Most US car dealerships will make a new key for someone repossessing a car. As Tesla is the dealership this seems like the exact same situation, the only difference is someone with the key can now remote summon the car.
> someone with the key can now remote summon the car
Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot. They aren't self-driving across town to a repossession lot, if that's what you're thinking.
I don’t usually vote up comments that are mostly humorous on HN, but there’s always an exception.
To me the problem isn’t that they might, but that they can. I guess the fault is technically on the person who rented something under terrible terms, but the problem to me is that over time terrible terms seem to win out over reasonable ones.
Not to mention, if Tesla is capable of doing this for rentals, I have to assume they are capable of doing it for any Tesla. Which is not great.
> over time terrible terms seem to win out over reasonable ones
Tyranny of the marketplace, I guess. If most people are not bothered by the terrible terms, then the selection of items with non-terrible terms will be correspondingly small.
Case in point: I'd like to buy a TV (even at a higher price) that does not have ads all over the interface. From what I can tell, as of right now there are approximately a handful of such TVs, not counting older models that probably aren't produced any more. And of course out of that handful, most are not very good in other respects..
I don't know how to solve that apart from regulation, which is often a very poor solution.
My solution is to never setup wifi or provide ethernet to my TVs. They can't vomit ads all over the screen or track what you're watching if they can't get online.
Right. Compromise the right credentials, and you can order a high percentage of parked Teslas to start backing up.
That probably won't make them cause damage immediately -- I assume there's a set of sensors that will apply brakes rather than hit a wall or a detected car -- but there's a lot of chaos to apply that way.
I wonder if Tesla's EULA immunizes them against such breaches.
Ha. Though my guess is, once self-driving is reliable enough to do that, the economics of car ownership are going to flip completely. It won't make sense anymore to have a car that spends most of its time sitting unused in your garage.
Imagine, now, that self-driving combined with Uber pool, so that people who need to get from and to the same destinations at the same time (as is typical for commutes) would be able to share the ride.
Imagine then making those vehicles larger to enable not only a decrease in traffic, but an increase in housing density, local infrastructure in walking distance, and economic growth.
Imagine if we then realized we could charge that elongated car as it's driving if we put electric lines above streets.
Oh, and why not increase rolling efficiency while we're at that, and make the task of self-driving simpler by embedding signaling infrastructure into the road itself.
You just imagined buses, trolley buses, and streetcars respectively.
Which is what makes the most sense, and will continue making the most sense for vehicles that don't sit in your garage most of the time.
There's more to car ownership than being able to get from A to B in principle.
Once you add immediate availability, individual vehicle preferences, having your stuff in the car already, the ability to keep your stuff there once you arrive at your destination, never having to think about small, but normal usage damage (especially if you have kids), or, conversely, having the vehicle just as clean as you want it...
...you will see that garages aren't going anywhere any time soon, self-driving cars or not.
And that we'd be wise to develop actual public transport infrastructure for the people who really do only care about getting from A to B, with some acceptable wait time. It's a win-win for everyone.
My pessimistic prognosis is that the development of the self-driving car will make the taxis slightly cheaper, but instead of paying your Uber driver, you're going to be paying engineers, maintenance, and cleaning staff.
Imagine how different the US would be if it was Big Public Transportation that lobbied to have towns and cities designed around them, rather than the car industry. Walking, cycling, buses, trams, trains, etc. etc. You'd still have cars but they wouldn't be a basic need for survival like they're often treated as, because you can't get anywhere without one.
Because it was basically 100 years ago when the car industry sought to dismantle that infrastructure, and succeeded.
To be fair it wasn't some conspiracy. The reason why people began using the car 100 years ago was that the car was becoming widely available and it was super convenient even in the days when roads were caked in horse manure. Even in the peak of the streetcar era, the private car was the best way around town, and as more people bought more cars, it continued to dominate as the streetcar would be bogged down in traffic just like a bus today. Intercity passenger rail also didn't stand much of a chance against the convenience and speed of the jet age.
An Uber (or personal car) also has the advantage of being able to take an alternate route. I used to work on the west side of Capitol Hill in Seattle and lived on the east side of the hill. Any time something like Hempfest or Pride was going on, it literally became faster to walk home than take the bus. If I was driving I could have taken an alternate route and gotten home in a fairly reasonable amount of time.
There's no public transport in the US, aside from a few exceptional places like NYC, Seattle, Boston (maybe), and, like, DC.
Uber is so popular because it actually allows you to get from A to B, for some money.
But I love the circular logic of "nobody wants the buses, why fund them" — "you can't get anywhere on a bus, why fund them" — "look how few people ride the bus" etc.
People keep saying this, but I don't get it. The majority of your possessions spend most of their time sitting idle. Even if I just look at the higher value ones: my riding lawnmower gets used for a couple of hours every few weeks, my garden tractor/snowblower even less frequently, then I've got a trailer, a truck, miscellaneous tools, etc.
I could rent every single one of these, but don't because the economics don't make sense, and the use model would otherwise lead to a lot of inconvenience.
The lynchpin in these arguments is that you'll somehow be able to summon a vehicle on a moments notice and all your usage will still be less expensive than personal ownership. The cost will be low because no humans are involved...
Except it didn't work for ZipCar or the rental agencies that have added hourly options -- sure it's not bad, but is it really pushing people out of car ownership? No...
Ride sharing similarly hasn't worked to push people out of car ownership either -- it's just killed traditional taxi services by compensating drivers less and eliminating the flag down monopoly some cities have maintained (a taxi medallion in Boston/NYC used to be worth hundreds of thousands... no one wants them now)
All these share options work for low use scenarios like the city dweller who wants a weekly trip to a shopping center, but for the daily commuter/driver it won't ever make sense... and it'll never make sense for those that need to keep things in their car like child seats, diapers, a walker, tools, etc...
Bike/Scooter shares haven't eliminated personal ownership either because of the scarcity issue at peak times.
My observation in that all of these things (plus delivery services, Amazon, etc.) can make a difference at the margins. If someone doesn't have a daily commute (or has a reasonable transit or bicycle/walk option) and otherwise isn't transporting themselves, other family members, home improvement stuff, etc. on a daily or near-daily basis, collectively they may let a household do without a car (or at least a second car).
A couple I know in SF don't have a car but they seem to make a lot of use of cars in some form or other pretty regularly.
It depends how easily they can be cleaned of others’ odors and messes, and how often they need to get cleaned.
Presumably if the rate of mess is low enough and there are extra cars, you would just request a new one. Then they punish the person who left the mess or odor, disincentivizing them from doing it again. Probably need cameras monitoring the inside of the car.
It's not so much messes. Rentals, including short-term ones, are a thing today. But rather there's a lot of value to many people to have the car that they want when they want it, leaving certain belongings in the car, having the car equipped for their purposes whether child seats or roof racks, etc.
While I honestly don't expect door to door self driving in most places for decades, a lot of people who don't use cars much probably underestimate the degree to which many people customize their vehicles. And even if they sit a lot of the time, most of the cost is often in miles, not time.
In a world where car ownership is limited, I can imagine that the car interiors would be changed drastically. Something like a subway car with hard plastic seats and easily sanitized surfaces.
That is only going to happen for most people if the economics of car rentals are VEEEEEERRY reasonable. I am not willing to wait 10 minutes for an available vehicle every time I need to go somewhere. People who are dreaming of a day of full automation need to take this into account, because while I don't know how long the average trip by car is, I suspect that it's somewhere in the 15-20 minute range, which is impossible to match even with a fully autonomous driving scheme that can ignore things like stop lights and stop signs.
To further this, what are the parameters before requesting the RTB option? If the car is currently driving (assuming the "owner" is currently using the car), will it reroute with them in as an involuntary passenger? Before attempting to RTB, will it determine the route and distance necessary and determine the amount of charge required and then verify there's enough? Will the car need to be in park for a minimum amount of time first? What if it's parked and I'm loading my small child into a car seat when the RTB order is issued? Will it start driving away with my kid? What if the car is currently plugged in when the RTB is ordered? Will it rip out the charging cable and cause further damage to the car or my house? Who will be responsible for that damage?
It's reasonable to assume an open door will prevent movement...
...being plugged in to a charger (that doesn't have some sort of automated disconnect) would also be disable.
The question is valid though after you've put the kid in and you're on 30 second excursion to push the shopping carriage back... what if the car is recalled? Seems like a potential disaster and tragedy.
To this point, after crossing the state line from Nevada into California, there are highway signs that state the fines for littering and abadoning an animal on the side of the highway. The fine for littering is significantly higher than animal abandonment.
This depends entirely on how quickly they get to the vehicle, but given the money involved, I'm sure they will just lobby to have the death of the dog pinned on the owner.
I'm hopeful that by the time cars can be automatically repossessed without a human operator they'll have set up a network of on-demand rentals and I won't have to worry about car ownership and all the nonsense it entails.
Do you actually prefer the subscription hell we are in now with companies like Adobe deciding we can no longer actually own any software and have to continuously rent it?
Google actually seems like they will be first to full self driving. My biggest fear is that they continue to have zero interest in being an actual car company and keep all their Waymo tech locked behind their taxis and Lyfts are replaced by Waymos with no reduction in price, just a loss job for the person who would normally drive the Lyft. Other companies follow suit and the self driving car dream is ruined to make C suite executives richer.
> Do you actually prefer the subscription hell we are in now with companies like Adobe deciding we can no longer actually own any software and have to continuously rent it?
No, I don't prefer software subscriptions with monthly fees. I don't find the "maintenance" required for software annoying or onerous. However, I really don't like car maintenance. Waiting for an oil change, tire replacement or rotation, or really any repair is the worst part of car ownership and I could die happy never having to do any of that again. I don't place a lot of value on ownership in general because of maintenance or storage burdens.
I do like pay-as-you-go for most of the stuff I use, for whatever it's worth. Food, electricity, gas, that sort of thing. I use cabs when I go on vacation and look for opportunities to travel by bus, train, or plane instead of driving. A self-serve on-demand auto rental service would be ideal, for me.
I'm with you on detesting car maintenance when owning a vehicle.
To be fair, most of those maintenance options do go away with fully-electric vehicles. For example, you could lease a Tesla Model 3/Y. The process is impressively streamlined: pay $100 using Touch ID and Apple Pay, then select a pick-up date on the calendar. Now you have a vehicle with basically no maintenance, apart from topping up wiper fluid. All managed with an intuitive and highly-polished mobile app. In 3 years, repeat process.
My intention isn't to advertise for Tesla. I'm just pointing out that options exist nowadays for people who dislike the entire hassle of vehicle ownership (dealing with dealerships, negotiation, financing, scheduled & unscheduled maintenance, etc.)
Don't the higher end car brands in your area do pickup/return service? BMW picks my car up from the office parking garage, changes oil or tires and returns it before the end of the day. All I have to do is pick a day in their online portal and leave the keys at he reception desk.
I very much prefer owning a car over renting because I can leave things in the car. Like child seats, but also extra clothes, diapers, a phone charger, some snacks etc.
Usually rental anything is a lot more costly in the long run than outright ownership. So someone getting his Tesla repossessed probably wont be any better of trying to rent one. Thought my biggest problem with large scale car rentals are times like rush hour where nearly everyone needs a car at the same time, so there either has to be a giant capacity or you have to rely on most people still having their own car.
> Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot.
Smart summon on a M3 (what the article is talking about) can back out and navigate parking lots... although horribly and slowly. But it's not just a straight line.
One time someone did this in a Costco parking lot from 2 rows away from me and my parked car. It pulled out of its spot 3 spaces away from my car, started doing a u-turn that would've had it hit my car in order to drive through the row of parking spots. I was standing in front of my car wondering where the eff the driver was (obviously it was smart summon but in the heat of the moment...). Lots of families go to Costco, I could've easily had a small child with me next to my car and we would've been about 8 or so feet from being hit by a car that apparently had no idea I was there.
The worst part about this for me is that the Costco parking lot is already a cluster without having to add in the "show off my car to my brother in law" game to the mix.
I avoid Costco like the plague because the experience is always bad for my mental health. I'd rather pay a few extra bucks to avoid oblivious giant cart drivers, having to show multiple forms of ID , having my receipt validated before I can leave, having to figure out how to transport stuff to and from car, etc. Plus, there is no consistency in the non-grocery inventory. You're forced into the "we _have_ to buy these pans today because we never know when they'll be available again!" psychological trap.
It's just a very inconvenient shopping experience in my opinion. But I know I'm the only person in America who feels this way.
I wouldn't disagree with your experience complaint, but Costco exists precisely because it doesn't care about the "shopping experience". If you go to Costco, you forgo the right to complain about the "shopping experience" because you are explicitly choosing something with a bad one in exchange for very cheap goods.
Walmart and Target: slightly better experience, slightly more expensive.
Supermarkets and Malls: better experience, more expensive
So I guess, you aren't the only person in America, but people make the choice to accept the burden for the price savings.
Odd, I've always considered Costco to have one of the best shopping experiences. Stuff on the shelves, I go find what I want and check out.
I generally hate supermarkets and malls. Annoying music, questionable `sales` pushed on aisle end caps and elsewhere, etc. Not the experience I'm after.
My Walmart is awful compared to the Costco. Messy shelves and aisles, carts that clank and clatter. Costco is neater, the employees are friendlier and more helpful... like the two stores have two different cultures. And I appreciate that Costco usually has just one good option—it simplifies things, and it's great when they happen to stock something I've been thinking about buying. I just bought a folding wagon that's bigger and beefier than the Amazon ones for the same price. My experience has been that Costco provides a better shopping experience than Walmart, in the same league as Target, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe's.
My problem is that when a driver hits a small child they go to jail. Are there any consequences for Tesla when they get it wrong? A small dent in share prices that day doesn't cut it for me.
Yes, if they were ruled at fault, just like any other company.
If the operator was ruled at fault, they would receive consequences.
Are you insinuating that Tesla operates on a higher level than the law and is receiving special privileges vs other automakers, or are you saying all automakers should be more accountable? What event are you pointing to they should be more accountable for? Or is this all just a vague hypothetical?
What if instead of hitting a child the car took control killed about 300 people?
And what if it wasn’t in parking lot summons but regular driving assistance?
And maybe it wasn’t a car but an airplane?
Are you sure there would be any material consequences for the board and leadership?
Can confirm.
When my dad often one-handedly turned around and beat the living crap out of me and my two sisters in the back seat, whilst also one-handedly driving down the autostrada, the most he ever got was a stern look from my mum who was smoking at the time.
While I’m not saying summon is a great feature, it would not have hit the things you’re mentioning.
Its major flaw is thin upright things like small trees or poles (although this may be better on vision only cars, I’m not sure). If it sees a person or child in its path, it’s just going to stop.
You can do dumb summon (straight forward/backword) with the key; not smart summon. The description in the article is consistent with what you could do with the key; likely article author misunderstanding the feature (easy mistake).
I could see that if they are holding the financing. If the car is financed by a third party, I cannot imagine why the dealer would want or care to get involved.
Cars with remote summons features today basically just crawl forward a few metres to help you get out of a parking spot. They aren't self-driving across town to a repossession lot, if that's what you're thinking.