Autonomous Vehicles and the Law

[Larry Hutchinson]

Over on Ars Technica, Jonathon GItlin has an article titled “Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” sees pedestrian, chooses not to slow down.”

When I saw in the 11.4 notes the feature that the car can track pedestrians and know when it can safely pass, I thought, uh oh, another rolling stop issue where it is completely safe but illegal. I am sure NTHSA will drop a hammer on this also.

In the comment section, someone posted that self driving cars with all their sensors should be far better than the humans for which these laws were written. Jonathon then smacked them down with “Wow, that's a bold stance, particularly given the number of fatal crashes involving FSD beta...”

All right, what are these “number of fatal crashes”? Of course, he uses the term “involving” rather than “caused by.” Yes, we have seen fatal crashes involving Auto Pilot where the driver was not paying attention, but FSD-b?


I made the title broad in case we want to extend the discussion beyond FSD-b.

 

[diplomat33]

Over on Ars Technica, Jonathon GItlin has an article titled “Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” sees pedestrian, chooses not to slow down.”

When I saw in the 11.4 notes the feature that the car can track pedestrians and know when it can safely pass, I thought, uh oh, another rolling stop issue where it is completely safe but illegal. I am sure NTHSA will drop a hammer on this also.

If the law says that the vehicle must yield to the pedestrian, then yeah, it was illegal, regardless of whether the behavior was technically "safe". Claiming that AVs have better perception and reaction times is irelevant to the law. AVs must still obey traffic laws.

It is possible that in the future, laws will be adjusted to take into account that AVs have better perception and reaction times than humans. But until, then AVs must still obey the laws on the books.

I would also point out that pedestrians are called vulnerable road users for a reason. If there is a collision, they can be seriously injured or killed. Vehicles should slow down and give pedestrians and other VRUs a safe buffer zone. FSD beta was too aggressive in this case IMO.

In the comment section, someone posted that self driving cars with all their sensors should be far better than the humans for which these laws were written. Jonathon then smacked them down with “Wow, that's a bold stance, particularly given the number of fatal crashes involving FSD beta...”

A couple things. Most self-driving cars have way more sensors than Tesla has. They have more cameras, and radar and lidar. Tesla only has the 8 cameras. So the "having more sensors" argument does not really apply to Tesla.

Furthermore, having more sensors does give the AV better perception than humans. But that does not guarantee that the AV will react better. The AV needs good prediction and planning to take the perception data and make the correct driving decision. In theory, the AV could have a million sensors and still be less safe than humans if the decision-making in the car is bad. So more sensors does not automatically make the AV better than humans, it just gives the AV more and hopefully more reliable data with which to make its driving decisions.

All right, what are these “number of fatal crashes”? Of course, he uses the term “involving” rather than “caused by.” Yes, we have seen fatal crashes involving Auto Pilot where the driver was not paying attention, but FSD-b?

I suspect he was thinking of the crashes on AP. I am not aware of any fatal crashes on FSD Beta. It is not uncommon for people outside of Tesla to confuse FSD beta with AP. I've seen a lot of shoddy journalism where they confuse the two.

 

[KArnold]

If the law says that the vehicle must yield to the pedestrian, then yeah, it was illegal, regardless of whether the behavior was technically "safe".

True. But in this case it's easily arguable that FSD did "yield".

In Ohio the state reads:

"Seeing the yield sign, the driver must slow down and yield their right to other vehicles and pedestrians approaching from different directions. If you notice other cars or pedestrians, you need to stop and let them go, or you can proceed with the movement if you do not see anybody or they are still at a safe distance."

In this case, it appears the pedestrian was mid-lane when the car passed. He had at least two more steps at that rate before he entered the lane.

Not that it matters but I generally try not to interrupt a pedestrians pace which appears to not have happened. As a pedestrian, I've been passed more closely in the cross walk many times.