I don't think this can be answered safely. Recent models (like the one I ordered in November) have additional sensors, but until there is a safely working full autopilot, we won't know whether additional/different types of sensors will be needed.
The California DMV is ready to license autonomous vehicles for deployment. Here are the regulations.[1] There's a "Application for a Permit to Deploy Autonomous Vehicles on Public Streets, form OL 321". The requirements aren't that difficult.
Highlights:
* The manufacturer has in place and has provided the department with evidence of the manufacturer’s ability to respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from collisions or accidents caused by the autonomous vehicles produced by the manufacturer in the form of an instrument of insurance, or a surety bond... That's the key condition. If it crashes, the manufacturer is financially responsible and has to carry insurance or post a bond, just like human drivers.
* The manufacturer shall identify any commonly-occurring or restricted conditions, including but not limited to: snow, fog, black ice, wet road surfaces, construction zones, and geo-fencing by location or road type, under which the vehicles are incapable of operating in the autonomous mode and certify that the vehicles are incapable of operating in autonomous mode under those conditions. Reasonable enough.
* The manufacturer shall certify in the application that the subject autonomous vehicles are equipped with an autonomous technology data recorder that captures and stores autonomous technology sensor data for all vehicle functions that are controlled by the autonomous technology at least 30 seconds before and at least 5 seconds after or until the vehicle comes to a complete stop after a collision That's like the air bag data recorder cars have now, but more comprehensive.
* Certification that the vehicle complies with the “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles” in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Federal Automated Vehicles Policy This is the national policy.[2] It's not very restrictive; it's mostly self-certification. This is where there's a big distinction between NHTSA levels 1 (basic auto-brake) and 2 (auto-brake plus lane keeping), and levels 3 and above. Basic concept: at levels 1 and 2, the driver must pay attention and systems must not let the driver stop paying attention. This is the "hands on the wheel" requirement.
At level 3 and above, the driver doesn't need to pay attention in autonomous mode, and if anything goes wrong, the manufacturer is responsible.
* The national requirements require a "safety assessment letter" from the manufacturer to the NHTSA answering questions in a few key areas:
Data Recording and Sharing
Privacy
System Safety
Vehicle Cybersecurity
Human Machine Interface
Crashworthiness
Consumer Education and Training
Registration and Certification
Post-Crash Behavior
Federal, State and Local Laws
Ethical Considerations
Operational Design Domain
Object and Event Detection and Response
Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)
Validation Methods
Those all seem reasonable enough. There's no requirement for third-party testing.
* DMV reserves the right to revoke the self-driving license of a system that drives badly.
Passing certification gets a sticker for each car, like the stickers for low-emissions vehicles.
All this is far less restrictive than what's required for light aircraft.
Tesla needs to qualify for a license. Time to put up or shut up.
Thanks for the info and source. That's a very comprehensive summary about the base legal requirements for the test pilots in California.
It's interesting to see that the burden of insurance falls upon the manufacturer. I think that's fair during these pilots.
I still think there are a ton of legal questions that need to be addressed though. Should self driving car algorithms be standardized across the industry for safety? Because of the nature of saving lives, should self driving software be open for inspection and review in ways other software isn't? If people modify the software in the car, who is responsible? Can car "owners" legally modify code when safety and lives are of concern?
It's interesting to see that the burden of insurance falls upon the manufacturer.
That's what makes it all work without detailed regulation. Otherwise, there would have to be detailed technical regulations and pre-deployment testing. This way, the manufacturer is responsible. Period.
Volvo's CEO originally proposed that.[1] Volvo Car Group President and CEO Håkan Samuelsson said in 2015 that "the company will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode." That's now US policy. Tesla and Uber probably hate that; both have tried to evade liability for bad autonomous driving. GM, Ford, and Chrysler seem to be OK with it; they've all survived big vehicle defect lawsuits and recalls. It's going to lead to much safer cars.
I feel like all of those questions have existing answers in the automotive industry. Modern cars include so much software that there are very few legal angles that full autonomy adds.
>Should self driving car algorithms be standardized across the industry for safety?
Just like every other safety relevant feature of my car; Baseline requirements and tests standardised, implementation open to innovation and competition.
>Because of the nature of saving lives, should self driving software be open for inspection and review in ways other software isn't?
Same rules as the software of my ABS system, or of my airbag: it's up to the manufacturer, in practise nobody cares.
>If people modify the software in the car, who is responsible?
If I modify my brakes or my steering system I'm responsible for any damages caused by this modification. Why would software be different.
>Can car "owners" legally modify code when safety and lives are of concern?
Can I legally modify my breaking systems? Yes, but it has to fulfill the same road safety regulations, and frostin depending on what I do getting all required certifications might be impractical.
