I think you are talking medical marijuana, which is a much different use case, but for recreational it was in 2016.
Andy
Even so. Eight years now, and still the federal position has not moved. Regulatory barriers don’t always disappear quickly.
It will be fascinating to see what Tesla unveils in August. If the Cybercab doesn’t have driver controls, it won’t just be confidence in Tesla’s ability to solve the technical issues of autonomy. It will be a huge bet on a short-term regulatory change in the U.S.
3 Likes
At least the Y2K crap had an expiration date
Item:
# U.S. Regulators Tie Tesla’s Autopilot to More than a Dozen Fatalities, Hundreds of Crashes
NHTSA launches new probe into adequacy of 2-million vehicle recall in December, after discovering more crashes linked to the controversial technologyFederal auto-safety regulators have opened an investigation into the adequacy of [Tesla] December[ recall of 2 million vehicles] equipped with Autopilot software, tying the technology to at least 14 fatalities, several dozen injuries and hundreds of crashes.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a report published Friday that its examination of Tesla’s Autopilot, a driver-assist system that automates some driving tasks, uncovered a trend of “avoidable crashes involving hazards that would have been visible to an attentive driver.”
The new probe also marks an escalation of NHTSA’s long-running scrutiny of the technology, which it had been investigating for nearly three years after numerous high-profile crashes, including ones that killed drivers.
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/regulators-probing-tesla-recall-tied-to-autopilot-a1af6d67
Well, it will prove that Musk doesn’t just want to visit another planet, but that’s he’s actually from another planet and doesn’t understand the exigencies of life on earth.
1 Like
It’s cute that people think the growth of robocars will be slowed by a rise in traffic deaths. There’s no sign of a slowdown in the sales of large suvs and trucks despite the death toll they create. Robocar adoption will be driven by profitability, convenience, liability laws, and the ability of the industry to make them cool and desirable. A few extra deaths are just the cost of doing business.
4 Likes
Quite the contrary. We’re on the same page.
Musk’s public statements on Tesla’s regulatory strategy for AV’s is to rely on safety just…winning. That all Tesla needs to do is present data showing that Option B is safer than Option A, and of course the regulators will change the rules to match Option B. Because Option B is safer.
But as you point out, that’s not how regulations work. It’s not even how motor vehicle safety regulations work. In the real world, regulations aren’t determined just by safety outcomes. They’re affected by inertia, bureaucracy, self-interest, greed - and just good old-fashioned politics. Just because Option B is the safer one doesn’t mean that’s where the regulations will end up.
So it’s cute that Musk thinks that the growth of robocars will be permitted if he can show they will result in fewer traffic deaths. But if the Teamsters object and a million plus Uber drivers will lose their jobs, those regulations might be a lot slower to change than he’s describing.
3 Likes
- In San Francisco, the average number of trips per taxi plunged from 1,424 a month in March 2012 to 504 in July 2014, a 65 percent drop
- In New York, the number of taxi medallions seized by lenders due to foreclosure increased from 5 in 2012 to 494 in 2018
- A class action was filed in 2019 by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of more than 8,000 taxi and hire car owners and drivers who lost income and license values when Uber moved into the market
Tell that to the taxi drivers that Uber put out of business. Capitalism is a cruel mistress.
Andy
1 Like
Uber drivers do not have jobs. That is why they drive.
1 Like
Uber didn’t try to change the regulatory barriers. They just ignored them. Or rather, got their drivers to claim the regulations didn’t cover them.
That’s not really an option for a Cybercab. If the vehicle lacks features required under the federal regulations (like a steering wheel), they have to get the regs changed (or allow for an exception).
Plus, everyone learned from what happened to the taxi industry. If Tesla tried to ignore the regs, this time the incumbents would be suing for enforcement from jump.
3 Likes
Yes they did try to change and still try to change regulatory barriers. They have been kicked out of towns and then had to come back into negotiate with cities. Also you mentioned the Teamsters, Uber isn’t covered by the Teamsters so if they were mad at anyone, they were mad at Uber.
** * Austin, Texas: Uber suspended operations in Austin in 2016 after voters rejected a proposal to allow self-regulation. Alternatives like RideAustin emerged, but Uber eventually returned after state-level intervention.
Andy
1 Like
They didn’t have to change regulatory barriers to get started. They had some regulatory pushback, of course - exactly because they ended up causing a lot of job loss among drivers. But they didn’t have to change regulations before spinning up their business
Tesla’s in a different situation with a Cybercab. A car that doesn’t have a steering wheel or other driver controls isn’t street legal - they can’t just start making and operating those cars without getting a regulatory change. They can’t follow the Uber model.
Sure they did. There wasn’t any regulatory frame work set up for them, they were sued, kicked out of cities(regulatory), people did want to use them because they thought they weren’t safe. (sound familiar)
I just showed you that many states already have laws to fix the driverless problem. So I think we can just put that to rest.
Andy
Yes, but they didn’t wait. They didn’t try to get the regulatory framework changed before launching their product. They launched their product first. They were able to do that because: i) all the relevant regulations were local, and municipal governments were wildly inconsistent in their willingness to enforce them; and ii) they had just enough of an argument that the existing regulations were merely silent as to their product, rather than a flat prohibition, so they had a colorable argument at launch.
So Uber isn’t an example of a situation where a company was able to persuade regulators to change the regulations to permit something new, even though it would damage a lot of incumbents. They just went ahead and damaged all the incumbents without changing the regulations. The rideshare ordinances came much later.
Tesla can’t do that. Vehicle safety standards are set by federal regulation, and the NHTSA isn’t going to pussyfoot around and let Tesla build and operate a whole bunch of vehicles that violate those rules.
A few states, not many - but it doesn’t matter what the states do, if Tesla wants to build a vehicle with no driver controls. Operating vehicles is regulated by the states, but the vehicle design and physical characteristics are regulated by the federal government. A Cybercab with no steering wheel or brake pedals is not street legal under federal law. Tesla won’t be able to build those Cybercabs for actual use unless they change federal law. Because the NHTSA has a lot more power, and a lot more willingness to use it, than your typical municipal code enforcement department. Right now, their public statements about how they plan to actually change the regulations amount to little more than naive confidence that the feds will just go ahead and do it as soon as Tesla can show that driverless cars are safer than the alternative. Which is not usually how these things work, making the lack of any regulatory strategy less than four months before the unveiling pretty baffling.
Unless the Cybercab has rudimentary driver controls, of course. Musk’s past statements suggest that he didn’t want to build that kind of “Frankenvehicle,” but maybe he’s changed his mind.
2 Likes
This is a kind of absurd discussion. There is ZERO CHANCE that any car coming out next year will lack a steering wheel and other required vehicle control devices. Zero. Now they might design the vehicle such that those controls can be “deleted” at some point, but that point won’t be in 2025.
1 Like
I tend to agree. But then, what is the “Robotaxi” that’s being announced? What will make that vehicle a “robotaxi,” as opposed to any other type of vehicle?
It will be fascinating to see their approach. It’s plausible that the car just has removable vehicle control devices, and that the main changes are just modest design solutions to make the car more appropriate for taxi use (automatically opening/closing doors, cameras that can see the entire interior, incorporating the trunk/rear cargo space into the cab of the vehicle). But it seems…weird, maybe, to treat that as a major product reveal?
23 states is not a few, that is more than enough to build a use case. In fact that is all they need and of course it matters. Nobody is waiting for the feds as shown by Waymo. There is not any roadblocks for Tesla, because the regulatory framework is already built by the states.
Sure they will, they are already planning it. The states will allow it. It’s like saying the marijuana companies will not sell marijuana. Everything is being done at the state level.
Andy
1 Like
Well since they are already out I guess you would be right. If you meant that it had to be that specific year. GM has built the prototype called the Cruise Origin that hasn’t been put into production yet.
Also
The U.S National Highway Traffic safety Administration has written final rules on the use of driverless cars without a wheel.
- Occupant Protection Standards:
- The rule updates the occupant protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to account for vehicles that do not have traditional manual controls associated with a human driver.
- These vehicles are equipped with automated driving systems (ADS).
- Safety Assurance for ADS-Equipped Vehicles:
- Despite their innovative designs, vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of occupant protection as current passenger vehicles.
- The rule ensures that manufacturers prioritize safety from the outset as the driver transitions from a person to a machine in ADS-equipped vehicles.
- Ongoing Safety Efforts:
- NHTSA actively monitors and oversees the safe testing and deployment of automated vehicles.
- The agency’s approach to advanced vehicle technologies emphasizes safety across multiple areas, including data collection, research, human factors, rulemaking, and enforcement.
- Additional Measures:
- Last summer, NHTSA issued a Standing General Order requiring crash and incident reporting for vehicles equipped with ADS or certain advanced driver-assistance systems.
- The agency is also working on setting safety standards for automatic emergency braking, a driver-assistance technology that helps avoid crashes with other road users.
It looks like they are trying to get ahead of this because they expect it to happen soon. I am surprised that they are so forward looking and have to applaud them.
Andy
1 Like
It is Musk’s dream. Initially, the vehicle will have driver controls, but will be able to do the driving itself from place to place. I suspect that there may need to be some sort of “backend” center that can help cars if they get stuck and need human input (like Waymo/Cruise does). Later, there will be vehicles with rudimentary driver controls, but smaller ones and less intrusive ones, only to be used in grave emergency (computer crashed, roadway so bad that computer can’t drive anymore, etc). And even later, vehicles with no human controls and no “backend” necessary.
So the main distinguishing fact about robotaxi will be that it can drive without a human in the driver’s seat (or within a few hundred feet a la “summon”). I used summon once last week and it is FAR better than it was last year. But nevertheless, there was no way for the car to know if someone left a scooter directly in front of my car as it pulled out of the parking spot. That area is a blind spot.
The roadblock to the vehicles is federal. A car without driver controls violates the federal motor vehicle safety standards. The states permit a car to be operated autonomously, because the states have jurisdiction over operations. The states can’t permit a car to be manufactured without driver controls, because the physical characteristics of the vehicle are pre-empted to federal regulation. It doesn’t matter whether the states allow vehicles to be operated without a driver - the federal regulations require that the vehicle be constructed with driver controls in order to be street legal.
No, it’s not. Marijuana companies sell marijuana because federal law enforcement has very little interest in enforcing possession crimes against them. That’s not going to be the case with the NHTSA and a major auto manufacturer trying to build cars that violate the FMVSS.
Do you know why it hasn’t been put into production yet? Because they haven’t yet been able to get a waiver from the NHTSA to allow it to be built:
That petition was filed about two years ago, and it still hasn’t been approved. The article notes that the NHTSA was considering rule-making to set regulations governing driverless vehicles later that fall, but nothing ever came of that.
2 Likes
I think you are behind the times and are not keeping up. I already posted the NHTSA rules.
Andy