CA DMV "revisiting" approach towards Tesla FSD

[diplomat33]

The agency informed Tesla on Jan. 5 that it is “revisiting” its opinion that the company’s test program doesn’t fall under the department’s autonomous vehicle regulations because it requires a human driver.

DMV 'revisiting' its approach to regulating Tesla's public self-driving test

In light of videos showing self-driving Teslas attempting dangerous maneuvers, the California DMV is considering whether to require the company to conform to the same laws as other robot car makers.

www.latimes.com

Looks like CA DMV may close the "L2 loophole" and treat FSD Beta as autonomous and require Tesla to report disengagements etc...

 

[EVNow]

Looks like CA DMV may close the "L2 loophole" and treat FSD Beta as autonomous and require Tesla to report disengagements etc...

High time Tesla spent a bit on lobbying ... the only language governments know.

 

[Mardak]

What if Tesla releases a system that has an explicit design intent that the human driver is responsible? Does it matter what the system is called and if other systems might expand on the capabilities?

 

[AndreP]

Who here wouldn’t love to see data around disengagements etc

Or any data beyond some abstract %s lacking a basis of comparison in the release notes

 

[glide]

DMV 'revisiting' its approach to regulating Tesla's public self-driving test

In light of videos showing self-driving Teslas attempting dangerous maneuvers, the California DMV is considering whether to require the company to conform to the same laws as other robot car makers.

www.latimes.com

Looks like CA DMV may close the "L2 loophole" and treat FSD Beta as autonomous and require Tesla to report disengagements etc...

Good.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I knew the CA DMV would agree with me.

High time Tesla spent a bit on lobbying ... the only language governments know.

Uber has spent a lot of money on lobbying in California and it didn't help them with the CA DMV.
They tried the same "it's only a level 2 system because it requires a safety driver" strategy that Tesla is doing.

Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months, emails show

California DMV urged Uber to get into compliance four months before it launched its short-lived experiment in self-driving

www.theverge.com

Who here wouldn’t love to see data around disengagements etc

Or any data beyond some abstract %s lacking a basis of comparison in the release notes

I don't think Tesla would really mind that. What they don't want is to be liable for all their beta testers (like other AV companies are).

Anyway, I'm fine with Tesla testing in other states like Uber did after they were kicked out of California. Or very stringent oversight to see whether or not FSD Beta testing is actually safe. What is the collision rate while using it? Relative to people driving on the same roads and conditions?

 

[Mardak]

I'm fine with Tesla testing in other states like Uber did after they were kicked out of California

If CA DMV requires changes to FSD Beta, I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles in California get a notice of "CA DMV revoked your access to FSD Beta."

 

[Daniel in SD]

If CA DMV requires changes to FSD Beta, I wouldn't be surprised if vehicles in California get a notice of "CA DMV revoked your access to FSD Beta."

You‘ll still be able to get paid to use FSD Beta.

ADAS Test Operator (Night shift- 4pm-2am) | Tesla Careers

Apply for the ADAS Test Operator (Night shift- 4pm-2am) position in Fremont, California.

www.tesla.com

 

[EVNow]

I knew the CA DMV would agree with me.

And some legacy competitors …

Uber has spent a lot of money on lobbying in California and it didn't help them with the CA DMV.
They tried the same "it's only a level 2 system because it requires a safety driver" strategy that Tesla is doing.

Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months, emails show

California DMV urged Uber to get into compliance four months before it launched its short-lived experiment in self-driving

www.theverge.com

Uber was obviously not trying ADAS …

 

[Daniel in SD]

And some legacy competitors …


Uber was obviously not trying ADAS …

Aren’t the legacy competitors trying to copy Tesla?
Tesla is obviously trying to make robotaxis and FSD Beta is the beta version. Elon just said a few weeks ago that disengagement data from FSD Beta would be used to prove that it was ready to remove the safety driver.
I think that Tesla should work with the DMV to change the autonomous vehicle testing rules instead of trying to circumvent them. Or just test in the states where the regulations are much more lax.

 

[Tam]

Uber was obviously not trying ADAS …

When Tesla talked about summon in 2016, it didn't mean a simple trick in a small parking lot, it was talking about the whole big area from Los Angeles to New York.

https://twitter.com/x/status/686279251293777920

 

[alexgr]

No wonder Tesla and other companies move their HQ out of CA.

 

[Terminator857]

LA Times is known to do hit pieces on Tesla. This is just another example. I hope and doubt people will take it seriously. Hit piece doesn't mention that Tesla is fixing issues quickly. Hit piece doesn't consider how many accidents and lives FSD Beta is saving.

 

[glide]

LA Times is known to do hit pieces on Tesla. This is just another example. I hope and doubt people will take it seriously. Hit piece doesn't mention that Tesla is fixing issues quickly. Hit piece doesn't consider how many accidents and lives FSD Beta is saving.

Lolz @ “fixing issues quickly”

And how many lives is FSD beta saving? Since there are only about 10 people in the program, I’m guessing it’s not a lot.

FSD is a joke. And I would not consider it “safe” in most circumstances.

 

[nvx1977]

There's the dilemma that the regulators think Tesla's current FSD is so bad that it has to be L2. Then there's the SAE "design intent" which clearly Tesla is aiming for L4/5. Will be interesting to see what CA does in terms of demanding FSD testing data. I'm not necessarily opposed to that. More transparency is better.

But I strongly disagree that you need "trained testers" for testing AVs. I am a trained driver. I know the rules of the road. When I use FSD, I am in control, not the car. When the car violates the rules, or does something unsafe, I stop the car's action. It seems like some people think that when we turn on FSD, we completely relegate control to the car, and have no say in what it does. That's the problem with the people posting sensationalized "FSD tried to kill me" videos. If the car is going down the railroad tracks long enough for you to take a video of it, you weren't doing your job as a beta tester. You're going for clicks and monetization of your YT channel.

 

[AndreP]

I knew the CA DMV would agree with me.

Uber has spent a lot of money on lobbying in California and it didn't help them with the CA DMV.
They tried the same "it's only a level 2 system because it requires a safety driver" strategy that Tesla is doing.

Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months, emails show

California DMV urged Uber to get into compliance four months before it launched its short-lived experiment in self-driving

www.theverge.com

I don't think Tesla would really mind that. What they don't want is to be liable for all their beta testers (like other AV companies are).

Anyway, I'm fine with Tesla testing in other states like Uber did after they were kicked out of California. Or very stringent oversight to see whether or not FSD Beta testing is actually safe. What is the collision rate while using it? Relative to people driving on the same roads and conditions?

Aahh yeah, just read one Reuters article that appears to suggest Tesla would need to report on a range of stuff including accidents in FSD-enabled vehicles even when being driven manually. So there would be implications beyond just reporting disengagements.

With how people tend to disregard the SAE levels in terms of functionality and talk about how FSD Beta is more capable than the Level 2/3 systems out there, it seems hard to justify not requiring this reporting unless Tesla makes it clear their intent is to sell this strictly as a Level 2 ADAS.

 

[EVNow]

Aren’t the legacy competitors trying to copy Tesla?

Yes, they are. But they are far behind and in the meantime would like to prevent Tesla from going further ahead.

Reminds me of what competitors did to Microsoft in the 90s. It worked, sort of.

Copying and trying to prevent change at the same time is not new. Even as the competitors try to produce EVs, they are also fighting fuel efficiency mandates. Afterall they were able to dilute ZEV mandates for 20 years.

BTW, CA regulators are the only ones in the world who prefer outside companies - where as all other state governments bend over backward to help local companies. CA has been doing it for years with their constant push for Hydrogen.

 

[AndreP]

I don't know if the competitors believe Tesla is gaining an advantage through this method of development versus using simulation, real test drivers, more passive data collection, etc

Maybe that would change with Dojo and they're looking to head it off before that comes into play, but the concept of user feedback spurring improvements seems lacking when long-term testers are still encountering seemingly simple issues they've legitimately been reporting for years

 

[Terminator857]

Yes, they are. But they are far behind and in the meantime would like to prevent Tesla from going further ahead.

The main competitor is Mobileye, which Tesla copied. Mobileye is behind from an implementation perspective because Elon is a risk taker and Tesla is vertically integrated. From a technical perspective I would say Mobileye is ahead in the lab.

 

[diplomat33]

Aren’t the legacy competitors trying to copy Tesla?

For FSD, no.

Tesla is obviously trying to make robotaxis and FSD Beta is the beta version. Elon just said a few weeks ago that disengagement data from FSD Beta would be used to prove that it was ready to remove the safety driver.
I think that Tesla should work with the DMV to change the autonomous vehicle testing rules instead of trying to circumvent them. Or just test in the states where the regulations are much more lax.

I agree.