Exactly...what?
In ONE state they did. In a dozen more they don't have to.
Thus debunking your claim there's any 'regulators' in the way of deploying this to any of those places.
How, specifically?
Prove... what? That in an L3 car the CAR, not the human, is the driver?
That's
literally the definition of autonomous driving (L3 through L5).
And in the states where it's already legal they generally incorporate the exact language (sometimes even directly referencing back to) the J3016 definitions and why they require the
maker of the car or driving system to have insurance.
Why would they need insurance if they weren't the one responsible for the system driving?
So yes, I can prove it- and have done so even if you don't understand the answer.
Once again you ignorance of the topic and the law is showing.
Again- factually wrong.
it's ALREADY decided in quite a number of states.
I directly linked you to one of them in fact to debunk your false claim you need "certification" anywhere to do >L2.
Nope.
That's why no 'regulator' had to approve it in Nevada- because such regulation in a dozen US states only exists in your imagination.
There's factually NO regulatory obstacle, at all, in those places.
Except... it doesn't.
Why do you keep making up nonsense you know you're unable to prove?
If you think otherwise, please cite the actual law-- or the case law-- showing these "legal implications"
You strung together a lot of words you don't seem to understand there....
Which makes your meme like next level ironic I must say.
www.dmv.ca.gov
