双重人工监管：特斯拉承认其 Robotaxi 仍需车内司机与远程操作员

Core Viewpoint - Tesla's submission to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) reveals that its "Robotaxi" service still relies on human drivers and remote operators, contradicting its claims of full autonomy [1][3][4] Group 1: Operational Details - Tesla's ride-hailing service requires a human driver in the vehicle and a remote operator, highlighting a significant operational gap compared to Waymo's fully autonomous service [3] - The service operates under the Transport Charter Program (TCP) with a Level 2 (L2) driver assistance system, necessitating a licensed human driver to monitor and take control when needed [3][4] - Tesla has deployed local remote operators in Austin and the Bay Area, who must pass background checks and training, providing an additional layer of safety [3][4] Group 2: Marketing and Regulatory Issues - Tesla argues against mandatory passenger consent for L2 technology use, claiming that user agreement during app registration suffices [5][7] - The company opposes Waymo's proposal to restrict the use of terms like "autonomous" or "Robotaxi" for L2 services, asserting that existing advertising laws are adequate [6][7] - Tesla's contradictory stance of claiming its vehicles are not autonomous while simultaneously marketing them as "Robotaxi" raises questions about its compliance with advertising regulations [6] Group 3: Safety Claims and Data Reporting - Tesla cites its Vehicle Safety Report, claiming that the probability of accidents decreases to 1/7 when using the Full Self-Driving (FSD) system [9] - The self-reported safety data has faced criticism due to Tesla's lack of comprehensive takeover data, which is required for autonomous vehicle licensing [9]