8 ms·

> 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 capa

by 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 ago
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 5y ago
  And don't forget to read the comment you're replying to!
- nemothekid 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Yeah, I don’t think they mean to ban cruise control, so it is confusing.
  - nickff 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 5y ago
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.”
- _jal 5y ago
  I guess Tesla feels you can "actively monitor" from the back seat? Or did those people defeat some safety?
  - zaroth 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      There is another way to get it to stop alarming. Don't look at your phone while you're driving.
    - tmp_anon_22 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
Then Tesla should disable it in California.
jliptzin 5y ago
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.
- kenchan 5y ago
  Comments from owners are very important. It seems like the people who do not use FSD/own a Tesla have more complaints than people who use FSD/own a Tesla. Anecdotally, I know over a dozen people who own a Tesla, use FSD daily, and have zero complaints. I use FSD daily with no issues. I get updates every other week or so that makes little improvements that I actually notice and feel while driving. My biggest stress while using FSD is deciding what music to listen to.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    People who have spent thousands of dollars to do X are biased towards thinking X is a good idea.
zozbot234 5y ago
Last I checked, Tesla "FSD" was still a plain old SAE Level 2 system. It needs close monitoring and physical control by a human operator at all times, no exceptions, no ifs or buts. They're slowly inching towards adding SAE Level 3 in uninteresting, passively safe situations (like enabling the car to roll forward in a traffic jam). We're nowhere near a system that can actively "drive itself" in any real sense. The attempts we've seen (by Tesla and others) have been ludicrously ineffective and unsafe.
- nradov 5y ago
  GM has promised an SAE Level 3 system in 2023 but so far it's still vaporware. https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/financial-resources/articles/ultra-cruise.html https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/financial-resources/articl...
- ajross 5y ago
  > [FSD beta] needs close monitoring and physical control by a human operator at all times, no exceptions, no ifs or buts. It requires it, for sure, because there are still bugs and edges. It really doesn't "need" it, not for routine driving. My car drives me around now. Zero-disengagement drives are the rule now, not the exception. And where I do take control it's never really been a "safety" situation in the sense of an impending collision. It's because the car is being a jerk and not letting someone merge, or making a poor lane change, or trying to "go around" cars stopped at a light, etc... Really, it's pretty amazing. No, it's not done. But the kind of hyperbole you're deploying there just isn't correct anymore. Have you not had a ride yet? Seriously, call a friend and get a ride.

by lolc 5y ago

sroussey 5y ago

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 5y ago
And don't forget to read the comment you're replying to!
nemothekid 5y ago
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 5y ago
  Yeah, I don’t think they mean to ban cruise control, so it is confusing.
- nickff 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 5y ago

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.”

_jal 5y ago
I guess Tesla feels you can "actively monitor" from the back seat? Or did those people defeat some safety?
- zaroth 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    There is another way to get it to stop alarming. Don't look at your phone while you're driving.
  - tmp_anon_22 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

TigeriusKirk 5y ago

Then Tesla should disable it in California.

jliptzin 5y ago

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.

kenchan 5y ago
Comments from owners are very important. It seems like the people who do not use FSD/own a Tesla have more complaints than people who use FSD/own a Tesla. Anecdotally, I know over a dozen people who own a Tesla, use FSD daily, and have zero complaints. I use FSD daily with no issues. I get updates every other week or so that makes little improvements that I actually notice and feel while driving. My biggest stress while using FSD is deciding what music to listen to.
- kadoban 5y ago
  People who have spent thousands of dollars to do X are biased towards thinking X is a good idea.

zozbot234 5y ago

Last I checked, Tesla "FSD" was still a plain old SAE Level 2 system. It needs close monitoring and physical control by a human operator at all times, no exceptions, no ifs or buts. They're slowly inching towards adding SAE Level 3 in uninteresting, passively safe situations (like enabling the car to roll forward in a traffic jam). We're nowhere near a system that can actively "drive itself" in any real sense. The attempts we've seen (by Tesla and others) have been ludicrously ineffective and unsafe.

nradov 5y ago
GM has promised an SAE Level 3 system in 2023 but so far it's still vaporware. https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/financial-resources/articles/ultra-cruise.html https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/financial-resources/articl...
ajross 5y ago
> [FSD beta] needs close monitoring and physical control by a human operator at all times, no exceptions, no ifs or buts. It requires it, for sure, because there are still bugs and edges. It really doesn't "need" it, not for routine driving. My car drives me around now. Zero-disengagement drives are the rule now, not the exception. And where I do take control it's never really been a "safety" situation in the sense of an impending collision. It's because the car is being a jerk and not letting someone merge, or making a poor lane change, or trying to "go around" cars stopped at a light, etc... Really, it's pretty amazing. No, it's not done. But the kind of hyperbole you're deploying there just isn't correct anymore. Have you not had a ride yet? Seriously, call a friend and get a ride.