4 ms·
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 cer
by FabHK 5y ago
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 5y agoI 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.
- bluGill 5y agoMarketing is admissible in court as evidence of intent.
- paxys 5y agoThat would be the case if they didn't also have controls in place to prevent the driver from disengaging while autopilot was active.
- bagacrap 5y agoare you suggesting any developer of autonomous driving systems can straight up ignore this law as long as they make sure the system requires the presence of a human?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- paxys 5y agoYes? Tesla isn't the only company making driver assist systems. I have the equivalent functionality in my Genesis right now and no one is making noise about it.
- bluGill 5y agoThe marketing is defense against any claims that you bypassed a safety, since marketing is saying publicly the safety systems are not needed. My company has lost in court about similar cases where the court decided that the marketing picture showing someone closer than the warning label says is safe means we don't believe the warning label and so we are liable when a customer gets too close to cutting blades.
- clankyclanker 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. 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.