The U.S. auto safety regulators have also provided Tesla extra time to answer a federal inquiry into whether its Full Self-Driving system has caused cars to violate traffic laws. Given the increased scrutiny of rapid innovation and road-safety regulation on Tesla vehicles, the five-week extension appears to be a time when the driver-assistance technology is scrutinized more closely than ever, even though the current regulatory and policy framework is already stricter than the past.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the federal agency tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of vehicles in the United States that is undertaking the investigation. Regulators are evaluating the likelihood of Tesla vehicles that are equipped with Full Self-Driving, otherwise known as FSD, committing traffic offenses when the system is activated. The agency then tabled the response deadline to February 23 after Tesla asked it to give the company more time to gather and examine the pertinent data to enable it to proceed with its internal audit.
The primary cause of the delay is the copious amount of material that Tesla has to review. The company believes that this is thousands of records, some of which are consumer complaints, field reports, crash data, legal filings, and internal assessments. According to Tesla, the review will be a mostly manual process since every record will have to be thoroughly examined to see whether it is pertinent to the investigation. Since over eight thousand records have yet to be checked as of the middle of January, the company contended that the initial deadline was not practical without a possibility of making mistakes or omissions.
To regulators, the expansion is not an indication of a weakening position. Rather, it puts into focus the difficulty of managing advanced driver-assistance systems that erode the distinction between human control and automated decision-making. The initial probe was initiated in October as a pre-investigation to enable the investigation agency to get a preliminary check on matters before deciding to proceed with a more formal engineering investigation. The investigation had grown substantially by December, and the company was provided with a wide-ranging and elaborate information request of Tesla.
It was not a particular incident that caused the interest of the agency but a tendency of reports that vehicles that use Full Self-Driving can have failed to adhere to traffic regulations in some cases. Such reports have allegations of the inappropriate use of the lanes, inability to follow the traffic lights, and other practices and behaviors that would have cast doubts on how the system understands the driving conditions in the real world. So far regulators have recorded dozens of consumer complaints and have also identified media reports and crash data that can be related to the problem.
In terms of industry, this investigation is a part of the overall change in the attitude of authorities towards automated technologies in driving. Ten years ago, the number of driver-assistance features was relatively small and was obviously placed as a supporting tool. The systems such as the Full Self-Driving of Tesla are now more ambitious in both branding and capability. Although Tesla has insisted that FSD does need active driver supervision, and does not turn the car into a complete autonomous system, the name itself has been a source of critical commentary since it may well exaggerate the safety of the technology.
This contradiction between marketing words and technical reality has been pursuing Tesla over the years. According to its advocates, the company has taken the whole auto industry to the next level by enhancing the rate at which sophisticated software-based features are being adopted. Opponents respond that this kind of quick deployment, particularly in the public roads, is risky in the case the systems are still developing. This is the position which the current probe currently occupies, with the regulators trying to ascertain whether the technology can work on a regular basis within the limits of traffic law.
The move by the regulators to provide Tesla with more time also highlights the realities of the issue at hand. Car models produce significant volumes of data, and it is neither very fast nor easy to extract valuable information in that data. The agency will strive to have its analysis set through comprehensive and accurate information by enabling Tesla to conduct a comprehensive review. Simultaneously, the extension continues to place a strain on the firm to show its transparency and collaboration.
In the case of Tesla, the probe has come at a time when the company is under heavy scrutiny on a variety of fronts. The driver-assistance systems in the company have been subject to other safety investigations in the past and with every new investigation, the regulatory track record is made. Although all these studies do not necessarily mean misconduct, they add to a continuing story that Tesla has to be conscious of as it keeps releasing software updates and advertising future autonomous functionality.
The case also has an extended public aspect. Full Self-Driving is actively used by many Tesla owners, and they frequently post their stories on the internet, both describing their happy experience with it and sharing more in-depth descriptions of unforeseen behavior. These personal accounts are increasingly influencing regulatory interest since they provide real world information that is not available in controlled settings. In other instances, what drivers perceive to be minor glitches may turn out to be huge when perceived in the context of traffic law adherence.
As the month of February approaches, the focus will probably be on the interpretation of the data that Tesla submits by the regulators. The result may go as far as the investigation will be closed without further investigation or additional engineering investigation that might result in necessary modifications or prohibitions. Regardless of the outcome, it will help to shape the manner in which automated driving technologies will be regulated in the United States.
There are also questions to be asked and left unanswered that do not just pertain to Tesla. What is the best way to share the responsibility between human operators and automated systems in case of a violation? What is the extent of transparency the companies should be asked to provide as we see more driving behavior change due to the influence of software? And what about innovation at the expense of the public trust in road safety?
