FSD very far away due to regulations?

[Daniel in SD]

Article from Electrek: https://electrek.co/2019/01/09/tesla-self-driving-package-buyers-regulations/
Why not just release FSD in states where it is legal, like California? Surely they could geo-fence it. It would be nice to know which regulations are preventing the release...

Obviously this is somewhat of a troll post but I wish Tesla would be more honest about this. It seems like the default position is to blame the government when the truth is that the problem with FSD is that it doesn't work yet.

 

[chronopc]

Article from Electrek: Tesla warns ‘self-driving package’ buyers that activation is ‘very far away’ due to regulations
Why not just release FSD in states where it is legal, like California? Surely they could geo-fence it. It would be nice to know which regulations are preventing the release...

Obviously this is somewhat of a troll post but I wish Tesla would be more honest about this. It seems like the default position is to blame the government when the truth is that the problem with FSD is that it doesn't work yet.

Is it really legal in CA? I'm surprised it was never put on a proposition like everything else.

 

[Runebane]

Considering the way my autopilot acts, still phantom breaking (sometimes near bridges, sometimes with nothing around), refusing to merge with traffic if it doesn't have 3 car lengths (1 behind 2 in front) to do so with and that's just freeway. They still need to deal with stop lights, full turns etc... At least on the model 3, it's just not ready even if it's legal in CA, which I don't think it is but honestly don't know. I thought it was only legal for testing, not for the public.

 

[ewoodrick]

It's really just a disclaimer. It may be capable earlier, but the nag will stay until the law allows for it.

 

[DdotRoq]

That statement is more for EU than US. The EU carries stricter guidelines for the most part so FSD will be difficult to achieve. I expect we will have beta access to FSD sometime within the next year and out of beta right around 2021. I also expect certain States to allow FSD given certain exceptions (for example, the supervisor of the vehicle would be responsible for the vehicle actions, etc.)

 

[JeffK]

Much of this revolves around laws stating that there must be a driver in the car. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping them from releasing a temporary Level 2 like FSD solution. It could work exactly the same as EAP in that people must have their hands on the wheel and it'd be legal right now.

 

[kavyboy]

It's really just a disclaimer. It may be capable earlier, but the nag will stay until the law allows for it.

Can you cite a single law that explicitly requires a nag? I bet not.

 

[eloder]

It's really just a disclaimer. It may be capable earlier, but the nag will stay until the law allows for it.

Yup, I believe this is what will happen. FSD features will start coming to equipped vehicles, but it will still require a human driver and probably nags for quite some time on public roads. So you could have it navigate from point A to point B by itself, as long as you're still in the car.

 

[Eno Deb]

Is it really legal in CA? I'm surprised it was never put on a proposition like everything else.

No. California started issuing permits for testing driverless autonomous vehicles in 2018, but they are only for testing and require that the vehicles can be remotely controlled by a human operator.

 

[jlund]

Particularly since this is coming from people at the sales level, this smells like “anti-selling” FSD until they get HW3 available. It’s just more retrofits to add to the list at a discount for every FSD software update they sell.

Tesla have a HW3 roadmap and FSD depends on it. This wasn’t always the case. So they know it’s better to sell FSD after they get new hardware in prod.

And while regulation and legal will block true FSD, I imagine Tesla will try and sell FSD again once HW3 is out, by rolling out features, one update at a time and requiring you to be behind the wheel. And of course, charging for retrofits to people who didn’t get FSD so they cover the loss.

Not a critique, more an observation on what would be reasonable move for a company trying to stay alive and be profitable.

 

[chronopc]

No. California started issuing permits for testing driverless autonomous vehicles in 2018, but they are only for testing and require that the vehicles can be remotely controlled by a human operator.

That makes sense. I was starting to get worried that CA was able to actually make a quick decision.

 

[Daniel in SD]

They are legal for testing and public use: Driverless Testing and Public Use Rules for Autonomous Vehicles Approved
Tesla in fact has a permit to test FSD on public roads. Waymo has a permit to test on public roads without a driver in the car.

 

[StellarRat]

Article from Electrek: Tesla warns ‘self-driving package’ buyers that activation is ‘very far away’ due to regulations
Why not just release FSD in states where it is legal, like California? Surely they could geo-fence it. It would be nice to know which regulations are preventing the release...

Obviously this is somewhat of a troll post but I wish Tesla would be more honest about this. It seems like the default position is to blame the government when the truth is that the problem with FSD is that it doesn't work yet.

It's not ready yet. I know Tesla is super ambitious on this, but I just don't see it as workable for quite a while yet.

 

[dondy]

Article from Electrek: Tesla warns ‘self-driving package’ buyers that activation is ‘very far away’ due to regulations
Why not just release FSD in states where it is legal, like California? Surely they could geo-fence it. It would be nice to know which regulations are preventing the release...

Obviously this is somewhat of a troll post but I wish Tesla would be more honest about this. It seems like the default position is to blame the government when the truth is that the problem with FSD is that it doesn't work yet.

FSD level 4 is illegal everywhere. Existing projects are covered by "testing" provision, and are always accompanied with special legal provision between respective companies and local authorities.
Here is a quote from NHTSA AV guidance:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/AV policy guidance PDF.pdf

In order to make the transition from human-driven motor vehicles
equipped with automated safety technologies to fully automated
vehicles, gaps in current regulations should be identified and
addressed by the States (with the assistance of NHTSA). Some
examples are:
•
Law enforcement/emergency response
•
Occupant safety
•
Motor vehicle insurance
•
Crash investigations/crash reporting
•
Liability (tort, criminal, etc.)
•
Motor vehicle safety inspections
•
Education and training
•
Vehicle modifications and maintenance
•
Environmental impacts

Existing legal constrains practically prohibit private ownership of 4,5 level FSD systems, or transfer of such vehicles to third persons. Google's way building driver-less taxis is pretty much the only way.
Current NTSA provisions define very clearly requirements for Level 2systems demanding all time driver awareness (see "nagging") therefore limiting possibilities for pitching FSD level 4,5 systems using EULA mechanisms. Level 3 which Tesla wants to sell actually falls in-between. Nobody knows how to legalize it.

As I was already writing a number of months ago there will be actual legal significant delay between well working level 3-4 hardware and legislation. There is no way you will see legal FSD lvl4 on roads before 2025.

 

[Daniel in SD]

FSD level 4 is illegal everywhere. Existing projects are covered by "testing" provision, and are always accompanied with special legal provision between respective companies and local authorities.
Here is a quote from NHTSA AV guidance:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/AV policy guidance PDF.pdf

Existing legal constrains practically prohibit private ownership of 4,5 level FSD systems, or transfer of such vehicles to third persons. Google's way building driver-less taxis is pretty much the only way.
Current NTSA provisions define very clearly requirements for Level 2systems demanding all time driver awareness (see "nagging") therefore limiting possibilities for pitching FSD level 4,5 systems using EULA mechanisms. Level 3 which Tesla wants to sell actually falls in-between. Nobody knows how to legalize it.

As I was already writing a number of months ago there will be actual legal significant delay between well working level 3-4 hardware and legislation. There is no way you will see legal FSD lvl4 on roads before 2025.

Where does it say that states can't legalize FSD vehicles as CA has done? It looks to me like they're leaving the regulation of FSD up to the states with the long term goal of creating mostly consistent regulation. It seems like the right move for Tesla would be to get FSD approved in California and then make the case for finalization of federal regulations.

 

[dondy]

Where does it say that states can't legalize FSD vehicles as CA has done? It looks to me like they're leaving the regulation of FSD up to the states with the long term goal of creating mostly consistent regulation. It seems like the right move for Tesla would be to get FSD approved in California and then make the case for finalization of federal regulations.

CA did not legalize FSD level 4. They formalized NTSA rules for FSD testing and they issue licenses for testing. Testing is not using.

Indeed the only way for any company Tesla included is to build FSD first and push legislation using HYPE. State by state. The time-frame I stated is very optimistic, and takes into account somebody like Musk who would relentlessly push his agenda through. The list of legislation gaps I quoted is far from complete.

 

[SigNC]

I think FSD, as in send your car to X or tell it to come pick you up, will not be seen in a minimum of 10 years. I am however curious how/if 5G will impact innovation.

 

[Daniel in SD]

NHTSA determines that Google's SDS (self driving system) is the driver of the vehicle .
Google -- compiled response to 12 Nov 15 interp request -- 4 Feb 16 final
Both testing and public use require that the vehicle meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)

 

[Daniel in SD]

CA did not legalize FSD level 4. They formalized NTSA rules for FSD testing and they issue licenses for testing. Testing is not using.

Indeed the only way for any company Tesla included is to build FSD first and push legislation using HYPE. State by state. The time-frame I stated is very optimistic, and takes into account somebody like Musk who would relentlessly push his agenda through. The list of legislation gaps I quoted is far from complete.

Driverless Testing and Public Use Rules for Autonomous Vehicles Approved

This second set of regulations for autonomous vehicles in California establishes rules for testing autonomous technology without a driver and how manufacturers can allow the public to use self-driving cars. The regulations become effective on April 2, 2018, and DMV can begin issuing permits on that date.

 

[dondy]

NHTSA determines that Google's SDS (self driving system) is the driver of the vehicle .
Google -- compiled response to 12 Nov 15 interp request -- 4 Feb 16 final

bingo. Google is responsible for it's actions.
btw.
The permission they got and subsequently legalized as "public use" states:
1) The manufacturer shall identify in the application the operational design domain in which the subject autonomous vehicles are designed to operate and certify that the vehicles are designed to be incapable of operating in the autonomous mode in areas outside of the disclosed operational design domain.

....(1) A communication link between the vehicle and the remote operator if any, to provide information on the vehicle’s location and status and allow two-way communication between the remote operator and any passengers, if applicable, should the vehicle experiences
any failures that would endanger the safety of the vehicle’s passengers or other road users while operating without a driver.