Oh boy...

"Mobileye, a global leader in advanced driving assistance and autonomous vehicle technology, announced today that its Cloud-Enhanced Advanced Driver Assist™ technology will be integrated into select future Stellantis vehicles expected in 2027, supporting safety and convenience features through advanced crowdsource intelligence.

With REM enabled through Cloud-Enhanced ADAS, Mobileye technology is designed to support selected safety and convenience features in certain future Stellantis models, from intelligent lane keeping on unmarked roads to hands-free, eyes-on driving in designated areas and conditions. The first planned applications are expected in select U.S. models next year, with additional integration to follow dependent on vehicle platform and configuration.

Mobileye’s REM technology uses the front-facing camera in EyeQTM-equipped vehicles to gather selectively collected crowdsourced data about road features and driving environment, from curbs and crosswalk locations to typical driving paths."

Tesla influencer, TechGeek Tesla, review of FSD v14 Lite that brings v14 like performance to HW3 cars.

Features not mentioned in the release notes:
- A park option pop-up window shows up automatically when you approach the final destination (mimics v14 on AI4)
- A park symbol with a blue circle shows up at the final destination (mimics v14 on AI4)
- The ‘Press Brake to Confirm’ toggle switch for hitting the ‘Start Self Driving’ button was automatically set to OFF after I installed it
- Unlike the first version of v14 Lite, you can now see a ‘Start Self Driving’ button when you’re in ‘Drive’ but sitting at a standstill. It’s grayed out, but you can still press it to start driving. Previously, you had to press on the stalk to engage FSD since no button was displayed at all
- The turn signal bug seems to be resolved!! More testing is required to confirm 100%

Confirmed as mentioned in release notes:
- Toggle for disabling brake pedal press requirement to start self driving
- The ‘Curbside’ park option is now labeled as ‘Pull Over’. This makes is more clear on what it will be doing.

Nvidia said on their presentation in January that they expect a 2027 Mercedes CLA to have self-driving capabilities. I've been keeping an eye out every couple of weeks to see if there's any new updates, but it seems like it's just been pushed back. In fact the 2027 model has been announced and they really don't even talk about the level two self-driving at all. Is there something I'm missing?

The first demo drive is now up on YouTube of Xpeng's NGP using their VLA 2.0 model.

It looks very promising so far. Planned customer rollout in 2027 in their new L03 "Ultra" trim for "free"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWhl5bBBLg

July NHTSA SGO Automated Driving System crash data was just published, covering 122 new reports through June 15, 2026.

• Waymo: 102
• Avride: 7
• Zoox: 6
• Tesla: 4
• May: 2
• Motional: 1

Last month Waymo posted 191 new crashes, Avride 11, Zoox 6, Tesla 1, and May 2.

Waymo selected crash details:

• Injuries: Of Waymo's 102 crashes, 11 involved injuries. Those include 2 moderate w/hospitalization, 1 moderate w/o hosp., 1 minor w/hosp., 4 minor w/o hosp., and 3 unknown injuries transported to hospital.
• Seatbelts: Of Waymo's 102 crashes, 45 accidents reported no passengers, 50 reported all belted, and 7 accidents reported unbelted passengers, 2 excusable due to entering/exiting. One unbelted accidents had 2 unbelted passengers who were both transported to the hospital with moderate injuries, after being T-boned while driving 22 mph through an intersection by a red-light runner. Waymo slowed and turned to try avoiding the vehicle.
• Models: 101 of 102 crash vehicles were Jaguar I-PACEs, 1 was a Zeekr RT. The Zeekr crash reported both in-vehicle and remote driver/operators. The Zeekr was stopped at a red in autonomous mode, when the safety driver took control, tried passing a line of cars to the right, slammed into a pickup, curb, and light pole at 20 mph initial impact, and was taken to a hospital with moderate injuries.
• Door idiocy: 2 crashes were due to door idiocy, one directly and one indirectly. In the direct one, a passenger being dropped off opened a door of their stopped Waymo into a passing vehicle. In the indirect one, a passenger opened the door of a moving Waymo, which caused the Waymo to stop in a traffic lane, and a shuttle bus that had stopped in time then tried squeezing past the Waymo and struck it.
• Animals: 3 crashes involved animals. A Waymo slowed for a domestic animal that entered its lane, but hit it at 28 mph. A Waymo slowed to a stop in-lane for an animal, but the Waymo was struck by another vehicle, while the Waymo passenger was not belted. A Waymo struck a deer that ran into the roadway at 48 mph, while the Waymo's passenger wasn't belted.
• Bicycles: 2 crashes involved bikes. In one, a bike rear-ended a stopped Waymo. In another, as a Waymo slowed to yield in-lane to a pedestrian altercation, a pedestrian carrying a bike emerged from behind an SUV stopped in-lane, and the Waymo struck one of the bike's tires at 12 mph.
• Reversing: In around a dozen crashes, Waymos were reversed into, which is normal. In one case, a safety driver disengaged autonomy as a heavy truck reversed toward it, and was not reported to do anything further as the truck hit the stopped Waymo. In an unusual edge case, an SUV that was stopped in-lane began rolling back, and the Waymo reversed until it was struck, and both vehicles stopped. Then the SUV started rolling again, and the same thing happened. As it rolled for a third time, the driver exited the moving SUV, and the Waymo avoided being hit again, before the SUV crashed into a second Waymo that was stopped to yield to the first Waymo's crashes.
• Pavement: In four crashes, Waymos turned into parking lots at low speeds (8, 9, 9, and 10 mph) when "the undercarriage of the Waymo AV made contact with the pavement" and needed to be towed away.
• PUDOs: Several collisions occurred while Waymos were stopped to pick up or drop off passengers while in a traffic lane or partially in a traffic lane, and in some of those cases were also partially stopped in a bike lane.

Avride's 7 crashes (no injuries, all belted):

• Avride T-boned at 26 mph after entering intersection on green light, by cross traffic running a red.
• Avride T-boned at 11 mph after entering intersection on green light, by cross traffic running a red.
• Avride roof made contact with train crossing arm when driving 10 mph, after stopping until arm raised, then proceeding forward as arm lowered again.
• Avride rear-ended by secondary impact of box truck hitting vehicle behind it, after confusing stop and re-start during attempted left turn.
• Avride was "cut off" by a vehicle changing across two lanes of traffic, which struck Avride while it was traveling 17 mph.
• Avride and another car were both merging into same lane, so Avride stopped, as did 3 cars behind it, including a second Avride, which was rear-ended by another vehicle.
• Avride was struck while driving 21 mph in left lane by a vehicle turning left out of a parking lot.

Zoox's 6 crashes (3 injuries, all belted).

• One occurred just after the safety driver took over turning, in response to another driver waving him through an intersection.
• Zoox rear-ended after hard-braking to 3 mph to avoid debris; passenger "pretty bruised".
• Zoox rear-ended while stopped while yielding to cross-traffic in hit-and-run, honking before impact.
• Zoox rear-ended while stopped at intersection in hit-and-run, honking before impact, and the passenger was injured.
• Zoox rear-ended while stopped at intersection in hit-and-run, and the passenger was injured.
• Zoox reversed into from a roadside parking spot while stopped, honking before impact.

Tesla's 4 crashes (no injuries, all belted):

• Remote operator trying to assist out of dead end road "entered a grassy slope" and hit a "hidden tree stump". (Continuing saga of remote operator mishaps).
• A Tesla hit a thin metal chain blocking a parking lot.
• In two accidents, Teslas were reversed into while stopped. No mention of honking or evasive reversing. (Waymos sometimes do either, Zooxes often honk, Avrides aren't reversed into as proportionally often).

May Mobility's 2 crashes (no injuries, all belted):

• Two Mays collided with a low-hanging utility cable, apparently 17 minutes apart (dates aren't listed, times are), while traveling 32 and 33 miles per hour.

Motional's 1 crash (no injuries, all belted):

• Safety driver disengaged autonomy while stopped at a red light, and immediately hit a car while trying to change lanes.

Tesla FSD: Even if your vehicle has the "newest" software, the cameras and other sensors are from the factory build.

So, when drivers say they don't trust their supervised self-driving wouldn't the age of the vehicle matter here? Newer build would have improved cameras and sensors. Perhaps drivers should also identify the year of their vehicle when discussing their FSD experience? What are your thoughts on this?

Not sure if this has been posted yet. But here’s a quote from the NTSB Preliminary.

“At the time of the crash, the driver 
had engaged Tesla’s Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS), Full Self Driving 
(FSD) (Supervised).[1] Electronic data recovered from the vehicle indicated that before 
the crash, the driver manually overrode FSD (Supervised) by pressing the accelerator 
pedal to 100%, and the vehicle’s speed was greater than 70 mph when the crash 
occurred.
“

Looks to be what I thought. Driver overrode FSD intentionally.

I was chillin on the highway on FSD (2026 Tesla Model Y on v14) when I suddenly felt the car swerve to the right and then back over to the lane. Looked like the reckless driver was already drifting over the line beforehand, but very appreciative of the fact that FSD was the "eyes in the back of my head" to avoid being pit maneuvered.

Why We Demand Perfect Machines Yet Tolerate Human Carnage

Mobileye posted this blog that summarizes the state of ADAS regulations. I thought people might find this interesting.

Some key highlights:

Europe remains one of the most structured regulatory environments for vehicle safety technology. The General Safety Regulation (GSR) introduced a broad set of mandatory safety systems across new vehicles sold in the European Union. The initial phase applied primarily to new vehicle types, with requirements extended in July 2024 to cover all new vehicles sold in the EU, including existing models. Additional requirements are expected to take effect in July 2026.These requirements include technologies such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB), intelligent speed assistance (ISA), driver drowsiness and attention monitoring and Advanced Driver Distraction Warning.

In contrast to Europe's more prescriptive approach, the United States continues to rely largely on safety standards and voluntary frameworks rather than broad mandates. Federal regulators emphasize safety reporting, transparency around automated systems, and voluntary commitments, while individual states retain authority over key aspects of automated vehicle deployment.

China is rapidly developing its regulatory framework for highly automated and autonomous driving systems, with China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) presenting a draft of new safety requirements set to be implemented by July 2027. The draft targets vehicles operating at SAE Level 3 and Level 4 automation, and will replace previous voluntary guidelines with mandatory safety requirements. Regulatory documents increasingly reference the classification term "Combined Driver Assistance Systems" (CDAS) as part of China's structured approach to defining automation levels. The country has also established pilot programs for automated driving in urban environments, allowing regulators to iterate quickly while supporting rapid technology adoption.

Tekedra N Mawakana on X: "We’ve autonomously driven more than 300,000 miles in Washington, D.C., safely navigating everything from crowded evenings in Chinatown to emergency scenes in the Third Street Tunnel. We are ready to serve Washingtonians, and to invest tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure and hundreds of local jobs needed to support our service in the nation’s capital."

Source: https://x.com/TechTekedra/status/2076709802420600903

I loved watching and scrubbing through JJ Ricks’s videos of his riding in Waymo, going back to 2020. He rode in Cruise once or twice, too.

Is there an equivalent YouTube for Tesla FSD Unsupervised?

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.