Text size
Tesla continues to develop its autonomous driving software.
Christopher Goodney/Bloomberg
Tesla
‘s ambitions to produce fully self-driving cars has again drawn scrutiny from authorities. It might be time for regulators to act.
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority, according to Reuters, said Thursday it has concerns about Tesla’s (ticker: TSLA) testing of its latest autonomous driving feature—Full Self Driving, or FSD—on city roads. While the Authority didn’t lay down any rules, it doesn’t like the system’s name, which implies the car drives itself. All autonomous driving systems from Tesla, and others, require full driver supervision at all times. Tilly Chang, executive director of the SFCTA, told Reuters the name could confuse drivers.
Names are one thing, but the rapid development of self-driving systems is creating a conundrum for regulators. Self-driving features are designed to improve safety, and the auto makers offering them say they do just that. But the systems are advancing and introducing features faster than any regulations. (Tesla is due to release the newest version of its FSD software Friday.)
Self-driving software is high stakes for the auto industry. Leading features can boost market share, and Tesla has already taken in billions of dollars selling FSD as a $10,000 feature. Increased regulation of these active safety features could be a win-win for both sides: Auto makers would have more guidance as they continue to shape the future of self-driving cars, and regulators wouldn’t be playing a constant game of catch-up.
The Transportation Authority wasn’t immediately available for comment on Friday, and Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment.
One factor that complicates regulation of autonomous driving features is that they are software-based, not hardware-based. They change with over-the-air updates—a little like a smartphone improves with new iterations of the operating software. This type of automotive improvement isn’t something regulators have had to deal with in prior generations of cars. Regulators likely weren’t as concerned by the addition of seat belts or antilock brakes—features that couldn’t be misused or changed after a car was sold.
And unlike the seat belt, autonomous driving features are active. That means the car handles certain functions on its own—without instruction from the driver—such as managing speed and braking for emergencies. Those systems could cause a false sense of security for drivers.
Tesla is one of the most aggressive auto companies when it comes to testing and marketing self-driving features, releasing more sophisticated versions of its self-driving software this year.
Recently, CEO Elon Musk explained via Twitter (TWTR) that Tesla drivers, essentially, have to earn new versions of the FSD software that offer more advanced driver-assistance features—in a two-step process. First, the driver must request it, and then Tesla’s driver-monitoring system (which is partly used to price Tesla insurance) must recognize seven days of safe driving before granting access.
Tesla could, of course, change FSD’s name to full driving assistance or something else that didn’t denote fully autonomous driving. That would seem to solve part of the company’s current issue in San Francisco.
But Tesla isn’t the only one trying to take an early lead in the market.
General Motors
(GM) has self-driving systems are these available to the public called Super Cruise, and it also owns a self-driving robotaxi company called Cruise.
Ford Motor
(F) and Volvo sell their own self-driving systems as well. Chinese EV makers
NIO
(NIO) and
XPeng
(XPEV) have systems as well.
And all of these companies offer different self-driving features–there is no single blueprint. Some auto makers use interior cameras to make sure driver’s eyes are on the roads. Others use haptic feedback to make sure hands are still on the wheel. There isn’t a standard to ensure no misuse—right now, it is only up to the companies.
One possible solution comes from
Aptiv
(APTV), an auto parts giant that can provide any auto maker with an autonomous driving package. They have discussed with Barron’s in the past the potential to gamify features. Certain functions, like the ability to make autonomous turns, get unlocked for safe driving—like the next level on the video game.
That’s one idea. Now regulators need to weigh in.
The San Francisco issues aren’t affecting Tesla stock all that much. Shares are up about 1% in midday trading Friday. The
S&P 500
and
Dow Jones Industrial Average
are flat.
Write to Al Root at allen.root@dowjones.com