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

[emmz0r]

Premapped route. A big step but not a biggie. Tesla’s demo 2 years ago was also rigged with a premapped route.

It doesn't have cars and buses jumping all around at least

 

[Bladerskb]

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.

Here is a rebuttal to this article.

PAVE wants to clear up confusion about automated vehicles, but Tesla's Full Self-Driving option proves how hard that will be


"A week after my request to PAVE, I reached out to my friend Amitai Bin-Nun, the Vice President for autonomous vehicles and mobility innovation at Securing America's Future Energy, which is one of the member organizations that make up PAVE. He quickly and thoroughly confirmed what I had understood to be true: there is no formal federal regulatory approval process for a software-only autonomous drive system on an FMVSS-approved vehicle. Here is his full quote:

"The federal government has not yet updated its safety standards for autonomous vehicles. While this makes it difficult to deploy autonomous vehicles with unconventional designs without a steering wheel or brake pedals, official policy guidance has repeatedly clarified that federal regulations do not pose a legal barrier to the development, testing, sale or use of autonomous vehicles with conventional designs. Various states have imposed their own requirements on autonomous vehicles, but as long they are met, deployment is permissible in the vast majority of the country."

In other words, the idea that "regulatory approval" or "regulatory pushback" could delay Tesla's deployment of "full self driving" software in the United States is absurd."

 

[Electroman]

I hate to admit, I believe Blader is right. All this talk about regulatory impediments slowing down Teslas progress to full autonomy is hogwash and clever distraction. This is like saying, my wife won't allow me to go to Mars, otherwise I will build a rocket next month and be ready.

 

[diplomat33]

Here is a rebuttal to this article.

PAVE wants to clear up confusion about automated vehicles, but Tesla's Full Self-Driving option proves how hard that will be


"A week after my request to PAVE, I reached out to my friend Amitai Bin-Nun, the Vice President for autonomous vehicles and mobility innovation at Securing America's Future Energy, which is one of the member organizations that make up PAVE. He quickly and thoroughly confirmed what I had understood to be true: there is no formal federal regulatory approval process for a software-only autonomous drive system on an FMVSS-approved vehicle. Here is his full quote:

"The federal government has not yet updated its safety standards for autonomous vehicles. While this makes it difficult to deploy autonomous vehicles with unconventional designs without a steering wheel or brake pedals, official policy guidance has repeatedly clarified that federal regulations do not pose a legal barrier to the development, testing, sale or use of autonomous vehicles with conventional designs. Various states have imposed their own requirements on autonomous vehicles, but as long they are met, deployment is permissible in the vast majority of the country."

In other words, the idea that "regulatory approval" or "regulatory pushback" could delay Tesla's deployment of "full self driving" software in the United States is absurd."

If I understand the quote, the federal government does not present any serious obstacle for getting regulatory approval since they don't have a clear standard yet but cars like Teslas do still need to meet state requirements to get approval. Is that right?

I take Tesla at their word that they are getting regulatory pushback. So logically, Tesla's systems must not be meeting some requirement at the state level, not the fed level. Your quote clearly says that cars must meet state level requirements to get approval.

 

[diplomat33]

I hate to admit, I believe Blader is right. All this talk about regulatory impediments slowing down Teslas progress to full autonomy is hogwash and clever distraction. This is like saying, my wife won't allow me to go to Mars, otherwise I will build a rocket next month and be ready.

I disagree. Blader's quote clearly states that cars must still meet certain state requirements. So I would surmise that Tesla is get regulatory pushback from the state level, not the fed level.

 

[diplomat33]

Considering how easy it would be to debunk, it seems very silly for Tesla to lie about this. I think a more sensible interpretation is that Tesla really is getting pushback from state regulators on some aspect of their system.

 

[boonedocks]

If I understand the quote, the federal government does not present any serious obstacle for getting regulatory approval since they don't have a clear standard yet but cars like Teslas do still need to meet state requirements to get approval. Is that right?

I take Tesla at their word that they are getting regulatory pushback. So logically, Tesla's systems must not be meeting some requirement at the state level, not the fed level. Your quote clearly says that cars must meet state level requirements to get approval.

Many states have already given approval...including mine:

Georgia officially OKs self-driving cars on public roads

In some states I do believe Tesla is the hold-up

 

[emmz0r]

It has nothing to do with regulatory approval. The software has fallen behind.
A dead giveaway is that they have barely started alpha testing some features in FSD on a limited set of Tesla employees with HW3.

 

[diplomat33]

It has nothing to do with regulatory approval. The software has fallen behind.
A dead giveaway is that they have barely started alpha testing some features in FSD on a limited set of Tesla employees with HW3.

Then why not just say that they are behind on the software? Heck, everybody already knows that they are behind of their promises made in 2017. That would make more sense than to make up a bold lie about regulatory approval which could easily be debunked.

 

[emmz0r]

Then why not just say that they are behind on the software? Heck, everybody already knows that they are behind of their promises made in 2017. That would make more sense than to make up a bold lie about regulatory approval which could easily be debunked.

No idea, man! Maybe because the majority is oblivious to it.

 

[Bladerskb]

If I understand the quote, the federal government does not present any serious obstacle for getting regulatory approval since they don't have a clear standard yet but cars like Teslas do still need to meet state requirements to get approval. Is that right?

I take Tesla at their word that they are getting regulatory pushback. So logically, Tesla's systems must not be meeting some requirement at the state level, not the fed level. Your quote clearly says that cars must meet state level requirements to get approval.

Actually it says that some states have some requirement which if you actually look it up is actually no requirement at all. This is stuff like, "must have steering wheel and pedals", "must have seat belts.", etc. Its no regulatory push back or approval as Elon/Tesla is trying to spin it as.

 

[RDoc]

Then why not just say that they are behind on the software? Heck, everybody already knows that they are behind of their promises made in 2017. That would make more sense than to make up a bold lie about regulatory approval which could easily be debunked.

They're behind in their promises made in 2015!

 

[NerdUno]

And now you know why we sold our Tesla with EAP and FSD. Nothin' but lies.

 

[Bladerskb]

Then why not just say that they are behind on the software? Heck, everybody already knows that they are behind of their promises made in 2017. That would make more sense than to make up a bold lie about regulatory approval which could easily be debunked.

Alot of things Elon says can be easily debunked. Its simply up to you if you want to accept the facts or not.

Any states not listed below do not have any laws prohibiting or restricting self driving cars. There's literally about 3-5 states that you would have problems with, for example New York. Not only can you deploy FSD as a Level 2 system in ALL states today. But in the majority of the country. you can deploy and sell LEVEL 5 Fully Autonomous Cars in over 90% of the United States, and in some states the cars can operate without anyone in the driver seat.

For example...

Colorado
Defines automated driving system, dynamic driving task and human operator. Allows a person to use an automated driving system to drive or control a function of a motor vehicle if the system is capable of complying with every state and federal law that applies to the function that the system is operating.

Florida
Permits operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads by individuals with a valid driver license. This bill eliminates the requirement that the vehicle operation is being done for testing purposes and removes a number of provisions related to vehicle operation for testing purposes. Eliminates the requirement that a driver is present in the vehicle. Requires autonomous vehicles meet applicable federal safety standards and regulations.

Georgia
Defines automated driving system, dynamic driving task, fully autonomous vehicle, minimal risk condition and operational design domain. Exempts a person operating an automated motor vehicle with the automated driving system engaged from the requirement to hold a driver's license. Specifies conditions that must be met for a vehicle to operate without a human driver present in the vehicle, including insurance and registration requirements.

Illinois
Preempts local authorities from enacting or enforcing ordinances that prohibit the use of vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems. Defines “automated driving system-equipped vehicle.”

Michigan
Allows for autonomous vehicles under certain conditions. Allows operation without a person in the autonomous vehicle.

Nebraska
This bill defines automated driving system and other relevant terms. The bill states that a driverless-capable vehicle may operate on public roads in the state without a conventional human driver physically present in the vehicle, as long as the vehicle meets the following conditions: (1) The vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a malfunction of the automated driving system occurs that renders the system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task within its intended operational design domain, if any; and (2) While in driverless operation, the vehicle is capable of operating in compliance with the applicable traffic and motor vehicle safety laws and regulations of this state that govern the performance of the dynamic driving task

Nevada
Permits the operation of fully autonomous vehicles in the state without a human operator in the vehicle. Specifies that the original manufacturer is not liable for damages if a vehicle has been modified by an unauthorized third party. Allows the DMV to adopt certain regulations relating to autonomous vehicles. Defines “driver,” for purposes of an autonomous vehicle, to be the person who causes the automated driving system to engage.

North Carolina
Establishes regulations for the operation of fully autonomous motor vehicles on public highways of this state. Defines terms. Specifies that a driver’s license is not required for an AV operator. Requires an adult be in the vehicle if a person under 12 is in the vehicle. Preempts local regulation. Establishes the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee.

Tennessee
Creates the “Automated Vehicles Act.” Defines a number of terms. Modifies laws related to unattended motor vehicles, child passenger restraint systems, seat belts, and crash reporting in order to address ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that ADS-operated vehicles are exempt from licensing requirements. Permits ADS-operated vehicles on streets and highways in the state without a driver in the vehicle if it meets certain conditions. Preempts local regulation of ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that the ADS shall be considered a driver for liability purposes when it is fully engaged and operated properly. Makes it a class A misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in the states without a human driver in the driver’s seat without meeting the requirements of this Act.

Texas
Defines a number of terms, including “automated driving system,” “automated motor vehicle,” “entire dynamic driving task” and “human operator.” Preempts local regulation of automated motor vehicles and automated driving systems. Specifies that the owner of an automated driving system is the operator of the vehicle when the system is engaged and the system is considered licensed to operate the vehicle. Allows an automated motor vehicle to operate in the state regardless of whether a human operator is present in the vehicle, as long as certain requirements are met.

Virginia
Allows the viewing of a visual display while a vehicle is being operated autonomously.

Washington, D.C.
Defines "autonomous vehicle” as "a vehicle capable of navigating District roadways and interpreting traffic-control devices without a driver actively operating any of the vehicle’s control systems." Requires a human driver "prepared to take control of the autonomous vehicle at any moment." Restricts conversion to recent vehicles, and addresses the liability of the original manufacturer of a converted vehicle.

 

[rnortman]

Then why not just say that they are behind on the software?

Simple... because:

I take Tesla at their word that they are getting regulatory pushback.

Many people will take them at their word if they make up excuses instead. Many others will rush to defend them even in the face of facts debunking their lies. Such as the facts @Bladerskb linked to.

 

[diplomat33]

Almost anything that Elon says can be easily debunked. Its simply up to you if you want to accept the facts or not.

Any states not listed below do not have any laws prohibiting or restricting self driving cars. There's literally about 3-5 states that you would have problems with, for example New York. Not only can you can deploy FSD as Level 2 systems in ALL states today. But in the majority of the country. you can deploy and sell LEVEL 5 Fully Autonomous Cars in over 90% of the United States, and in some states the cars can operate without anyone in the driver seat.

For example...

Colorado
Defines automated driving system, dynamic driving task and human operator. Allows a person to use an automated driving system to drive or control a function of a motor vehicle if the system is capable of complying with every state and federal law that applies to the function that the system is operating.

Florida
Permits operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads by individuals with a valid driver license. This bill eliminates the requirement that the vehicle operation is being done for testing purposes and removes a number of provisions related to vehicle operation for testing purposes. Eliminates the requirement that a driver is present in the vehicle. Requires autonomous vehicles meet applicable federal safety standards and regulations.

Georgia
Defines automated driving system, dynamic driving task, fully autonomous vehicle, minimal risk condition and operational design domain. Exempts a person operating an automated motor vehicle with the automated driving system engaged from the requirement to hold a driver's license. Specifies conditions that must be met for a vehicle to operate without a human driver present in the vehicle, including insurance and registration requirements.

Illinois
Preempts local authorities from enacting or enforcing ordinances that prohibit the use of vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems. Defines “automated driving system-equipped vehicle.”

Michigan
Allows for autonomous vehicles under certain conditions. Allows operation without a person in the autonomous vehicle.

Nebraska
This bill defines automated driving system and other relevant terms. The bill states that a driverless-capable vehicle may operate on public roads in the state without a conventional human driver physically present in the vehicle, as long as the vehicle meets the following conditions: (1) The vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a malfunction of the automated driving system occurs that renders the system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task within its intended operational design domain, if any; and (2) While in driverless operation, the vehicle is capable of operating in compliance with the applicable traffic and motor vehicle safety laws and regulations of this state that govern the performance of the dynamic driving task

Nevada
Permits the operation of fully autonomous vehicles in the state without a human operator in the vehicle. Specifies that the original manufacturer is not liable for damages if a vehicle has been modified by an unauthorized third party. Allows the DMV to adopt certain regulations relating to autonomous vehicles. Defines “driver,” for purposes of an autonomous vehicle, to be the person who causes the automated driving system to engage.

North Carolina
Establishes regulations for the operation of fully autonomous motor vehicles on public highways of this state. Defines terms. Specifies that a driver’s license is not required for an AV operator. Requires an adult be in the vehicle if a person under 12 is in the vehicle. Preempts local regulation. Establishes the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee.

Tennessee
Creates the “Automated Vehicles Act.” Defines a number of terms. Modifies laws related to unattended motor vehicles, child passenger restraint systems, seat belts, and crash reporting in order to address ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that ADS-operated vehicles are exempt from licensing requirements. Permits ADS-operated vehicles on streets and highways in the state without a driver in the vehicle if it meets certain conditions. Preempts local regulation of ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that the ADS shall be considered a driver for liability purposes when it is fully engaged and operated properly. Makes it a class A misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in the states without a human driver in the driver’s seat without meeting the requirements of this Act.

Texas
Defines a number of terms, including “automated driving system,” “automated motor vehicle,” “entire dynamic driving task” and “human operator.” Preempts local regulation of automated motor vehicles and automated driving systems. Specifies that the owner of an automated driving system is the operator of the vehicle when the system is engaged and the system is considered licensed to operate the vehicle. Allows an automated motor vehicle to operate in the state regardless of whether a human operator is present in the vehicle, as long as certain requirements are met.

Virginia
Allows the viewing of a visual display while a vehicle is being operated autonomously.

Washington, D.C.
Defines "autonomous vehicle” as "a vehicle capable of navigating District roadways and interpreting traffic-control devices without a driver actively operating any of the vehicle’s control systems." Requires a human driver "prepared to take control of the autonomous vehicle at any moment." Restricts conversion to recent vehicles, and addresses the liability of the original manufacturer of a converted vehicle.

Thanks. That is very informative.

 

[CK_Stuggi]

Essentially the regulations affect autonomous vehicles (L4/L5 in development, such as Waymo etc.) not privately operated "regular" vehicles with extensive ADAS (which any Tesla is atm).

If Tesla had anything advanced to show for, why don't they put up a video like in October '16? Or show off something on their test track or in their parking lot? They have a developer permit in California IIRC, so they could even show it on public roads.
So why don't they?
Because they have nothing to show.

While I do not concur with some of Bladers assessments, in the respect that Tesla/Elon is making up excuses I do.

Still to me my Model S is the best/most high end car I've ever driven and to me it's still enjoyable fun although I wasted the money I spent when I believed in FSD.
I'm curious where it all goes, and I kind of, sometimes in a masochistic way, enjoy all the updates I get and how the advancements are being updated to the car.
I sure wish they were coming faster and make bigger strides, but short of buying a new car every 2 years to get a product from another vendor who might be ahead there's no way to better enjoy these new advancements.
Like, Mobileye may have better hard- and software, but there's no car out there where I can get the benefits yet, and even if there was I couldn't afford buying a new car everyone there's a hardware upgrade somewhere.
(Plus I got the free hardware upgrade promise on my AP2 - which IIRC was listed on the FSD Info on the website, not just an Elon tweet).

 

[diplomat33]

@Bladerskb regulators approve release of advanced summon:
Tesla's Advanced Summon with 'remote control mode' gets regulators' approval

 

[emmz0r]

Which regulations are we talking about? Federal or State level?

 

[rnortman]

@Bladerskb regulators approve release of advanced summon:
Tesla's Advanced Summon with 'remote control mode' gets regulators' approval

Let me fix that for you:

Elon saw an internal demo of an early alpha running on HW3 and is pretty sure it'll be super easy to port to HW2; reflexively blames imaginary regulators for the delay.