Autonomous Car Progress

[Knightshade]

You said it wasn't a requirement in ANY SENSE.

Because it's not.

Read the SAE definition of level 3.

A driver attention detection system is not required in any sense to be a level 3 car.

If a given jurisdiction will allow you to USE a level 3 car on their public roads is a complete different issue

There are a lot of sign offs that have to happen before L3 driving is green lighted for a consumer driven vehicle.

In some places, sure.

In other places self driving cars are already 100% legal right now just nobody sells one.


None of which has anything to do with the SAE driving levels though.

"Is a level 3 driving system" is a different thing than "is located in a jurisdiction it's legal to operate on public roads.

I think we're getting a little far from my original claim.

My original claim was that a customer watching that video would see what was being presented as being L4.

Aside from the lack of driver monitor what tells me its L4?

The video starts with "The person in the driver seat is only there for legal reasons.", and that to me says L4 because with L3 the driver is needed to take over when the car asks them to.

Uh... just the opposite.

With L4 you don't need a driver in the seat for any reason

Again- that's the primary difference between 3 and 4.

If L3 can't handle something it NEEDS a human in the drivers seat. If L4 can't handle something it can safely and gracefully pull over out of traffic.

The driver in the seat is a glaring and clear indicator it's L3, not L4.

In California, where the demo was shot, the law does not require a driver in the drivers seat if the car can operate safely without him.

Thus if the driver was "required" at all it can't be level 4

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

The driver in the seat is a glaring and clear indicator it's L3, not L4.

No, it says legal reasons.

If it said "the driver is there to hand off control" then it would be L3.

 

[Knightshade]

No, it says legal reasons.

If it said "the driver is there to hand off control" then it would be L3.

Again this is factually wrong.

There are no legal reasons you need a driver in that seat if it is level 4. (at least in CA where and when it was filmed)

There are legal reasons you need one there if it's L3.

(if you think there's legal reasons at 4- please cite the law)


The fact it said the driver was there for legal reasons confirms it's L3

And the actual legal certification they gave to the state of CA also confirms that fact.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Again this is factually wrong.

There are no legal reasons you need a driver in that seat if it is level 4.

There are legal reasons you need one there if it's L3.

(if you think there's legal reasons at 4- please cite the law)

Why have that disclaimer at all if its L3?

It's self evident from the fact that it's L3 that a driver would be behind the wheel. That the driver is needed for practical reasons, and not just because a lawyer said so.

As to the legality of autonomous testing in California you simply aren't allowed to test an autonomous vehicle in California without a safety driver behind the wheel or in a control center who can remotely take over.

Clearing the California Regulatory Hurdles for Autonomous Vehicles | The Recorder.

 

[Knightshade]

Why have that disclaimer at all if its L3?

It's self evident from the fact that it's L3 that a driver would be behind the wheel. That the driver is needed for practical reasons, and not just because a lawyer said so.

Probably to make it clear it's not level 2

L2 requires a driver not just for legal reasons, but because the system can't ever totally perform the dynamic driving task.

As to the legality of autonomous testing in California you simply aren't allowed to test an autonomous vehicle in California without a safety driver behind the wheel or in a control center who can remotely take over.

Clearing the California Regulatory Hurdles for Autonomous Vehicles | The Recorder.

Right. You don't need one behind the wheel

A remote one is good enough.

If they say they need one in the seat legally then it's not L4.

Thanks for confirming what I already said several times

 

[diplomat33]

I always took the "the driver is only there for legal reasons" disclaimer to be marketing speak for "the FSD is so good that we could have done the demo with no driver at all but those annoying regulators would not let us do it." It was basically implying that Tesla had already achieved true driverless FSD.

 

[daniel]

Yes, that is part of the definition of L3. But it is implied in the definition of L3 that the car needs to know what the driver is doing in order to have a safe transition back to the driver. L3 cannot turn over control to a driver that is not able to take over. It's as simple as that.

What happens if the driver is not able to take over? What if the driver has passed out? L3 cannot just hand over control to the driver blindly. If the L3 car gives up control but the driver is not able to take over, that would not be safe. So the L3 has to know if the driver is receptive to taking over. If the car sees that the driver is distracted, it can increase the alerts. If the car sees that the driver is alert and paying attention, then the car can surrender control safely. If the car sees that the driver is asleep or passed out, then the car can put on the hazards and come to a safe stop. But you need a driver monitoring system to be able to do this. Without a driver monitoring system, the L3 car could surrender control to a driver that has passed out and is not able to take over. That would be bad.

Think of it this way: could AP just tell you "in 10 seconds I am going to turn off" and then automatically turn off after 10 seconds with no idea if you are able to take over or not? What happens if AP turns off after 10 seconds and you are not able to take over? That is what L3 without driver monitoring would be like. I think you can see how unsafe that would be.

Your argument explains very clearly why we need regulations requiring L3 cars to have driver-awareness detection. But note that L2 also needs driver-awareness detection but it's not in the definition of L2. The SAE definitions state what the car is capable of doing. Regulations and common sense require that neither L2 nor L3 should be allowed to operate without some means of determining that there's a driver available and ready to take over.

 

[mikes_fsd]

What happens if the driver is not able to take over? What if the driver has passed out? L3 cannot just hand over control to the driver blindly. If the L3 car gives up control but the driver is not able to take over, that would not be safe. So the L3 has to know if the driver is receptive to taking over. If the car sees that the driver is distracted, it can increase the alerts.

Your Tesla already does this, and handles this by giving you ample visual + audible warnings, and there are plenty of videos of actual owners showing what happens when you do not respond.

It does not "just hand over control to the driver blindly" and that is on a L2 car. It turns the hazard lights on and slows down gradually coming to a stop.

Just like with lidar, you just do not like the fact that there are no "eye-ball" sensors because "so and so" said there must be "such and such" sensor.

 

[diplomat33]

Your Tesla already does this, and handles this by giving you ample visual + audible warnings, and there are plenty of videos of actual owners showing what happens when you do not respond.

It does not "just hand over control to the driver blindly" and that is on a L2 car. It turns the hazard lights on and slows down gradually coming to a stop.

I was not talking about Tesla.

Just like with lidar, you just do not like the fact that there are no "eye-ball" sensors because "so and so" said there must be "such and such" sensor.

It has nothing to do with my personal preference. I support lidar and a driver facing camera because there is a ton of empirical evidence that they are beneficial.

 

[diplomat33]

Zoox gets permit to test driverless cars (no safety drivers) in some areas of California. Zoox is only the 4th company to get a permit for driverless cars in CA. AutoX, Nuro and Waymo are the other 3 companies that have permits to deploy driverless cars in CA.

Source: Zoox becomes fourth company to land driverless testing permit in California – TechCrunch

 

[diplomat33]

In other news, the safety driver, in the self-driving Uber that killed the pedestrian, has been charged with negligent homicide:
Uber self-driving car operator charged in pedestrian death - CNN

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

If they say they need one in the seat legally then it's not L4.

it's per the requirement the DMV have for autonomous testing.

Tesla could get away from that by having it remotely, but they don't have the permit for that.

As to the disclaimer being there so people knew it wasn't Level 2. The viewers already know that because L2 in a Tesla requires hands on the steering wheel.

 

[Knightshade]

it's per the requirement the DMV have for autonomous testing.

For L4? NO IT IS NOT. "Driver in seat" is not required, and hasn't been for years now.

For L3? Yup sure is.

Hence we know it's L3 (besides the fact that's what Tesla themselves said it was on the disclosure to the CA DMV)

Tesla could get away from that by having it remotely, but we both know that would be a horrible idea.

Mainly because, as an L3 drive, they could not legally have it remotely

Again- the only case where a driver is legally required to be specifically in the seat when the car is self-driving is an L3 system.... L4 and above have other legal options that L3 does not to NOT need a driver in the seat.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I'm not sure why people are trying to force things on a Tesla that are not part of Tesla's design or within Elon playbook.

If we look at the SAE Levels, and how Tesla performs we see the following

L0 -> The P3D that own does a Stellar job of this. Probably one of the best drivers cars on the road today.

L1 -> The adaptive cruise control performs terribly both from the perspective of too much phantom braking, and it simply isn't that smooth. The AP1 vehicle I had was a significantly better experience, and the Jeep Wrangler I have now is also substantially better. I never experience nor worry about phantom braking with it.

L2 -> Very mixed results depending on a persons expectation, and usage area. Its failed all my testing for various reasons. I also don't particularly enjoy it because of the steering wheel nag is too obtrusive.

L3 -> I simply haven't seen anything from Tesla that indicates they are interested in this at all. There is no driver monitoring which is likely going to fairly universally required either by regulatory agencies or Insurance companies. Nothing from Elon indicates they are interested in it at all.

L4 -> The entire development effort of FSD seems to be targeted for this category. They could have made L2 better by doing quick fixes in various areas, but instead they chose not to. Instead they chose a much harder path of absorbing more and more of it into Neural Networks.

L5 -> The Sensor suite simply isn't suited towards L5 driving. Nothing suggests that it could handle the weather conditions humans are accustomed to handling.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

For L4? NO IT IS NOT. "Driver in seat" is not required, and hasn't been for years now.

As I understand it Tesla doesn't have a permit to do autonomous testing in California without a safety driver behind the wheel.

 

[diplomat33]

IMO, "the driver is only there for legal reasons" implies L4 because it is implying that the car can drive completely without any driver which is L4. It cannot be L3 because L3 does require a driver to be in the seat.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Hence we know it's L3 (besides the fact that's what Tesla themselves said it was on the disclosure to the CA DMV)

What it is, and how it was presented to the customer are two entirely different things.

I don't question that it was L3. That Tesla simply wasn't finished with everything needed for L4, and they were testing it in L3 because that's all it could do at the time. This is assuming it was the one for autonomy day.

There is nothing wrong with what was done, and what was reported to the DMV.

That isn't what's being argued.

What's being argued is how they presented the drive to the customer in that video.

There is no doubt in my mind that it was presented as L4.

It's pretty easy to say "The driver is there to take over when the car hands back over control" or something like that.

People don't say "I did such and such for legal reasons" unless legal reasons are the primary reason they did it. Saying that made it seem like the driver wasn't needed for practical reasons. An L3 take over event is a very practical reason.

The fact that it was L3, but presented as L4 isn't all that surprising. We both know they haven't been honest with customers when it comes their videos.

 

[Knightshade]

IMO, "the driver is only there for legal reasons" implies L4 because it is implying that the car can drive completely without any driver which is L4. It cannot be L3 because L3 does require a driver to be in the seat.

That's exactly backward.

L4 a driver in the seat is not legally required

L3 they are.

So if you say the driver is only there because it's legally required, that's L3.

Not sure how people keep getting confused on this.

 

[diplomat33]

That's exactly backward.

L4 a driver in the seat is not legally required

L3 they are.

So if you say the driver is only there because it's legally required, that's L3.

Not sure how people keep getting confused on this.

I think you are looking at it wrong. You are looking at "legal reasons" as saying that the car was L3 therefore the law required a driver. I interpret it as "the car is capable of driverless (L4) but since we don't have permission to deploy driverless cars, we have to stick a driver in the seat."

Here is my reasoning:

Tesla said "the driver is only there for legal reasons". The emphasis on the word "only" strongly implies that the car did not need a driver. If legal was the only reason for having a driver, then that means that there were no technical reasons for needing a driver. In other words, the car was fully capable of self-driving without a driver in the seat. And if a car is capable of self-driving without a driver in the seat that is by definition L4. So Tesla was saying that the car was capable of L4 but for "legal reasons" (ie, the regulators won't allow us to do the demo without a driver in the seat), we are forced to put a driver in the seat even though they don't need to do anything.

 

[Knightshade]

Lemme put it another way.


Is it legally possible to operate an L4 car in CA without a driver?

Yes.

Is it legally possible to operate an L3 car in CA without a driver?

No.