What is SAE Level 5 and can Tesla actually achieve it?

[Knightshade]

Of course UCC applies, but again, where is a legally binding, contractual obligation assumed from marketing speak that is not binding? If you can show me specifics of anyone's contract with Tesla where it states that FSD will be fully functional on x date, I'd love to see your evidence.

I can't do that. But I can show where you built a strawman argument with specific dates that nobody was actually making.

My evidence is right at the top above my comments in this post.


You asked for, and I quote you once again-

Please provide a shred of evidence that says anything about SAE L4 in your purchase contract.

I provided it.

The description given by Tesla as part of the explicit purchase of FSD promised I was buying a system that would eventually deliver capabilities at least equal to (if not better than) L4 SAE.

Rather than admit this was true and proven, you then kept trying to invent arguments nobody made while continually pushing the goalposts further away.


Why?

 

[rxlawdude]

I can't do that. But I can show where you built a strawman argument with specific dates that nobody was actually making.

My evidence is right at the top above my comments in this post.


You asked for, and I quote you once again-



I provided it.

The description given by Tesla as part of the explicit purchase of FSD promised I was buying a system that would eventually deliver capabilities at least equal to (if not better than) L4 SAE.

Rather than admit this was true and proven, you then kept trying to invent arguments nobody made while continually pushing the goalposts further away.


Why?

So you stipulate that there is no reference to "L5" or "L4" whatsoever in any legal document you have signed with Tesla. That was the initial issue with your posts. Good. We're making progress. Tesla quite prominently stated features would become available as they are developed and approved by governmental agencies. You agreed to that when you bought FSD. Aspirational statements proffering any dates are not actionable.

If the government didn't approve FSD, what are your options then, since Tesla completed design and implementation in good faith?

 

[Knightshade]

So you stipulate that there is no reference to "L5" or "L4" whatsoever in any legal document you have signed with Tesla.

No, I stipulated the opposite of that.

I even posted a picture for you.



The product description during the purchase process of FSD from 2016 through early 2019 has Tesla describing my purchase as promising I will receive a system that will be capable of at least L4 driving. That's the thing I was explicitly purchasing per Teslas own written words during the purchase- though it was to be delivered later.


They are legally obligated to deliver that eventually or they'll at minimum owe me a refund.


Which was the thing you asked for a "shred of evidence of"- were then provided that evidence, but you seem bound and determined to find SOMETHING to argue about anyway .

Why?

If the government didn't approve FSD, what are your options then, since Tesla completed design and implementation in good faith?

More utter nonsense.

They are legal right now with no approval required in a bunch of US states.

Including the state I currently live in


The only thing preventing me from using it today is Tesla doesn't actually have a working system yet

There's no "waiting for regulators" red herrings to concern myself with.

 

[rxlawdude]

No, I stipulated the opposite of that.

I even posted a picture for you.



The product description during the purchase process of FSD from 2016 through early 2019 has Tesla describing my purchase as promising I will receive a system that will be capable of at least L4 driving. That's the thing I was explicitly purchasing per Teslas own written words during the purchase- though it was to be delivered later.


They are legally obligated to deliver that eventually or they'll at minimum owe me a refund.


Which was the thing you asked for a "shred of evidence of"- were then provided that evidence, but you seem bound and determined to find SOMETHING to argue about anyway .

Why?







More utter nonsense.

They are legal right now with no approval required in a bunch of US states.

Including the state I currently live in


The only thing preventing me from using it today is Tesla doesn't actually have a working system yet

There's no "waiting for regulators" red herrings to concern myself with.

Sigh. I asked you where Tesla is contractually bound by stating "L4" or "L5." Your response was a text description of FUTURE capabilities and an argument that it's the same thing. It's not.

If you think they are legally obligated to deliver FSD to you now (not "eventually") I invite you to find competent counsel and litigate. Otherwise, you just seem to be a whiner.

 

[Knightshade]

Please provide a shred of evidence that says anything about SAE L4 in your purchase contract.

Since you still appear confused about the simple answer to your question, here's another picture.

The frame is slightly wider, so you can clearly see the feature description is part of the purchase process

It's telling me if I check the box to purchase this option for the listed price, I will get FSD, which during purchase in writing they explicitly describe as an L4 or better self driving system.

The features described in the product description are at least L4 (they might be L5, depending on what "almost all circumstances" turns out to mean, but they're at least L4.

That's the box I checked to purchase the product and is listed as a thing I purchased on my MVPA.

So Tesla owes me that product.

And while it does note there's a dependency on "local regulatory approval" I've already explained to you it's approved already in my location- so that's not an obstacle at all.


The only thing that's an obstacle to Tesla delivering the L4 or better system I purchased from them is it doesn't actually work yet.

But they certainly promised to eventually deliver me one as part of the purchase.

Which was the thing you asked for proof of.

And have been provided that proof.


Let me know where, specifically, you remain confused.

 

[Knightshade]

Sigh. I asked you where Tesla is contractually bound by stating "L4" or "L5." Your response was a text description of FUTURE capabilities and an argument that it's the same thing. It's not.

If you think they are legally obligated to deliver FSD to you now (not "eventually") I invite you to find competent counsel and litigate. Otherwise, you just seem to be a whiner.

you appear to again be making up nonsense arguments nobody here has actually made

Why do you keep doing that rather than admit you have been shown the proof you originally asked for?


My purchase contract states I purchased FSD.

During the purchase process, Tesla, in writing, told me what the FSD I purchased would be able to do in my car eventually.

That description is at least an L4 driving system. (It might turn out to be L5, but they're not obligated to make it so- L4 they're obligated to deliver eventually- and nobody ever said they owe it to anyone today.


You've been shown photographic proof of this.

Yet instead of accepting the facts you keep moving goalposts and building strawmen.

Why?

 

[rxlawdude]

Since you still appear confused about the simple answer to your question, here's another picture.

The frame is slightly wider, so you can clearly see the feature description is part of the purchase process

It's telling me if I check the box to purchase this option for the listed price, I will get FSD, which during purchase in writing they explicitly describe as an L4 or better self driving system.

The features described in the product description are at least L4 (they might be L5, depending on what "almost all circumstances" turns out to mean, but they're at least L4.

That's the box I checked to purchase the product and is listed as a thing I purchased on my MVPA.

So Tesla owes me that product.

And while it does note there's a dependency on "local regulatory approval" I've already explained to you it's approved already in my location- so that's not an obstacle at all.


The only thing that's an obstacle to Tesla delivering the L4 or better system I purchased from them is it doesn't actually work yet.

But they certainly promised to eventually deliver me one as part of the purchase.

Which was the thing you asked for proof of.

And have been provided that proof.


Let me know where, specifically, you remain confused.

You just keep showing how stupid your argument is. I guess you ignore the text from your own post. And, that is a screen shot of a website with marketing material, not a contract. Again, hire an attorney to tell you you're nuts.

 

[Knightshade]

You just keep showing how stupid your argument is.

I admit it does seem stupid to keep arguing with someone who is doing so as dishonestly as you are.

I guess you ignore the text from your own post

On the contrary- I quoted it to you.

. And, that is a screen shot of a website with marketing material, not a contract.

This is factually untrue

That is the description during the purchase process of the thing I am purchasing

I even provided the wider-framed picture so you could clearly see that fact.

I am CHECKING THE BOX TO PURCHASE THE THING BEING DESCRIBED.

That thing, described in that shot, is listed on my MVPA.

That is literally a contract

 

[Knightshade]

Here, let's try a third picture since this seems really hard for you

Here I've circled 2 things in red.

Upper left- Where I checked to select to PURCHASE the product DESCRIBED IN THAT PICTURE.

And bottom center- where it shows the price I agree to pay to PURCHASE WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THAT PICTURE.


That isn't marketing material.

It's a sales contract.

The item I checked the box to purchase also appears as having been purchased on my MVPA.

I am owed eventual delivery of that thing exactly as much as I was owed the vehicle itself on the same MVPA (which, also, was just like FSD, described in more detail like the attached picture DURING the purchase process.

 

[rxlawdude]

I admit it does seem stupid to keep arguing with someone who is doing so as dishonestly as you are.



On the contrary- I quoted it to you.




This is factually untrue

That is the description during the purchase process of the thing I am purchasing

I even provided the wider-framed picture so you could clearly see that fact.

I am CHECKING THE BOX TO PURCHASE THE THING BEING DESCRIBED.

That thing, described in that shot, is listed on my MVPA.

That is literally a contract

No, it's not literally a contract. You must have graduated TrumpU's Law School.

Of course you disagree. Seems to be endemic.

Hire a friggin' lawyer or STFU.

 

[Knightshade]

No, it's not literally a contract.

Except, it is.


You continuing to rant, rave, and strawman doesn't change the facts.

Of course you disagree.

I tend to do that when people have their facts so badly wrong as you.

You've been shown in writing from Tesla you're wrong and still can't admit it.

So I agree there's a great Trump comparison here, but it's you

Hire a friggin' lawyer or STFU.

Why?

Unlike you I actually already understand what a purchase agreement and contract are.

 

[Bladerskb]

The SAE documents have been updated and you can download the full updated 45 page document j3016_202104
I haven't gone through it to see all the differences yet.

 

[diplomat33]

The SAE documents have been updated and you can download the full updated 45 page document j3016_202104
I haven't gone through it to see all the differences yet.

Thanks. Looking through it now, they did clean up the definition of L5. They removed references to being responsive to a request to intervene.

Old definition
The sustained and unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback without any expectation that a user will respond to a request to intervene.

Old note 3
The user does not need to supervise a level 5 ADS, nor be receptive to a request to intervene while it is engaged.

New definition
The sustained and unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback.

New note 3
The user does not need to supervise a level 5 ADS.

SAE also removed this line from the table:
(User) May perform the DDT fallback following a request to intervene

I think the old definition was maybe unnecessarily complicated because it said that the user may perform the DDT-fallback if the L5 requests it. But it also said that the user is not expected to respond to a request to intervene. The new definition is simpler. It says that L5 performs the entire DDT and entire DDT-fallback and the user never needs to supervise.

 

[diplomat33]

More changes in SAE document:

They made similar to changes to L4.

Old L4 definition
The sustained and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback, without any expectation that a user will respond to a request to intervene.

New L4 definition
The sustained and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback.

SAE also added to note 2 to clarify the role of the user when L4 reaches it's ODD limit:

NOTE 2: Level 4 ADS features may be designed to operate the vehicle throughout complete trips (see 3.7.3), or they may be designed to operate the vehicle during only part of a given trip (see 3.7.2), For example, in order to complete a given trip, a user of a vehicle equipped with a Level 4 ADS feature designed to operate the vehicle during high-speed freeway conditions will need to perform the DDT when the freeway ends in order to complete his or her intended trip; the ADS, however, will automatically perform the DDT fallback and achieve a minimal risk condition if the user fails to take over when the freeway ends (e.g., because s/he is sleeping). Unlike at Level 3, the Level 4 feature user is not a DDT fallback-ready user while the ADS is engaged (see Example 2 below),

added:

and thus is not expected to respond to a request to intervene in order to perform the fallback. Nevertheless, in the case that a Level 4 sub-trip feature reaches its ODD limit, the ADS may issue an alert to the passenger that s/he should resume driving in order to complete their trip. (Note that in this latter case, the alert in question is not a request to intervene, because it does not signal the need for fallback performance.)

SAE also added 2 new notes to L3 to clarify ODD and fallback:

NOTE 1: Unlike Level 1 and 2 driver support features, all Level 3 and 4 ADS features are designed to monitor and enforce their ODD limitations while engaged, and to prevent engagement or operation outside of their prescribed ODD.

NOTE 6: Although automated DDT fallback performance is not expected of Level 3 ADS features, a Level 3 feature may be capable of performing the DDT fallback and achieving a minimal risk condition under certain, limited conditions.

I think the new notes for L3 are very helpful.