Traditional automakers have been programming their vehicles to work exactly the same way for a decade+, ever since the Toyota stuck accelerator debacle. My last two cars both ignored throttle input when the brake was depressed.

I was more referring to its power and size, you need to figure out that your still accelerating when you've released pressure on the accelerator and you need to switch pedals to break.

Where are you going to be after half a second of maximum acceleration in a 6600lb cybertruck?

0-60 time is 2.6 seconds, or 10.32m/s^2 if it’s evenly distributed. So from zero you’d be doing 11.5mph in 0.5s (and travelled a little over four feet).

But importantly, it looks like this is more of a ratchet effect… so if your pedal is stuck at 100%, it’s because you pressed it that far (even if intending it to be momentary). That’s not something you’d normally do in a parking lot full of nuns, you’re probably on a highway with some time to react and press the brake. My guess is that’s why we haven’t seen a tragic accident out of this.

> Being in a Cybertruck with a stuck accel pedal is way safer than in a traditional truck

I'd bet there isn't a current truck on the market that doesn't cut the throttle when you hit the brake. Basically all cars now.

Until the brake pedal falls off as well

Stopping is better than unavoidable runaway acceleration

There is no "physics", unless you're relying on falling fast without a parachute or something like that.

In this case you're relying on mechanics to be bug free as opposed to software. To imply that any car is designed and built in such a way that it can only fail if physics itself fails is rather arrogant. There are comments here in the thread pointing to the long lists of bugs with non-drive-by-wire cars.

Mechanics may well be easier to design correctly and test, sure. But get out with "physics".

> To imply that any car is designed and built in such a way that it can only fail if physics itself fails is rather arrogant

You're putting words in my mouth. All I'm saying is that direct physical connections between things are much more reliable and straightforward than software connections between things. Of course no system is perfect.

There is not a direct physical connection between the brake pedal and the brakes, or the acceleration pedal and the... not even sure what this would be. The n admission valves on the cylinders? Unless you consider "direct" as "passing through 5-50 different parts that each has an effect on the next in the chain", which is the definition of indirect. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm pointing out you're using the wrong words.

You're neither relying on "physics", which would mean a failure of the system would be caused by a failure of "physics", meaning something like the Maxwell's ecuations turn out to be wrong, nor on "direct connection", unless the brake pedal is directly pushing on the brake rotor, which is obviously false.

Of course there's no problem with saying you'd rather rely on mechanics or hydraulics than electronics or software. Though, to use words your way, tesla is not relying on "software", but on "math".

Source?

This very case itself, of the accelerator pedal coming loose and jamming, was in fact a mechanical problem.

Other comments above have more examples of stuck accelerator wires and more.

Mechanics wear and tear and allow for human override and human error, software introduces complexity. Both have their own set of issues, neither are perfect, one can’t say either of them is inherently more reliable.

Fly by wire throttles have been commonplace in cars since the early-to-mid 00s.

Yeah except it has a 0-60mph time of 2.6 seconds. You're probably already travelling at at least 20 so you have 1-2 seconds to figure out what's going on before you crash. Good luck.