Firmware 9 in August will start rolling out full self-driving features!!!

[rnortman]

New article on Elektrek where Musk gives more details on the regulatory pushback. Apparently, it's the new "smart summon" that needs regulatory approval still:
Tesla is getting ‘some regulatory pushbacks’ over new Autopilot feature, says Elon Musk

I know some of you think the regulatory push back is just an excuse to cover up that FSD is nowhere near ready yet. But I think the article does make some sense. I can totally see how Musk's "smart summon" could get a lot of regulatory push back since it would involve allowing owners to remote control their car with no one in the driver seat. I can totally see how regulators might be hesitant to approve something like that given the obvious safety concerns. So I don't think it is far fetched at all that Tesla has developed the software to do it but the regulators are wanting more before they approve it. The same might be true for the rest of Tesla's FSD program. Maybe Tesla has developed the software to do a lot of what "FSD" would do but regulators want more tests, proof etc that the system is safe before they authorize a public release. So I don't think it is completely far fetched to believe that Tesla may be more ahead than we think in terms of pure software capabilities but regulatory approval is holding it up.

I am not aware of regulations that would prohibit this so long as a licensed driver remains responsible and supervises. If Tesla really has this capability, they could release it with the caveat that the driver must actually be sitting in the driver's seat. They could do that with any of the hypothetical FSD features, once they are available, without waiting for regulatory approval.

Tesla loves to show off. If they had anything to show off, they would. Even if only a demo video on a private test arena.

 

[diplomat33]

I am not aware of regulations that would prohibit this so long as a licensed driver remains responsible and supervises. If Tesla really has this capability, they could release it with the caveat that the driver must actually be sitting in the driver's seat. They could do that with any of the hypothetical FSD features, once they are available, without waiting for regulatory approval.

And Tesla may do that as part of their regulatory approval process.

 

[Vitold]

Being unaware of regulations does not mean they do not exist. It would make sense to me if regulators required that control of the car happens close to vehicle, or to ensure that driver is able to see the area where car is heading.

 

[rnortman]

Being unaware of regulations does not mean they do not exist. It would make sense to me if regulators required that control of the car happens close to vehicle, or to ensure that driver is able to see the area where car is heading.

Sure, I should have been more specific. It seems to me that from a regulatory standpoint, this is no different than the existing Summon feature, which requires you to be near the car and to supervise it. In any market where Summon is allowed, they should be allowed to release remote control as he has decsribed -- the current Summon is really just a hobbled remote control without steering.

Now the next question is why anybody would really care to do this. Smart Summon is not "remote control". Smart summon is "my car will get itself out of the garage where I can't even see it and so can't supervise it, and turn a corner in my curved driveway to meet me." That is the scenario they originally depicted when they started selling this feature. If Tesla rebrands Smart Summon as turning your $100k vehicle into an RC toy that only works when you're standing right next to it, that would be typical of Tesla, but it wouldn't be delivering on their promises.

 

[Bladerskb]

So I don't think it is far fetched at all that Tesla has developed the software to do it but the regulators are wanting more before they approve it. The same might be true for the rest of Tesla's FSD program. Maybe Tesla has developed the software to do a lot of what "FSD" would do but regulators want more tests, proof etc that the system is safe before they authorize a public release. So I don't think it is completely far fetched to believe that Tesla may be more ahead than we think in terms of pure software capabilities but regulatory approval is holding it up.

I believe this is a huge reach because there has been no feature that has been disallowed because of regulatory approval in the US. In-fact i don't believe there is a law governing Level 2/ADAS systems in the US. The only thing that prevents approval is if its clearly unsafe or there is lack of messaging that the driver is fully responsible at all times.

 

[Bladerskb]

Good news, Bro.

BTW, would you now think of replacing that written-off Beemer with something having AP or similar alternative?

I've noticed v9 in recent times has notably improved at detecting LTAP (lateral turn across path) traffic, including bicycles approaching at an oblique angle at night ...

I'm looking but frankly there's nothing out there right now that i want. The 2019 BMW 3 series is not out, and its not as feature complete as i want. There's no other car sold in the US out there other than Cadillac CT6 with supercruise. Could get the Volvo XC60 with PA 3. But undecided.

The cars that i really want is the BMW INEXT or the NIO EVE but those won't be here for another 1-2 years. So maybe i should get a temp car that can last me that long or a 2 year lease while i wait?

Model 3 is off the table, frankly don't have time to be dealing with Elon's BS. As I don't believe that car will ever be capable of FSD.

 

[rnortman]

I'm looking but frankly there's nothing out there right now that i want. The 2019 BMW 3 series is not out, and its not as feature complete as i want. There's no other car sold in the US out there other than Cadillac CT6 with supercruise. Could get the Volvo XC60 with PA 3. But undecided.

The cars that i really want is the BMW INEXT or the NIO EVE but those won't be here for another 1-2 years. So maybe i should get a temp car that can last me that long or a 2 year lease while i wait?

Model 3 is off the table, frankly don't have time to be dealing with Elon's BS. As I don't believe that car will ever be capable of FSD.

I spend a lot of time criticizing AP, but we just bought a Model 3 (and still have a Model S). If you only expect AP to be a pretty good driver assistance system there is little to be disappointed with in these cars. Definitely some nits, and dealing with Tesla can be frustrating, but isn't that true of any car dealership?

As long as you go into it knowing what you'll get, these are very good cars. Good riddance, gas stations.

 

[Bladerskb]

Smart Summon is not "remote control". Smart summon is "my car will get itself out of the garage where I can't even see it and so can't supervise it, and turn a corner in my curved driveway to meet me." That is the scenario they originally depicted when they started selling this feature. If Tesla rebrands Smart Summon as turning your $100k vehicle into an RC toy that only works when you're standing right next to it, that would be typical of Tesla, but it wouldn't be delivering on their promises.

And this is why even though i'm in need of a car won't get the Model 3. I don't have time for the constant hand waving, chest thumping and same ole over-promise/under-deliver bs. I'm vocal enough about AP as a non-owner. I would rage quit after every update if I were an actual owner.

 

[diplomat33]

I believe this is a huge reach because there has been no feature that has been disallowed because of regulatory approval in the US. In-fact i don't believe there is a law governing Level 2/ADAS systems in the US. The only thing that prevents approval is if its clearly unsafe or there is lack of messaging that the driver is fully responsible at all times.

Well presumably, Tesla is trying to describe the new summon as more than L2 hence the regulatory obstacles or maybe the regulators consider it more than L2. And maybe, the regulators don't consider the new summon to be safe enough by their standards.

 

[diplomat33]

Model 3 is off the table, frankly don't have time to be dealing with Elon's BS. As I don't believe that car will ever be capable of FSD.

And this is why even though i'm in need of a car won't get the Model 3. I don't have time for the constant hand waving, chest thumping and same ole over-promise/under-deliver bs. I'm vocal enough about AP as a non-owner. I would rage quit after every update if I were an actual owner.

Not sure what you are doing on this forum since you are a non-owner and you've made up your mind already that Tesla is not what you are looking for in a car.

 

[OPRCE]

Not sure what you are doing on this forum since you are a non-owner and you've made up your mind already that Tesla is not what you are looking for in a car.

It is readily apparent from his record that @Bladerskb provides invaluable counterpoints and insight in the field of ADAS/FSD without having needed to purchase a Tesla himself. This is in fact a public service as it helps wean the infatuated here somewhat closer to reality.

Obviously he enjoys this subject and arguing the toss with Tesla owners as the technology develops, which I dare say is appreciated by many here if not yourself.

 

[OPRCE]

I'm looking but frankly there's nothing out there right now that i want. The 2019 BMW 3 series is not out, and its not as feature complete as i want. There's no other car sold in the US out there other than Cadillac CT6 with supercruise. Could get the Volvo XC60 with PA 3. But undecided.

The cars that i really want is the BMW INEXT or the NIO EVE but those won't be here for another 1-2 years. So maybe i should get a temp car that can last me that long or a 2 year lease while i wait?

Model 3 is off the table, frankly don't have time to be dealing with Elon's BS. As I don't believe that car will ever be capable of FSD.

Maybe try testing some advanced ADAS models [ XC60, BMW EyeQ4 ] then a M3 and write up how you find they compare?
Such a series by yourself would interest a lot of people here.

 

[tyson]

Maybe try testing some advanced ADAS models [ XC60, BMW EyeQ4 ] then a M3 and write up how you find they compare?
Such a series by yourself would interest a lot of people here.

@Bladerskb I second this. While there is a lot to be critical of in Tesla's current iteration of AP, there is also quite a bit of good. I think many here would value your first hand comparison of the systems currently available on the market. It seems like the perfect time for you and a valuable write up for others that may be looking for a vehicle based on L2/3 ADAS features.

 

[Bladerskb]

Except that that's not the way some people are interested in operating. They only seem interested in disparaging Tesla which should make you question their motives for this continued harassment, and being here, and explains why many of us have put them on ignore and feel much happier not having to read their endless flamebait. It's also amazing they don't get banned for their behaviour.

If you notice i only post in the autonomous thread and any thread about self driving. Its a stretch to say i have some motive against Tesla. If that was the case you would find me on other Tesla threads talking about "Tesla the car" and "Tesla the company"

 

[tyson]

If you notice i only post in the autonomous thread and any thread about self driving. Its a stretch to say i have some motive against Tesla. If that was the case you would find me on other Tesla threads talking about "Tesla the car" and "Tesla the company"

So is that a maybe?

Maybe do the write up purely in the interest of the ADAS/Self drive community? It's one thing to look at all the cars from videos of other people and quite another to experience them first hand. I know I would like to see what the thoughts of someone like you are on the ADAS systems from Audi, Merc, Tesla, GM etc. And yes everyone here, including me once I am stateside again, COULD test drive all these vehicles and experience them all first hand but that's usually not possible just due to time. But due to your unique, while somewhat unfortunate, position you will likely be test driving quite a few if not all of these vehicles anyway. Seems like a perfect time to do such a comparison.

 

[electronblue]

Except that that's not the way some people are interested in operating. They only seem interested in disparaging Tesla which should make you question their motives for this continued harassment, and being here, and explains why many of us have put them on ignore and feel much happier not having to read their endless flamebait. It's also amazing they don't get banned for their behaviour.

I would find this kind of myopia a disservice to the Tesla community at large. In my view voices from the outside help us Tesla owners tether to the wider world and bring in a healthy mix of views and infos.

For example non-owner @Bladerskb ’s information in autonomous threads seems to be very valuable and for example had Tesla community listened to him more back in early Autopilot 2 days maybe the common expectations for EAP and FSD would have been more in line with reality.

 

[rnortman]

Well presumably, Tesla is trying to describe the new summon as more than L2 hence the regulatory obstacles or maybe the regulators consider it more than L2. And maybe, the regulators don't consider the new summon to be safe enough by their standards.

Look, any tweet where Elon talks about "regulators" as an excuse for not releasing something without talking about which regulator in which jurisdiction with which regulatory authority should be viewed with great skepticism. Tesla can and has released software-based features limited to certain markets or which behave differently in different markets, to meet local regulatory guidelines. As far as I am aware, none of the regulations anywhere have really caught up with what is currently happening in ADAS and AVs. Because the regulations haven't caught up, the regulators really have little ability to prevent the release of a product, particularly a software update. They mostly can only step in after there are accidents which bring the safety of the product into question -- some regulators have broad authority to take action against products for which they have evidence that there is a safety-related defect. But this happens after the product is released and the evidence mounts.

The one thing the law in most areas has to say about these systems right now -- and this is more a side effect of assumptions baked into law than by specific action by legislators -- is that the operator of the vehicle must be properly licensed and remains responsible for the vehicle at all times. This does not shield the manufacturer from liability if a defect in the vehicle contributes to an accident, but still there is always an operator, the operator must be licensed, and the operator is always responsible in some sense.

Unless Tesla is seeking to have Autopilot licensed as an operator, there is very little they need from the regulators to release a software update containing new features, so long as there is still a licensed operator with responsibility and control. That is, unless there is some non-public agreement between Tesla and NHTSA or some other agency that gives them extra oversight because of the high-profile crashes in Teslas. (I doubt this is the case -- I think that would be public knowledge.)

Now, Tesla undoubtedly has internal review mechanisms which are intended to address Tesla's own risk of liability for defects in their products. Those internal review mechanisms may be raising red flags about Summon changes. It would be just like Elon to blame this on "regulators". Maybe to him anybody who tells him "no" is a regulator, trying to shackle his free spirit.

Disclaimer: IANAL and I'm probably wrong about a lot of the above, but that is my understanding and I think that at least in broad terms it is correct. I would invite anybody with specific knowledge to make specific corrections.

 

[electronblue]

Look, any tweet where Elon talks about "regulators" as an excuse for not releasing something without talking about which regulator in which jurisdiction with which regulatory authority should be viewed with great skepticism.

All true. With the second tweet I take this to mean the regulatory pushback is probably regional and not global.

I also agree it is not even certain ”regulatory pushback” means a regulator pushing back in response to Tesla submitting Smart Summon for their evaluation or commentary at all. It could also refer to an internal regulatory manager for Tesla or one of its country operations offering the pushback based on existing regulatory limits and interpretations. That could still be called ”regulatory pushback” in the eyes of Musk.

In most markets there probably is no pre-testing or similar pre-screening for these features anyway yet, it is simply up to the manufacturer to comply with existing rules and supply requisite paperwork. It is not like there is some testing facility where Tesla submits three cars for testing and waits for the results.

 

[diplomat33]

The one thing the law in most areas has to say about these systems right now -- and this is more a side effect of assumptions baked into law than by specific action by legislators -- is that the operator of the vehicle must be properly licensed and remains responsible for the vehicle at all times.

How would the operator be responsible for the vehicle in a situation where the operator is not in the car, like in a situation where you summon your car to pick you up at the front of the store? If summon works by the operator remote controlling the car from their phone, yes, I could see the operator being responsible but if the car is supposed to come pick you up completely on its own with no action from the driver, I don't see how you can make the operator responsible. I guess this goes to the line between L2 and FSD. If the driver is remote controlling the car with their phone, it could be L2, I guess, but if the car is operating on its own to pick you up, that gets closer to FSD IMO.

So I guess my point is that if Tesla is trying to do summon where you remote control your car, I agree that it should not be a problem for regulators. Just have the operator of the vehicle be licensed and be responsible for the actions of the car when they are controlling it and require the operator be X ft away within line of sight of the car, and you are good to go. But if Tesla is trying to do summon that is more like FSD where the car can pick you up in the parking lot on its own, then yeah, I think regulators will have something to say.

We know that Tesla is working on FSD so it makes sense that they would be facing regulatory hurdles.

 

[rnortman]

So I guess my point is that if Tesla is trying to do summon where you remote control your car, I agree that it should not be a problem for regulators. Just have the operator of the vehicle be licensed and be responsible for the actions of the car when they are controlling it and require the operator be X ft away within line of sight of the car, and you are good to go. But if Tesla is trying to do summon that is more like FSD where the car can pick you up in the parking lot on its own, then yeah, I think regulators will have something to say.

We know that Tesla is working on FSD so it makes sense that they would be facing regulatory hurdles.

Absolutely nothing in Elon's recent descriptions of "Advanced Summon" indicated that you would not have line of sight on the vehicle or not be responsible. This is not "Smart Summon", which would not require this.

They are working on FSD (maybe?), but that is not what these tweets are about. This is about a particular feature of remote controlling your car, which was supposed to be released (according to Elon's schedtweet) weeks ago. He's explaining that it wasn't released "because regulators".