13 ms·
California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD”
- trothamel 5y agoUnless 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 5y agoYes, 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.
- mikeyouse 5y agoRight - 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.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoSo 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).
- JakeTheAndroid 5y agoCalifornia 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 5y agoThey’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-restrictions-explained-video/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-autopilot-europe-restriction...
- JakeTheAndroid 5y agoYeah, 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 5y agoI 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.
- mikeyouse 5y agoYeah 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.
- HWR_14 5y agoI'm pretty sure Levels 1-5 classification far predate self-driving classifications.
- simondotau 5y agoIt’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.
- lolc 5y ago> 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-testing-without-a-driver-adopted-regulatory-text-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/autonomous-vehicles-testi...
- sroussey 5y agoTesla 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 5y agoAnd don't forget to read the comment you're replying to!
- nemothekid 5y agoFrom 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?
- voz_ 5y agoTelsa 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 5y agoHave you personally used Tesla's products in California?
- voz_ 5y agoWhat 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.
- cagr 5y agoI'm asking because I'm surprised you wrote that having been a user. Seems I have a very different experience as a customer than the people who have a problem with them.
- dqpb 5y agoElectric cars were a joke until Tesla showed up
- somethoughts 5y agoI 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-driverless-pilot-california/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/14/pony-ai-suspension-driverl...
- maxdo 5y agoI 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.
- soperj 5y agoDon't do beta testing with machines that can kill people in public. End of story.
- maxdo 5y agoAny 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.
- maxdo 5y ago>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 5y agoPrecisely 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.” The FSD Beta, as it is supplied to end users, is not capable of performing the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person.
- bagacrap 5y agoThis interpretation of the law renders it totally useless, because tacking on the requirement for a human presence is trivially easy. As the author points out, the intent of the law is to enforce certain restrictions on any system that is intended to eventually become fully automated. And clearly Tesla is testing a system, and the system is supposed to be fully automated one day.
- simondotau 5y agoI don’t agree that it makes the law useless. An autonomous vehicle is of extremely limited incremental value if it requires persistent driver engagement at every moment. Technology like we’re seeing in FSD Beta is going to be the next big road safety revolution. Even if it never becomes an autonomous vehicle, repackaged as a passive safety suite, the technology is already good enough to be a collision avoidance system orders of magnitude better than any other on the market.
- kjksf 5y agoIf 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.
- droopyEyelids 5y agoIsn'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 5y agoThere 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 5y agoOoooh. 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.
- superjan 5y agohttps://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fsd https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fsd
- viktorcode 5y ago>... as Tesla's engineering and marketing have become more aggressive. I get aggressive marketing. What is aggressive engineering?
- maxdo 5y agoBS from author , Tesla don't market FSD Beta at all. They market autopilot, it's a totally different system
- darkerside 5y agoWilling to take more risks with what they are deploying?
- darknavi 5y agoOn our team we call them "code crimes".
- maxdo 5y agoCan 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 5y agoDoes it not have 0 death or injuries because they kick you out of the beta for not driving perfectly?
- maxdo 5y agoyep, that proves their model actually *WORKS*
- simondotau 5y agoFor all the claims I've read about Tesla supposedly misleading people, I have yet to see any evidence that someone with access to the FSD beta was ever misled by Tesla about it.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y agoTesting word processing software on your users via beta is really no problem. Testing autodrive software on your users, which might kill them, is wrong. Add in that the messaging that the car will drive itself (ie that it's something other than level 2 automation) and the poor quality of the software and it's not hard to see that Tesla's behaviour is self-serving and repugnant.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- paxys 5y agoThe author of the article is incorrect in their understanding of what FSD is. They imply several times that Tesla is running the beta to test an actual driverless system, which is illegal. Despite the name and any marketing claims, the system CANNOT run without active 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).
- Pyramus 5y agoAre you saying FSD will never be full self driving? Where is indication/evidence that that's Tesla's intention?
- paxys 5y agoI am saying that the current iteration of FSD that they are testing on the streets is not self driving as the California law defines it since there need to be hands on the wheel at all times. If/when they ever remove the requirement we can revisit the legality of their operation, but that is not of concern today.
- Pyramus 5y agoBut then you are back to square one - the point of contention: Without the checks, it's a self-driving system, but it can't do so safely (yet), hence the checks. And as you said, there seems to be an intention to be full self-driving, without checks, at some point in the future.