Hacker News Reader

I've read that Tesla's summon feature requires the user to continually hold down a button on their phone in order to have the car continue its slow progress in driving towards the user.

Assuming that's the case, I would argue that this specific sort of accident is squarely in the domain of the user.

Can confirm that this is actually how it works. As soon as you let go of the button, the car instantly stops.

Not even mentioning the explicit warnings to keep line of sight when you use smart summon, as well as the fact that summon is automatically limited to only within 20 meters of the car.

What about the copy on Tesla's website that says "have your car come to you while you deal with a fussy child"?

Do you happen to have a link to Tesla's webpage that says this?

Asking not because I don't believe it, but because the only results I get on google by searching for that quote are your comments on HN from this year in multiple threads that include it.

If the Tesla website indeed says it (which I am yet to find), I would write it off as just future-promise-marketing. You can call it misleading in that case, which would be fair.

At the end of the day, that's not how it currently works, and you have to hold the button for the car to move during summon, and you gotta be within 20 meter radius. As soon as you let the button go, the car stops. This isn't me just saying based on what internet says, this is what I have observed myself and what the car manual says[0] (both the online and the print version, in multiple spots).

0. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-6B9A1AE...

> the only results I get on google by searching for that quote are your comments on HN

It's interesting how Google narrows your world view.

> If the Tesla website indeed says it (which I am yet to find)

Here you go:

https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-software-version-10-0

> I would write it off as just future-promise-marketing

No, it's just lies and advertising.

Imagine holding a child in your arms and pressing a button with your fingers. This is basically a low bar to jump over in multitasking/human dexterity, however it’s the core value of summoning your vehicle.

You may say multitasking is hard or impossible but we humans manage to approximate it anyways because it’s necessary for life. For example, if you are the parent of two fussy children in a busy parking lot, you better know how to multitask or one of those kids will escape your sight!

Oof that's right up there with

"The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons"

from the 5+ year old marketing video still featured on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

I’m not sure it’s as cut-and-dry as you suggest. Suppose you have to hold down a button to keep a meat-slicer blade moving. Then, as you slice a piece of meat, the slicer blade suddenly flies out and strikes a nearby customer and injures them. Later, it’s discovered that a faulty design or a manufacturing defect cause the blade to fly out. There’d still be a very good case that the manufacturer would still be liable for the defect.

Now, here, maybe the user could have prevented the car accident by letting go of the button. But, what if the user had faith (however misplaced) that the car was going to avoid the collision until it was too late to let go? Or what if the user had suffered a stroke at that particular moment and couldn’t let go? It’s an interesting thought experiment.

It’s not an interesting thought experiment. The finger on the button is no different than the toe on the gas pedal.

It is different: in a normal car, the driver controls the angle of the vector via the steering wheel, but with the Summon feature, the car’s programming does.

Although there are consumer protection laws that puts the onus on the company -- in America, where it is caveat venditor -- there is also the question of how much decision-making power we want to give to automation in general, and who is ultimately responsible.

Some things, like the decision to trigger a weapon in an act of war may be something societies want to have humans, and only humans make the ultimate call. That is, there is a desire for a human-in-the-loop.

On the other end of the spectrum are decisions we want to take out of the human hands because we think automation is more reliable and better for our society.

And then there are the unintended consequences. Looking back the past 10 years, it's arguable that the 'share' and 'retweet' features of social media that gives the power of virality to ordinary people have had a profound effect on our society and culture, both for good and for bad (and for many cases where we can't even agree on what's good or bad).

I argue that, while some of this is not novel to the law, I don't necessarily think that those precedents cover all of the changes tech has wrought to how we live and govern ourselves.

>I do think there should be legislation adopted to protect the victims by giving them a statutory private right of action against both the owner and the car manufacturer

If my car is parked in a parking lot, and someone rams my car so that it rolls and hits another car, I am liable. This is why parking breaks are important

I don't understand why self driving cars would be any different. I am liable to make sure I am using my car properly. Even if it has fancy tech.

The person who hit your car and caused it to roll is also liable to the person who owns the car yo damaged.