53 countries adopt strict FSD regulations

[diplomat33]

Again, why are you singling out semi-autonomous mode? Isnt it even MORE important that the driver is paying attention when he is driving manually? And yet these regulations disable the attention system when they are manually driving.

The assumption you seem to be making (and is implied by the regulations) is the car is more dangerous when lane keep systems are on. What evidence do you have for this? If none, on what do you base the assertion that semi-autonomous modes require monitoring when manual modes do not?

Because the driver is less likely to pay attention with a semi-autonomous system than driving manually.

In manual driving, you have every incentive to pay attention since the car cannot drive you when you are not paying attention. But in semi-autonomous mode, you have less incentive to pay attention because the car can still "drive" you when you are not paying attention. In fact, you can go miles with the car driving for you and you did not have to do anything. It can lull you into a false sense of security. So yes, it is potentially more dangerous, because you will pay less attention with semi-autonomous driving that lacks a reliable driver monitoring system than if you were driving manually.

 

[diplomat33]

What is enough then, if "being better than humans" is not enough? Being perfect? Good luck waiting for that.

Don't be silly. Nobody is asking for perfection. But being better than humans in one task is not enough because driving is a lot more than just one task like lane keeping. A system that is better than humans at one task like lane keeping but worse than humans at other tasks and not requiring the driver to pay attention, makes no sense!

And I used that photo because it illustrates a semi-autonomous system that was great at lane keeping but clearly still needed the driver to pay attention.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Hopefully this puts to rest any illusion that the current hardware can do Level 3.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

So basically, no road at all anywhere, since most divided roads have a speed limit way above this, and driving on such a road far slower than other cars is suicide. Brilliant!

Oh, come on you're from Seattle.

Pre-Covid was there any time during the day you could drive on I5 near Seattle at a speed higher than 35mph?

The only thing this does is it creates regulations legalizing some German, and Japanese cars for advanced traffic assist. This will allow people in something like a BMW X5 to text while stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

It would certainly be a nice feature to have, but not all that compelling.

 

[Tikib2020]

This is a big backwards step in my opinion. It's going to make it harder for companies like Tesla to make the jump between l2-l4.So it's going to slow the race to autonomous driving. They are going to discourage companies from developing av's in these countries.

Also its going to take a lot of the functionality out of these systems which make long drives etc less stressful.

Rather than making dumb rules like this they should create an autonomous vehicle testing organization which accesses the safety of these systems before they are allowed on the roads.

 

[jsmay311]

So, for those of us in Canada and Europe, will TESLA be disabling our FSD on dec 31 st 2020?

Will TESLA even be allowed to sell FSD in Europe and Canada now that we know it will essentially be kneecapped on dec 31st 2020?

What am I missing here?

I think the key thing here is that Tesla’s “FSD” is emphatically not actually what it claims to be (full self driving). Despite Tesla’s move in March 2019 to redefine EAP-plus-any-future-enhancements as “FSD”, it’s still just L2 (or maybe “L2+“) since the driver has to be paying attention at all times. So as far as I understand, none of the existing features/capabilities that Teslas have today would be impacted by these regulations.

But, as you alluded to, the bigger question is how this regulation affects Tesla’s plans for future enhancements of “FSD” (were they planning on jumping to L3 at some point?), and how it would affect their ability to continue to market and sell “FSD” to buyers in these countries as a promise of eventual actual Full Self Driving if the cars might lack hardware required by these regulations.

Presumably Tesla would have known that these regulations were coming down the chute, so they should already have some kind of strategy in mind for how to deal with them going forward.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I think the key thing here is that Tesla’s “FSD” is emphatically not actually what it claims to be (full self driving). Despite Tesla’s move in March 2019 to redefine EAP-plus-any-future-enhancements as “FSD”, it’s still just L2 (or maybe “L2+“) since the driver has to be paying attention at all times. So as far as I understand, none of the existing features/capabilities that Teslas have today would be impacted by these regulations.

But, as you alluded to, the bigger question is how this regulation affects Tesla’s plans for future enhancements of “FSD” (were they planning on jumping to L3 at some point?), and how it would affect their ability to continue to market and sell “FSD” to buyers in these countries as a promise of eventual actual Full Self Driving if the cars might lack hardware required by these regulations.

Presumably Tesla would have known that these regulations were coming down the chute, so they should already have some kind of strategy in mind for how to deal with them going forward.

I haven't seen any evidence that Tesla is serious about L3. Nothing about their path suggests that L3 was ever a goal. Instead Tesla has been heavily involved in advanced L2 functionality with the intent to jump to L4 at some time.

In this case they are greatly hampered by regulations in the EU that greatly restrict L2 functionality. So Tesla's biggest concern is likely that the US regulators will crack down on advanced L2 functionality. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that a lot is being put on the driver in overseeing advanced L2 systems. Like for example if a driver uses NoA extensively to pass vehicles on the freeway they might not realize on the 100th pass that the car actually turned on the right blinker.

The other thing Tesla is probably clearly aware of by now is the existing driver monitoring system doesn't have any life left to it. The EU regulators are also cracking down on this even for L2 vehicles.

So I expect Tesla to switch to a proper driver monitoring system for new vehicles either this year or next year.

How far they can go with advanced L2 functionality remains to be seen. They do seem to be in regular contact with regulatory bodies in the US like the California DMV, and up to now they seem to have allowed Tesla a lot of leeway. So a regulatory lock down in North America might not happen. Tesla also seems to be taking increasingly small careful steps. So I imagine they'll hide for years under the L2 designation.

 

[diplomat33]

I haven't seen any evidence that Tesla is serious about L3. Nothing about their path suggests that L3 was ever a goal. Instead Tesla has been heavily involved in advanced L2 functionality with the intent to jump to L4 at some time.

The only hint about L3 comes from the one email that the Tesla rep wrote to the CA DMV saying that the FSD demo was L3. But that was just that one demo. I agree that Tesla seems to be focused on advanced L2 with the hope of jumping to L4 at some point.

 

[MrBadger]

Car manufacturers must also introduce Driver Availability Recognition Systems, which monitor the driver's capability to take back control of the vehicle, including through spotting eye blinking and closure.

You do not need to be able to track the eyes to determine driver awareness. This can be done visually in other ways, such as head pose and facial expression. That allows driver awareness to be determined for instance if glasses or hats are worn or other circumstances when there is no view of the eyes. I believe that the camera in Model 3 and Y may be sufficient for this, depending on low light/non visible spectrum capability.

Eye tracking does allow better determination of the type of distraction, but I suspect that that level of categorisation is not needed for this.

 

[TeddyT]

As long as Tesla keeps calling it L2 we should be fine. I think the quotes in the first post are slightly misleading. This is a regulation aimed at safely introducing L3 automated vehicles.

Not to misunderstand me, the limitations seems to make L3-classified systems absolutely useless compared to Tesla’s L2-system.

UN Regulation on Automated Lane Keeping Systems is milestone for safe introduction of ‎automated vehicles in traffic ‎

 

[diplomat33]

As long as Tesla keeps calling it L2 we should be fine. I think the quotes in the first post are slightly misleading. This is a regulation aimed at safely introducing L3 automated vehicles.

Not to misunderstand me, the limitations seems to make L3-classified systems absolutely useless compared to Tesla’s L2-system.

UN Regulation on Automated Lane Keeping Systems is milestone for safe introduction of ‎automated vehicles in traffic ‎

Yes, the idea is to introduce L3 with a very limited ODD (divided highway, low speed) in order to minimize risks. The ODD is so limited that it won't be super useful, probably only useful in congested traffic cases. But the ODD is also so limited, that the risks are very low too. Although it should be pointed out that L3 means "eyes off". So when it is on, it would allow the driver to take their eyes off the road, something that Tesla's AP does not allow yet.

I imagine once L3 tech matures, that the regulators will relax the restrictions. But for right now, since L3 is the first level of autonomy where the car completely takes over driving in some cases, the regulators want to minimize risks. They don't want companies releasing unsafe L3 autonomous driving that results in preventable crashes.

And again, these regulations probably don't apply to L4/L5. And it should be noted that many companies are skipping L3 and going straight to L4.

 

[PACEMD]

Should I show one example of a human driver causing a crash and claim that we should ban all human drivers?)

Yes. Yes, you should. But where are you going to find an example like that?

 

[diplomat33]

Yes. Yes, you should. But where are you going to find an example like that?

It's videos like this that make me wish we could ban all human drivers. L4/L5 autonomous driving can't come soon enough.

 

[PACEMD]

Dang, I need a good stiff drink after watching that. No worries, I don't have too far to drive home............

 

[drtimhill]

It's videos like this that make me wish we could ban all human drivers. L4/L5 autonomous driving can't come soon enough.

At least we can agree on that!

 

[Dutchie]

According to this it is a proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81 - E - ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81

I think it will be dead on arrival and never be ratified. That maximum speed of 60 kph just doesn't make sense as Tesla already demonstrated that their system can be safely used in speeds above that, even safer than human drivers.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It doesn't really matter. To paraphrase: any sufficiently advanced L2 system is indistinguishable from L4 as long as you don't get stopped by the police.

 

[Eno Deb]

According to this it is a proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81 - E - ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81

I think it will be dead on arrival and never be ratified.

It has been adopted as a binding regulation. See:

UN Regulation on Automated Lane Keeping Systems is milestone for safe introduction of ‎automated vehicles in traffic ‎

That maximum speed of 60 kph just doesn't make sense as Tesla already demonstrated that their system can be safely used in speeds above that, even safer than human drivers.

Tesla has a level 2 system, so they are not affected. And you'd have to be suicidal to stop constantly monitoring the car with the Tesla system, which you could in appropriate situations with a level 3 system. This regulation basically codifies something very similar as the Audi A8 level 3 system.

 

[Dutchie]

It has been adopted as a binding regulation. See:

UN Regulation on Automated Lane Keeping Systems is milestone for safe introduction of ‎automated vehicles in traffic ‎

Tesla has a level 2 system, so they are not affected. And you'd have to be suicidal to stop constantly monitoring the car with the Tesla system, which you could in appropriate situations with a level 3 system. This regulation basically codifies something very similar as the Audi A8 level 3 system.

Binding regulation? That is not how it works in sovereign nations. At the end Parliaments of the various democratic nations have the last say. Every international treaty is therefore ratified by each member country.

 

[linux-works]

I'm one of those who is NOT onboard with 'eye tracking'.

I simply don't trust the data collectors enough to give my face image every second of my drive. nope, not gonna happen!

if that means giving up L3 and maybe L3, well, I'll do that or hack it (did I say that? who typed that. not me.)

now, if we use some other sensor that does not take a true photo, I'm open to that. but photos? NO. I am ok with wheel tugs, in fact.

I don't want mics MANDATORY in cars and same for cameras that are inward pointing. point at the road all you want, but never inside.

oblig: GOML