No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car or a software update.
There are really two issues here. The FSD and the OTA updates. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and blame OTA updates just because Tesla's FSD software is bad. The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars much safer by reducing the friction for these type of safety fixes.
True, but let us also acknowledge the immense systems safety downsides of OTA updates given the lack of effective automotive regulation in the US (and to varying degrees globally).
OTA updates can also be utilized to hide safety-critical system defects that did exist on a fleet for a time.
Also, the availability of OTA update machinery might cause internal validation processes to be watered down (for cost and time-to-market reasons) because there is an understanding that defects can always be fixed relatively seamlessly after the vehicle has been delivered.
These are serious issues and are entirely flying under the radar.
And this is why US automotive regulators need to start robustly scrutinizing internal processes at automakers, instead of arbitrary endpoints.
The US automotive regulatory system largely revolves around an "Honor Code" with automakers - and that is clearly problematic when dealing with opaque, "software-defined" vehicles that leave no physical evidence of a prior defect that may have caused death or injury in some impacted vehicles before an OTA update was pushed to the fleet.
EDIT: Fixed some minor spelling/word selection errors.
Tesla didn't choose the word "recall." The legal process known as "recall" chose the word. It's not like people at Tesla debated over whether or not to call it a "recall" instead of a "software update."
If Tesla had it their way, they'd have quietly slipped it into any other regular software update alongside updates to the stupid farting app, if they cared to fix it at all.
When a company issues a recall, it's because there's pressure from regulators, or investors, or both, and/or a risk of class action lawsuits and fines. Using the word "recall" isn't a preference or even a synonym. It's a legal move meant to protect them.
If Tesla gets sued over a flaw, "we issued a software update" isn't legally defensible. "We cooperated with official government bodies to conduct a recall," does because a recall describes an official process that requires manufacturers do very specific things in specific ways as prescribed by law. In exchange, manufacturers are legally protected (usually) from lawsuits related to that flaw.
A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related defect existed, the products impacted and what the manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action.
Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center due to configuration issues. Only a small number of vehicles may require that type of corrective action, but the possibility exists.
Historically, there exist product recalls (especially outside of the automotive domain) where the product in question does not have to be returned (replacement parts are shipped to the impacted customers, for example).
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/573.6
(Except for tires.)
You (and the parent comment) are correct.
My comment was not intended to argue that a recall prescribed a particular corrective action.
ah, a made up term in order to justify your point. how convenient.
I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means at all.
This should be labeled "holy shit need to fix this now, people could die"
