ii. Identify the identifier in part e of this Request;
d. State whether Tesla calculated a predicted effectiveness percentage concerning crashes
addressed by this feature.
i. If so, provide this value;
ii. Explain in detail how this value was calculated including where the analysis
variables originated;
e. Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”) that relate to, or may
relate to, this item in the subject recall in the subject vehicles that have been conducted,
are being conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, Tesla. For each such
action, provide the following information:
i. Action title or identifier;
ii. The actual or planned start date;
iii. The actual or expected end date;
iv. Brief summary of the subject and objective of the action;
v. Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting the
action;
vi. A brief summary of the findings and/or conclusions resulting from the action;
f. For all deployed modification/changes to this item, provide separately:
i. The identifier/title related to this item in Request 15;
ii. Explain in detail the reasons for this modification/change;
iii. Explain how this modification/change impacts the effectiveness of this feature;
g. Explain the reasoning, engineering rationale, and all relevant information used regarding
the decision to allow vehicle owners to revert the single pull feature to the prior double
pull activation setting;
h. Explain the reasoning, engineering rationale, and all relevant information used regarding
the decision for the single pull activation setting not to be the default activation setting on
vehicles subject to recall 23V838;
i. Describe the consumer facing notifications and communications regarding the single pull
activation setting, including but not limited to feature description and feature enablement.
Provide dates that all consumer facing notifications and communications were first issued
or appeared in vehicles; and
j. Provide the number of vehicles with the single pull feature active and inactive by week
and model/model year, with a week defined as seven days starting on Sunday, since the
introduction of the recall remedy.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents by parts a - j.
7. Explain and describe in detail the process, engineering and safety explanation, and evidence
for design decisions regarding Tesla’s decision to increase the strictness of driver
attentiveness requirements when approaching traffic controls off-highway as part of the
remedy for recall 23V838, including but not limited to:
8a. Explain how this item of the remedy addresses the defect;
b. All reasoning, engineering rationale and all relevant information used to design
this
feature;
c. What human factors considerations and principles were used when designing this
feature;
i. Explain how the design was validated using human factors (including, but not
limited to human participant evaluations);
ii. Identify the identifier in part e of this Request;
d. State whether Tesla calculated a predicted effectiveness percentage concerning crashes
addressed by this feature.
i. If so, provide this value;
ii. Explain in detail how this value was calculated including where the analysis
variables originated;
e. Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”) that relate to, or may
relate to, this item in the subject recall in the subject vehicles that have been conducted,
are being conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, Tesla. For each such
action, provide the following information:
i. Action title or identifier;
ii. The actual or planned start date;
iii. The actual or expected end date;
iv. Brief summary of the subject and objective of the action;
v. Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting the
action;
vi. A brief summary of the findings and/or conclusions resulting from the action;
f. For all deployed modification/changes to this item, provide separately:
i. The identifier/title related to this item in Request 15;
ii. Explain in detail the motivation for this modification/change;
iii. Explain how this modification/change impacts the effectiveness of this feature;
g. Explain the triggering criteria for increased monitoring of this feature;
h. Explain in detail the requirements for a driver to receive alerts under this item; and
i. The number of Hands-on-Wheel Warnings by week with a week defined as seven days
starting on Sunday, by Model and HW version, displayed by the subject system related to
this aspect of the remedy.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents by parts a - i.
8. Explain and describe in detail the process, engineering and safety explanation, and evidence
for design decisions regarding Tesla’s decision to increase driver monitoring in the moments
following Autopilot engagement as part of the remedy for recall 23V838, including but not
limited to:
a. Explain how this item of the remedy addresses the defect;
9b. All reasoning, engineering rationale and all relevant information used to design this
feature;
c. What human factors considerations and principles were used when designing this feature;
i. Explain how the design was validated using human factors (including, but not
limited to human participant evaluations);
ii. Identify the identifier in part e of this Request;
d. State whether Tesla calculated a predicted effectiveness percentage concerning crashes
addressed by this feature.
i. If so, provide this value;
ii. Explain in detail how this value was calculated including where the analysis
variables originated;
e. Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”) that relate to, or may
relate to, this item the subject recall in the subject vehicles that have been conducted, are
being conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, Tesla. For each such
action, provide the following information:
i. Action title or identifier;
ii. The actual or planned start date;
iii. The actual or expected end date;
iv. Brief summary of the subject and objective of the action;
v. Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting the
action;
vi. A brief summary of the findings and/or conclusions resulting from the action;
f. For all deployed modification/changes to this item, provide separately:
i. The identifier/title related to this item in Request 15;
ii. Explain in detail the motivation for this modification/change;
iii. Explain how this modification/change impacts the effectiveness of this feature ;
g. Explain the triggering criteria for increased driver monitoring of this item;
h. Explain in detail the requirements for a driver to receive alerts under this item; and
i. Provide the number of Hands on Wheel Warnings by week with a week defined as seven
days starting on Sunday, by Model, Model Year and HW version, displayed by the
subject system related to this feature of the remedy.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents by parts a - i.
9. Explain and describe in detail the process, engineering and safety explanation and evidence
for design decisions regarding Tesla’s decision to implement a one-week suspension policy
based on accumulated strikeouts as part of the remedy for recall 23V838, including but not
limited to:
a. Explain how this item of the remedy addresses the defect;
b. All reasoning, engineering rationale, and all relevant information used to design
this
feature;
c. What human factors considerations and principles were used when designing this
10feature;
i. Explain how the design was validated using human factors (including, but not
limited to human participant evaluations);
ii. Identify the identifier in part e of this Request;
d. State whether Tesla calculated a predicted effectiveness percentage concerning crashes
addressed by this feature.
i. If so, provide this value;
ii. Explain in detail how this value was calculated including where the analysis
variables originated;
e. Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”) that relate to, or may
relate to, this item in the subject recall in the subject vehicles that have been conducted,
are being conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, Tesla. For each such
action, provide the following information:
i. Action title or identifier;
ii. The actual or planned start date;
iii. The actual or expected end date;
iv. Brief summary of the subject and objective of the action;
v. Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting the
action;
vi. A brief summary of the findings and/or conclusions resulting from the action;
f. For all deployed modifications/changes to this item provide separately:
i. The identifier/title related to this item in Request 15;
ii. Explain in detail the motivation of this modification/change;
iii. Explain how this modification/change impact the effectiveness of this feature;
g. Explain in detail the requirements for a driver to receive strikes under this item; and
h. The number of strikes, strikeouts, and suspensions incurred through use of the subject
system by week with a week defined as seven days starting on Sunday and by Model,
Model Year and HW.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents by parts a - h.
10. Explain and describe in detail the process, engineering and safety explanation and evidence
for design decisions regarding Tesla’s decision to increase the size and prominence of driver
facing alerts and warnings as part of the remedy for recall 23V838, including but not limited
to:
a. Explain how this item of the remedy addresses the defect;
b. All reasoning, engineering rationale and all relevant information used to design this
feature;
c. What human factors considerations and principles were used when designing this feature;
i. Explain how the design was validated using human factors (including, but not
limited to human participant evaluations);
ii. Identify the identifier in part e of this Request;
11d. State whether Tesla calculated a predicted effectiveness percentage concerning crashes
addressed by this feature.
i. If so, provide this value;
ii. Explain in detail how this value was calculated including where the analysis
variables originated;
e. Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations,
investigations, inquiries and/or evaluations (collectively, “actions”) that relate to, or may
relate to, this item in the subject recall in the subject vehicles that have been conducted,
are being conducted, are planned, or are being planned by, or for, Tesla. For each such
action, provide the following information:
i. Action title or identifier;
ii. The actual or planned start date;
iii. The actual or expected end date;
iv. Brief summary of the subject and objective of the action;
v. Engineering group(s)/supplier(s) responsible for designing and for conducting the
action;
vi. A brief summary of the findings and/or conclusions resulting from the action.
f. For all deployed modifications/changes to this item provide separately:
i. The identifier/title related to this item in Request 15;
ii. Explain in detail the motivation of this modification/change;
iii. Explain how this modification/change impact the effectiveness of this feature.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents by parts a - f.
11. Describe Tesla’s use of human factor science in its design and sustainment of the subject
system, including but not limited to:
a. Tesla’s design process as it relates to human factors;
b. Tesla’s assessment of the importance of human factors;
c. The human factors validation of the subject system;
d. Identify each and every job or position title related to human factors involving the design
and development of the subject system since the inception of the subject system:
i. Identify the role;
ii. Number of employees that hold this role currently (noting vacancies);
iii. Role creation date;
iv. Typical prior experience historically;
v. Typical education historically;
vi. Required prior human factors experience historically;
vii. State whether this position still exists;
(1) If not, provide the end date of the position and explain why this position no
longer exists.
Provide copies of all documents related to the action, regardless of whether the documents
are in interim, draft, or final form. Organize the documents.
1212. Describe the role that the cabin camera plays in the enforcement of driver engagement /
attentiveness and the manner in which its inputs are factored into the subject system’s
operation prior to, and after, December 12, 2023, including but not limited to:
a. Whether changes relating to the cabin camera were incorporated into the remedy for
recall 23V838;
b. The impact of any changes on driver engagement alert types and timing and how those
changes integrate with the existing engagement strategy;
c. Recoverable data elements pointing to the cabin camera’s influence either via telemetry
or from the vehicle’s onboard storage; and
d. The cabin camera’s impact on driver alerting and recoverable data if the driver does not
opt to share data from the camera with Tesla.
13. Explain in detail the process Tesla uses to learn of/identify crashes reportable under
NHTSA’s Standing General Order 2021-01 (“the SGO”) including but not limited to current
and previously used sources.
14. Explain in detail for each source identified in Question 13 the following:
a. The start date of the source’s use;
b. The end date of the source’s use;
c. Whether Tesla receives information from this source by notification or whether Tesla
actively searches this source;
i. If the source is searched, how often is a search performed;
d. The number of crashes initially identified (prior to qualification by Tesla) by this source
by month;
e. All search and system constraints of the source;
f. Enabling criteria which would result in Tesla being aware of a reportable crash;
g. All changes and modifications to the source or in the search method of the source since
Tesla was first served with the SGO including but not limited to any changes in c – f :
i. The date or approximate date on which the modification or change was
incorporated;
ii. A detailed description of the modification or change;
iii. The reason(s) for the modification or change; and
iv. How the modification or change effects Tesla’s reporting pursuant to the SGO.
Provide copies of all policies, procedures, and documents referenced in response to a-g.
15. For each trade name/trim level of the subject system available in the subject vehicles,
describe all modifications or changes made by, or on behalf of, Tesla in the design, material
composition, manufacture, quality control, supply, function, or installation of the subject
system that relate to, or may relate to, driver engagement/attentiveness and OEDR by the
subject system in the subject vehicles since July 1, 2023. For each such modification or
change, provide the following information:
13a. Action title or identifier;
b. The date or approximate date on which the modification or change was incorporated into
vehicle production;
c. A detailed description of the modification or change;
d. The reason(s) for the modification or change;
e. If the change is related to the remedy for recall 23V838;
i. What aspects(s)of the remedy is affected;
f. The hardware, firmware, and software names and numbers of the original version;
g. The hardware, firmware, and software names and numbers of the modified version;
h. Primary distribution method of related firmware and software updates (over the air or inperson service); and
i. When the modified version / update was made available as a service component.
Also, provide the above information for any modification or change that Tesla is aware of
which may be incorporated into vehicle production or pushed to subject vehicles in the field
within the next 120 days.
A pre-formatted data collection file, which provides further details regarding this submission,
will be provided to you.
16. For all subject crashes of which Tesla is aware, including but not limited to crashes
previously reported pursuant to the SGO after December 12, 2023, provide the following:
a. VIN;
b. Incident date and time;
c. Location of the crash;
d. Road class type;
e. SGO number;
f. Driving mode;
g. Remedy on vehicle at the time of incident;
h. Related remedy items;
i. Firmware at the time of incident;
j. Number of Hands on Wheel Alerts in the incident drive cycle;
i. Visual
ii. Audible
iii. Visual + Audible
k. Time interval between last Hands on Wheel alert and collision;
l. Last Hands on Wheel Alert Type (visual, audible, visual + audible)
m. Strikes at time of incident;
n. Strikeouts at time of incident;
o. Speed at impact; and
p. List the available documents related to this incident including but not limited to:
i. Time interval between last Hands-on-Wheel alert and collision;
ii. EDR
iii. CAN logs
iv. Video/imagery
14v. PAR
Provide copies of all documents referenced in response to Request 16 part p.
A pre-formatted data collection file, which provides further details regarding this submission,
will be provided to you.
17. Furnish copies of all internal and external communications that are related to or may relate to
the subject recall and subject non-remedy updates, including but not limited to
communications that are related to or may relate to the following:
a. Tesla’s safety defect determination decision making;
b. Issue investigation;
c. Action design including human factors considerations (initial and modifications); and
d. Testing.
Organize response documents in chronological order and identify the following: sender,
receiver(s), subject, and date sent

 

I don't think the NHTSA would be jumping down Tesla's throat because of people finding workarounds as much if it weren't for the fact that the people who apply the recall fix can disable it using options Tesla themselves provided to the owners...

Its one thing for people to find a way to shove an orange in the steering wheel to trick pressure sensors, its another when the manufacturer offers a fix and as part of the fix also offers a "but if you dont like it just have the recall functionality reversed with zero real effort and with our tacit approval" option.

 

It has grown into more than a NHTSA investigation at this point

The DoJ is reportedly investigating if Tesla committed securities or wire fraud in Autopilot probe (msn.com)

"The Department of Justice is looking into potential securities or wire fraud connected with Tesla's efforts to promote its driver assist software, according to a report by Reuters that cited unnamed sources."

 

Yeah, those that bought FSD and have sold (without transfering) or scrapped their Tesla were promised and paid for something that never came to fruition.

Question remains, like the Reuters article mentions

"U.S. courts previously have ruled that “puffery” or “corporate optimism” regarding product claims do not amount to fraud. In 2008, a federal appeals court ruled that statements of corporate optimism alone do not demonstrate that a company official intentionally misled investors".

It will be interesting to follow how this one evolves.

 

This one has been solved. If a constant pressure is detected, it will warn the driver to remove it or face deactivation. Something that from what I read is still possible with BlueCruise.

And I think the main beef with the fix is it wasn't applied by default to vehicles already on the road, but only to new vehicles. I would have deactivated right away for the reason given earlier. It's a stupid fix.

My Prius lane assist is really useless so I can't really try it but those with the newer one, when deactivating it, what happens to the adaptive cruise control? Does it also deactivate?

 

Isn't the point of this additional probe to determine the answers?

There is a difference between the end user defeating a safety or emission system, and the manufacturer providing the means for them to do so.

Did you think the FAA sent an email of just a couple lines to Boeing about their issues?
We can't say if what they are asking for is onerous without seeing other examples.

It was a safety recall. those need to be applied to all affected cars. Toyota isn't going to not fix the doors of the cars already sold. Since the Tesla fix was a software fix, and they use OTA updates, they don't really have an excuse to not have fixed cars on the road.

 

It was applied. My car has that option. I guess it depends how it was worded by the NHTSA and/or interpreted by Tesla.

And for FSD, it's that or nothing. I don't even have TACC anymore. Which, in essence without entering a destination, works just like EAP with the addition of respecting red lights, stop signs and tuning at the next intersection if I indicate it.

I do hope that if they do force Tesla to remove TACC and force AP to a single tap, that Tesla makes EAP standard instead of AP because currently, dropping out of lane centering AND cruise control at the same time while all you want to do is change lane is stupid.