I think he was making a guess based on what information he had at the time. I think, just based on what I heard in the podcast a week ago, that he either has pivoted the way FSD will roll out, or just updated where he stands on things.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
PSA: Please don't expect any FSD features this year, or even early next year, really
- Thread starter Elmexiken
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Autonomous Vehicles fsd
I think he was making a guess based on what information he had at the time. I think, just based on what I heard in the podcast a week ago, that he either has pivoted the way FSD will roll out, or just updated where he stands on things.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Most that address it at all state the "driver" is the owner of the car, or whomever enaged the automated system- and in general the driver of a vehicle is responsible for what the vehicle does.
For example Nevada defines “driver,” for purposes of an autonomous vehicle, to be the person who causes the automated driving system to engage.
A system that tells you in advance you must remain aware and responsible and ready to intervene (as a level 2 version of FSD would do) making a mistake you failed to intervene in isn't a "defect"
Notice how many lawsuits Tesla lost over EAP driving into a stationary object? (Hint: it's zero)
Mainly though when Elon suggests there may be delays from regulation what he means is some combination of these facts:
Currently some states allow self-driving, all the way through level 5, fully...
Currently some states have 0 laws on the books about this whatsoever...
Currently some states are somewhere in between...
Currently the Federal Government has roughly 0 laws on this- just some non-binding "guidelines" and isn't likely to have any binding ones anytime in the near future...
So regulation is a patchwork state-by-state mess for the most part. Even if they had L5 working tomorrow they'd have to do all kinds of weird geofencing to insure the car wasn't violating the wide array of laws depending where you drive it.
That said- there'd be plenty of places it'd be legal to drive such a car- tomorrow- if it existed.
1. Very Legal & Very Cool! Well I agree it may look like Tesla are sailing somewhat close to the wind legally speaking but the line has to be drawn somewhere and this L2 v L3 technicality is apparently where it's at right now in California.
2. So I guess Tesla is arguing that they're not testing FSD because their FSD system isn't good enough to test yet? Yes, pseudo-FSD (as individual features in development) is not yet good enough to allow self-operation as L3, therefore it remains under a L2 control regime for testing hence is *not* an AV for the purposes of California law and escapes the disengagement reporting requirements. When Tesla configure it to operate as L3 (nags removed) then the legal situation will also change.
3. You think that Waymo doesn't have full nags after what happened with Uber? Yes, Waymo's designed-for-L4 RoboTaxis have no nags in the Tesla sense of requiring regular human input along the way to complete a journey. They very likely have a camera-based (safety-)Driver Attentiveness Monitoring System (DAMS) to keep 'em focussed (on holding their job) but the safety driver only physically intervenes when the vehicle gets stuck or makes a dangerously bad decision, reportedly once in about 11k miles currently, which is fantastic performance and a quantum leap beyond AP nags every ~15s. Also these safety drivers are specially trained and licensed and the vehicle operates only within a limited geographical domain. Similar with less quality applies to Uber AVs except they operate in the more lax legal environment of Nevada/Arizona (e.g. no mandatory disengagement reporting) and I believe they have now added a human co-pilot to ensure the SD does not fall asleep or spend her time watching sitcoms until it is time to mow down another cyclist, while working to develop their own DAMS.
4. What's the difference between testing FSD and testing pseudo-FSD? It is that pseudo-FSD is in development atop L2 AP, essentially one "alpha" feature at a time, and *by design* full control for any journey is not relinquished to the system, i.e. nagging secured. OTOH if Tesla were to come out and say "Dear DMV, here is our feature-complete L3 FSD AV product designed to go from point A to B without human input, which we now want to test on your public roads" then they would essentially be in the same boat as Waymo and Uber. However, they are not nearly at that point yet (Musk estimates end of 2020, hence more realistically it will be end of 2022) so literally have no other option but to continue as they are currently doing.
5. Why are other companies bothering to report disengagements when they could just be testing pseudo-FSD like Tesla? Waymo and Uber could have followed the Tesla route but both decided early on against having a L2 vehicle upon which to test FSD features piecemeal, completely skipping L3 because it requires a tricky handover of control from machine to human in doubtful situations (Google wanted to maximise safety and Uber evidently just wanted to minimise time/costs), so also are now constrained (just conversely to Tesla) by their respective development philosophy/business model.
6. I could be entirely wrong about all this, in which case we should expect to see Tesla's AV permit cancelled and/or have its employee pseudo-FSD & HW3 testing program shuttered and/or attract an indictment/lawsuit from the state of California. But until that happens I don't see any other way these things can be working. If anyone has a plausible theory as to how Tesla is breaking the law, I'd love to hear it.
It seems highly unlikely because
1. this would soon be discovered, at latest when the 1st safety driver chats to the public at a supercharger.
2. it would be a bad PR look for the company, allowing shorties to proclaim Tesla had to flee their home state in order to test this volatile product out in some desert, and that they were so embarrassed they tried to hide that fact.
3. Musk, at least insofar as I can interpret his words, has said FSD will not be L3 (mind off = nags off) before end of 2020.
1. Please show where this is the case. [just because Volvo volunteered to do it this way doesn't mean all OEMs must]
2. It seems you are assuming Tesla has a >=L3 FSD system for customers to test, whereas Herr Musk in last week's ARK podcast optimistically expected to see that at earliest by end of 2020.
3. So maybe they will want the law changed for 2021 but have no need of it atm.
4. I think it much more likely though that Tesla will simply expand the employee pseudo-FSD & HW3 testing scheme to all eligible customers (at least in California), while keeping it under the L2 nag regime until thoroughly tested and approved as L3, in which case no more testing is necessary and true FSD is rolled out.
5. As for FSD accident liability Musk has stated it shall be shoved onto the vehicle owner's insurance, as per the current system regarding AP. Not sure if this will pan out for him but it is a separate issue not really related to the speed or method of AV development.
I can particularly see this being the case in Europe, where the German cartel OEMs will likely huddle together to whisper a word in Mutti Merkel's ear, shortly after which point the "consensus" diktat will fall that all new vehicles sold in EU from 2022 must have LiDAR-level redundancy in their mandatory AEB safety system, or some such contrivance to coincidentally-on-purpose choke off/retard the unwelcome upstart competition which was so eating into their sales.
However, in itself it would be a welcome technical improvement, as safer for everyone.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I'm sorry but the argument that Tesla is not subject to CA FSD testing regulations because they force the test driver to hold the steering wheel instead of just being ready to hold the steering wheel is absurd. Either Tesla hasn't begun testing FSD on public roads in CA or they are breaking the law. California regulations forces all FSD systems being tested to be operated as L2 systems since the test driver is required to monitor the system and take over when necessary (and not only when the system think it's necessary as would be required by a L3 system).
The current regulations haven't gotten that far because no manufacturer is close to selling autonomous vehicles. Defects in FSD software would be covered under tort law. There are definitely a lot of unsettled legal questions. California certainly didn't envision non-employees testing FSD vehicles. It really seems that having customers test FSD would not be allowed in California.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Only took two days for you to be proven wrong. Sad!
PARTIALLY correct. Fsd won't be available in 2019 or 2020 (likely). but, the little feature increments which make up fsd (confirmation free NOA expected to happen 15-mar) will roll out stating this year. I do see more folks getting fsd based on latest fsd feature set starting to roll out this year.
No way Tesla will be able to sell a $35k Model 3 this year. Oh wait, wrong thread. 
Elon’s been trolling us. Tesla is further along (in everything) than most people think. I predict NoA running on HW3 will be better than the average driver by end of year. And despite Tesla’s history of being months or even years late on self driving, I do think automatic city driving (with nags) will come out later this year. Of course it’ll suck at first, but by end of 2020 it’ll be pretty good, and by end of 2021 there will be more focus on data and regulatory approval to turn off the nags.
Elon’s been trolling us. Tesla is further along (in everything) than most people think. I predict NoA running on HW3 will be better than the average driver by end of year. And despite Tesla’s history of being months or even years late on self driving, I do think automatic city driving (with nags) will come out later this year. Of course it’ll suck at first, but by end of 2020 it’ll be pretty good, and by end of 2021 there will be more focus on data and regulatory approval to turn off the nags.
1. Is it? Holding the wheel or not is the essential distinction between L2 v L3, and the latter is where the AV regulations start to apply.
In any case we can agree to disagree.
2. Musk announced around 1 Dec 2018 that they are greatly expanding an employee testing program for HW3 & FSD features, which entails them getting a price rebate in exchange for regular feedback from testing in their personal vehicles on their own time:
3. Thus far one Californian has reported meeting and discussing the capabilities of the system with such personnel at a supercharger. While this is as yet only anecdotal evidence it indicates that the scheme had commenced by ~mid-Jan.2019, i.e. would have missed the last Nov-Nov reporting window but maybe they will begin reporting disengagements for 2019 from this framework?
4. The vanishingly unlikely option IMHO is that they are doing anything illegal.
5. That is not my reading of the regulations and e.g. Waymo's RoboTaxi cannot be operated as a L2 system, otherwise it would be throwing disengagements every 3 feet, not 11k miles. Just having a safety driver in a test vehicle does not render it a L2.
6. Fair enough, the California regulations provide for testing L3..5 AVs with safety driver or driverless on public roads and whether the things are ever sold is immaterial for DMV's purposes, whereas testing new features as L2 in vehicles already type-approved requires no special permit. Presumably, however, in a year or so they will be updating the law to allow at least L3 operation by regular drivers.
7. Not if the vehicle owner and his insurer contract that the latter will assume the risk in exchange for much monies.
8. Here we generally agree, though IIRC something is in the works at Fed level in USA? In Europe it seems L3 is already legal and the first vehicles will be sold this year, namely Audi A8, though restricted by manufacturer to 60kmh on Autobahn. The feature will not be available in USA, due to the legal mish-mash across the individual states.
9. Agreed, for >=L3 they are specially-trained designees, but if they tolerate untrained employees testing pseudo-FSD features in their personal vehicles on own time under L2 without reporting disengagements then I don't see why they would not view other Tesla owners doing that same thing in the same light.
10. If by FSD you mean >=L3 then that is correct. Pseudo-FSD under L2 is OTOH the loophole through which Tesla is IMO currently slipping.
However, time will tell all and we should hopefully not have to wait too much longer to find out!
Last edited:
1. Wow, looks like the Bold Musketeer has resolved our conundrum by simply redefining FSD to mean L2 NoAP, from which it follows that everything else under this rubric will also be L2 for the foreseeable future:
2. This hey-presto "rubes regard my assistant's rack" (bait = price reshuffle for a minimised AP) magic trick was presaged by his statement a few weeks back that "we already have FSD on the highway", i.e. equating it to NoAP.
3. Not sure though how it will play with those who are already enjoying NoAP but have not sprung for the FSD option; will the feature now be silently rescinded in the next update after which they are told they can have it back for another $5k, or will they be deemed to have already paid for FSD in the higher initial car price, thus entailing their free HW3 upgrade also, or what? Depending on which way this goes, it could cause a massive ... fuss or undying appreciation for the company.
4. In any case the new scheme is at least a more realistic reflection of what is possible (softly bid Adieu to dreams of L4 Tesla Network before 2025, if ever on current sensor suite) and includes the welcome news that we will be getting some initial FSD features for Xmas. Yayy!
5. Apparently not: as far as regulators are concerned Tesla may equally well call it "Mars Rover Mode", the name is mere aspirational sales puffery. The only thing that matters is whether the system is designed to autonomously perform the dynamic driving task across the full usage domain, in which case it is >=L3.
6. In any case we now know FSD will be L2 until (my forecasts) attaining L3 by Jan 2023 and L4 by June 2025 (probably requiring further HW upgrades)
7. @Elmexiken, @Knightshade, et al, please chip in with your reactions!
Last edited:
You're confusing FSD (Full Self Driving) with the L1-L5 jargon used by others. To Tesla, to have Full Self Driving features means the car can drive itself through highway + city streets. Initially it will be a L2 Full Self Driving implementation with the ultimate goal of getting to L5.
Tesla removed Enhanced Autopilot but it's features are still available for owners that bought it. There are 3 tiers of Autopilot/FSD
New Autopilot
Traffic Aware Cruise Control
Autosteer
Enhanced Autopilot
All features of New Autopilot
Advanced Summon
Navigate on Autopilot
Auto Park
Full Self Driving
All features of Enhanced Autopilot
Drive on City Streets
Traffic Sign and Light recognition.
Again, all the features for Full Self Driving will initially be released in a Level 2 capacity with that improving as Tesla improves the reliability and accuracy of the software.
No problem. All you needed to do was look at twitter.
Elon Musk on Twitter
Again, just answering a question you yourself asked.
So, if they keep renaming things and shuffling features between categories, what prevents them tomorrow to create a "Really Full Self Driving" which will include >L2, whereas current FSD paid-for package will be <=L2.
It lacks a little bit of clarity versus what you are really buying. Especially that whenever you buy a software package, it's mostly 30% of already-there feature and 70% of "will come soon" features, that's IMHO the most annoying thing here...
It lacks a little bit of clarity versus what you are really buying. Especially that whenever you buy a software package, it's mostly 30% of already-there feature and 70% of "will come soon" features, that's IMHO the most annoying thing here...
Cheers, mate! So it looks like those with EAP will keep the features they paid for but also not get HW3, at least not without paying for it as part of the FSD option (it probably won't be offered at a retrofit on its own).
OTOH those who wait a little for HW3 to appear in production may find that it runs AP quite a bit better than the current version, though without NoAP, due to the camera resolution and frame-rate becoming unrestricted, as well as (possibly) employing the expanded neural nets HW3 will support.
I think/hope this pretty severe convulsion will have gotten the conflict out of his system and FSD should settle down to legal clarity and regular technical progress henceforth.
Jumping back to <L2 is fairly much impossible and there should be nothing beyond FSD ... it will develop into whatever is possible with the sensor suite available.
It always was the case with FSD that one was essentially sponsoring development of ... something in future, but now we have a better outline of what and when initial bits of it will be delivered and useful. Overall I think it is an advance.
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
So what's the difference between testing a Waymo self driving vehicle while holding the steering wheel and a "feature complete" Tesla FSD vehicle?
I wouldn't say vanishingly unlikely. I do think it's likely that they're way behind their competitors and are just testing in simulation and on private roads.
Huh? Only difference between level 2 and level 3 is that the human is responsible for monitoring the driving environment which is exactly what CA rules require for self driving vehicle testing.
You can register you self driving vehicle today!
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/c...89c5-b2bc7de3fd2c/ol321.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=
Yep and when the damages exceed the insurance policy amount who are you going to go after for the money? The manufacturer.
Time will tell! I'm not holding my breath
So what's the difference between testing a Waymo self driving vehicle while holding the steering wheel and a "feature complete" Tesla FSD vehicle?
I wouldn't say vanishingly unlikely. I do think it's likely that they're way behind their competitors and are just testing in simulation and on private roads.
Huh? Only difference between level 2 and level 3 is that the human is responsible for monitoring the driving environment which is exactly what CA rules require for self driving vehicle testing.
You can register you self driving vehicle today!
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/c...89c5-b2bc7de3fd2c/ol321.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=
Yep and when the damages exceed the insurance policy amount who are you going to go after for the money? The manufacturer.
Time will tell! I'm not holding my breath
1. AFAIK Waymo RoboTaxis are not tested with the driver holding the wheel as that would throw disengagements. They literally only touch the controls if the thing is so-to-speak going off the rails. A Tesla FSD could be the same if ever configured to dispense with the nagging, i.e. L3, but for the foreseeable future will remain in development as L2, according to Musk until approximately end of 2020.
2. Just testing in simulation and on private roads (although they assuredly do that also) does not account for the reported encounter with an employee with HW3 & FSD-features at a public SuC.
3. Only difference between level 2 and level 3 is that the human is responsible for monitoring the driving environment
I presume you mean how they are responsible for monitoring it but no, in L3 the machine is configured to fully manage the dynamic driving task such that it allows the human to remain hands off + eyes off = mind off until required to intervene with some notice, generally postulated at 3..10 seconds. L2 by contrast is configured to require continuous human monitoring and input, e.g. nags. Apart from that, yes, California requires a safety driver for testing L3, but that does not make L2 = L3 for their or anyone else's purposes:
4. Yep and when the damages exceed the insurance policy amount who are you going to go after for the money? The manufacturer.
In Europe insurers' liability for motor accident damages is often limited by legislation (e.g. in Germany to €5M for personal injury and €1M for property) and there is some fund they all contribute to in order to cover any cases caused by uninsured drivers. Not sure if this normally precludes a claimant from pursuing the OEM for design defects causing the damage but would imagine they will try to button it up that way, else the major manufacturers will have to become insurance houses themselves.
How it all ends up in USA will, in the normal course of events, be whichever way maximises litigation opportunities.
5. Time will tell!
Surely the question is now settled, since yesterday's rejigging of AP/FSD has made it abundantly clear that the latter will remain a L2 dev program for the foreseeable future?
Last edited:
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
So you're saying that if Waymo allowed their test drivers to hold the steering wheel they would be exempt from all licensing and reporting requirements for self driving testing in CA?
Self parking is a FSD feature.
My point is that to test a L3 system in California the driver is required to continuously monitor the system. I'm not sure where you're getting that a L2 system requires driver input. L2 only requires driver input to maintain safety which is exactly what is required when testing a L3-5 system in CA.
The USA is not Europe. Auto manufacturers are successfully sued for defects here all the time.
Similar threads
