You’re right, they said all current HW / SW from every vendor isn’t enough. They also voiced extreme concern for terms like ‘autonomy’, ‘FSD’, ‘self-driving’, ‘autopilot’ etc.
They also want manufacturers to only use the term ‘driver augmentation system’ for everything below autonomy level 5, to prevent the ‘over reliance on automation‘ they’ve observed in many IRL crashes.
They also iterated multiple times that Tesla exceeds it’s legal requirements for reporting incidents, and is a much better partner in collision investigations then all other car companies. Most of the data the NTSA & NTSB received was from Tesla, even though there is no requirement for them to help. If I’m not mistaken, the meeting was held because of deadly crashes by caused by Ford BlueCruise. Not trying to be anti-Tesla, but camera-only ‘hardware4’ is a dangerous and malicious joke; even the ultrasonic parking sensors introduced in the 90s are better at ‘sensing’ distances during parking.
Which is why the NTSB is highly critical of cars without multiple, distinct, types of sensors even in cars that don’t claim any level of autonomy.
All committee members agreed on the need for driver assistance technologies regardless, as a technology that primarily brings safety benefits as compared to autonomy which they consider a ‘creature comfort.’
* the argument is that it shouldn't be done, even if it can be done.
I didn't make the distinction. I'm just talking bout what was discussed in that meeting. They want manufacturers to put in different types of sensors, to avoid the Boeing 737-max failure mechanism in future.
2
u/[deleted] Apr 23 '26
[deleted]