Hacker News Reader

Comment by zardo | Hacker News Reader

It does if you look at what 'recall' means legally.

It is funny how Tesla fans' and critics' philosophy on which definitions to use depends entirely on the topic being discussed.

For the Tesla fan, the colloquial definition of "recall" is what we should go by because the car doesn't actually have to return anywhere. Meanwhile, when it comes to "autopilot", they want us to use the technical definition of a system that is not entirely autonomous to the point that a pilot isn't needed.

Tesla critics on the other hand will reverse those two, claiming it is the technical definition of "recall" and the colloquial definition of "autopilot" that matter the most.

Except recall has a specific regulatory definition in the US. Whether or not a physical recall is required is completely irrelevant to something being labelled a recall. A recall is simply a defect that has a safety impact and the manufacture is required to notify owners and provide a fix. Problems that can be resolved via OTA updates can still qualify as recalls.

Autopilot has no such formal definition (at least not in the context of cars). Musk/Tesla have continually over-sold what their various iterations of autopilot (Autopilot, FSD, etc) can do AND also fall back to "it's an autopilot just like a boat or plane" which completely ignores that boats or planes aren't typically operated on busy highways by untrained pilots.

Yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

A Tesla fan could also give you an equally logical explanation about how the "regulatory definition" of "recall" is outdated because it is from an era in which all recalls were physical or that the general public's misconceptions about autopilots for boats and planes are not Tesla's fault.

My point was not that either side of these debates is right or wrong. It is that people are transparently starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it rather than having any consistent principle underlying their belief on this issue. It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad.

Sure, the term might be outdated. But from my perspective, it's almost exclusively Tesla apologists playing weasel words...

"Autopilot doesn't mean what we promised; only what wikipedia says. GOTCHA!"

"Recall should only apply to physical fixes THIS IS SOFTWARE. GOTCHA!"

You mentioned "both side" in your first post and I really don't see it.

It is funny that I ended my last comment with the following: "It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad." and you're seemingly still trying to engage me in a debate on the definitions of these words. Just say you don't like Tesla and move on.

Some, but perhaps not all, car companies tend to be less than friendly with recalls. My Porsche has never had fewer than three recalls and they really turn the screws on owners. My Taycan has faulty brake lines that have been ordered but magically not found when I bring my car in for the recall repair. This has happened three times. The working theory from owners is the brake lines are ending up in Certified Preowned Cars since they can’t sell them without the parts.

Usually by the time the NHTSA has them send a second notice the parts magically appear in stock. The same has been true for the NEMA 14-50 plug recall (Running 40A over 10AWG wire - setting walls on fire, melting outlets, melting plugs) and a few others.

Porsche has been reasonably good about software fixes, presumably since they don’t cost as much money. They are not great at applying them and not much is done OTA.

Until they do a nicer job here we hopefully will see the NHTSA continue to broadcast these recalls and embarrass these companies into action. When you have issues getting things fixed you can complain to the NHTSA and they do follow up.

It doesn't if you look at the plain english meaning of recall, or the historical context of what a car recall was.

> the historical context of what a car recall was.

Maybe if you're only familiar with high profile recalls that have been covered in the news. Automakers have issued fixes that are DIY or fixed in the field for basically the entire history of automotive recalls. For example: misprinted owners manuals shipped to vehicle owners.

This is only because they still haven't bothered to update to the internet enabled world.

> This is only because they still haven't bothered to update

I'd argue the opposite. As cars are largely and increasingly controlled by software, these issues have as much if not more effect than a lot of mechanical recalls.

It's honestly a bit forward-thinking that given this software fixes are also classified as recalls.

Cars still kill people in the internet world, unfortunately.

They update by interpreting new situations with logical extensions of the existing rules.

NHTSA can order a "recall" for a safety defect, would people prefer they say that car makers can't satisfy a "recall" order except by returning the car to the location it was built?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com