California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD”

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by paxys on Friday December 17, 2021 @05:46PM (#29599282)

I think the "loophole" here is that - despite the marketing claims - Tesla is NOT testing a system which is designed to run without active monitoring by a human. This is unlike Cruise, Waymo etc. who do fall under this law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by bluGill on Friday December 17, 2021 @06:01PM (#29599399)

Marketing is admissible in court as evidence of intent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by paxys on Friday December 17, 2021 @06:06PM (#29599423)

That would be the case if they didn't also have controls in place to prevent the driver from disengaging while autopilot was active.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by bluGill on Friday December 17, 2021 @11:23PM (#29601624)

The marketing is defense against any claims that you bypassed a safety, since marketing is saying publicly the safety systems are not needed.

My company has lost in court about similar cases where the court decided that the marketing picture showing someone closer than the warning label says is safe means we don't believe the warning label and so we are liable when a customer gets too close to cutting blades.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by bagacrap on Friday December 17, 2021 @09:24PM (#29600931)

are you suggesting any developer of autonomous driving systems can straight up ignore this law as long as they make sure the system requires the presence of a human?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California’s AV testing rules apply to Tesla’s “FSD” by paxys on Friday December 17, 2021 @10:36PM (#29601361)

Yes? Tesla isn't the only company making driver assist systems. I have the equivalent functionality in my Genesis right now and no one is making noise about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]