I think you are being lawyerly here. IMO, it is hard to tell that the absence of a steering wheel is a violation because it isn’t a violation. What determines whether a steering wheel or brake pedal is needed is the level of Advanced Driving Software.
This is the Kelley Blue Book interpretation:
Level 4
At Level 4, the car can drive itself in a fixed loop on known roads. The rider is not required to take over driving at any time. These vehicles may or may not have a steering wheel or pedals. In some places, Level 4 driverless rideshare vehicles (like Waymo’s) are in limited testing. But they are not yet approved for general use in any state.
As Andy stated, the NHTSA is moving ahead of the curve by indicating to manufacturers that if they can develop Level 4 or 5 self-driving software, steering wheels and brake pedals become options.
But we’re not. We know that Cruise filed a petition for exemptions from these requirements - so they and their regulatory lawyers also reached the conclusion that the absence of a steering wheel meant that they weren’t in compliance with the FMVSS. It’s a dead certainty that they asked NHTSA about it before filing the petition; it’s near certainty that they tried to convince NHTSA to interpret the regs to not require an exemption before it was filed (because that’s just basic regulatory lawyering 101). And NHTSA didn’t dismiss the petition as unnecessary (the easiest way to clear it) at any time over the last two years.
You wouldn’t see that happening if NHTSA had interpreted the regulations to allow a car without a steering wheel. Cruise wouldn’t be asking for these exemptions, and NHTSA wouldn’t have kept processing the petition, if NHTSA had determined that the exemptions weren’t necessary. Certainly not for two years.
So it’s really not that hard to tell that the absence of a steering wheel is a violation of the several FMVSS requirements that relate to a steering wheel.
I think the problem is that the goal posts keep getting moved until something becomes a choke point. First problem: No State has ruled that self driving cars are legal.
Solved: 23 states have laws on the books
Second: NHTSA does not have rules involved in driverless vehicles
Solved: NHTSA sets up rules and makes an addendum to the existing rules.
Third: The absence of a steering wheel is a violation of the several FMVSS requirements.
Solved: Smoke screen, the NHTSA rules cover all FMVSS requirements since the NHTSA sets the requirements.
So what is the next hurdle that everyone has to jump through? Like I said, the only way we will know is when Tesla puts out the robo taxis. When that happens I am sure they will have them in areas that allow them at this time and then expand territory.
I never said no states permit any driverless cars. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out over and over, you can take a driverless car as a taxi in a number of California cities today. The choke point is that most states have restrictions on driverless cars - again, like in California, where they are subject to strict operational limitations and permitting requirements. There are state regulatory barriers in most states to just going in and doing a full rollout of either robotaxis or cars with no driver controls - which is a significant barrier to either approach.
Nor is the choke point that NHTSA doesn’t have rules on driverless vehicles. Their rules don’t allow you to make a car that completely eliminates certain manual driver controls. Contrary to your statement, this hasn’t been “solved” - the NHTSA rules and addendum you’ve cited to don’t allow manufacturers to go straight to building cars without things like a steering wheel, which is why the Origin had to file a petition requesting an exemption. And why that petition is still pending - if the NHTSA agreed with your interpretation of what the rules say, the petition should have been dismissed or withdrawn by now as unnecessary. The fact that it’s still being processed after two years is pretty conclusive evidence that the NHTSA feels their regulations don’t allow a car like the Origin to just roll onto the roads…
That isn’t a barrier. We already went over that and I showed you 23 states do allow it. You were surprised that any states allowed it. I am sure that the state of Florida was very shocking for you. 23 states is more than enough to get started and then progress in the others.
You didn’t know that states had regulations on driverless cars until I pointed it out and gave you a link to Florida’s laws. You didn’t know that NHTSA allows cars to be built without steering wheels, even when I show you the regulations. So the only way this will be resolved is either, when it happens, or in a court of law. Other than that we are just spinning our wheels. The Origin, I already explained to you why that isn’t happening but you chose to ignore it.
[EDITED AFTER GOOGLING] I don’t recall seeing the 23 states link, and upon trying to find that source I think this is miscommunication between us. Per the below article, there are 21 states that allow some sort of driverless operation - but only seven of them allow autonomy without a driver, which is the core concept of a “robotaxi” being a real business. This seems to be the source of your quote upthread, so I think it’s what you were referring to. If so, again that reinforces my point - most states don’t allow someone to operate a “robotaxi” without a driver (except subject to limiting conditions like we see in California).
I’m not ignoring your explanation - I just think it’s pretty clear you’re mistaken.
What’s your explanation for the petition requesting exemptions from the NHTSA regulations? If they’re allowed under the existing regulations, why did Origin file - and NHTSA continue to review - an application for exemptions?
Ok so now we are going to argue between 21 and 23 states? That is still more than the 0 you started with.
Because it’s cruise autonomous vehicle failed in California and the regulators in California suspended their license because they were involved with crashes with emergency vehicles.
Now show me a link where the NHTSA told GM they would not be allowed to stop production of the cruise?
To put this back in the context of the thread, we’re talking about a robotaxi business. So a state that allows autonomous driving but requires a licensed driver in the front seat won’t work for a robotaxi service. The taxis have to be able to travel from one fare to another without a driver in the car. Similarly, a state like California allows robotaxis - but subject to such restrictions and “proof of concept” that it will pose a substantial barrier to a new entrant (like Tesla) trying to get up to scale. It took Waymo two and a half years of regulatory oversight before they could expand from SF to LA - and only to a modest test area subject to severe speed limitations at that.
It’s not a binary, where a state either forbids all autonomous vehicles for all purposes ever or that state permits robotaxis to grow into a “real business” as fast as the company can manage. There are only a few states where the regulations broadly permit autonomous vehicles without a licensed driver present in the car. Most states have significant regulatory barriers that will have to be removed before you can grow a robotaxi into a real business at scale (let alone support enough robotaxis to absorb the volume of a full production line).
But the petition was filed a year and a half before their license was pulled. Why did they file a petition in the first place, if the regulations allow a car without manual controls? Why didn’t NHTSA just grant the petition immediately - or just declare it moot and approve the car - if the regulations allow for it already?
It really doesn’t matter how many states. What you are missing is that it is allowed in any state. That gives them a place to run them and then proceed forward. We are coming at this problem from two different viewpoints. You think everything has to be done all at once at the federal level in order to proceed. What I am trying to show you, and I have, that the states can do this without the federal ok. But until one is on the streets you are not going to believe it, I am fine with that, although I disagree. With 1 state, 2 states, 3 states, the writing is on the wall.
The petition was filed in Feb 2022
NHTSA came out with final rules in March 2022
Their license was pulled in California in October 2023
GM paused production in November 2023
So I am not sure what you are trying to say.
But I am still waiting on your link of where the NHTSA told GM they would not be allowed to start production of the cruise?
Why file the petition if the regulations cited in the petition (which were not changed by the rules that were finalized in March 2022) did not prohibit what they were trying to do? The certainly would have meet with NHTSA before doing that. If the NHTSA felt that the requirement to have turn signals cancelled by steering wheel rotation didn’t require a steering wheel to be present in the car, then why did GM ask for an exemption from that requirement (which everyone knew was not itself amended by the 2022 regulations)?
In other words, if NHTSA regulations permit a vehicle without manual controls, then why file the petition? And why didn’t NHTSA dismiss the petition as unnecessary, if these things are already legal?
Again, I think you’re looking at all these things as a binary - that if NHTSA adopted some regulations on autonomous vehicles, there can’t be any regulatory barriers left. Except the Origin petition demonstrates there are. NHTSA didn’t change all the rules to allow for vehicles without manual controls - just specific ones relating to occupant safety.
I think you misunderstand my point. Operating a vehicle without a driver is utterly outside the scope of federal authority, and entirely up to the states. Building a vehicle without manual controls is utterly outside the scope of state authority, and entirely up to the federal government. The fact that some states allow you to operate a vehicle without a driver in the drivers’ seat does not mean that you can build a car without a steering wheel.
Rough analogy - a state could pass a law saying that drivers were no longer required to use turn signals. But the FMVSS require that all cars sold in the U.S. for use on public roads have to have turn signals. So even though a state law didn’t make you use the turn signals, the federal regulations still require manufacturers to put turn signals on their cars.
Why do you think such a thing would exist? That’s not how most regulatory regimes work. There’s a set of rules that govern an activity, and if you comply with those rules you can engage in that activity. If you don’t comply with the rules, you either can’t do it or you ask for an exemption. NHTSA wouldn’t issue a statement that a vehicle that doesn’t comply with the FMVSS can’t be used on public roads - that’s just inherent in the regulations.
A major chunk of my practice is regulatory and administrative law. If you want to do something that doesn’t comply with the regulations, but you want to ask for permission under an exemption, you would never go to the agency and ask for a formal determination that your proposal was not permitted under the regulations. You would just file for the exemption.
The fact that you filed for the exemption is prima facie evidence that you believe, at least, that the proposal doesn’t comply with the regulations. It also is pretty strong evidence that the agency also believes that your proposal doesn’t comply with the regulations - because you certainly would have met with the agency before filing (probably several times) to try to convince them you met the regs in the first place, and if that didn’t work to talk about the contents of the request.
Regardless of whether GM is conservative and hidebound in their business practices, they’re going to have access to lawyers with expertise in federal automobile regulation and who can get a meeting with NHTSA’s counsel. It’s inconceivable that GM would file a petition asking for all these exemptions from the FMVSS requirements if NHTSA’s position was that no exemption was necessary, as you are suggesting.
Yep. And as I pointed out to btresist upthread, if you look at the actual petition - rather than just the summary - it’s clear that several of those exemptions are necessitated by the lack of manual driver controls.
For example, the “FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment” request is asking for an exemption from the requirement that turn signals disengage automatically when the steering wheel is rotated. They need the exemption because the car doesn’t have a steering wheel, so they can’t satisfy that requirement.
If NHTSA had already determined that cars without steering wheels were permissible under the existing regulations (as modified by the 2022 amendments), then this request would be unnecessary. And GM would have known that, and NHTSA would have told them that before they bothered including it in the petition. So the fact that they asked for that exemption is a pretty clear indication that NHTSA had taken the position that they needed that exemption in order to have a car without a steering wheel.
Again, the full petition is below. It has a table that explains the requests on page 10 of the PDF, excerpted below. Note that nearly all of the requested exemptions are due to the fact that the car doesn’t have a steering wheel, steering column, or other manual controls. Which, again, you wouldn’t need to do if building a car without manual controls were already permitted by the existing regulations.
The only thing that makes sense is that they didn’t know that the NHTSA was going to come out with an amendment and so they requested an exemption for testing purposes. Since exemptions are only temporary and not permanent fixes.
Well, just for the record, the official Pulp Fiction Fox Force Five joke goes like this:
“Three tomatoes are walkin’ down the street. Papa Tomato, Mama Tomato and Baby Tomato. Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato starts getting really angry. Goes back and squishes him and says, ‘Ketchup.’”
