FSD very far away due to regulations?

[eli_]

I have a hunch that if/when Tesla gets the technology ready, it will launch its Level 4/Level 5 product as a Level 2 product initially (like Enhanced Autopilot is today). Essentially, Tesla owners will act as safety drivers for the new software. Once there is ~10 billion miles of safety data, statisticians can decide whether the Level 4/Level 5 product is as safe as the average human driver.

So, just driving ~10B miles could take a while. Leaving aside the time for statistical study and regulators’ deliberation.

Even if FSD becomes reliable in terms of driving without accident, I think it's still likely to get stuck/confused all the time and require human assistance. There's always going to be some % of trips that require human intervention, especially at launch, even if it's just a handful of people looking after thousands of cars.

I think FSD will ironically require a lot of human capital and fleet support infrastructure, none of which exist at all today and can't be built in a day. Elon's vision is you summon the car from the app, and it drives from LA to NY to come find you. Okay then, so who will intervene when your car gets confused and stuck in the middle of Nebraska? Does some Tesla service van drive out to your car to get it unstuck? Do they teleoperate it remotely from Fremont or the local service center? There are huge swaths of the country that are hundreds of miles from Tesla service. Who is even paying for all this? Is it part of road side assistance that someone helps a lost and confused FSD car?

 

[Bladerskb]

No regulatory approval neccesary. Rebuttal to Fred's 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."

 

[Vitold]

Some people think that regulatory approval is an obstacle. To the contrary, regulatory approval removes uncertainty and certain liabilities from operating autonomously.

 

[lunitiks]

Bladerskb makes sense

 

[hiroshiy]

Google Translate
While in the far east...

(Sorry in Japanese- Google translate)
Japanese government decided to restrict L3 software from OTA updates, allowing regulators to inspect each version for safety.
They even seem to say they make it safe by actually test "driving" and having experienced engineers to look into code. <laugh>

So the government motivation seems to be protecting Japanese OEMs (only in Japanese market) from OTA and increasing software development and testing costs. That also means Japanese OEMs, including Toyota, Nissan, are WAY behind in L3 so that they need government protection.

I think Tesla can still release L3 with "L2" label in Japan, but we will see less updates. We are already seeing fewer updates (once a month) from Tesla, because of the government intervention.

 

[CarlK]

Google Translate
While in the far east...

(Sorry in Japanese- Google translate)
Japanese government decided to restrict L3 software from OTA updates, allowing regulators to inspect each version for safety.
They even seem to say they make it safe by actually test "driving" and having experienced engineers to look into code. <laugh>

So the government motivation seems to be protecting Japanese OEMs (only in Japanese market) from OTA and increasing software development and testing costs. That also means Japanese OEMs, including Toyota, Nissan, are WAY behind in L3 so that they need government protection.

I think Tesla can still release L3 with "L2" label in Japan, but we will see less updates. We are already seeing fewer updates (once a month) from Tesla, because of the government intervention.

That's kind of silly. Protectionism never works. That's especially true in the technology front. You will only be falling further behind. In the US some states seem to be competing with each other to open up regulations to lure companies there.

 

[OPRCE]

Google Translate
While in the far east...

(Sorry in Japanese- Google translate)
Japanese government decided to restrict L3 software from OTA updates, allowing regulators to inspect each version for safety.
They even seem to say they make it safe by actually test "driving" and having experienced engineers to look into code. <laugh>

So the government motivation seems to be protecting Japanese OEMs (only in Japanese market) from OTA and increasing software development and testing costs. That also means Japanese OEMs, including Toyota, Nissan, are WAY behind in L3 so that they need government protection.

I think Tesla can still release L3 with "L2" label in Japan, but we will see less updates. We are already seeing fewer updates (once a month) from Tesla, because of the government intervention.

It also says:
"If manufacturers or third parties do updates without permission, penalties such as fines will be levied."

... which is another area where Tesla will need to conform to the standard industry practice.

Sweden has a system to temporarily withdraw approval for new sales if updates cause safety hazards and I suspect the rest of Europe will not be far behind in placing a lot closer scrutiny on the free-for-all of OTA updates which can (potentially negatively) affect the safety and driving characteristics of already approved vehicles.

 

[OPRCE]

Protectionism never works.

That's a rather dubious claim:
The Rise of China and the Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth

 

[CarlK]

That's a rather dubious claim:
The Rise of China and the Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth

People seems to forget China's fall from one of the most advanced and prosperous countries on the planet was largely due to protetionism in the 19th centrury. On the contrary much smaller and weaker Japan was able to open to western commerce and technology to become a much richer and stronger country. As for current China "rise" it is only because it's MUCH more open than it previously was, not to mention this chapter is not done yet. It will need to becoming more open to truely complete it imo.

 

[Lasairfion]

Today's newspaper.

 

[boonedocks]

Since May 2017 for Georgia. Tesla won't be able to hide behind the "regulators" forever....

Georgia officially OKs self-driving cars on public roads

 

[malcolm]

"The federal government has not yet updated its safety standards for autonomous vehicles

Since May 2017 for Georgia. Tesla won't be able to hide behind the "regulators" forever....

Well, according to Bladerskb, the regulators have yet to reach their hold-my-beer moment.

They are bound to (over) react to some autonomous incident from *insert your preferred system maker here*

 

[boonedocks]

Well, according to Bladerskb, the regulators have yet to reach their hold-my-beer moment.

They are bound to (over) react to some autonomous incident from *insert your preferred system maker here*

If Tesla continues down the current path....they will hold out long enough to be AFTER the overreactions and be "legitimately" waiting on regulators....we're all screwed. LOL LOL

 

[lunitiks]

"hold-my-beer moment"

Whatever that means, I love it

 

[OPRCE]

People seems to forget China's fall from one of the most advanced and prosperous countries on the planet was largely due to protetionism in the 19th centrury

Perhaps if they'd protected themselves a bit better from the Brits forcing 'free trade' opium upon them they wouldn't have fallen in the first place?

 

[rnortman]

The recent history of China and the West's role in it is fascinating but a bit off-subject.

 

[CarlK]

Perhaps if they'd protected themselves a bit better from the Brits forcing 'free trade' opium upon them they wouldn't have fallen in the first place?

On the contrary the Brits had to force its way in only because China did not want to do free trade with them. China got silk and porcelain the west valued but China was pretty self sufficient, and arrogant too, that it thought it's best to keep those forigners and forign stuff out of it. The same mentallity made it not to participate in the industrial revolution and resulted in a weak military force for the easy British invasion. Japan started the 18th century the same way but it changed soon enough that made it the only serious power outside the western world by end of the centrury.

The recent history of China and the West's role in it is fascinating but a bit off-subject.

It's still relevant to the subject since we were debating roles of regulation and protectionism to this very important future technoloby. Something for example Japan and Germany better learn even when they were in pretty comfortable positions in the legacy auto technologies.

 

[OPRCE]

On the contrary the Brits had to force its way in only because China did not want to do free trade with them.

This equates to arguing "Judge, I had to rape her because she said no." i.e. unselfconsciously displaying an entitled mentality which you may believe to be a legal defence but is in fact a self-indictment.

 

[CarlK]

This equates to arguing "Judge, I had to rape her because she said no." i.e. unselfconsciously displaying an entitled mentality which you may believe to be a legal defence but is in fact a self-indictment.

It does not mean Brit's action was in any way justified but that was just how it played out. The point is China was weakened and could not defend itself because it was closed to progress happened outside its borders. That was the central subject of this whole discussion.

 

[OPRCE]

That did not mean Brit's action was justified but it was just how it played out. The point is China was weakened and can not defend itself because it was closed to progress happened outside its borders. That was the central subject of this whole discussion.

My point was that protectionism has historically worked well for nations to build up their own industry/economy. It is only after they have developed an unassailable competitive advantage that these "altruists" begin to insist on forcing "free trade" upon those nations who have sought to later follow their example.

Getting back to the present then, it is entirely legitimate for nations outside the US to regulate the influx of potentially shoddy Tesla OTA updates which may affect user/road safety.

If that by coincidence causes a delay during which native competitors introduce a superior product, then by the rules of free trade it is a win-win, as Tesla must up their game to remain in it.

Thus you should be delighted to see Japan & EU & China assist Tesla to improve ... Lord knows it sorely needs all the help it can get!