NHTSA probe into Tesla FSD

[Gigahorse]

Based on the stock price and knee jerk reaction of this NHTSA probe some Tesla fans are saying this is a bad thing and a hit-job.
I think Tesla is WAY ahead on this and if anything this is a good thing for people who use FSD, especially those in rainy/snowy/foggy areas as it will push Tesla to put out the best version of FSD a little earlier as far as vision and may also push some camera upgrades for HW3 vehicles a bit sooner.
Regulation is never fun when you are the company at the reviving end of it but for folks that use FSD a lot this is likely a short/medium and long term win that will push Tesla to go a little faster and put out an even better product.

Sponsored

 

[TexasDev]

Regulation can actually be better for the industry leaders. It creates a legal moat of requirements that they essentially have a hand at creating by being the first to go through the process and set standards.

 

[Gigahorse]

Regulation can actually be better for the industry leaders. It creates a legal moat of requirements that they essentially have a hand at creating by being the first to go through the process and set standards.

It can hold the little guys down but it also pushes the giant to do better, I see this as a win for autonomous driving all the way around.

 

[Rvp.770]

Time to buy more.

 

[eswimm]

Ironically, I find FSD often has better visibility in adverse conditions than I do. A good example being moderate/heavy rain at night where I have a hard time seeing the lane markings. I assume the slightly higher vantage point and the camera filters give the car an advantage. That said, since we're operating FSD in a supervised mode, I think it creates a situation where the car can overdrive the supervisor's ability to supervise and safely take over when it reaches the point that manual intervention is required. It's the same idea as overdriving your headlights; even if the car is driving within the margins for its awareness, if it prompts for me to takeover and it exceeds my awareness, then there's a higher risk of a crash in that transition period.

I think there's also a delay introduced by the common one-pedal driving scenario. If I'm driving my BMW with CC/TACC, my foot is natural above the brake pedal. In 99% of the intervention scenarios on CC, I'm going to be reacting by braking to disengage CC and slow down/stop. While using Tesla TACC/FSD, I find my foot hovering over the accelerator, since my most common intervention is reacting to phantom braking or encouraging the car to speed up when it's being overly cautious. In a manual disengagement situation, the fastest solution is to break FSD with the steering while moving my foot to the brake. That can be a counterintuitive to non-seasoned Tesla drivers and I think it's also the cause of many of the pedal confusion crashes (often erroneously described as sudden unintended acceleration).

I don't see the investigation as a bad thing, since there's always room for safety improvements, especially where a human is still ultimately responsible. I do think there's a gross misconception that FSD needs to be perfect for it to be better than a human. There are an immense number of traffic accidents and fatalities when humans are in control. An ADAS that cuts accident rates and fatalities by 50% would be amazingly successful, one could even argue that if it dramatically reduced fatalities but slighly increased non-injury accidents that might still be an improvement.

 

[shopaholic]

Oversight and investigation is good, as long as it’s unbiased and there’s no hidden anti Tesla agenda.

 

[Gigahorse]

Oversight and investigation is good, as long as it’s unbiased and there’s no hidden anti Tesla agenda.

Agreed, but as the industry leader in the space they have to assume they will get the first round of scrutiny, whenever you bring something new to the market you are going to get 100% of the oversight until others show up. Granted there are others out there trying, but obviously as far as Supervised Self Driving vehicles Tesla has the vast majority of market share.

 

[Pops]

Many of you may disagree, but Tesla's interests are less likely to be aligned with you than the government's interests. Tesla simply wants to maximize profits, the government is interested in public safety. That is not to say that both cant align or that they are always successful in their goals. I welcome more oversight.

Ideally I would love to see some federal guidelines on self driving behavior.

• An external indicator light when FSD is active
• Crash liability guidelines
• Public standardized reporting on the effectiveness/crashes of the systems

 

[Gigahorse]

Many of you my disagree, but Tesla's interests are less likely to be aligned with you than the government's interests. Tesla simply wants to maximize profits, the government is interested in public safety. That is not to say that both cant align or that they are always successful in their goals. I welcome more oversight.

Ideally I would love to see some federal guidelines on self driving behavior.

• An external indicator light when FSD is active
• Crash liability guidelines
• Public standardized reporting on the effectiveness/crashes of the systems

Not sure how I feel about the external indicator light, with you on the other two though for sure.

 

[TexasDev]

the government is interested in public safety

lol

 

[devdrone6]

I am here from the government and am here to help.

 

[devdrone6]

Many of you my disagree, but Tesla's interests are less likely to be aligned with you than the government's interests. Tesla simply wants to maximize profits, the government is interested in public safety. That is not to say that both cant align or that they are always successful in their goals. I welcome more oversight.

Ideally I would love to see some federal guidelines on self driving behavior.

• An external indicator light when FSD is active
• Crash liability guidelines
• Public standardized reporting on the effectiveness/crashes of the systems

If Tesla wants to have customers, they will work more towards safety of their paying customers than the government ever will. The government has very little interest in public safety, if they did, FSD would be a top priority for them. Get it in as many cars as possible.

I have more faith in Tesla being worried about their own survival, way more than the government being worried about mine. This doesn’t mean that Tesla does not put the company interest above ours in every case, but if we don’t survive then neither do they.

I was never very into Tesla or FSD, after owning my first Tesla, I am hooked. I have driven, rather - been passengered, by FSD for over 10k miles, across the USA even. And currently sitting at 97% fsd usage.

To imply that “the government” doesn’t want to just maximize their pockets and instead has an interest in public safety is to put your head in the sand. They care about public safety if and only if it makes them look good and they can make money from it.

 

[Pops]

To imply that “the government” doesn’t want to just maximize their pockets and instead has an interest in public safety is to put your head in the sand. They care about public safety if and only if it makes them look good and they can make money from it.

Okay I'll bite. Let's play a game. I will list examples of government regulation that were fought against by the automotive industry. Then you explain to me how the government only did it to make money.

Safety features that only became common after regulation required them:

1. 1972 a new regulation lowered the tolerance of a bumper to 2.5 mph. That way it would absorb more energy and be safer. The car industry fought this because customers wanted their cars to be tougher even if they weren't safer.
2. 1968 seat belts became mandated in new vehicles. Automakers initially resisted mandatory installation due to the added cost.
3. 2014 all new vehicles were mandated to add backup cameras. The automotive industry generally protested the strict, early implementation of the mandate. Automakers, through trade groups, lobbied to delay the requirements, citing costs and advocating for alternative solutions.
4. 1998 driver and front passenger airbags mandated. Ford and Chrysler: Executives, notably Lee Iacocca, actively lobbied against federal mandates, arguing they were too expensive and questioning their effectiveness.

Time and time again you see auto manufacturers protesting any mandates at all for safety. The typical argument is additional costs and effectiveness. Most of the time they don't challenge them directly due to the bad publicity. They use lobbying groups and trade organizations to do the dirty work.

So yes, many times over the government has shown it is interested in the public safety. There's no clear evidence that they benefit financially from these regulations. The very idea that government needs to financially benefit is in itself ridiculous. They literally control the money and can make or tax any amount they want. Safety regulations are not for profit.

 

[devdrone6]

I don’t have the desire to do long form arguments on forums anymore. But I’ll respond for your sake Pops- as I generally like your thoughts on this forum

Nader not only fought the auto industry but also the government to get the law passed to get seatbelts. It was only after his efforts became so popular that the government had to do something - to look good. And this is after years of making money from the auto industry - the term lobbying is just a fancy way to hide the corruption between the government and corporations. This is how those that make up the government make money.

In the end the “government” looks good by passing a law, and if corporations don’t follow the law, they exercise penalties - and we never really know where this money goes.

I don’t think tesla is the typical automaker though, I think they adapt to change 10x better than other companies.

And last point - just look at how much the people in Government are making by denying us the right to purchase directly from a manufacturer.

 

[Gigahorse]

I am here from the government and am here to help.

I am pretty anti big government.
But sometimes the police force, FAA regulations, etc are a good thing.
FSD falls in that realm as it is used on public roadways and if it is good it improves the lives and safety of those using it, and those on the road who are driving next to people using it.

Sponsored