Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

FSD is now 100% in Tesla's hands

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yeah, the subtle part is the "consumer" part. I know there are states that allow testing without a driver. I'll dig out the article (it had a handy chart that showed the differences).

The article does say the sales part:

"And they allow the sale of self-driving vehicles to the public once they are tested and certified, according to the state."

It it is a sales to public as cited, then consumers should be covered by the law too.
 
The article does say the sales part:

"And they allow the sale of self-driving vehicles to the public once they are tested and certified, according to the state."

It it is a sales to public as cited, then consumers should be covered by the law too.
Well sales and operation are two different things though. What does it say for operation?
 
The article says:

"
Only five other states — California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada and Tennessee — and the District of Columbia have officially passed laws on autonomous driving.

Most still require drivers behind the wheel."

If they still require a human driver (just like Germany does), I wouldn't consider them as autonomous.

I know Florida and Michigan do not require a driver. Michigan law even goes further and approves cars without controls for human (accelerator pedal, brake pedal, steering wheel...)

But, even if they require a driver, Tesla should be able to release public Full-Self Driving Capability feature requiring a driver just like Autopilot now.

Yes - I agree - I don't see why, when they are ready to release it just like autopilot but with extra autonomous features like Auto Lane Change to faster lanes, turning onto other roads by itself, Advanced Summon (on Private Property), Traffic Light, Signs, Stop Sign Recognition, etc. So they are not ready they have a less than Beta version of the software that hasn't been deemed safe yet - especially true because they are still working on releasing full parity to AP1......
 
Well sales and operation are two different things though. What does it say for operation?

OK! So Michigan law allows the sales of autonomous cars to the public, but since it is understood that the public is not to have it run around in the streets after paying good money for them so looks like the law also allows a network of driverless taxi fleet to pick up consumers in that case:

"... it allows networks of self-driving cars that can pick up passengers on demand."

Whether consumers have their autonomous cars running around or a network with autonomous cars running around, the net result on the street is the same:

There will be a whole bunch of cars running on their own without any human drivers and the law is ok with that (unlike current California's law).
 
OK! So Michigan law allows the sales of autonomous cars to the public, but since it is understood that the public is not to have it run around in the streets after paying good money for them so looks like the law also allows a network of driverless taxi fleet to pick up consumers in that case:

"... it allows networks of self-driving cars that can pick up passengers on demand."

Whether consumers have their autonomous cars running around or a network with autonomous cars running around, the net result on the street is the same:

There will be a whole bunch of cars running on their own without any human drivers and the law is ok with that (unlike current California's law).
I found the article:
Michigan just became the first state to pass comprehensive self-driving regulations

It allows manufacturers to operate a network of on demand self-driving cars but doesn't allow other companies (like Uber/Lyft) to do so unless they work with manufacturers to do so.

But the article doesn't really go into detail about consumer owned vehicles. It doesn't make it clear consumers can operate such vehicles without a driver (although clearly it's legal in both Michigan and Florida to test without a driver).
 
??
Where does that link say that Georgia's law to allow FSD is trumped by Federal Law and would not be allowed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OK. This breaks down into several questions, depending on what you mean by the question.

If you mean: "Show me where in the article it says that federal law trumps state law," see the text that says:

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.​

If you mean, "OK, but show me where federal law prohibits autonomous vehicles, because if federal law does not prohibit autonomous vehicles, then can't Georgia permit it, because then," you might argue, "Georgia is free to allow it." To that fine argument, I might respond:

Perhaps.

The "deep dive" article I linked to sets forth the regulations which appear to assume the existence of a driver because they were promulgated before autonomous vehicles were seriously contemplated.

The unanswered question in the two lead cases

The issue resolved in the two leading cases -- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (U.S.Supreme Ct. 2011), and Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., (U.S. Supreme Ct. 2000) - seems to be that state control of FMVSS issues is preempted where the state law (be it constitution, statute, rule, regulation or court action) would constitute an “obstacle to a significant regulatory objective.”

The question here, then, is whether Georgia's statutes and/or regulations would constitute an obstruction to an industry regulated by the FMVSS which assumes the existence of a driver.

My guess is that it does, but I certainly have neither authority nor really strong sense of that. A court may have to decide that unless the FMVSS is amended to address the problem before a suit results.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: oktane
OK. This breaks down into several questions, depending on what you mean by the question.

If you mean: "Show me where in the article it says that federal law trumps state law," see the text that says:

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.​

If you mean, "OK, but show me where federal law prohibits autonomous vehicles, because if federal law does not prohibit autonomous vehicles, then can't Georgia permit it, because then," you might argue, "Georgia is free to allow it." To that fine argument, I might respond:

Perhaps.

The "deep dive" article I linked to sets forth the regulations which appear to assume the existence of a driver because they were promulgated before autonomous vehicles were seriously contemplated.

The unanswered question in the two lead cases

The issue resolved in the two leading cases -- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (U.S.Supreme Ct. 2011), and Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., (U.S. Supreme Ct. 2000) - seems to be that state control of FMVSS issues is preempted where the state law (be it constitution, statute, rule, regulation or court action) would constitute an “obstacle to a significant regulatory objective.”

The question here, then, is whether Georgia's statutes and/or regulations would constitute an obstruction to an industry regulated by the FMVSS which assumes the existence of a driver.

My guess is that it does, but I certainly have neither authority nor really strong sense of that. A court may have to decide that unless the FMVSS is amended to address the problem before a suit results.

I find your analysis thoughtful, thanks for sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JHWJR
...Uber/Lyft) to do so unless they work with manufacturers to do so...

Thanks for the article which says that is 1 of 2 ways to conduct autonomous ride-sharing service in Michigan:

"...non-traditional automakers like Google, Uber, and Apple will be allowed to test and deploy their vehicles on public roads if the companies

either

work with a motor vehicle manufacturer to develop and produce those cars

or

get their vehicle or prototype approved by NHTSA."


Also, the article's graphic is clear "Legalized self-driving, ride-sharing":

MEDC_AutonomousInfograph_161209_Media.jpg


Another article below understood the same way:

Michigan Legalizes Consumer Sales Of Self-Driving Vehicles (No Steering Wheels Or Pedals Required)

"auto manufacturers are now legally allowed to sell completely autonomous vehicles to consumers, and consumers are now legally allowed to use self-driving features anywhere in the state, on any road."

There is no question that the law has consumers in its mind.