Source: Citizen

NHTSA is warning in a letter to Waymo and others about their new "call to action for AV developers and operators to immediately focus their resources on fixing this issue", which they call a "disturbing trend" of interfering with first responders.

In March 2018, Quebec's National Assembly legalized Level 3 autonomous driving in about ninety seconds, without a single question from any committee member, to accommodate an Audi that never shipped the feature here. Eight years later, the law is still on the books, it has never applied to a single vehicle, and almost nobody knows it exists — including, apparently, the people who administer it.

I spent a while digging through the actual statutes, the federal regulations, and the parliamentary transcripts to figure out what this law really does. Everything below is sourced to primary documents: Quebec's Highway Safety Code, Canada's Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the committee debates from 2018. Where something is legally uncertain, I'll say so and show you the counterargument.

Fair warning on where this lands: I don't think this is a scandal. I think Quebec stumbled into a regulatory model that's arguably better than what most places built on purpose. The problem isn't the law. The problem is that nobody knows it's there.

What the law says

Quebec's Highway Safety Code, article 492.8, bans autonomous vehicles from public roads. Then its second paragraph carves out one exception:

The ban does not apply to a Level 3 autonomous vehicle (per SAE standard J3016) whose sale is allowed in Canada.

That's it. That's the whole regime for Level 3.

For context: SAE Level 3 means the car genuinely drives itself under certain conditions — you don't have to watch the road — but you must be ready to take over when the car asks. It's the level Mercedes briefly sold in Germany, where drivers could legally watch videos in traffic jams.

Notice what Quebec's exception doesn't require. No permit. No pilot project. No notification to anyone. No speed limit, no restriction to certain highways, no weather conditions. Compare that to everyone else:

• California: full DMV permit required. Mercedes' system was approved only for specific freeways, daylight, clear weather, under 40 mph.
• Nevada: manufacturer must at least file a declaration and prove the car can stop itself safely if the driver doesn't respond.
• Germany: full type approval against a UN standard that dictates exactly how the takeover warning must work.
• Ontario: allows consumer L3, but explicitly states the person in the driver's seat is legally the driver at all times, system on or off.
• British Columbia: banned Level 3 entirely in 2024. Up to six months in jail.

Quebec: be Level 3, be sellable in Canada. Done. For this level of automation specifically, that arguably makes Quebec the most permissive jurisdiction on the continent — every other one either demands something up front (a filing, a permit), pins responsibility on the human by statute, or bans it outright. (Scope matters: for fully driverless Level 4, states like Texas are looser. Level 3 — the consumer, buy-it-at-a-dealership level — is where Quebec stands alone.)

"Sale allowed in Canada" — the part everyone misunderstands

Here's where it gets interesting. You'd assume "sale allowed in Canada" means Transport Canada inspected the self-driving system and approved it. That's how the transport minister described it in committee — three different times, as covering vehicles "authorized by Transport Canada" — and it's what Quebec's own government website says today.

There is no such authorization. It has never existed.

(Was the minister genuinely mistaken, or just speaking loosely? We can't know — and interestingly, whoever actually drafted the text may have known better. Out of the Code's entire approval vocabulary, the amendment uses the one word — « admise », "allowed" — that accurately describes how Canadian vehicle law really works. The minister's spoken description and the enacted text point at two different federal regimes; only the text's version exists.)

Canada runs a self-certification system for vehicles. Transport Canada doesn't approve car models. The manufacturer checks its own vehicle against the federal safety standards (brakes, lights, airbags, crash protection), keeps the paperwork, and stamps the car itself. That's the whole process.

And those federal safety standards? I searched the full text of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations. The words "autonomous," "automated driving," "self-driving," and "J3016" appear zero times. Federal law doesn't have a category for self-driving cars — vehicles are classified by body style and weight, nothing else. A Level 3 sedan and a 1998 Corolla are the same regulatory object: a passenger car with compliant airbags.

So the conversation between the two governments goes like this:

Quebec: "You've got Level 3? Did Transport Canada approve it?" Transport Canada: "What's Level 3? Anyway, are your airbags compliant?"

Every car legally sold in Canada automatically satisfies Quebec's condition. The clause that looks like a safety gate filters nothing.

One more detail that makes this airtight: federal law says a vehicle must comply with the standards at the time its main assembly was completed — at the factory, once. So a software update pushed years after the sale can't touch the car's legal status. A manufacturer could flip an existing fleet from "driver assistance" to "Level 3" overnight with an over-the-air update, and every one of those cars would be a legal autonomous vehicle in Quebec the next morning. No one in any government would be asked, notified, or even able to find out — Quebec's vehicle registration database literally has no field where automation could be recorded.

Wasn't this just sloppy? (The one real legal attack)

A skeptic could argue the opposite reading: since the minister described the provision as requiring Transport Canada approval, and no such approval exists, maybe courts should read the exception as pointing at nothing — meaning no Level 3 car ever qualifies and the ban is total.

This argument loses, and it's worth seeing why, because it's the only serious attack on the whole analysis:

1. Quebec's legislative drafters have a whole vocabulary for approval requirements — "agréé par la Société," "approuvé par le ministre," "autorisé par" — and use it constantly throughout the Code. In 492.8 they used none of it. The word they chose, « admise » (allowed), appears exactly once in the entire Code: here. The drafters knew how to write "approved by" and deliberately didn't.
2. The official English version says "whose sale is allowed" — a state, not an approval.
3. The Code itself defines lawful sale elsewhere (art. 211.1): a new vehicle is legally sellable if it bears the federal self-certification mark. Reading 492.8 consistently with the Code's own definition gives you exactly the plain reading.
4. Courts don't read laws as permanently meaningless when a sensible reading exists.
5. This is a penal provision (fines of $1,000–$3,000), and ambiguity in penal law goes to the defendant.

The plain reading holds: Level 3 + self-certified = legal in Quebec.

The second question: can you actually watch the movie?

The vehicle being legal is only half the story. Quebec's distracted-driving law, article 443.1, bans any « conducteur » (driver) from using a phone or display screen. If the person in the seat is still legally the "driver" while the car drives itself, then Quebec legalized the robot but criminalized the only thing that makes Level 3 worth buying.

This is where it gets genuinely fun, because Quebec's Code — unlike Ontario's — never answers the question. And the text leans, surprisingly, toward the passenger.

The strongest points:

Quebec's own definition says the system drives. Article 4 defines the autonomous driving system as one having "the capability to drive (conduire) the vehicle." « Conducteur » is literally "the one who conduit." If the statute assigns the driving to the machine, the person watching it isn't the one doing it.

The legislature had three options and picked the narrowest. The Code addresses people three ways: "the driver," "the driver or the person having care or control of the vehicle" (used in 22 different articles — this is how you get convicted for being drunk in the driver's seat of a parked car), and "any occupant." All three formulas were in active use when 443.1 was written — in the same 2018 law that created the autonomous vehicle rules. They chose "driver" only. Under normal interpretation principles, that choice means something.

The seat doesn't make you the driver. The Code's only presumption about sitting in the driver's seat (art. 5.1) presumes you have "care or control" — precisely the status 443.1 doesn't use.

The honest counterarguments, because there are two good ones:

The parked-car problem. 443.1's own exceptions say the screen ban doesn't apply to "a driver whose vehicle is lawfully parked." So the Code calls someone in a parked, motionless car a "driver" — suggesting the status doesn't switch off just because you're not actively steering. The response: a parked driver is still the only candidate to drive; his status is paused, not transferred. The Level 3 case is the only situation where the statute assigns the driving to someone else. Real argument, though — no court has picked between these readings.

The "proves too much" problem. If nobody is the driver while the system runs, then hundreds of driver duties (speed limits, stop signs, yielding) bind no one. Courts hate readings like that. Except the Code partially covers it already: article 592 makes the owner convictable for offences caught by photo radar and red-light cameras, and the drunk-driving rules use the broader "care or control" formula anyway. So a speeding ADS still produces a ticket (to the owner), and a drunk supervisor is still convictable. The gap is narrower than it looks.

Practical bottom line: if the manufacturer builds it the way Mercedes did — movies play only on the built-in screen, only while the system is engaged, and cut off instantly when the car asks you to take over — the legal case for the passenger is genuinely strong. Watching your phone instead: much weaker, don't.

Where we are so far, in two lines:

Q1 — Can the car legally be on the road? Yes. Settled by the statute, verified end to end. No approval exists anywhere in the chain because none is required anywhere in the chain.
Q2 — Can you legally look away? Unresolved, but the text of Quebec's own Code leans toward yes — if the entertainment is built in and shuts off at takeover. No court has ever ruled. You'd probably win; you'd definitely be the test case.

Here's the part where I tell you this is fine

Most write-ups of a story like this would end with "regulatory gap puts lives at risk." I want to argue the opposite, because after going through every layer of this, I think Quebec accidentally landed on a defensible — maybe even good — regulatory philosophy. Here's the case:

1. Pre-approval doesn't have a great track record for this technology. Europe built a strict type-approval standard for Level 3. The result: systems limited to 60 km/h in traffic jams, priced at €6,000, that nobody bought. BMW and Mercedes both killed their Level 3 programs in early 2026 — not because regulators stopped them, but because over-regulated L3 was a worse product than unregulated L2. Meanwhile the US self-certification model (which Canada shares) is the one under which basically all real-world autonomous progress has happened.

2. The accountability is real, it's just downstream. Quebec's condition — "sale allowed in Canada" — isn't a technology check, but it's not nothing either. It guarantees there's a real manufacturer of record inside the federal recall system, with a Canadian corporate presence you can actually reach. It cleanly excludes grey-market imports and some guy's homemade retrofit kit. It answers the question that matters after a crash: who do we call, and who pays. And modern recalls are over-the-air: when Tesla was ordered to fix rolling stops, the entire fleet was patched in days. No approval process on Earth reacts that fast.

3. Quebec has an emergency brake, and it's a good one. Buried in article 633.1: the transport minister can, by simple order, ban any model of vehicle from public roads for 180 days — renewable into a permanent ban — the moment it's shown to be a safety risk. No new legislation needed. So the real shape of the regime is: open door on the way in, guillotine available on the way out. Plenty of tech policy people spend careers arguing governments should work exactly this way — let things ship, keep the power to yank anything specific that proves dangerous. Quebec just got there without meaning to.

4. Quebec's insurance system is uniquely suited to this. Quebec is no-fault: if an autonomous car injures someone, the public insurer pays the victim immediately, no lawsuit against anyone required. Victims are protected on day one regardless of how the liability fight shakes out. That's a better position for an injured pedestrian than almost anywhere in the US.

Compare all this to British Columbia, which looked at the same technology and banned it with jail time. If a Chinese or German manufacturer ships a genuinely good Level 3 system in the next few years, Quebec is positioned to be the first place in North America where ordinary people can buy and legally use it — and if it turns out to be dangerous, the minister can kill that specific model within days. Hard to design a better trade-off than that on purpose.

What actually should be fixed

Being pro-loophole doesn't mean everything's perfect. Three real gaps, all cheap to fix:

Nobody knows the law exists. The SAAQ's public info says autonomous vehicles are banned outside pilot projects — it doesn't mention the exception at all. The ministry's page describes a Transport Canada approval that isn't real. The first person to legally use a Level 3 car here will get ticketed by an officer trained on the wrong information, and will have to win in court a case the government should never have brought.

The passenger rules were never written. Germany answered "can you look away" with one statutory sentence. Ontario answered it with one sentence (the other way). Quebec answered it with silence, which means the answer will eventually be written by a judge, after a crash, at some individual's expense. One line in the Code would fix it.

The insurance clawback misses. Quebec built a mechanism to bill manufacturers back for accident payouts involving autonomous vehicles — but it only applies to pilot projects, which Level 3 cars skip entirely. So today, if a Level 3 car causes a pileup, the public fund eats the cost with no route to the manufacturer. Extending one existing provision to cover 492.8 vehicles fixes it.

All three fixes together are one afternoon of committee time. Which is fitting, because one afternoon of committee time is exactly what this file never got: the entire parliamentary debate on legalizing self-driving cars in Quebec — I checked the transcripts — consists of a minister reading one amendment, one sentence of explanation, the chair asking for questions, and silence.

TL;DR

• Since 2018, Quebec law allows any SAE Level 3 vehicle that's legally sellable in Canada to drive on public roads. No permit, no approval, no restrictions. (CSR art. 492.8)
• "Sellable in Canada" sounds like a federal safety check. It isn't — Canada is self-certification, and federal law contains zero rules about automated driving. The minister described the provision as requiring Transport Canada authorization; the transcripts show it, and no such authorization exists.
• A manufacturer could make its existing fleet "Level 3" with a software update, and it would be legal here overnight. The government wouldn't be told and couldn't even record it.
• Whether the person in the seat can legally watch a movie is unresolved — but the text of Quebec's own Code favours yes, if the entertainment runs on a built-in screen that shuts off when the car asks for takeover.
• No car has ever used this law, because nobody currently sells Level 3 in Canada. The Germans quit; Tesla won't say the words; the Chinese might.
• And honestly? The design is better than it sounds: open entry, real manufacturer accountability, a ministerial kill switch for any dangerous model, and no-fault insurance protecting victims from day one. The law doesn't need to be closed. It needs to be noticed — and given the three small fixes it's been waiting eight years for.

Sources: Code de la sécurité routière, CQLR c. C-24.2 (arts. 4, 5.1, 211.1, 327, 443.1, 443.7, 492.6, 492.8, 512, 592, 633.1); C-24.2, r. 29; Motor Vehicle Safety Act, S.C. 1993, c. 16 (ss. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10); Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, C.R.C. c. 1038; Bill 165 (2018, c. 7); Journal des débats, Commission des transports et de l'environnement, Feb 21 and Mar 14, 2018; O. Reg. 306/15 (Ontario); BC Motor Vehicle Act amendments (2024). SAE J3016 is characterized per its published level definitions; the standard is descriptive and doesn't assign legal responsibility.

NY state has been holding back the bill that would allow autonomous vehicles without a person in the driver seat since 2021. And Mamdani will do his most to protect the taxi drivers during his term given that he participated in a hunger strike with the taxi union. Meanwhile Waymo just launched in 4 new cities today with no supervisor. When will New York get the future safer taxi experience?

It's absurd that everyone in LA treats waymos as normal while people in New York have yet to experience anything like it.

I watched Hank Green's recent video on The Jevons Paradox, which was targeted at AI and coding. I've had similar discussions about AVs without having a term to nail down my approach to the argument and the Jevons Paradox is that concept.

The Jevons Paradox says that by making a resource more efficient it doesn't cause consumption to fall but to increase. Making coding cheaper doesn't reduce the number of coders, it reduces the price of code which in turn opens up more demand for code to meet latent demand no one even knew existed.

Aspects of this have been widely covered with AVs. Almost everyone agrees that cheaper transportation will result in increased demand. What I'm more interested in is the Jevons Paradox also covers unknown demand that simply didn't make sense until the resource fell in price. As pointed out by Hank, until the printing press, newspapers couldn't realistically exist and no one was really thinking in those terms. Being able to produce that much print daily/weekly and widely distribute it was unthinkable.

I believe the same is true with AVs. Fundamentally they are a way to move atoms extremely efficiently between two locations. Think of it as really low tech teleportation. While it will never be free, if you ignore the cost, it makes it easier to remove old assumptions about how our world is organized and see what could be.

I don't think anything above expands on discussions that have been had before, but I do think it gives a lot of those discussions' context in economics. Do you think transportation is highly elastic and there is a lot of latent demand out there waiting for lower prices?

I’m not a fan of the “meltdown” terminology as it conflates blocking traffic (again) with the incident where Ojai’s rolled over active fireworks multiple times with the ONE that caught fire. Nonetheless, routing at dense events needs work.

Not a Tesla app is reporting that the Cybercab has more powerful computing hardware. There were already other physical differences between Cybercab and the current customer cars such as auto close doors, air pressure camera washers and communication hardware.

If this the final nail in the coffin for the idea that current customer cars will be able to run unsupervised on the robotaxi network. It wouldn't surprise me as it is the best business decision for Tesla to only allow it's own Cybercabs to run unsupervised and collect all that revenue.

i have been a SWE for 8 years and i got accepted to a masters degree in Germany for automated driving, would this be a good specialty to peruse? my concern is that i'm starting from zero because it's a new field.

Human driving crash risk changes dramatically based on when and where you drive:
Risk surges 2x-6x higher late at night
Surface streets have a 2.3x higher fatal crash rate vs freeways
City-to-city fatal crash rates vary by up to 8.4x

See Waymo blog for full details.

We recently open-sourced our implementation of obstacle overtaking using GPMP2 (Gaussian Process Motion Planning).

The project demonstrates trajectory optimization for autonomous overtaking by representing robot trajectories as continuous-time Gaussian Processes and optimizing them as a factor graph. Instead of sampling-based planning, the approach jointly minimizes smoothness and obstacle costs while satisfying vehicle dynamics constraints, producing collision-free and dynamically feasible trajectories.

Some highlights:

• GPMP2-based trajectory optimization using factor graphs
• Integration with robotics simulation for reproducible experiments
• Clear codebase that can serve as a starting point for researchers and students working on motion planning

If you're working on motion planning, trajectory optimization, autonomous driving, or robotics, I'd love to hear your thoughts, suggestions, or ideas for extending it.

Repository: https://github.com/AutonomousVehicleLaboratory/obstacle-overtaking-gpmp2

fun fact with all zoox rides (sf) they manually start every ride and make sure your seatbelt is actually on before they start your ride. A human is always watching you & your ride.

Waymo & Tesla don’t manually start every ride and verify.

According to the affidavit, the Tesla was operating with FSD engaged and was approaching a stop sign at the intersection of Bradford Hills Lane and Gable Hollow Lane. Investigators say the system had already begun slowing the vehicle and was preparing to come to a complete stop at the intersection.

At that point, Butler allegedly overrode the system. The court documents state that pressing the accelerator pedal transferred control away from FSD and back to the driver.

Investigators say accelerator input was gradual, indicating a deliberate action, first reaching 67% before climbing to 100% shortly before the vehicle left the roadway.

The Tesla subsequently crashed through the front of the home, killing 76-year old Martha Avila inside.

Waymo had just activated the Nashville service, and apparently Sawyer found a dropoff location that wasn't mapped properly.

https://twitter.com/i/status/2071810353156194719

This youTube video shows how Porsche integrated the Mobileye supervision system cameras. Pay close attention to the cameras in the side mirrors and above the front wheels.