Hotz Cancels Comma One Autonomous Driving Device After NHTSA Information Request

"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?

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.

@JimZ 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.

@sirwired 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.

@Ronnie Schreiber 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.

@Pch101 PCH, If he were worried about the embarrassment of failure, he would have taken down that ridiculous 3D car pics website long ago.

@Pch101 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.

@Ronnie Schreiber 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.

@Ronnie Schreiber Yaweh, dude, why didn't you just finish college?

@Pch101 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?

@Pch101 Shouldn't you guys be out beating some old woman for having a Trump yard sign?

@Pch101 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.

@Pch101 "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.

@Pch101 You can't read parking signs. http://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. http://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.

@Ronnie Schreiber 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.

@Ronnie Schreiber "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."

@JimZ 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.