Tesla and Waymo and currently on opposite sides of a back-and-forth regarding how to proceed with California’s autonomous ride-hailing rules, and Tesla’s filings paint a different picture of its “Robotaxi” system’s capabilities than its CEO Elon Musk has in his public statements.
Comments were filed this week in a proceeding with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which governs taxi-like services in California. The proceeding has asked questions of interested parties regarding how California should regulate autonomous ride-hailing services like Tesla Robotaxi and Waymo.
The specific questions causing the back-and-forth between the two companies, and other operators like Zoox and Uber, are about use of “level 2” driver assistance systems, and whether they should be regulated the same way as truly autonomous vehicles (AVs).
All driver automation systems can be ranked by the SAE’s “levels of driving automation,” which runs on a scale from 0-5. Most systems available on consumer vehicles are ranked as level 2 and still require an attentive driver at all times – this includes Tesla’s deceptively-named “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) system, which does not actually fully drive the car.
There is one level 3 system available to consumers in California, Mercedes Drive Pilot, which allows drivers to take the eyes off the road in specific circumstances.
Waymo and other driverless rideshare programs are ranked as level 4, which doesn’t require anyone in the driver’s seat, but can only operate in certain circumstances. This usually takes the form of geofencing.
Currently, Tesla does not operate a level 4 system in California, though it’s arguable that its Austin Robotaxi service is level 4 (it is also arguable that it’s level 2, but that the operator was just moved from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat). Tesla also just obtained a permit to roll out some version of its Robotaxi in Arizona.
That hasn’t stopped Tesla from using Robotaxi branding to market its system in California, though. Tesla claims that it has a ride-hailing service “with Robotaxi technology” in the San Francisco Bay Area, despite that this “Robotaxi” is actually fully operating at level 2 – with a driver in the driver’s seat, holding the steering wheel (or not, if they fall asleep doing so), running the same level 2 FSD that any Tesla customer can run. It’s functionally no different than getting in an Uber with a Tesla driver who turns on FSD during the trip.
So, Tesla has a keen interest in this rulemaking procedure, because it’s currently running a level 2-based ride-hailing service in California, which Waymo is not.
And so, Tesla is arguing against tougher rules on the use of level 2 systems by ride-hailing services, because those would affect the business it’s currently running. And the reasoning Tesla gives is a little hypocritical considering its other public positions.
First, Tesla’s comment says that level 2 systems should be allowed to be used by ride-hailing companies, and thinks that “reasonable regulations” including driver training and more information to customers are agreeable.
But it goes on to oppose greater delineations between level 2 and fully autonomous systems, in particular a proposal by Uber that says the CPUC should regulate “misleading claims” on autonomous vehicles.
Tesla says that further regulations regarding misleading claims are unnecessary, as state law already covers misleading advertisements, and that the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can bring enforcement on companies that violate those laws.
This is interesting coming from Tesla, given that Tesla is currently in trouble with the DMV regarding misleading self-driving claims. And despite this being the case for over four years now, Tesla not only continues to sell its “Full Self-Driving” system in California, it has also started the aforementioned “Robotaxi” service which still utilizes a driver in the driver seat.
Next, Tesla goes on to state that increased reporting requirements are unnecessary. Waymo thinks that quarterly reporting requirements for autonomous taxis should be extended to level 2 ride-hailing companies, and Tesla says that would be burdensome.
But elsewhere in its comments, Tesla treats it as a point of fact that level 2 systems are safer than human drivers alone, and therefore should be used as much as possible, including in taxis.
But, if it is true that they are safer, then wouldn’t reporting data on the systems’ use prove that? Currently, Tesla does release its own self-driving data, showing the systems are safer, but this data comes from Tesla alone, not from a third party. Regulating this reporting would mean another pair of eyes on it, which would make the data more trustworthy.
In contrast, Waymo has published multiple studies with third parties and submitted them to academic journals, which means that more people have been able to look at the data to examine its robustness.
And, comically enough, another point Tesla makes against reporting requirements for level 2 systems is that it says requiring the same reporting for level 2 and level 4 AVs would “confuse consumers.” This, coming from the company that is currently operating a level 2 system, with a driver in it, which it calls both “Full Self-Driving” and “Robotaxi.”
Tesla even says, in its previous letter, that “almost 100% of [Tesla’s CA Robotaxi] rides engaged FSD (Supervised) at some point” (emphasis ours). This means that some percentage of “Robotaxi” rides don’t engage FSD at all, and many of the rest only engage it “at some point.”
So, per this filing, Tesla’s California “Robotaxi” is, explicitly, not an actual robotaxi, despite that Tesla and its CEO keep claiming publicly that it is.
We could get more data on exactly how often FSD gets engaged in these cars, but… Tesla is lobbying against those reporting requirements. Perhaps that shines a light on the company’s possible motivations here.
Tesla goes on to generally oppose other reporting requirements as well, including any expansion of greater education on the role of remote operators or on what circumstances an AV can operate in (geofencing, weather, construction, etc), stating that those would reveal trade secrets. But it also filed comments in support of allowing privately-owned vehicles to participate in autonomous ride-hailing services, an idea which Tesla originally called “Tesla Network” but as of yet has not rolled out.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
