CA DMV "revisiting" approach towards Tesla FSD

[Terminator857]

Aren’t the legacy competitors trying to copy Tesla?

Tesla copied Mobileye which legacy competitors are using.

Tesla is obviously trying to make robotaxis and FSD Beta is the beta version.

True. Elon has stated this goal since 2016?

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.

Every long term statement by Elon on the subject of FSD that can be proven true or false has been false.

I think that Tesla should work with the DMV to change the autonomous vehicle testing rules instead of trying to circumvent them.

California is very regulatory minded. Other states are more free enterprise minded. I suppose California is worried about safety. I'm not in the safety first crowd. I'd prefer Tesla do what it can to advance the technology.

Or just test in the states where the regulations are much more lax.

Would be very disappointing to us in California.

 

[Daniel in SD]

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.

The first AV testing regulations in CA were written in 2014, I really don't think they were written to prevent competition.

For FSD, no.

Mobileye and GM are working on "door to door L2". I guess it's because I feel like it's a horrible idea but I think it's in response to FSD Beta.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Would be very disappointing to us in California.

Elon expects to apply for regulatory approval this year so you won't be without FSD for long.
Also, I expect that the DMV won't shut down FSD beta testing until there is a serious collision. Despite @EVNow's concerns the CA government is beholden to local corporations just like everywhere else.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

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

HQ location is not relevant for the selection of states where FSD testing is done.

Major conversation in HQ location is availability of specific engineering talent (SF Bay Area is unbeatable) vs state tax level having a significant impact on top paid employees (California is expensive).

 

[t3sl4drvr]

Elon expects to apply for regulatory approval this year so you won't be without FSD for long.

For the ones who might not get the joke, here is an eye-opening list of permit holders from October:

Has Tesla even applied for a permit to test driverless cars?

Today three companies got permission to start doing driverless rides for real in California. Congratulations Cruise, Nuro and Waymo. When will Tesla join the club? They do not have a permit to test without a driver in California yet. Anyone knows if they have applied for a permit in...

teslamotorsclub.com

Tesla is very far from being a front-runner here.

 

[alexgr]

HQ location is not relevant for the selection of states where FSD testing is done.

Major conversation in HQ location is availability of specific engineering talent (SF Bay Area is unbeatable) vs state tax level having a significant impact on top paid employees (California is expensive).

Regulations is a type of taxation of sorts. I was referring to CA tendency to overregulate. Too much talent concentrated in one place may lead to toxic waste.

 

[Daniel in SD]

For the ones who might not get the joke, here is an eye-opening list of permit holders from October:

Has Tesla even applied for a permit to test driverless cars?

Today three companies got permission to start doing driverless rides for real in California. Congratulations Cruise, Nuro and Waymo. When will Tesla join the club? They do not have a permit to test without a driver in California yet. Anyone knows if they have applied for a permit in...

teslamotorsclub.com

Tesla is very far from being a front-runner here.

Volvo claims that they're going to release a self-driving system in California first and they're not on that list (I don't see their AV subsidiary Zenseact either). There's no reason you can't start testing in California when you're ready to deploy. All that matters is quickly racking up the miles to prove safety which Tesla can do easily because their cars are mass produced.

 

[t3sl4drvr]

Volvo claims that they're going to release a self-driving system in California first and they're not on that list (I don't see their AV subsidiary Zenseact either). There's no reason you can't start testing in California when you're ready to deploy. All that matters is quickly racking up the miles to prove safety which Tesla can do easily because their cars are mass produced.

Since October, APOLLO AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USA has been added to driverless testing list in CA. If I am not mistaken, Apollo is Baidu's team based in Sunnyvale CA aiming for L4 autonomy. Baidu announced a strategic partnership with Volvo in 2018 for bringing L4 autonomy to Volvo cars in China.

Can anyone confirm, that Volvo cars are tested in California under APOLLO AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USA permit?

 

[TomT]

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

I dunno... I think it is time for the DMV to slap Tesla's FSD down a few notches... Tesla even admits that its "Assertive Driving" mode violates a number of laws and it is also downright dangerous...

 

[Daniel in SD]

Since October, APOLLO AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USA has been added to driverless testing list in CA. If I am not mistaken, Apollo is Baidu's team based in Sunnyvale CA aiming for L4 autonomy. Baidu announced a strategic partnership with Volvo in 2018 for bringing L4 autonomy to Volvo cars in China.

Can anyone confirm, that Volvo cars are tested in California under APOLLO AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USA permit?

Anyway the article is about how the DMV is looking into whether or not Tesla is doing autonomous testing in violation of the autonomous vehicle testing regulations. To me it's obvious that they are doing plenty of autonomous vehicle testing in California, probably more than most of the companies on that list.

I dunno... I think it is time for the DMV to slap Tesla's FSD down a few notches... Tesla even admits that its "Assertive Driving" mode violates a number of laws and it is also downright dangerous...

That's actually an argument that they're not doing AV testing!
"Our vehicle is intentionally programmed to break a bunch of laws and a driverless vehicle would not be allowed to do that"

 

[diplomat33]

Mobileye and GM are working on "door to door L2". I guess it's because I feel like it's a horrible idea but I think it's in response to FSD Beta.

The main reason I said "no" is because I feel like the approaches are very different. I believe GM's Ultra Cruise will use radar and lidar as well as HD maps. Mobileye's SuperVision will be vision-only but will use 11 cameras as well as Mobileye's crowdsourced maps. Additionally, Both GM and Mobileye will use a dedicated IR camera behind the steering wheel to monitor the driver whereas Tesla is using the camera by the rear view mirror as a make shift driver monitoring camera and also relying on the steering wheel torque. Lastly, and I feel this is the big difference, Tesla is the only one deploying a "door to door L2" to regular customers when it is still very beta and letting those customers test the beta software and make youtube videos of their exploits.

In fact, getting back to the topic of this thread, I really think FSD Beta testing would be a total non issue if Tesla only had Tesla employees test it and reported data to the CA DMV. The big reason FSD Beta testing is so controversial is because Tesla is deploying "FSD that is not FSD" in a very beta state to average joes. Experts don't like the idea of average joes's testing autonomous driving that is still very beta and clearly can make some very unsafe maneuvers at times.

 

[momo3605]

I dunno... I think it is time for the DMV to slap Tesla's FSD down a few notches... Tesla even admits that its "Assertive Driving" mode violates a number of laws and it is also downright dangerous...

don't take away my CA rolling stops

 

[EVNow]

I dunno... I think it is time for the DMV to slap Tesla's FSD down a few notches... Tesla even admits that its "Assertive Driving" mode violates a number of laws and it is also downright dangerous...

I dunno ... I think it is time for you to listen to Mobileye CES presentation / Driving Policy - where they explain you have to "break" road rules because they don't take into account context If the road is blocked by a parked vehicle you have to cross the yellow line, for eg.

Suddenly when it comes to Tesla, concern trolls are pro-red tape.

 

[Mardak]

Experts don't like the idea of average joes's testing autonomous driving that is still very beta and clearly can make some very unsafe maneuvers at times

How about other ADAS that has very unsafe maneuvers with cruise control running many red lights and stop signs or lane keeping that fails to stay in lane for even slight curves so human drivers need to intervene most of the time? Is it because they have names like Intelligent Cruise Control and Steering Assist where the manufacturer says to pay attention at all times? What if Tesla called them Autopilot+ and Autosteer+ where the driver still needs to pay attention at all times?

How is that different from "FSD Beta" where users are told they need to intervene? Perhaps the expected frequency of FSD Beta requiring human intervention is much lower than other ADAS, so is there some threshold of expected intervention frequency that CA DMV will consider "practically it's higher than Level 2" even if the manufacturer's design intent for the current system is explicitly Level 2?

 

[Daniel in SD]

The main reason I said "no" is because I feel like the approaches are very different. I believe GM's Ultra Cruise will use radar and lidar as well as HD maps. Mobileye's SuperVision will be vision-only but will use 11 cameras as well as Mobileye's crowdsourced maps. Additionally, Both GM and Mobileye will use a dedicated IR camera behind the steering wheel to monitor the driver whereas Tesla is using the camera by the rear view mirror as a make shift driver monitoring camera and also relying on the steering wheel torque. Lastly, and I feel this is the big difference, Tesla is the only one deploying a "door to door L2" to regular customers when it is still very beta and letting those customers test the beta software and make youtube videos of their exploits.

In fact, getting back to the topic of this thread, I really think FSD Beta testing would be a total non issue if Tesla only had Tesla employees test it and reported data to the CA DMV. The big reason FSD Beta testing is so controversial is because Tesla is deploying "FSD that is not FSD" in a very beta state to average joes. Experts don't like the idea of average joes's testing autonomous driving that is still very beta and clearly can make some very unsafe maneuvers at times.

Well I think the "very beta" state probably makes it safer (except for the testers who think it's their job to "see what happens"). I think many experts are more concerned about what happens when it can go months without making a mistake.
Yes, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Tesla testing AVs using employees, whose behavior they are liable for, just like every other AV company. I just think if you're going to use new technologies on public roads there should be some transparency into how safe they are.

 

[Daniel in SD]

How is that different from "FSD Beta" where users are told they need to intervene?

How is it different from every other AV company where safety drivers are told they need to intervene?

 

[Mardak]

How is it different from every other AV company where safety drivers are told they need to intervene?

Probably similar to why Uber wasn't able to convince CA DMV. Tesla actually provides Level 2 capabilities to existing and new customers, so these increased capabilities of "FSD Beta" is a continuation of their existing Level 2 Autopilot and Autosteer systems. Just because other AV companies don't/can't take advantage of Tesla's development path doesn't mean it's not allowed.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Probably similar to why Uber wasn't able to convince CA DMV. Tesla actually provides Level 2 capabilities to existing and new customers, so these increased capabilities of "FSD Beta" is a continuation of their existing Level 2 Autopilot and Autosteer systems. Just because other AV companies don't/can't take advantage of Tesla's development path doesn't mean it's not allowed.

The DMV determines what is allowed. The reason there are regulations is that AV testing is potentially dangerous. There is no real difference between FSD Beta testing and what a hundred other AV companies are doing in California. If AV testing does not need to be regulated then the DMV should get rid of the rules.

 

[Terminator857]

... I think many experts are more concerned about what happens when it can go months without making a mistake.

Agree that is a concern. We will have to see if electric shock therapy from Tesla heating coils are necessary. On a more realist note, perhaps long term FSD beta revoke if software detects non monitoring of roadway would alleviate the concern and any real problem if it exists.

I just think if you're going to use new technologies on public roads there should be some transparency into how safe they are.

Agree. The problem with Ca DMV is if you give them an inch, they will take a foot. If they capriciously decide Tesla isn't safe then they will yank the permit.

 

[Terminator857]

... If AV testing does not need to be regulated then the DMV should get rid of the rules.

If there was transparency on the DMV on when they will pull a permit, that might be good. Also if there was an appeal process for pulled permit, that might help.