Billyk24
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- William
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2019
- Threads
- 90
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 831
- Location
- PA
- Vehicles
- Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
- Thread starter
- #1
This is the link: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...-dmv-on-smart-summon-fsd.197765/#post-4792126
diplomat33, Saturday at 12:24 PM
If it's L2, then there's no point in proving that it's good enough for the machine to take on the responsibility because by the definition of L2 it will never be good enough! Thus, there's no point for disengagement reports because, by definition of L2: There will be numerous.
Once it's L3, Tesla does report the detailed reports every time it does video demo and for those years that they don't, they do send a letter saying that they didn't use the public road for that year.
The problem now is smart summon. It is true that it requires remote human monitor but that human is not inside the car and hands-on-wheel is not practiced.
If hands-on-wheel is not practiced, then that means it implies that it's good enough to be L3. And if it's L3, it needs to be in the disengagement report.
So far, Tesla is getting away with it but to be fair, if it doesn't want to report smart summon disengagements, it needs to enforce hands-on-wheel.
Doing so would defeat the purpose of remote driving your car because now you have to be hands-on-wheel.
But at least, it's fair and safe until a true L3 achieves.
MY take is FSD is a cash cow for the company as it has not achieved level 3 of self driving. Statements from the CEO in 2017 "soon a model S will self drive itself across the country" are designed for pumping the stock price and demand without revealing the whole truth.
diplomat33, Saturday at 12:24 PM
I thought I would start a separate thread for this. Thanks to @Bitdepth and @Bladerskb for finding this info.
This website has some emails between Tesla and the CA DMV from 2018 to 2020 that reveal some interesting stuff:
https://www.plainsite.org/documents/1sbggd/tesla-autonomous-driving-regulatory-emails/
From the emails, I constructed a timeline of events:
Oct 1, 2018: CA DMV asks Tesla for explanation on their autonomous testing because they have not received any disengagement report from Tesla despite Tesla having several permits for testing. Tesla Rep follows up about Tesla’s testing process.
Nov 16 - Dec 14, 2018: Tesla Rep and CA DMV discuss time and place for a Smart Summon demo. Tesla Rep pushes date back because Smart Summon is not ready yet for demo.
Dec 21, 2018: Tesla demos Smart Summon for CA DMV.
Dec 24, 2018: CA DMV references a demo of Smart Summon on Dec 21, 2018 and tells Tesla Rep that they have concerns about Smart Summon.
Dec 26, 2018: Tesla responds to CA DMV that Tesla is making changes to Smart Summon based on feedback.
Dec 17, 2019: Tesla Rep and CA DMV discuss process for adding/removing drivers on autonomous vehicle testing. Tesla needs to add 1 VIN to their test permits for the FSD demo seen on Autonomy Day.
April 24, 2019: CA DMV asks Tesla Rep about FSD demo rides during Autonomy Day. Tesla Rep responds.
I find this email especially interesting since it appears to be the first reference to L3 that I know of. It also hints that once AP gets more reliable, that Tesla might remove the nags in some cases and try to claim L3.
April 25, 2019: CA DMV asks for Tesla to resubmit form that includes license plates numbers of test vehicles.
May 10, 2019: Tesla Rep submits updated list of VINs for autonomous testing permits.
Aug 7, 2019: CA DMV emails memo about procedures to modify permits for autonomous vehicle testing.
Nov 1, 2019: Tesla demos Smart Summon for CA DMV.
March 6, 2020: CA DMV sends formal letter to Tesla with concerns about Smart Summon.
March 24, 2020: Tesla sends formal letter responding to CA DMV concerns over Smart Summon.
April 29 – May 1, 2020: CA DMV and Tesla Rep set up time to discuss upcoming Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control feature.
----------
From these emails, we see that the CA DMV is engaged with Tesla about their FSD testing and about their new FSD features. We also see that Tesla had several issues with not reporting and also with Smart Summon.
I do think that Tesla is being a bit sneaky with the argument that AP nags make the vehicle L2 so they don't have to report anything even though
diplomat33 said: ↑
I agree that as long as the automation system requires human to be responsible for the driving as evidenced by hands-on-wheel Autopilot nags, then it's not good enough to be L3 when the responsibility starts to be shifted to the machine.
If it's L2, then there's no point in proving that it's good enough for the machine to take on the responsibility because by the definition of L2 it will never be good enough! Thus, there's no point for disengagement reports because, by definition of L2: There will be numerous.
Once it's L3, Tesla does report the detailed reports every time it does video demo and for those years that they don't, they do send a letter saying that they didn't use the public road for that year.
The problem now is smart summon. It is true that it requires remote human monitor but that human is not inside the car and hands-on-wheel is not practiced.
If hands-on-wheel is not practiced, then that means it implies that it's good enough to be L3. And if it's L3, it needs to be in the disengagement report.
So far, Tesla is getting away with it but to be fair, if it doesn't want to report smart summon disengagements, it needs to enforce hands-on-wheel.
Doing so would defeat the purpose of remote driving your car because now you have to be hands-on-wheel.
But at least, it's fair and safe until a true L3 achieves.
MY take is FSD is a cash cow for the company as it has not achieved level 3 of self driving. Statements from the CEO in 2017 "soon a model S will self drive itself across the country" are designed for pumping the stock price and demand without revealing the whole truth.
Sponsored
