Will Auto-Pilot (Steering) Be Delayed Due To Legal Restrictions? (NY Times Article)

[ecarfan]

I doubt any state will prohibit the features that Tesla plans to implement this year under the label of "Auto Pilot" because similar features have already been made available on a number of high-end cars and no state has passed laws prohibiting them yet.

If New York wants drivers to always keep at least one hand on the wheel, that's no big deal and doesn't effect Tesla's Auto Pilot. It's up to the NY driver to follow that law.

A number of manufacturers have had self-parking cars for sale for some time now. The states have not prohibited them.

Automated cruise control features similar to the new Tesla TACC have been available from several manufacturers for years now and no state has prohibited them.

 

[Andyw2100]

I doubt any state will prohibit the features that Tesla plans to implement this year under the label of "Auto Pilot" because similar features have already been made available on a number of high-end cars and no state has passed laws prohibiting them yet.

As far as I know, no other automaker has a car that can drive on its own "on-ramp to off-ramp", as the model S is going to be able to do.

 

[ArtInCT]

The article points out that the self driving aspects of auto-pilot may not be legal. How concerned should we be about this?

I have no plans on ever using any Auto-Pilot features other than TACC and Blind Side Information System. My present Volvo XC60 has both of these features and these two are very excellent implementations in the Volvo. I could certainly find myself using them in my future Model S assuming the Tesla implementations are as good.

However, I personally strongly feel ambivalent at best and more likely distrustful of pretty much all of the other autonomous driving aids.

I consider myself a driver and really do not want to turn over control of any of my current or future cars to these aids.
Call me a dinosaur, but that is how I feel at present.

 

[Andyw2100]

I have no plans on ever using any Auto-Pilot features other than TACC and Blind Side Information System.

I'm not sure you're going to have a choice on some of them. Take, for example, collision avoidance. I'd be surprised if there was a way to opt out of that. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[mspohr]

The current software implements a warning when you depart from the center of the lane by causing a subtile vibration in the steering wheel. I assume that this will be used by the "lane following" autopilot to adjust the steering to stay in the lane.
I have found the current system to be very reliable and accurate in detecting lanes so I assume that the lane following autopilot will also be as accurate.
I guess some state could pass a law requiring that I keep at least one hand on the steering wheel but this would be hard to detect and enforce (especially if I just rested my hand on the bottom of the steering wheel... how would anyone know?). It's really just the next step from cruise control. Do any states have a law against cruise control? Cruise control certainly has the ability to cause much havoc by accelerating the car into something (especially the old dumb, non TACC).

 

[Beryl]

I doubt any state will prohibit the features that Tesla plans to implement this year under the label of "Auto Pilot" because similar features have already been made available on a number of high-end cars and no state has passed laws prohibiting them yet.

If New York wants drivers to always keep at least one hand on the wheel, that's no big deal and doesn't effect Tesla's Auto Pilot. It's up to the NY driver to follow that law.

A number of manufacturers have had self-parking cars for sale for some time now. The states have not prohibited them.

Automated cruise control features similar to the new Tesla TACC have been available from several manufacturers for years now and no state has prohibited them.

Again true. Some here are ignoring the fact that even low-end cars (Ford Focus) have autopilot functions in use today. Tesla, though probably the most elegant of the bunch is not first in this space.

(Good luck to the state who attempts to ban a Ford. It would be un-American. )

 

[Andyw2100]

Some here are ignoring the fact that even low-end cars (Ford Focus) have autopilot functions in use today. Tesla, though probably the most elegant of the bunch is not first in this space.

(Good luck to the state who attempts to ban a Ford. It would be un-American. )

And others here--you for example--seem to be ignoring the fact that law professors seem to think what Tesla is doing could be a problem, because it is more advanced than what has been done before. The Ford Focus, and for that matter, no other car currently out there, allows you to drive on-ramp to off-ramp without your hands on the steering wheel. That's quite a bit more advanced. If you can't see how much more advanced that is, and how legislators might also see that as being very different from what has been done in the past, I think we're just not on the same page.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

While it may be legal for Tesla to sell cars that can't be registered or driven legally in certain states, that's obviously not something they are going to want to do.

What happens if one state winds up making the autopilot functions illegal? Does Tesla pull the firmware in all 50 states because the car with the firmware as it stands is illegal in one state? Do they disable the features in that one state via GPS? Would the state go for that, or would the state still view the car as illegal? What if the state that makes the autopilot illegal is Hawaii or Alaska--a state that isn't going to be easy to drive a Model S to? How much of the above applies then? What if the state is Maine? Do people in LA lose autopilot because someone from LA conceivably could drive their car to Maine? What happens if one small state, like Rhode Island, just stops allowing Teslas to be registered? Does Tesla give up sales in Rhode Island or take away autopilot from everyone?

To say this is "not a problem at all" and a "non-issue" for Tesla is, in my opinion, pretty short-sighted.

Given that the NHTSA rules on vehicle safety equipment, I would expect that the Pre-emption clause would prevent states from barring an an otherwise legal vehicle to be illegal. What they might be able to do is prevent _use_ of _additional_ features.

 

[marchyman]

no other automaker has a car that can drive on its own "on-ramp to off-ramp", as the model S is going to be able to do.

Marketing BS. Stop listening to what Elon says and pay attention to what the car actually does. The cars being built today can't match the sensor array of a Mercedes S class, for example. Fewer sensors do not lead to greater function. Some smart programming might lead to equal function. The driver will be in full control of the car for a while yet.

 

[donv]

I have to agree that the "onramp to offramp" is BS. The Model S Autopilot won't, on it's own, transition from one freeway to another. It will simply do what the Infiniti Q50 does today (and has done for a couple of years now), and track it's lane.

If this is illegal, almost every car company (and several major auto parts companies) are going to have some big issues. Doesn't seem likely to me.

And others here--you for example--seem to be ignoring the fact that law professors seem to think what Tesla is doing could be a problem, because it is more advanced than what has been done before. The Ford Focus, and for that matter, no other car currently out there, allows you to drive on-ramp to off-ramp without your hands on the steering wheel. That's quite a bit more advanced. If you can't see how much more advanced that is, and how legislators might also see that as being very different from what has been done in the past, I think we're just not on the same page.

 

[mikeash]

If the only thing the Model S will do that's new is allow long-term lane keeping without the driver's hands on the wheel (which sounds like it's the only difference) then the answer is pretty easy: if regulators end up having a hissy fit, then the initial autopilot rollout can simply require the driver to keep a hand on the wheel as these other cars do.

 

[Andyw2100]

no other automaker has a car that can drive on its own "on-ramp to off-ramp", as the model S is going to be able to do.

Marketing BS. Stop listening to what Elon says and pay attention to what the car actually does. The cars being built today can't match the sensor array of a Mercedes S class, for example. Fewer sensors do not lead to greater function. Some smart programming might lead to equal function. The driver will be in full control of the car for a while yet.

I have to agree that the "onramp to offramp" is BS. The Model S Autopilot won't, on it's own, transition from one freeway to another. It will simply do what the Infiniti Q50 does today (and has done for a couple of years now), and track it's lane.

If this is illegal, almost every car company (and several major auto parts companies) are going to have some big issues. Doesn't seem likely to me.

I'm basing my point that Tesla could have a potential problem on their hands on what would happen if they deliver on the promise. If they don't deliver it's a moot point.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

no other automaker has a car that can drive on its own "on-ramp to off-ramp", as the model S is going to be able to do.

Marketing BS. Stop listening to what Elon says and pay attention to what the car actually does. The cars being built today can't match the sensor array of a Mercedes S class, for example. Fewer sensors do not lead to greater function. Some smart programming might lead to equal function. The driver will be in full control of the car for a while yet.

The plan for Autopilot only has one question to be answered: if the car is able to follow its lane, and execute a lane change, is it OK to drive the car without your hands on the steering wheel?

 

[Evbwcaer]

I think both of you are dead wrong.

The "Wired" article breser linked to included this:


The cars could, however, be kicked off the road if regulators aren’t thrilled with the idea of autonomous vehicles roaming the country, says Bryant Walker Smith, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law and affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society, who studies self-driving vehicles. There are laws prohibiting reckless driving, for example, and “a state or local law enforcement agency could use these provisions to target” the cars “if they believed the vehicles to be dangerous.” That could lead to a revoked registration, or refusal to register cars going forward.
--


While it may be legal for Tesla to sell cars that can't be registered or driven legally in certain states, that's obviously not something they are going to want to do.

What happens if one state winds up making the autopilot functions illegal? Does Tesla pull the firmware in all 50 states because the car with the firmware as it stands is illegal in one state? Do they disable the features in that one state via GPS? Would the state go for that, or would the state still view the car as illegal? What if the state that makes the autopilot illegal is Hawaii or Alaska--a state that isn't going to be easy to drive a Model S to? How much of the above applies then? What if the state is Maine? Do people in LA lose autopilot because someone from LA conceivably could drive their car to Maine? What happens if one small state, like Rhode Island, just stops allowing Teslas to be registered? Does Tesla give up sales in Rhode Island or take away autopilot from everyone?

To say this is "not a problem at all" and a "non-issue" for Tesla is, in my opinion, pretty short-sighted.

None of these points are accurate or addressed what I said.

1)These will not be autonomous cars. They are cars that are capable of being autonomous (and that might even be a stretch). Huge difference, just because the car can drive autonomously, does not mean it will be operated that way. A Bugatti SS can go 275mph, and be driven legally on every inch of road in the country.

2) What happens if one state winds up making the autopilot functions illegal? Nothing, drivers of autonomous capable vehicles should not use those features in that state. Worst case scenario, Tesla could disable those features for cars while in that state, via GPS data.

Please respond specifically to this point: A P85D can now go 155mph, in every state. There is not place in the country on a public road where that is legal, I think it is 75mph higher than the highest speed limit in the country. Now read your list of rhetorical questions above and note that every state has made going 155mph illegal, and note that nothing has happened.

The whole premise is different if you have a fully autonomous car, not even capable of being driven by a human, because the autonomy would be non-defeatable, so the car could only be "driven" in places where that is allowed. Teslas will have the ability to be autonomous, but should a jurisdiction make autonomous driving illegal, the driver risks citation for doing such.

 

[ecarfan]

The Tesla Auto Pilot function will certainly be able to transition from one freeway to another "hands free" as long as the nav route indicates that is the preferred path. This seems obvious to me. The latest MobileEye system can do this right now, and Tesla is using the MobileEye technology.

I have to agree that the "onramp to offramp" is BS. The Model S Autopilot won't, on it's own, transition from one freeway to another. It will simply do what the Infiniti Q50 does today (and has done for a couple of years now), and track it's lane.

If this is illegal, almost every car company (and several major auto parts companies) are going to have some big issues. Doesn't seem likely to me.

 

[Andyw2100]

None of these points are accurate or addressed what I said.

1)These will not be autonomous cars. They are cars that are capable of being autonomous (and that might even be a stretch). Huge difference, just because the car can drive autonomously, does not mean it will be operated that way. A Bugatti SS can go 275mph, and be driven legally on every inch of road in the country.

2) What happens if one state winds up making the autopilot functions illegal? Nothing, drivers of autonomous capable vehicles should not use those features in that state. Worst case scenario, Tesla could disable those features for cars while in that state, via GPS data.

Please respond specifically to this point: A P85D can now go 155mph, in every state. There is not place in the country on a public road where that is legal, I think it is 75mph higher than the highest speed limit in the country. Now read your list of rhetorical questions above and note that every state has made going 155mph illegal, and note that nothing has happened.

The whole premise is different if you have a fully autonomous car, not even capable of being driven by a human, because the autonomy would be non-defeatable, so the car could only be "driven" in places where that is allowed. Teslas will have the ability to be autonomous, but should a jurisdiction make autonomous driving illegal, the driver risks citation for doing such.

I most definitely did address your point.

The law professor in the Wired article is speaking specifically about the Tesla situation, and saying that states could revoke registration or refuse to register the cars. My hypothetical situations are based on his statements. You seem willing to dismiss his statements. So essentially you're saying that you know more about what's likely to happen than this law professor does. I don't know which one of you will turn out to be right. I hope it's you. But I am making my points on the assumption that the law professor knows what he is talking about, and that there is at least the possibility of what he believes might happen happening.

 

[Phil K]

As mentioned by other members, other cars have similar features existing or in development and will be available in the coming years, so the problem is not faced by Tesla alone. Volvo, for example, is already testing self-driving cars in Sweden and will be in China later. Interestingly, their development in in partnership with Swedish authorities and endorsed by the Swedish government.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I most definitely did address your point.

The law professor in the Wired article is speaking specifically about the Tesla situation, and saying that states could revoke registration or refuse to register the cars. My hypothetical situations are based on his statements. You seem willing to dismiss his statements. So essentially you're saying that you know more about what's likely to happen than this law professor does. I don't know which one of you will turn out to be right. I hope it's you. But I am making my points on the assumption that the law professor knows what he is talking about, and that there is at least the possibility of what he believes might happen happening.

As has been pointed out by other posters, there are cars that can already steer themselves and do not require you to keep your hands on the wheel. No state has prevented registration of those cars. There is no justification for believing that states would change their minds and ban vehicle with such systems, any more than they would require speed limiters or disable cruise control.

 

[Beryl]

Will Auto-Pilot (Steering) Be Delayed Due To Legal Restrictions? (NY Times Ar...

The law professor in the Wired article is speaking specifically about the Tesla situation, and saying that states could revoke registration or refuse to register the cars. My hypothetical situations are based on his statements. You seem willing to dismiss his statements. So essentially you're saying that you know more about what's likely to happen than this law professor does..

That single law professor makes an interesting point and worthy of note. However, many of us have spent a great deal of time in academia and can consider the muses of professors without canceling our Tesla reservations. What he does not take into account is the power of the marketplace and the the Auto Makers Lobby.
Autonomous features are desired by customers for convenience and by manufacturers to boost sales. Features will find their way into all makes/models over the next decade. Granted, there will be hiccups along the way and adjustments will be required to automotive design and legislation.

 

[breser]

I have to agree that the "onramp to offramp" is BS. The Model S Autopilot won't, on it's own, transition from one freeway to another. It will simply do what the Infiniti Q50 does today (and has done for a couple of years now), and track it's lane.

If this is illegal, almost every car company (and several major auto parts companies) are going to have some big issues. Doesn't seem likely to me.

Elon said they were testing driving from San Francisco to Seattle without the driver touching the steering wheel. I'm almost positive it can't do this if all it does is lane keeping. I-5 up to Seattle splits into multiple roads on several occasions. At a minimum it'd have to be able to put itself into the correct lanes without driver intervention. Does that fall outside the law in some states?

According to this site there are 4 states with laws on Automated Driving:
Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action - CyberWiki

Nevada

Law is here:
NRS: CHAPTER 482A - AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

Tesla is probably ok because it seems to be based on the intent of the manufacturer to build a technology that doesn't require monitoring of a human operator. Yes the rules on testing an autonomous vehicle in Nevada require a human operator be monitoring the vehicle, but it seems to only cover vehicles that are ultimately intended to be level 4 vehicles as defined above.

NRS 482A.025  “Autonomous technology” defined.  “Autonomous technology” means technology which is installed on a motor vehicle and which has the capability to drive the motor vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human operator. The term does not include an active safety system or a system for driver assistance, including, without limitation, a system to provide electronic blind spot detection, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistance, unless any such system, alone or in combination with any other system, enables the vehicle on which the system is installed to be driven without the active control or monitoring of a human operator.

California

Law is here (warning PDF):http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERESCACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e

This one seems to be fuzzier. This one excludes driver assistance just like Nevada, but says that the system can't be capable of driving or operating the vehicle without a human at the controls. I'd say that if Infiniti's implementation doesn't verify the human is there they meet the definition of an "Autonmous vehicle". Tesla may or may not depending on what they end up releasing.

(b) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person.

Michigan

Law is here (the public act which is the law as passed):
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/htm/2013-PA-0231.htm

Which ultimately gets integrated into the Michigan Vehicle Code here:
Michigan Legislature - Act 300 of 1949


Like California it excludes driver assitance systems provided that they can't drive the car without monitoring. Obviously it has the same potential problems for Tesla.

(1) "Automated motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle on which automated technology has been installed, either by a manufacturer of automated technology or an upfitter that enables the motor vehicle to be operated without any control or monitoring by a human operator. Automated motor vehicle does not include a motor vehicle enabled with 1 or more active safety systems or operator assistance systems, including, but not limited to, a system to provide electronic blind spot assistance, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistance, unless 1 or more of these technologies alone or in combination with other systems enable the vehicle on which the technology is installed to operate without any control or monitoring by an operator.

Florida

Law is here (PDF copy of the enrolled version):
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1207er.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1207&Session=2012

Florida Uniform Traffic Control which this is integrated into:
Chapter 316 - 2014 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


While the text is similar to California and Michigan it seems that this one is about the intent since it says if the technology is installed to drive. So Tesla is probably safe with this one. But I'd say it still leaves considerable room for interpretation.

(90) AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE.—Any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology. The term “autonomous technology” means technology installed on a motor vehicle that has the capability to drive the vehicle on which the technology is installed without the active control or monitoring by a human operator. The term excludes a motor vehicle enabled with active safety systems or driver assistance systems, including, without limitation, a system to provide electronic blind spot assistance, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistant, unless any such system alone or in combination with other systems enables the vehicle on which the technology is installed to drive without the active control or monitoring by a human operator.

Other Laws

Of course none of this accounts for the issues that is brought up in the Wired article. All states could use their reckless driving laws against operators of vehicles with this technology (though they probably won't unless the technology appears to be unsafe). Some states have laws that require the driver always have their hands on the steering wheel (though as many have pointed out that's up to the driver to comply with). I'm sure there are even more laws I haven't bothered to think of that may be impacted by such cars.

Ultimately it comes down to what Tesla implements and how the states interpret their laws. I'm almost certain at some point these vehicles with a combination of driver assistance features that nearly automate driving is going to end up in court over these laws. This all comes down to shades of grey.