By on October 28, 2016

Hotz

George Hotz announced in a series of tweets that he’s cancelling the Comma One device that he promised to deliver before the end of the year.

The reason for the cancellation, as Hotz states, stems from an information request he received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Attached to one of Hotz’s tweets, the NHTSA document has a set of fifteen standard questions. Hotz responded to the questions by stating he would rather spend his life “building amazing tech than dealing with regulators and lawyers. It isn’t worth it.”

The Comma One device was first shown last December in a demonstration to Bloomberg. In that piece, Hotz promised to ship the device by the end of this year for less than $1,000.

Since then, Hotz secured millions in venture capital funding and worked to expand the device’s functionality. He made a splashy presentation at TechCrunch Disrupt SF last month, showing the device was moving ahead and he’d started a data collection system.

On Friday morning, Hotz announced on Twitter he’d received what he believed to be a threatening letter from NHTSA. The letter, which you can view in full on Scribd, asks Hotz to respond to a set of fifteen questions by November 10 or face a $21,000 fine per day. The letter asks Hotz to delay any launch until he submits the requested information, but does not ask him to cancel the product. Hotz even made sure to mark the location of his last tweet as coming from China to presumably signal he’ll be exploring easier markets.

Regulators can be unreasonable in certain situations, but the questions listed in the document seem regular and mundane for such a device. They also match many of the questions we’ve asked of Hotz. The questions focus on how the device operates, how it may impact driver safety, how to install the device, and how it will impact factory safety systems.

Comma.ai forum post

Users of Comma.ai’s forum were left in the dark by Hotz as he provided no information in the announcements section regarding the cancellation. One user already posted to the forum, stating the NHTSA questions seem to be reasonable before asking for confirmation on the project’s cancellation. Many of those users are likely driving around now collecting data for a product that will never ship.

The behavior Hotz is exhibiting is not surprising.

He initially operated outside of California guidelines for autonomous vehicles, but told us he thought he’d be in the clear. NHTSA’s request is not an attack on Comma.ai and looks to fall in line with recent HAV guidelines. Instead, Hotz may once again be responding with his ego or using this as an opportunity to cancel a product that’s far from complete.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “Hotz Cancels Comma One Autonomous Driving Device After NHTSA Information Request...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “Hotz Cancels Comma One Autonomous Driving Device After NHTSA Information Request”

    Good. Time to grow up, Mr Hotz. Your cancellation indicates you weren’t really serious, anyway.

    ‘Hotz responded to the questions by stating he would rather spend his life “building amazing tech than dealing with regulators and lawyers. It isn’t worth it.”’

    Everybody is answerable to somebody, except you, Mr Hotz.

    • 0 avatar

      Something to think about here…

      What would be the result of total success in the autonomous vehicle industry? Would there be less vehicle related deaths? Who knows? Would everybody who is paid to drive for a living be suddenly out of work? Probably.

      Throwing every person working in the livery industry and every person working in the trucking industry would be quite a blow to the economy. Somebody has to buy these autonomous vehicles, right? People without a job won’t be buying them so the very notion doesn’t seem that viable to me.

      I think this is a very narrow market to begin with. Elderly people and alcoholics.

      The first one of these that mows down a puppy and all hell is gonna break loose. The animal rights groups can force freeways to move and multi-million dollar freeway tunnels for turtles. Imagine them coming after these cars.

      A majestic elk plastered all over the front of one of these and it’s almost over before it gets started.

  • avatar
    thattruthguy

    One more fraud painting himself as a victim of the government.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    Did he seriously think any such device would somehow attract not a whit of regulatory scrutiny? We are not talking the Spanish Inquisition because he was shipping a new air-freshener here… he’s proposing to sell massive modifications to the vehicle’s basic controls.

    I looked at that document; these were not difficult questions. If he’s objecting to such onerous requests like:

    – “Please send us a copy of the installation guide”
    – “Send us the owner’s manual”
    – “How do you anticipate drivers using it?”
    – “Let us know how you tested the thing”
    – “Tell us which cars you support”
    – “You are futzing with the rearview mirrors; tell us if you’ve verified they’ll still be compliant with our rules for the things”
    – “When/Where are you selling it?”
    – “Have you read the FMVSS to make sure you aren’t breaking any of it?”

    Now, it’s entirely possible that he could have ended up with a pi$$ing contest with the NHTSA down the road, but if he’s throwing in the towel the first time he gets something with a DOT postmark, he was never serious about the product at all.

    I don’t know what Chinese safety rules look like, but I doubt they would look kindly on him selling them there on a whim either.

    • 0 avatar
      rentonben

      I’m usually sympathetic to people getting pushed around by bureaucrats – but you’re completely correct about the questions.

      If Holz had did a good job, answering the NHTSA questions would take a day at the most to gather the documents.

      The hardest part frankly is making sure that the PDF files had backing OCR embedded in them (Fujitsu scanners do this well).

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    When he switched to using cheap cameras, I knew he wasn’t serious.

  • avatar

    The guy is obviously peddling snake oil, but how is it possible for the government to fine him $21,000 a day for not revealing the ingredients of said snake oil when it isn’t on the market and probably doesn’t even exist yet ? Could they fine me $21,000 a day for not revealing how my theoretical “BMW-not-using-it’s-turn-signals seeking missile” works, just because I’d expect to sell millions of them ?

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      He stated he planned to ship by the end of the year and was certainly already marketing the thing. It’s not out-of-line to want to determine regulatory compliance BEFORE the box ships, as opposed to shutting the barn door after the proverbial robot horse has left the barn and mowed down a crowd of bystanders.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      he would be fined after he started selling them.

      • 0 avatar
        Don Mynack

        The letter does not say anything about waiting for sales. It says he may be subject to the fines if he does not respond by November 10. That being said, the questions themselves don’t seem that onerous – pretty basic stuff.

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      They probably justified the $21,000-a-day shakedown on the basis of the “millions in venture capital funding”.

      Of course, all this does is transfer wealth from investors to the government, on the false premise of protecting the public from something that they can’t even buy yet.

      Where there’s low-hanging fruit, there is always big government with a basket.

      • 0 avatar
        sirwired

        Or, perhaps, “Up to $21,000/day” has nothing to do with the size of the company, or the greediness of bureaucrats and is simply what the statutes authorizing the NHTSA to assess fines for violations of the FMVSS say, and this is just a recitation of that particular part of the statute.

        And yes, it makes perfect sense to want answers BEFORE it ships, instead of after it ships and kills somebody.

        In practice, fines are rarely assessed at their maximum value, just like criminals rarely receive the maximum sentence for crimes.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        oh shut up. I wish time travel was possible, so all of you “regulations are eeeeeevil” people could be tossed into the Cuyahoga River circa 1969.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Don’t we already have books and pictures for that journey?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            some people (who weren’t even alive back then) don’t believe it was really that bad. Others will say stupid things like “it’s better now, so why do we still need the regulations?”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            See our river that catches on fire!

            Seriously though we don’t have much industry so it probably wouldn’t go back to as polluted as it was in the late 1960s if you removed regulations.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            “Seriously though we don’t have much industry”

            The industrial output of America is much greater now than it was in the 1960s.

          • 0 avatar
            indi500fan

            We’re talking Cleveland here…Std Oil and the steel mills are long gone.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Why not the Animas River today?

          http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/14/feds-poison-a-river-with-lead-and-arsenic-still-wont-protect-locals/

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        What is this govt wealth you speak of? Last I heard we were $19T in the hole.

        Plus how else do you propose they penalize him for selling such a potentially dangerous product? Criminal charges the govt would have to pay lawyers to pursue and prisons to execute?

        It’s not even like there is no precedent for this…. traffic tickets, emissions tickets, modified equipment tickets, hardly alien concepts. I suppose it would be better for this guy’s product to be out killing people on public roads than the gov’t dare fine an obvious sheister. Jesus F. Christ.

  • avatar
    turbo_awd

    What a sham. “secured millions from investors”. Sounds he finally figured out how to live the American Dream – steal from others by lying through you teeth..

    I read a bit about this guy when he was geohotz and a hacker. He had an ego back then, and it sounds like it’s only gotten bigger. ANYONE who thinks they can pull something like this off as a one-man team (or a few people) is deluded, not a visionary. Hacking an iphone to get root is a little different than putting people’s lives in your hands..

  • avatar
    WalterRohrl

    What a fraud. I guess the perfectly reasonable letter from the NHTSA showed up before the perfectly reasonable multi-billion dollar buyout offer he was hoping for.

    Maybe the venture capitalists will do a little better due diligence next time before throwing money at fools like this.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    Surprised that this guy thought he could build a device to control cars on public roads and *not* have to interact with regulators. Seems like poor planning.

    This dynamic of “guy who made his bones in ‘tech’ vastly underestimates the practical difficulties and regulatory burden of the auto industry” is getting to be a recurring theme.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    why are tech geeks like him such self-absorbed, “don’t nobody gonna tell me what to do” a**holes?

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      Because the tech world is the closest thing to a meritocracy that we have. It matters less who you know than what you know and what you can do with it, and it’s a culture that rewards very smart people who can do very complex things. It’s a culture where smart people are rewarded and less smart people don’t do well. People who exist in that culture expect other people to immediately see the merit of their ideas without debate. When you’re smarter than most people and are accustomed to being rewarded for that fact, then you tend to look down on mere bureaucrats and other people who couldn’t cut it in your culture. That, and there’s the fact that a lot of times people with very high academic intelligence tend to have issues relating to other people (call it low emotional intelligence if that’s your thing).

      Not that it’s right, but that’s the dynamic at play here.

      • 0 avatar

        The tech industry drivers all think they are John Galt.

      • 0 avatar
        sirwired

        Despite what they think of themselves, the Silicon Valley culture is not unusually meritocratic. The whole VC/”Angel Investor” system is just as driven by connections, influence, and faddish thinking as the rest of the business world.

        Yes, sometimes a proverbial bootstrapper appears out of nowhere to become huge, but most ideas, funding, and attention comes through the Good ‘ol Boys network. Some really terrible ideas get funding because of good connections (e.g. Theranos), and some really good stuff withers on the vine because the founders weren’t properly plugged-in.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “Because the tech world is the closest thing to a meritocracy that we have. It matters less who you know than what you know and what you can do with it, and it’s a culture that rewards very smart people who can do very complex things. It’s a culture where smart people are rewarded and less smart people don’t do well”

        Uh huh. It’s also a culture that rewards sociopaths who have the luck to be first-movers; it rewards them for screwing investors, partners, employees and customers, both in terms of raw compensation but mostly adulation.

        This doesn’t apply to everyone, but there are enough people who see what Kalanick or Zuckerberg have achieved without looking at (or worse, looking at and emulating) what Kalanick or Zukerberg have behaved like.

      • 0 avatar
        andrethx

        “…the tech world is the closest thing to a meritocracy that we have.” this is demonstrably untrue; look at any of the tech fields and you will find that the percentage of people of color or of women who make their living in the field are very low as compared to other fields (like medicine, law, or accounting, to name a few). so unless you are arguing that white males are somehow more “meritorious” than other individuals, tech is NOT a meritocracy.

        http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      It’s not because he’s a tech geek. It’s the entrepreneurial spirit – whether legitimate or snake-oil – that comes bundled with ego and outside-the-box thinking.

      For the record, only the crooked ones are “self-absorbed a**holes”. The legitimate ones who really want to change the world and make a buck while doing so have a legitimate beef when excessive regulations get in the way. Slapping negative labels on all of them only shows your political bias.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        *snerk*

        “excessive regulation” is code for “how dare they tell me I have to do/can’t do something!”

        • 0 avatar
          don1967

          No, that is not “code” for anything. That is your definition, as somebody who clearly has no experience being on the receiving end of regulations.

          By reducing complex issues to simple polarizations and then snickering at the result, you are only mocking your own logic.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            nonsense. I have to work within FMVSS regulations every day.

          • 0 avatar
            sirwired

            Hotz bailed the minute he received something with a DOT postmark. This was not a “complex issue”.

            If he had gotten a response back with a bill for a bazillion dollars in fines because of a misplaced semi-colon, then that would be something to talk about.

            But if he’s shocked that the government asked some basic, basic, questions before releasing something that takes over the controls of a car, then he was never serious about the product at all.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I’m sure he was serious, he’s just of the “techie” mindset of his s**t don’t stink and he should be excused from having limits.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The questions are reasonable, given the product.

      The short timeframe that is provided for answering them and the penalties associated with failing to comply with the deadlines, not so much.

      For what it’s worth, I do some business with government. Government has some advantages and disadvantages just like everyone else, but it is a bit galling that they are so quick to impose short timeframes on us while being anything but timely when we need them to be. They eventually get around to doing what they need to and paying what they owe, but they take their sweet time about it and are often (although not always) fairly indifferent to our schedules.

      • 0 avatar
        sirwired

        Well, given that he announced he was going to be shipping his product by the end of the year, and only made this announcement in Sept., the tight timeline is kind of his fault; he could have engaged regulators a long time ago, and they wouldn’t have had to impose such a tight deadline.

        And why NOT have a short deadline? If he’d put any thought into safety compliance at all, he should already have answers to nearly every one of those.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “And why NOT have a short deadline?”

          Because the government’s job is to make sure that the product is safe and legal, not to torment and inconvenience people who have not been convicted of a crime.

          You seem to think that it’s OK to treat him vindictively because you don’t believe that it works. I personally doubt that it works, either, but I don’t see that the government’s job here is to be difficult for the sake of it.

          There are better ways to handle it: Provide the guy with a more reasonable timeframe for responding and allow him to ask for more time if he needs it. But also inform him that he won’t be able to sell the product until these issues are addressed, so delays on his end could delay the release of the product.

          Just as long as the public is protected, what possible motivation should the feds have to put a squeeze on this guy now when no consumer has been harmed by the product? It’s not as if this involves a recall and the thing needs to be removed from the market ASAP.

          • 0 avatar
            sirwired

            I don’t see it as “vindictive” at all. He said he was going to ship before the end of the year, and therefore the product should already be in a state where all those questions are easily answered.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Why should NHTSA care about his planned release date when it can simply delay the shipments until it has completed its investigation?

      • 0 avatar

        How dare you imply that government employees and bureaucrats are anything less than selfless servants of the public?

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    This guy’s real name is Hotz?

  • avatar

    Nice deflection. What a grandiose Cop-Out.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      This is standard SV behaviour. Consider Theranos and you see a similar path here: move fast, raise cash, make promises, raise more cash, deliver something that doesn’t work quite right, evade regulators, lawyer up, etc.

      If you’re good, you can manage what Uber has done. And heck, even Theranos’ “failure” made a lot of people a lot of money.

  • avatar
    RS

    It’s obvious he isn’t thinking ahead. If you want to sell a product like that in the US you’ll have to deal with “regulators and lawyers”.

    …and if you are running a scam development scheme, you’ll certainly be dealing with lawyers.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Right because you can put whatever you want on the market, and never go through any regulation – especially where vehicles are concerned.

    This is the USA in 2016, not Mexico in 1879.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    I wonder if the Chinese-market version will autonomously back over people it hits to make sure the job is finished…

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    I just keep on looking at that wooden pedestal in the photo and then naming if it’s made in China. Looks flimsy.

  • avatar
    pragmatist

    There is truth on both sides of the regulation debate. Certain standards are needed for things like fire safety, auto safety, medical devices.

    But there are lots of regulations that serve primarily to protect vested interests (expensive licences for flower arranging, hair braiding or even simple shampooing for example.)

    In many cases the requirements are hopelessly ossified to old technology or ways of doing things, and wind up blocking new approaches, at least until someone with money and influence has the will to fight them.

    Having said all that however I believe the regulators were not being unreasonable considering his marketing timeframe claims.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      This is the best response here. Yes, NHTSA should be asking these questions of Hotz Comma.ai since this device can result in drastic consequences should something go wrong. And regulation exists to address this exact concern. Hotz backpedaling is, at least to me, a sign of a product that wasnt viable or anywhere near ready. Hotz had an door opened by the NHTSA and he ran right out of the room on this one.

      But there are other regulations that serve to simply get in the way of progress. In addition to these examples, there is the autonomous driving ban being proposed in Chicago, the Uber ban in Austin, the need for hair stylist and cosmetologist licensing, the regulations from NADA that prevent Tesla from selling direct in Michigan, etc…

      The most intelligent of us can discern between useful and ridiculous regulations without throwing them all in the fire or supporting them en masse.

  • avatar

    This device totally works and works so great, but its just not worth it ’cause the meanie government doesn’t appreciate my tek-nuh-cull geniusness. I’m gonna take all my toys home and have a BIG Twitter sadz. And, like I said, this stuff totally works and is AMAZING tech, just ask my wife…Morgan Fairchild…yeah…that’s the ticket.

  • avatar
    Lex

    What a fraud. After insulting Tesla and outting the industry with his pompous parade, this is how it all ends? Was he really expecting that he’d launch an autonomous driving aid without having to prove the device delivers what it says without endangering people and property. I *DO* want him presenting an FMEA and DVP&R before I put that thing in my car. This sounds like another arrogant startup that didn’t really think this process through and for that, he’s lost my respect.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    How much of his investment money does he get to keep? He looks like someone who pays people to fart on his hair.

  • avatar
    MeaMaximaCulpa

    If one reads the letter it doesn’t say that the company will be fined $ 21 000 per day, it does say that the maximum civil fine that can be imposed is $ 21 000 per day. That is hardly the same thing.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    The amount of legal and philosophical uncertainties that come with self-driving technology is a debate muddled by altruistic motives of saving lives and greedy little entrepreneurs like this one.

    A startup venture in a rented office space is not going to solve this problem.

    This poses a massive regulatory, and as a result, technological hurdle that will not be overcome by a breakthrough…it will not be an Uber like ascendancy. This is an industry-wide dilemma that takes hardwork, teamwork and collaboration with the public and the government.

    We learned how to split atoms early on in the 20th century but it took decades to get a viable commercial reactor synced to the power grid.

    We can make a car move and turn with the road ahead using cameras and sensors but the implications of unleashing a product like this without the requisite vetting and research should not be allowed. The consequences of a car crash are just as immediate and irreversible as a nuclear meltdown just on a smaller scale.

  • avatar

    I’m not sure that NHTSA has any statutory authority yet in this case. Their letter to Hotz says “”Your company is a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, under NHTSA’s oversight.”

    Under Definitions, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 defines manufacturer thusly:

    “(6) “manufacturer” means a person—
    (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or
    (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.”

    “Manufacturing or assembling” are present tense verbs with specific meanings. Yet in their same letter, NHTSA says the he “intends to sell”. I haven’t been able to find any indication that Hotz ever produced more than just the one prototype he demonstrated. Does intent and breadboarding a prototype make you a manufacturer? Until the Comma One goes into production I think NHTSA is overstepping their legal authority.

    It’s probably of a piece with the EPA’s nice little industry you have here message to SEMA and the racing community over messing emissions controls on vehicles used off-road.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “I’m not sure that NHTSA has any statutory authority yet in this case.”

      I can’t believe you’re really this clueless. Jesus Christ almighty, this is a device which supposedly could control the behavior of a car on the road and you don’t think NHTSA has any authority over it?

      Is your hatred of the mere idea of regulation so deep-seated that you’re blind to this?

      • 0 avatar

        Your reading comprehension matches your manners.

        I never disputed NHTSA’s statutory authority over motor vehicle equipment. I questioned whether what Hotz has done constitutes manufacturing. They only have authority over things that are actually manufactured.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          he made it clear he intended to ship this device by the end of the year. NHTSA was saying “hey, wait a minute. We need some more information from you first.” Then they included some boilerplate stuff about where their authority comes from and what penalties could be assessed for ignoring them. it’s the same kind of stuff you get from any agency requesting information. It’s there as a “don’t blow this off” measure. e.g. if you ignore us and start shipping product, this is what could happen.

          and in these kinds of situations, even responding with a letter stating simply “we have received your request for information, we are preparing a response, and request more time to do so” will be accepted. Hell, even the IRS will grant extensions on the usual tax return deadline without question.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Mr. Schreiber wrongly believes that he is capable of parsing legal language.

            The fact that he fails at this time and time again does nothing to cure him of his hubris.

            He has convinced himself that comma.ai isn’t a “manufacturer” until the goods roll off of an assembly line. That view would never fly in a court; it’s the sort of nonsense that the “sovereign citizen” crowd tries to use. It doesn’t pass some basic sniff tests, but a guy without a sense of smell wouldn’t know and only gets resentful when he is corrected.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Well, the prototype itself is a manufactured piece of motor vehicle equipment, so that already puts him under federal regulations.

      And if the feds had waited until he had ordered a couple thousand and then forced him into a stop-sale, you’d certainly be complaining that the feds should have notified him earlier that they had questions, since this wasn’t a surprise product.

      Given his stated intention to ship to paying customers before the end of the year, action wasn’t exactly premature.

      • 0 avatar

        You’re saying that if you experiment with some piece of equipment for your car that you’ve invented, you’re automatically under the purview of NHTSA?

        Do you also think that something like the Waylens dashcam & data recorder, which works with a dongle plugged into the OBD-II port, is a piece of “motor vehicle equipment” subject to USC 49-301?

        As an inventor, I have problems with the whole “crowdfund the development of as yet hypothetical product”, but I still don’t see how making a prototype is the same as manufacturing.

        If I showed you the first prototype for my electric harmonica, you’d never claim I was a manufacturer. It was made in my home shop, not a factory.

        Until you’re actually producing stuff, you aren’t a manufacturer. Prototypes are not manufacturing.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The only thing worse than your continual failed efforts to interpret the law is your inability to see how badly you suck at it. Dewey Cheatem and Howe meets Dunning-Kruger.

          Here’s a thought: Since you know even less about the law than you do about quantum mechanics, stop opining on it. Instead, go ask an attorney for the correct interpretation. That would actually be informative, plus it would save you the embarrassment of yet another failure.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            PCH,
            If he were worried about the embarrassment of failure, he would have taken down that ridiculous 3D car pics website long ago.

          • 0 avatar

            One needs to be a member of your guild to know the meaning of “manufacturing and assembling”?

            For the matter, I have an email in to NHTSA asking them to clarify, in their opinion, just when an entity becomes a manufacturer subject to their regulatory powers.

          • 0 avatar
            brenschluss

            I feel like I must be missing something here.

            The device in question isn’t just a piece of “motor vehicle equipment” like fuzzy dice or a dashcam/recorder that has no effect on the operation of the vehicle. Hotz’s device was, eventually, intended to not just affect, but at least partially perform the operation of the vehicle.

            Nor is it the product of some idle tinkerer who wants to try something on their own without any intent to provide it to anyone else.

            Whether or not this was a production-ready prototype or an idea, or whether it was made in a shed or a factory, if it’s eventually intended for public distribution, it will need to be looked at by the NHTSA in a way that a device that doesn’t tangibly affect the operation of the vehicle would not.

            So why does it matter whether this device is “manufactured” rather than cobbled together, when the end goal is (was) obviously and clearly stated to be mass production, and use on public roads?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Shouldn’t you guys be out beating some old woman for having a Trump yard sign?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Did the NHTSA ask Elon Musk any hard questions before he unleashed his autonomous killing machines on the public? Their decisive action in this instance smacks of protecting someone to whom they’ve already granted the autonomous market.

          • 0 avatar
            brenschluss

            “Did the NHTSA ask Elon Musk any hard questions before he unleashed his autonomous killing machines on the public?”

            First of all, you’re a crazy person.

            Second, yes, I bet they did send Tesla many, many letters before they released their “autonomous” driving system which has probably not killed many people (that, despite what would be considered “misuse” under its unrealistic terms of use being widespread and on record.)

            This isn’t complicated: Everyone who makes public their intent to broadly distribute a device that will tangibly affect the operation of cars on public roads should expect the NHTSA to send them a letter. Tesla has the resources to answer these without freaking out, so you don’t hear about it.

            That they’ve likely been through this same wringer and still put out a system that so easily causes undue confidence says that their lawyers are pretty good, and whoever Hotz hired, if he even had anyone else dealing with laws and regulations, were terrible at their job.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You can’t read parking signs.

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/08/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-police-parking-illegally/

            You can’t figure out that an OEM compartment isn’t illegal.

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/12/are-dodge-darts-illegal-in-ohio-man-arrested-for-hidden-compartment-that-revealed-no-drugs/

            You failed with bankruptcy law time and again.

            Your track record with this stuff is something close to zero percent. You aren’t good at it.

            When you’re tempted to offer another botched opinion, hold your tongue and go ask someone who knows more than you do. (Given your ignorance, that shouldn’t be hard to do.) You should be especially careful because your byline is on this website, so that resentnik chip isn’t just a weight on your shoulder.

        • 0 avatar

          Oh my, I’m just going to have to completely reevaluate my life, either that or commit suicide, because some self-important anonymous internet commenter called me ridiculous, embarrassing and a failure.

          If I’m so worthless, what does that say about the time you spend criticizing me?

          Thanks for reading.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “You’re saying that if you experiment with some piece of equipment for your car that you’ve invented, you’re automatically under the purview of NHTSA?”

          *technically* yes, if you use that piece of equipment on your car and take it onto public roads. In practice, they won’t notice you unless there’s an incident. just like using non-emissions-compliant “off-road-only” performance parts.

          once he said he wanted to start selling these things by the end of this year, NHTSA came in and said “now wait just a damn minute.”

        • 0 avatar
          sirwired

          “You’re saying that if you experiment withsome piece of equipment for your car that you’ve invented, you’re automatically under the purview of NHTSA?”

          Well, if you’ve announced your intention to offer it for sale to the general public in less than three months, yes.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States