[HN Gopher] California's AV testing rules apply to Tesla's "FSD"
___________________________________________________________________
California's AV testing rules apply to Tesla's "FSD"
Author : camjohnson26
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-12-17 18:05 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cyberlaw.stanford.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (cyberlaw.stanford.edu)
| lolc wrote:
| > Tesla's "FSD" has the "capability to drive a vehicle without
| the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator,"
| but it does not yet have the capability to do so _safely_. Hence
| the human drivers. And the testing. On public roads. In
| California. For which the state has a specific law. That Tesla is
| not following.
|
| I couldn't find it spelled out in the article what portions of
| the law Tesla is not following. But upon reading it[0] it is
| clear Tesla could not possibly comply. There are requirements
| such as reporting in advance which roads the cars will be tested
| on. (I assume saying "all roads" would be a non-starter with the
| DMV.) And each test-driver needs an individual permit. So if it
| is found that Tesla's FSD falls under this law, they have to
| disable or severely limit FSD in California.
|
| I found the argument in the article quite strong that indeed FSD
| falls under that law. So I'm wondering what will happen next.
| Will the California DMV dare anger those who sunk money into FSD?
| Or will the DMV just turn a blind eye until there's a crash with
| a stroller and that will force them to act?
|
| [0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/autonomous-vehicles-
| testi...
| [deleted]
| jliptzin wrote:
| I have to have my hands on the wheel and looking at the road
| near-constantly otherwise autopilot turns off, even if I look
| at my phone the car warns me to pay attention to the road. I am
| 100% a safer driver with autopilot on (on the highways - FSD on
| side streets isn't there yet) because I can focus my attention
| on higher level details of my surroundings, such as a semi
| merging onto the highway 3 lanes over or a driver swerving in
| and out of traffic several cars away, instead of micromanaging
| the wheel and pedals to stay in my lane and a safe distance
| from the car in front of me - the autopilot handles that
| flawlessly.
| [deleted]
| zaroth wrote:
| The reason Tesla does not fall under this legislation seems
| pretty simple to me, but IANAL...
|
| The law applies to vehicles with the "capability to drive a
| vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a
| human operator".
|
| Tesla FSD does not have this capability. If the driver does not
| consistently demonstrate that they are actively monitoring the
| vehicle and in physical control, then the "AutoPilot(TM)"
| feature deactivates.
|
| _"An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles
| equipped with one or more systems that provide driver
| assistance and /or enhance safety benefits but are not capable
| of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic
| driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control
| or active monitoring of a natural person."_
| akira2501 wrote:
| So, in summary Tesla "fully self driving" does not actually
| have the capability to "fully self drive." It seems like the
| hazy marketing around this feature hasn't been a great idea.
| FabHK wrote:
| The article addresses that explicitly.
|
| Basically, the DMV is saying "oi, if you're testing a system
| that's capable of driving by itself, you have to follow
| certain rules"!
|
| Then you reply "No, we're still testing it, and it requires
| human supervision, so it's not capable of driving by itself,
| so the rules don't apply!"
|
| > "FSD" is aspirationally an automated driving system. The
| name unequivocally communicates Tesla's goal for development,
| and the company's "beta" qualifier communicates the stage of
| that development. Tesla intends for its "full self-driving"
| to become, well, full self-driving, and its limited beta
| release is a key step in that process.
|
| > Tesla's "FSD" has the "capability to drive a vehicle
| without the active physical control or monitoring by a human
| operator," but it does not yet have the capability to do so
| safely.
| paxys wrote:
| I think the "loophole" here is that - despite the marketing
| claims - Tesla is NOT testing a system which is designed to
| run without active monitoring by a human. This is unlike
| Cruise, Waymo etc. who do fall under this law.
| clankyclanker wrote:
| > Tesla's "FSD" has the "capability to drive a vehicle
| without the active physical control or monitoring by a
| human operator," but it does not yet have the capability to
| do so safely.
|
| It's that bit that seems like it would make Tesla's actions
| fall even further under the DMV's purview. Is their
| argument really going to be that they can't be held to
| safety regulations because it's too unsafe to be
| regulatable? That's like saying you've stolen too much
| money to be guilty of robbing the bank.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| I suppose it depends on what "capable" means.
|
| If you mean that a Tesla with FSD can be used to drive
| without human control, then that is definitely true since the
| tests for driver alertness can be bypassed.
|
| If you mean that a Tesla with FSD has the level of
| technological sophistication needed to drive autonomously,
| that is also true: if you bypass the checks for driver
| alertness, the Tesla can continue driving (albeit not
| _safely_ ). This is well beyond the range of most "driver
| assistance" technologies.
|
| If you mean that a Tesla can drive autonomously _without_
| bypassing any checks for driver alertness, then no, it
| cannot, but only _assuming_ these checks never fail and are
| always sufficient to prevent it from being used without
| active monitoring.
|
| Tesla's case seems weak here, in that it relies on an
| extremely narrow interpretation of the law, according to
| which a system that _can_ drive autonomously but tries to
| prevent you from doing so is not considered truly autonomous.
|
| But IANAL, so perhaps Tesla has a better case than I'd
| assume.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| CHP has alleged cases of drunk or sleepy drivers who disabled
| the dead man's switch and were somehow in a full self-driving
| mode. Because people who presumably aren't mechanics or
| automative engineers can enable an unsupervised self-driving
| mode, it seems like it might fall under this law.
| _jal wrote:
| I guess Tesla feels you can "actively monitor" from the back
| seat? Or did those people defeat some safety?
| zaroth wrote:
| Yes they weighted the seats, slipped out from a seatbelt,
| and weighted the steering wheel.
|
| Newer software released in the last couple months also adds
| some kind of gaze tracking using the interior camera -
| because the car now alerts constantly if I am looking at my
| phone and will disengage auto-pilot and put me in the
| penalty box if I keep doing it. I don't know how that tech
| would react if it didn't see a human in the drivers seat at
| all, but I imagine ultimately that will be another safety
| measure. Tesla has a lot of incentive to cut down on these
| types of pranks.
|
| For those that don't know, disengage keeps autopilot
| running but with an extremely annoying alarm and massive
| red warning on the display, and as soon as you take over
| the penalty box means you can't re-engage "AutoPilot(TM)"
| until the next drive.
| jedberg wrote:
| There is another way to get it to stop alarming. Don't
| look at your phone while you're driving.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Please don't look at your phone while actively driving.
| tshaddox wrote:
| One guy had this foot on the wheel from the back seat. Not
| sure how/if they defeat the face/eye detection.
| maxdo wrote:
| that was old tech, and it's not part of the BETA topic is
| about
| sroussey wrote:
| Tesla requires active monitoring by a human operator despite
| the misleading name that FSD implies, and despite their boasts.
|
| Don't forget to read the Terms of Service!
| phh wrote:
| And don't forget to read the comment you're replying to!
| nemothekid wrote:
| From the linked regulatory text:
|
| > _(a) "Autonomous mode" is the status of vehicle operation
| where technology that is a combination of hardware and
| software, remote and /or on-board, performs the dynamic
| driving task, with or without a natural person actively
| supervising the autonomous technology's performance of the
| dynamic driving task. An autonomous vehicle is operating or
| driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with
| the autonomous technology engaged_
|
| The "active monitoring" part doesn't seem to exempt them from
| this law. What I'm not sure is - wouldn't this also apply to
| high cruise control / following?
| sroussey wrote:
| Yeah, I don't think they mean to ban cruise control, so it
| is confusing.
| nickff wrote:
| This law seems to be vague in critical ways:
|
| > _" performs the dynamic driving task, with or without a
| natural person actively supervising the autonomous
| technology's performance of the dynamic driving task"_
|
| The terms _' dynamic driving task'_ and _' supervivising'_
| are critical here, and don't seem to be clearly defined.
| Supervising could mean an absence of active physical
| control, maybe meaning a 'supervisor' without a hand on the
| steering wheel, but with access to a kill-switch. 'Dynamic
| driving task' also seems a bit vague; does this mean
| turning, changing speeds, or something else?
|
| This could be interpreted for or against Tesla; maybe
| that's what they wanted.
| jcranmer wrote:
| It specifically defines 'dynamic driving task' in the
| definitions section:
|
| > (g) "Dynamic driving task" means all of the real-time
| functions required to operate a vehicle in on-road
| traffic, excluding selection of final and intermediate
| destinations, and including without limitation: object
| and event detection, recognition, and classification;
| object and event response; maneuver planning; steering,
| turning, lane keeping, and lane changing, including
| providing the appropriate signal for the lane change or
| turn maneuver; and acceleration and deceleration.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| Then Tesla should disable it in California.
| maxdo wrote:
| Can anyone explain me what is fundamentally wrong with Tesla
| approach emotions aside. Tesla rolled out FSD Beta(not Autopilot)
| to a very small group of people. After been in public for almost
| a year, it has 0 death or injuries. It is not ideal. Tesla
| clearly understand that and _communicate_ that to every user of
| FSD Beta. They limit amount of people using it. Also they limit
| the way you use it introducing lots of points of control so that
| you pay attention at the road.
|
| EDIT: They will kick you out of the beta for a slight miss-doing
| such as phone or distraction. You will not get into this beta if
| your driving skills are not perfect. Even if you press a break
| too hard all the time, it's a passive sign to them your driving
| is not perfect.
|
| They invest billions of dollars in infrastructure so that
| application of this feature can grow. Tesla use testing data to
| eventually enable it in public. That will occur only once they
| are confident in their security level. They attract some peoples
| money who admire their goals to save peoples life.
|
| What's wrong with that? Why people getting mad every time they
| hear aspirational name Full Self driving. What is the logic
| behind it?
| k8sToGo wrote:
| Does it not have 0 death or injuries because they kick you out
| of the beta for not driving perfectly?
| maxdo wrote:
| yep, that proves their model actually *WORKS*
| simondotau wrote:
| You're not likely to get a useful response, because it's
| ultimately an argument over semantics -- and there is no
| evidence that anyone who actually has access to this FSD beta
| has been misled by Tesla.
| kjksf wrote:
| If I understand his argument correctly, Tesla would be in
| compliance if they allowed anyone who buys FSD to use it
| immediately, just like Ford allows anyone to use Blue Cruise on
| Mach-E.
|
| One of the essential parts of the argument is that Tesla falls
| under current law because they are selective about who they allow
| to use FSD.
|
| So Tesla could trivially be in compliance if they ditch the
| careful rollout. Give the software to anyone who pays for
| (instead of, as is the case currently, slowly expanding the
| number of people).
|
| And maybe change the name to Yellow Cruise instead of FSD and
| stop telling people it's beta software.
|
| And voila, compliant with CA DMV legislation.
|
| I hope that this person understands his own argument in which
| case it's hard to believe that he is concerned about safety.
| renzo88 wrote:
| >I hope that this person understands his own argument in which
| case it's hard to believe that he is concerned about safety.
|
| I think he understands his own argument. I don't think you
| don't understand the implications of why they haven't rolled it
| out.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| Isn't Blue Cruise only available on select mapped highways, and
| only described as a SAE J3016 level-2 system? That seems to be
| a crucial difference.
|
| ```The name ["Full Self Driving"] unequivocally communicates
| Tesla's goal for development, and the company's "beta"
| qualifier communicates the stage of that development. Tesla
| intends for its "full self-driving" to become, well, full self-
| driving, and its limited beta release is a key step in that
| process.```
|
| Seems like your analysis skipped that part.
| maxdo wrote:
| There is a huge difference between goal and actual state. You
| can't enable FSD Beta without clicking several checkboxes in
| clear language saying you have to pay attention every second
| on the road, you're responsible for single action of a car on
| the road. And it provides more restriction on a driver
| compares to regular driving, such as distraction camera
| monitor, phone monitor, hands off the wheel etc..
|
| It's so boring to see how trolls have no numbers, no real
| issues but just trying attack the marketing name/aspirational
| goal.
| MBCook wrote:
| Ooooh. Checkboxes. That will definitely prevent abuse.
|
| Even if the Tesla owner is responsible about it, other
| people could drive the car and they wouldn't have to agree
| to anything. They can go nuts.
|
| I've seen plenty of videos online too. I have no interest
| in driving next to a car being driven by a crazy AI that
| seems to have the driving skill of a 13-year-old playing
| GTA and not know the rules.
|
| I don't have a Tesla. I was forcibly opted into this
| program. There is nothing to prevent other people from
| doing stupid and ridiculous things with this system and
| seriously injuring or killing me.
|
| Heck, they can do the right thing. I've seen videos were
| trying to take over control doesn't seem to work. Where it
| tries to drive directly in the traffic in the wrong lane.
|
| This is insanely dangerous and I want no part of it but I
| don't have any mechanism to stop it but to hope regulators
| do something. Tesla put MY life on the line.
| maxdo wrote:
| They use eye tracking camera, to prevent you from lookin
| not on the road, sensors of the wheel, and also checking
| you're not on the phone. They doing way more compares to
| any car maker to keep you safe as non owner of the tesla.
| I guess been so emotional you better stay in your
| basement until Level 4-5 will become a reality.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| I assume you refer to the invite-only beta with FSD that
| works on city streets, but Tesla's naming is
| (intentionally?) very confusing.
|
| It would go a long way if Tesla simply renamed the invite-
| only program to FSD Alpha, and continued referring to
| "enhanced Autopilot" that's available to everyone for an
| additional fee as FSD Beta.
| paxys wrote:
| If they could roll it out to everyone they would do so in an
| instant. They cannot though because the system is not ready and
| needs a lot of testing, which is the point the author is
| making.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Yeah, regardless of this supposed legal incentive, I don't
| see any reason why Tesla wouldn't roll it out to everyone if
| they thought it was ready for that.
| sovnade wrote:
| It's 100% not ready. There's so many videos people are
| posting about it nearly hitting pedestrians, going the wrong
| way down a 1 way, nearly going straight into a curb, etc -
| all of these only stopped by the driver quickly grabbing the
| wheel and taking control.
|
| It also doesn't seem to help that enabling FSD on Tesla makes
| it use the visual camera only, which seems counterproductive.
| The ultrasonic sensors seem to be critically important
| because visuals can be obstructed easier.
| snek_case wrote:
| > There's so many videos people are posting about it nearly
| hitting pedestrians
|
| Can you post a link to a video of FSD nearly hitting a
| pedestrian? Because searching on YouTube, I couldn't find a
| single one.
| voz_ wrote:
| Telsa is one of the most evil, malicious, companies, in that it
| knows that what it has is well short of self-driving, and yet
| markets it as such. This leads to deaths. Their marketers have
| blood on their hands.
| cagr wrote:
| Have you personally used Tesla's products in California?
| voz_ wrote:
| What a strange question. It reads like one of those weirdly-
| specific tshirts.
|
| And yes. I have personally used Tesla's products in
| California, in May, when it wasn't raining, after a small
| lunch I made at home.
| dqpb wrote:
| Electric cars were a joke until Tesla showed up
| athenot wrote:
| My Nissan LEAFs were no joke. Sure they didn't have a fancy
| 17" LCD display, but they were good cars in their own right.
| I leased 2 of them.
| singlow wrote:
| OK but to be accurate, the Tesla Roadster came out before
| the Nissan Leaf.
| maxdo wrote:
| leaf was a joke as a product in hot and cold weather due to
| their non working cooling/heating battery system. Even
| though it's perfectly working in some cases.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| You would have to be delusional to really believe this.
| paxys wrote:
| The author of the article is incorrect in understanding what FSD
| is. Despite the name and any marketing claims, the system is NOT
| intended to run without human monitoring and intervention. This
| isn't just for the testing phase. There will need to be human
| hands on the wheel at all times at full release as well.
|
| This alone exempts it from the California law, which is written
| for driverless testing (the kind Waymo and Cruise do).
| maxdo wrote:
| I guess what's happening here, is that legacy automakers not able
| to make EV's with decent profit ( that's real numbers ), hence
| their production is limited.
|
| Traditional media creating so much buzz to slow down and make
| tesla look bad. I can see every bad news about tesla re-printed
| everywhere. 1 car got on fire boom... every car outlet re prints.
| BMW recalled 1M+ cars because of fire risk and some of them still
| catching on fire on the road while driving on a highway, no one
| even heard of it.
|
| Regarding the article. Author probably never tried to drive FSD.
| If driver doesn't look on a road for few seconds few time it will
| ban you from this feature. They use camera, sensors of steering
| wheel etc... It is very aggressively RESTRICTED , locked LEVEL 2
| system. It's only available for few thousands of people. Regular
| autopliot works only on highways and very limited.
|
| FSD name is clearly aspirational. Once they will have a
| confidence they will switch from level 2 to 3 etc.. By
| removing/easing restrictions. Only AFTER THAT it will become
| eligible to a different regulations.
|
| The only debate here could be how aggressive you are about this
| level 2 restrictions while building LEVEL 5 system.
|
| I am part of this Beta program. My personal feeling after using
| this system: you pay attention more compares to regular driving.
| It tuned this way it will rather do a false positive distraction
| decision.
|
| And yeah, current version is so far away from LEVEL 4 or 5. And
| it's not usable for every day. The only use of it try, test,
| provide feedback, turn off , and use the car in a traditional
| way. There is 0 amount of people who is using this feature not
| for testings purposes.
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _Traditional media creating so much buzz to slow down and
| make tesla look bad._
|
| That's a complicated conspiracy theory. The truth is more
| simple: Tesla is making itself look bad.
|
| 5 years ago Tesla said that all of its cars being produced at
| that time had "the hardware needed for full self-driving
| capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of
| a human driver":
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...
|
| That was a lie.
|
| > _FSD name is clearly aspirational._
|
| Super. So when will Tesla start refunding everyone who paid for
| "full self driving"? Until the "aspiration" becomes an actual
| delivered product giving refunds is the only honest thing to
| do.
| davewritescode wrote:
| Not everything is a conspiracy against Tesla by the media. A
| lot of folks have legitimate concerns about the way Tesla
| markets, tests and operates it's self-driving systems and
| educates it's customers about the limitations.
|
| This is a video from 5 years ago describing Tesla's self
| driving features.
|
| https://vimeo.com/188105076
|
| I personally feel like Musk is writing checks his engineers
| can't cash.
|
| A lot of the criticism of Tesla is invited by a stock price
| which a lot of folks think are propped up by mistruths and
| exaggerations about the future of company and the feasibility
| of it's vision.
|
| Also, quite frankly I find the term "legacy automaker"
| infuriating. Toyota builds 9 million cars a year or 18x what
| Tesla does and Toyota has a legendary reputation for quality
| and reliability.
| maxdo wrote:
| Tela's current production rate is at ~1m a year atm. And they
| doubled amount of their factories in 2022. So not 18x but 9x
| now and 4.5x a year or two after. They are in the same league
| nowadays. And they are doing that with 3 factories in 2
| countries now. Compare that with Toyota :)
|
| Also Tesla outsold Toyota/Lexus in almost every country they
| operate in segments/pricing they compete by absolute volume.
|
| Toyota has also a reputation like any legacy car maker a
| reputation for selling you some crap like GPS for 10x the
| price. At least Tesla's overpriced autopilot approach works
| towards safety( the end goal level 5 system). And if you
| don't believe in it , not buying it will not make you getting
| from point a to point B more complicated.
|
| Tesla also sell every car "full package" in legacy car makers
| terms. Every camera, every seat ( except color), every screen
| detail, speakers , gps is the same in every model from the
| cheapest to the most expensive. Compare that to legacy makers
| trying to get 10x of every simple feature like seats heating.
| You need an App? Pay for it. You need firmaware upgrade go to
| service and pay for it..
|
| Speaking of safety tesla's cars has always excellent security
| tests. Toyota don't. There are many things toyota lags
| behind. Like multi-media, autonomous driving, connectivity,
| software over the air, battery tech, electric motor design,
| manufacturing. So yeah, they are legacy atm. Legacy can have
| a good reputation, even perfect nothing wrong with it.
|
| They are legacy because as of 2021 they bet on legacy tech,
| their way to sell cars is legacy, their approach to packaging
| is legacy, their approach to safety is legacy... their way to
| produce cars is legacy.
|
| Toyota has quite good roadmap for 2-3 years, maybe they will
| get into modern world eventually.
| soperj wrote:
| Don't do beta testing with machines that can kill people in
| public. End of story.
| maxdo wrote:
| Any person can get distracted and kill people in public. Most
| of the cars doesn't have distraction mechanisms like FSD
| Beta. e.g. if you're on the phone, FSD will not work. Lets
| ban people from roads according to your logic. FSD Beta
| killed 0 people since 1 year of program, humanity killed and
| made millions people injured due to human mistakes. Any Level
| 4-5 system deployed on a large scale with save millions of
| people, prevent even more people from been disabled in the
| future.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Thousands of people die every year because of human errors.
| Do you think this should continue forever? If not how do
| suggest we create software without testing it in real world
| conditions with a safety driver who can monitor and take over
| at any time?
|
| Do you know how many people have died because they had a
| medical emergency while driving? Do you think that should
| continue forever?
| 0_____0 wrote:
| If you actually want to save lives, you might start at the
| top. Driving is hazardous for operators and for bystanders,
| and kills 40,000 people in the US alone every year. Build
| cities such that the majority of people don't need or want
| to drive, and viola, you're saving lives.
|
| And the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
| human effort and engineering put towards making cars that
| drive themselves can go to something else.
| Retric wrote:
| Most deaths from driving occur outside of cities.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| could you clarify what you mean by 'outside of cities?'
| simondotau wrote:
| It would probably be more accurate to say 'outside of
| city streets.' The threat of death tends to scale with
| vehicle speed.
| maxdo wrote:
| a very good joke, what's your estimate to rebuild every
| city and road in the world lol. Billions of dollars it's
| a very tiny small fraction of this money.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| It's a matter of priority. Many people have this concept
| of Amsterdam and Utrecht as having forever been a cycling
| paradise, but the reality is that they were choked with
| cars and smog until the 70s. The political will existed
| to prioritize non-automotive modalities, and a few
| decades later you have what we see today.
| davewritescode wrote:
| I think testing these systems on public roads is 100%
| reasonable if we all have open access to data. I'm not
| talking about raw driving data, but aggregate metrics about
| how well the system is operating and limitations are
| clearly communicated.
|
| Selling a customer a car with a "full self driving" feature
| while burying the actual functionality in a legal agreement
| displayed on screen in the vehicle.
| simondotau wrote:
| That misrepresents how Tesla sells FSD. The actual
| current functionality is shown in clear bullet points at
| the time of sale. It is not buried in a legal agreement.
| viktorcode wrote:
| This requirement is impossible to fulfil because there are no
| cars that can't kill people on public roads. Regardless of
| means of driving.
| superjan wrote:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fsd
| somethoughts wrote:
| I think a critical point to make is that this is not actually
| about Tesla/Waymo. Its about creating guidelines that are
| generally applicable to all companies pursuing self driving car
| technologies.
|
| So it applies to Tesla but perhaps more importantly companies
| that are trying to copy-cat style mimic Tesla's move fast
| approach to SDC for tech advantage reasons/marketing PR/save
| money and perhaps are cuting even more corners than Tesla.
|
| Some examples I hear about are Nuro and maybe even Cruise,
| Aurora.
|
| And then imagine a host of other companies as well - Faraday
| Future, Comma.ai, Pony.ai, Xpeng, etc. Its unclear at this point
| that these companies shouldn't have some oversight/held to some
| standard operating procedures.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/14/pony-ai-suspension-driverl...
| trothamel wrote:
| Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is just a person's opinion,
| not an opinion or ruling from a government agency. Interesting,
| but without any legal authority.
| falcolas wrote:
| Yes, these things will only shake out when someone takes Tesla
| to court.
|
| However the opinion of a professor of law, who is also an
| engineer, is not something to so easily dismiss. IMO, it means
| that Tesla is likely to find themselves in court.
| simondotau wrote:
| It's easy for a legal argument to appear convincing in
| isolation. If you haven't heard from the other side, it's
| probably appropriate to maintain some reservations, as I dare
| say that Tesla's lawyers would see things differently.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Right - he helped California develop their standards and was
| one of the coauthors for the "Level 1/2/3/4/5" SAE
| classification for self-driving. His opinion obviously isn't
| backed with the force of law, but this analysis is likely
| enough to get regulators to send Tesla a letter or two.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Levels 1-5 classification far predate self-
| driving classifications.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| So Tesla geofences FSD beta to outside California? Like
| moving their HQ to Austin? California should absolutely act
| if the law covers FSD, but it's entirely realistic for
| Tesla to jurisdiction shop (just as credit card interest
| rates are mostly set by the laws of South Dakota).
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yeah I don't know they have a good solution - but based
| on his analysis, more honest marketing (e.g. stop
| claiming things like "Drivers are only there to meet a
| legal requirement, the car will drive itself!") might be
| enough to stay on the right side of the line.
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| California is one of, if not the largest EV market in the
| US right now. Consumers by and large don't care where a
| company has their HQ, but they will be upset if they
| don't have access to features. And this impacts people
| that aren't in CA that have FSD but road trip to/through
| CA. I can't imagine this is an ideal situation for Tesla
| to be in, and they'd prefer to avoid this as much as
| possible. There isn't a really good solution here for
| them.
|
| I don't see how they can jurisdiction shop in any similar
| way to a credit card company in this instance, these are
| markedly different scenarios and services provided.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| They'll still sell FSD, they just won't offer the beta
| functionality in (or if you traverse) California due to
| "regulatory constraints." They'll continue to run FSD
| beta testing in 49 other states.
|
| In similar fashion, Autopilot has tighter operational
| constraints in parts of Europe versus the US.
|
| https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-autopilot-europe-
| restriction...
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| Yeah, they will still sell it but it wont sell to people
| living in CA which is one of the larger US markets.
| that's a non-trivial market to close your doors to for
| something like FSD. The margins on FSD have to be some of
| the best on the whole car.
|
| The EU regulations and standards are likely just as
| annoying for them, but they don't sell the same volume
| across the EU yet, and the regulations are a bit more
| consistent across the whole region. So getting a Tesla in
| one EU country will work the same in another. Which is
| just easier for a consumer.
|
| I am not saying this would end Tesla, but I can't imagine
| a world where they want it to come to that. I think they
| would look at either properly complying or some other
| workaround before just drawing a fence around FSD in CA.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| I think you're a bit confused about what's going on.
| Autopilot, FSD and FSD Beta are all different things.
|
| Autopilot is advanced cruise control, built-in and sold
| everywhere with each car.
|
| FSD is a software package you can add. It can do a few
| things, change lanes on highways, chime when the green
| light comes on and you haven't moved for a few seconds,
| etc. You can buy FSD anywhere, but not all the features
| are available everywhere. Overall, it doesn't do much
| right now. FSD Beta is a testing program you apply to and
| can join if you have a good driving record and are
| selected. Only in the US. There's at most low-digit
| thousands of people who have access to this, fewer that
| actually use it.
|
| Article is about the last bit only. Not being able to
| test FSD in California only is probably a pain, but won't
| impact much. Allowing people to test the beta only
| started a few months ago.
| Animats wrote:
| The European Union already shut down Tesla's "full self
| driving" capability
| kjksf wrote:
| No, they didn't.
|
| Tesla never enabled FSD in Europe. Currently it's only
| enabled in US. FSD couldn't possibly have been shut down
| if it was never enabled there.
|
| As far as Autopilot goes, EU limits how much software can
| steer the car that makes some of the Autopilot
| functionality not possible (e.g. to take a sharp turn you
| have, you know, turn the wheels).
|
| For that reason some Autopilot functionality is limited
| in EU.
|
| This is not anti-Tesla rule but one that affects every
| car maker and they are in the process of changing that
| rule.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Not only that, but California EV transferable credits are
| a major part of Tesla's income stream. IIRC, if Tesla
| stops selling in California, their profits go down by
| more than 50% (assuming that the other states can absorb
| the extra Teslas, which at this point is a reasonable
| assumption.)
| maxdo wrote:
| >Tesla's "FSD" has the "capability to drive a vehicle without the
| active physical control or monitoring by a human operator,"
|
| Tesla doesn't not have this capability, after few seconds not
| having your hands on the steering wheel , or not watching on the
| road , or not having a driver in a sight of camera it will ban
| you fron FSD Beta. It also monitors if you're using your Phone
| and warn you for that and after ban. This feature alone makes FSD
| safer compares to regular human :)
| simondotau wrote:
| Precisely this. Whether the authors of the legislation intended
| it or not, this mandatory requirement for continual human input
| excludes a system from their oversight.
|
| _"An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles
| equipped with one or more systems that provide driver
| assistance and /or enhance safety benefits but are not capable
| of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic
| driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control
| or active monitoring of a natural person."_
|
| FSD requires constant control of a natural person.
| viktorcode wrote:
| >... as Tesla's engineering and marketing have become more
| aggressive.
|
| I get aggressive marketing. What is aggressive engineering?
| darkerside wrote:
| Willing to take more risks with what they are deploying?
| maxdo wrote:
| BS from author , Tesla don't market FSD Beta at all. They
| market autopilot, it's a totally different system
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-17 23:00 UTC)