Not ready for prime time
Tesla has proven over and over again that we are not ready for high-level autonomous vehicles. Its latest controversy, regarding its Assertive mode, reaffirms the idea that regulation and oversight is necessary before rolling out the red carpet.
If you ask the average consumer what brand they think of when hearing the word “self-driving car,” they will probably bring up Tesla. That’s great news for Tesla and Elon Musk, but not so much for the autonomous vehicle industry. Musk has a history of stirring up controversy, which might not be a great idea when introducing what is touted to be revolutionary technology.
Stockholders are well aware of Musk’s antics. With a cultlike following, a single tweet can cause the stock market to move in either direction. His words and ideas hold a significant amount of weight in the tech world. Musk may be a genius when it comes to technology, but he certainly needs an education in public relations or government affairs.
Tesla vehicles have been in numerous fatal crashes as a result of the driver misusing its autonomous features.
Making the situation worse, Tesla has gained the scrutiny of federal agencies for its “Full Self-Driving” system, video game features and now an option for the car to intentionally drive like an a-hole.
Tesla controversies
Although there are many self-driving vehicle manufacturers playing by the rules, Tesla is not and getting away with it. Even worse, Tesla and Musk are being put on a pedestal for actions that are dangerous.
Drivers have treated Tesla’s Autopilot feature as if the car was a fully self-driving vehicle. That has caused several Tesla cars ramming into a stationary vehicle, resulting in fatalities. As a result, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board have launched investigations into these fatal crashes.
In a move that seems like a middle finger to regulators, Tesla decided to name updated software as a “Fully Self-Driving” system. Tesla vehicles are at Level 2 autonomy. “Fully self-driving” capabilities do not begin until Level 4. That led to widespread criticism ranging from lawmakers to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and other big name stakeholders.
Unfazed, Tesla went on to develop a feature that allows the passenger to play video games on the screen that sits right in between the passenger and driver.
Owners discovered nothing was preventing the driver from playing video games while the vehicle is in motion. Despite that controversy occurring in December, it is not the most recent.
In the second week of January, Tesla made headlines again with its Assertive mode feature, an update to the already controversial “Fully Self-Driving” software. Drivers can choose three different driving modes: Chill, Average and Assertive. Chill mode has a larger follow distance and performs fewer speed and lane changes. Assertive mode has a smaller follow distance, performs more frequent speed and lane changes and will not exit passing lanes and may perform rolling stops.
Again, not the most recent.
Just a few days later, a German teen claimed in a series of tweets that had hacked into third-party software featured in some Tesla vehicles. Specifically, David Colombo said he can remotely run commands on more than 25 Tesla vehicles in 13 countries without the owners’ knowledge. That includes disabling Sentry mode, opening doors/windows and starting Keyless Driving.
Self-driving vehicles need more regulation
Tesla shows how the self-driving vehicle industry has a problem that the trucking industry wishes it could have: a complete lack of regulation and oversight.
Truckers hate the word “regulation,” and rightfully so. Ineffective regulations put a significant burden on trucking operations under the name of safety. Meanwhile, state and federal governments are taking a laissez-faire approach to self-driving vehicles, despite unproven technology that is literally killing people.
Look no further than Tesla.
As highlighted above, Tesla keeps rolling out technology that clearly poses a danger to motorists. Federal agencies always look into it, but nothing happens to Tesla.
In September, NHTSA published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register as it seeks approval to continue incident reporting for Level 2-5 autonomous vehicles. NHTSA explains that it expects to receive an average of 3,400 Level 2 autonomous vehicle crash reports each year.
According to NHTSA, information from the reports will be used “to protect the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident.”
In September 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched a public online tracking tool to add transparency to automated vehicle technology. However, very few stakeholders are participating. At the time, nine companies participated in the tracking tool. As of print, there are about 30 companies participating. Who is still missing? That’s right: Tesla.
Self-driving vehicles not ready for prime time
Consumers have indicated they are not ready for self-driving vehicles, and Tesla is not calming any nerves.
In 2019, J.D. Power, a company specializing in consumer insights, released a study showing consumers are not ready for self-driving or electric vehicles. A score of 0-40 is low sentiment, 41-60 neutral and 61-100 a positive outlook. Among the self-driving subcategories surveyed, the lowest scoring were comfort in riding in a self-driving vehicle (34) and comfort being on the road with others in a self-driving vehicle (35). Nearly three-quarters of those polled are worried about tech failures and errors. More than half are concerned about the risk of being hacked and legal liability in the event of a crash.
In 2020, two studies suggested self-driving vehicles are much further down the road. Researchers at MIT published a study that found self-driving vehicles will happen later than sooner.
“Current best estimates show a slow shift toward Level 4 systems even in trucking, one of the easier use cases, with only limited use by 2030,” the study states. “Overall shifts in other modalities, including fleets and passenger cars, are likely to be no faster, and so disruption to taxi, rideshare, and bus driver jobs is likely to be limited in the near term.”
AAA released a study that evaluates four cars with Level 2 active driving assistance systems, dubbed ADAS. According to the study, vehicles with ADAS experienced some type of issue every 8 miles over the course of 4,000 miles of real-world driving.
In some instances, vehicles with ADAS cannot stay in their own lane. In other situations, these vehicles approach too close to other vehicles or guardrails. Issues also were found with the ADAS shutting down completely. The study reveals that the system would often disengage, instantaneously giving control back to the driver with little notice. As more people become more dependent or confident in the technology, a sudden shut down of the system can become a dangerous situation, the report states.
Despite working as advertised in closed-course conditions, the efficiency of ADAS diminishes in real-world scenarios.
Self-driving vehicles are further away than Elon Musk wants us to think. Ironically, they may be even further down the road thanks to his and Tesla’s actions. LL