The automotive road code is actually a very complicated thing, developed over long period of time. For example, here in California, the Caltrans organization has very large manuals about how to build things, and it’s really shaped by a whole lot of lawsuits that have happened over a very long period of time.
These legal and regulatory frameworks and case examples have some nebulous risk when it comes to a product like FSD and need time to adapt to the self driving liability and legal landscape.
One of the major things that’s holding up full self driving from a licensing perspective is this risk, with second movers waiting for the risk of this regulatory environment to unwind so that they don’t end up prematurely selecting a technology that hits a dead end or hitching themselves to a wagon that limits their options if things don’t go well.
It’s a lot slower than people realize, with the friends that I have that do this as a specialty looking at 2040 as a target, for example in one case, or 2035 with another. These are PEs. The people that that I know that are involved in these cases, as professional engineers, really, don’t see the legal and regulatory framework catching up with the technology for some time. This is often the case. The paperwork don’t catch up right away. ;)
So you can imagine that the idea of locking yourself into one companies’ntechnology, and hitching your investors cash to the risk profile of Tesla in particular, which is fairly high, is not real attractive when you’re still waiting to see how things turn out with the larger regulatory framework.
And that’s why you’re not gonna see a lot of people jumping in until market pressures make it so difficult that they have to, because the incentives push for them to delay as long as possible before making a commitment to see how things are headed.