Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Boombox killed off - what’s next?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But "reading the recall carefully" I see that NHTSA actually praised the Boombox feature:
"Boombox can enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle to pedestrians"

and even noted the nominal non-interference:
"Boombox and the pedestrian alert sound are mutually exclusive sounds"

They actually seem to have no objection to Boombox at all, they were only pointing out that someone could conceivably create a custom noise-canceling inverse of the PWS sound to effectively silence it:
"sounds emitted using Boombox could be construed to obscure or prevent the PWS from complying with FMVSS 141"

Exactly. Not a NHTSA watcher here but I’d bet a tall coffee that the almost every member of the assessment team thought it was a good innovation, but this was not a refutable possibility so it carried the day. Tesla could probably have found a way to prevent it but decided it wasn’t worth the time. I wish they hadn’t given up so easily.
But NHTSA was very foolish. Now instead of people finding a noise cancelling sound and enabling it every time they drive, those who dislike the PWS will simply unplug the speaker.

I’m not a fan of the “UFO sound” but people can do that anyway. The easiest way to handle that is simply to make sure all insurance policies insist on non-modification of the PWS system. Any policy I’ve had has insisted on seatbelts and I think technically they can refuse to pay out in any accident where their customers (and passengers) are not belted in. If you disable safety features that have a direct relationship to the accident that occurred, no coverage.
 
Last edited:
That argument sounds very heavy-handed and has some rather frightening implications. It’s essentially saying that unless every car made is like every other car already out there then it’s inherently dangerous and mustn’t exist. To what extent must it be “the same”? Well… whatever “they” decide, apparently - backed by nothing. That really sucks a lot of creative thinking out of things and neuters potential innovation. It’s a very dangerous road to go down (no pun intended) and seems to be just the latest in a very long line of flagrant overreaches by regulators using “public health and safety” to shore up their own power, existence and relevance at the price of innovation and new ways of doing things.

The same thing can be seen with building codes (as one example). To a point, yes it’s good to have standards, predictability and “same-ness”. It can make things safer and more navigable. But codes have gotten far, far past that to the point where it’s now essentially impossible to design anything that doesn’t look, act and function like everything else out there. Is that really what we want? A society where everything is absolutely the same for everyone? I believe that’s already been tried (post-1917) and it had a certain name…

I’ll stop there lest this sound conspiracy theory-ish. I think it’s an unintended consequence rather than a grand conspiracy to foist Marxist thinking onto an unsuspecting public, although I’m sure there are those in power today that certainly would love to do that, particularly given the recent popularizing of such ideologies - even going so far as to place them on pedestals lately…. My point is that redefining what a “car” is (as Tesla is trying to do) involves embracing change - inherently. It involves changing the thinking to adapt to new innovations rather than smacking down innovation to force it to adapt to convention. Early cars didn’t sound like horses. Were they therefore a danger to people that only associated the mental connection of “don’t walk out into the street” with the sound of approaching hooves on cobblestones? It’s a real stretch of an argument and at some point we need to push back against these kinds of ridiculous overreaches that only “dumb down” our society, stymie our thinking and make us less competitive and creative.

Anyway, just my $0.02. I always found Boombox to be a fun, enjoyable add-on to make my car a bit more entertaining and not because I’m looking to become a menace to society or Public Enemy Number One. I can confidently say that nobody ever got injured or harmed by it either - it just added a few smiles and laughs to some peoples’ days - which heaven knows we need a heck of a lot more of in our increasingly uptight society.

Rant out. RIP Boombox. We hardly knew ye…
 
That argument sounds very heavy-handed and has some rather frightening implications. It’s essentially saying that unless every car made is like every other car already out there then it’s inherently dangerous and mustn’t exist. To what extent must it be “the same”? Well… whatever “they” decide, apparently - backed by nothing. That really sucks a lot of creative thinking out of things and neuters potential innovation. It’s a very dangerous road to go down (no pun intended) and seems to be just the latest in a very long line of flagrant overreaches by regulators using “public health and safety” to shore up their own power, existence and relevance at the price of innovation and new ways of doing things.

The same thing can be seen with building codes (as one example). To a point, yes it’s good to have standards, predictability and “same-ness”. It can make things safer and more navigable. But codes have gotten far, far past that to the point where it’s now essentially impossible to design anything that doesn’t look, act and function like everything else out there. Is that really what we want? A society where everything is absolutely the same for everyone? I believe that’s already been tried (post-1917) and it had a certain name…

I’ll stop there lest this sound conspiracy theory-ish. I think it’s an unintended consequence rather than a grand conspiracy to foist Marxist thinking onto an unsuspecting public, although I’m sure there are those in power today that certainly would love to do that, particularly given the recent popularizing of such ideologies - even going so far as to place them on pedestals lately…. My point is that redefining what a “car” is (as Tesla is trying to do) involves embracing change - inherently. It involves changing the thinking to adapt to new innovations rather than smacking down innovation to force it to adapt to convention. Early cars didn’t sound like horses. Were they therefore a danger to people that only associated the mental connection of “don’t walk out into the street” with the sound of approaching hooves on cobblestones? It’s a real stretch of an argument and at some point we need to push back against these kinds of ridiculous overreaches that only “dumb down” our society, stymie our thinking and make us less competitive and creative.

Anyway, just my $0.02. I always found Boombox to be a fun, enjoyable add-on to make my car a bit more entertaining and not because I’m looking to become a menace to society or Public Enemy Number One. I can confidently say that nobody ever got injured or harmed by it either - it just added a few smiles and laughs to some peoples’ days - which heaven knows we need a heck of a lot more of in our increasingly uptight society.

Rant out. RIP Boombox. We hardly knew ye…
Typing with my feet, hand are busy clapping.
 
That argument sounds very heavy-handed and has some rather frightening implications. It’s essentially saying that unless every car made is like every other car already out there then it’s inherently dangerous and mustn’t exist. To what extent must it be “the same”? Well… whatever “they” decide, apparently - backed by nothing. That really sucks a lot of creative thinking out of things and neuters potential innovation. It’s a very dangerous road to go down (no pun intended) and seems to be just the latest in a very long line of flagrant overreaches by regulators using “public health and safety” to shore up their own power, existence and relevance at the price of innovation and new ways of doing things.

So this quote and discussion IS diverging from the OP/thread intent, but...

Honestly, it's not frightening. It's a bit sad, but this shouldn't "scare" anyone. There are standards for EVERYTHING. This is normal. Some are more "enforced" than others. They're not there so a bunch of people can have job security, or whatever. There are common standards for chair heights. Desk heights. Bumper heights for cars. etc. We take them for granted DAILY because the existence of the standards allows us to just assume things are compatible, will work, etc...without further thought. Just like we all assume fire exits are, you know...available for use. But that regulation happened because of this famous case...so clearly just leaving things up to what industry thinks is best (aka private sector innovation) isn't always the right move.

I agree this one's a bit of an eyebrow raiser, even though I do agree with it. People all know what motors sound like (even when someone's sound system is LOUD) and if a "motor-like" sound is coming your way unexpectedly, you know to pay attention. If every car is silent and makes a different noise, well...THEN we do have a safety problem and it WILL be too late to retrofit.

If years of statistically sound research on large sample size is needed before a safety issue can be addressed, then it's guaranteed to be way too late to address potential problems in any cost effective fashion. I do agree that we want to foster innovation, but this isn't stifling. No "new amazing marketplace" was harmed by the loss of boombox.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CyberGus
We aren’t talking about chair or desk heights here. If someone wants to manufacture furniture that’s outside of the accepted “normal” heights (incidentally this was done by Frank Lloyd Wright frequently, who based his furniture designs on his own body proportions including his shorter-than-average body height, not that of an average individual), there’s no regulatory agency that’s going to slap them or fine them for it - yet. Aside from potentially being sued under ADA if someone doesn’t provide accommodations for disabled individuals (a portion of standard height countertop, clear areas to ensure that blind or wheelchair-bound people can still safely get to / from where they need to go, etc.), you’re still free to make those things at whatever heights you want, at least for now - until some bureaucrat figures out that they can regulate it and thereby ensure their own job security.

I understand the point that’s made with regards to motors and what they sound like however it does not address my original point - that is, “why are we (or why is Tesla, in this case) being forced to depend on what ‘already is’ to define what ‘can be’”? That is the very definition of holding ourselves back and stifling creative thinking. Sameness is NOT always good and I’m not afraid to say that. I do NOT support this NHSTA regulation at all. IMO it’s time we start pushing back on this kind of nonsense. Maybe it’s silly to get worked up over a car gizmo that plays silly sounds but where does this end?

For one I am sick and tired of seeing endless government overreach - often under the guise of “public safety” in everything. Look at the nonsensical mandates that were enacted over COVID recently. If that’s not proof positive that government cares more about imposing control, using any opportunity to prove how oh-so “necessary” it is and to test the limits of regulatory reach, what is? We do not need - nor do I want - Big Nanny Government to do everything for us. Sure, we have a responsibility to avoid things that are legitimately hazardous or dangerous, but it’s a real stretch to say that extends to chair heights or to a car playing sounds or music as it drives along.

Maybe people ought to actually try LOOKING before stepping off curbs into traffic - whether there’s a sound of approaching horse hooves, the sound of an internal combustion engine vehicle or… something else. Or if one is visually impaired, try crossing at a controlled crossing (pretty sure they’re trained to do this anyway). I fail to see how killing off Boombox really makes anyone any safer. Streets are inherently dangerous places - that’s why we have curbs and crossings and markings and controls (no issue there). How much further do we need to go to dumb things down in order to protect people from their own stupidity and poor choices?

Sorry to rant but maybe that’s what it takes to stop the march of intrusive government overreach (and the out-of-control price tag for the “privilege” of having it) that accompanies it - something Elon Musk and Tesla know something about as evidenced by their running for the door and leaving California after being taxed, taxed and taxed some more, and then micromanaged during COVID. Good on them I say. People and their money are portable things and those who can (like Musk) will always vote with their feet. Maybe they should focus on the things that really do matter and make a difference rather than going on fishing expeditions to find new ultra-small groups to pander to, simply to grow ever-larger.

I’ll stop there - this is already too political and straying from the original topic, but we (collectively, as a society) do need to start having more of these kinds of conversations without being afraid to or of them being automatically “taboo”. These sorts of things matter and they affect us. That’s why we have a first amendment - so we can discuss, question and challenge. I’ve said my peace - IMO the death of Boombox is just another casualty of out-of-control government rather than any legitimate public safety concern.

Peace out.
 
Last edited:
most people do not use their car stereo systems so loudly that they negate their engine’s noise
Yes, the PWS played both sounds at the same time through the same speaker. Concurrently. That is altering the sound emitted from that device. It’s picky, yes, but not related to the separate speaker system in a regular car. Those do not actually modify the noise of the ENGINE.
Pedestrian Warning Systems do not exist on ICE vehicles, only electric vehicles without engines. Since electric vehicles do not make noise, you can't modify their motor noise.

All speakers can play many different sounds simultaneously or separately (it's great at multi-tasking) so you don't need a dedicated speaker for a single sound. Yet that's what you object to, italicized.

Walk through a parking lot and you can't hear 95% of ICE vehicles idling, they are almost silent, so any radio or phone at any volume is far louder than an engine.
That doesn't help blind people either, so make ALL vehicles create artificial noise (and suffer the public backlash that will get NHTSA overturned), so this disguised EV discrimination can end.

I’m not a fan of the “UFO sound” but people can do that anyway. The easiest way to handle that is simply to make sure all insurance policies insist on non-modification of the PWS system. Any policy I’ve had has insisted on seatbelts and I think technically they can refuse to pay out in any accident where their customers (and passengers) are not belted in. If you disable safety features that have a direct relationship to the accident that occurred, no coverage.
That would be 1984 level of disgustingly oppressive, because how will you prove in a crash that the speaker is unplugged instead of the tight wiring just getting ripped out as the whole front end crushes in on itself? Hit a deer? What if Tesla has a panel gap or leak somewhere that lets a little water into the front speaker area and quiets the speaker coils or corrodes the speaker wire? How about winter road salt splashing up and corroding? Do you get sued in a wrongful death lawsuit with no insurance coverage? Slippery slopes can never be stopped at the level you're comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TarmacSurfer
That would be 1984 level of disgustingly oppressive, because how will you prove in a crash that the speaker is unplugged instead of the tight wiring just getting ripped out as the whole front end crushes in on itself? …Slippery slopes can never be stopped at the level you're comfortable with.

Considering they can reconstruct rocket, plane, and train accidents exceedingly well, yes this can be easily proven to an acceptable level of assurance for the average car accident.

It’s SO FAR from 1984… diminished compensation is also already a concept for seatbelt use (or lack thereof)…see here…and apparently they can use that information to reduce the payout (in some states). But hey, crusader, if you’re so concerned about oppression please do share what you’ve done to fight actual oppression (like bigotry, for example) or other truly slippery slopes in real life. Thanks, we’ll all wait here.
 
Last edited:
Given the NHTSA cracked down on Tesla on games, I wouldn't be surprised if Browser is next (in Aus for example we can't use browser while driving), given browser let's you do all sorts of things on screen.

Obviously most painful to those who run Waze in the browser.
 
Considering they can reconstruct rocket, plane, and train accidents exceedingly well, yes this can be easily proven to an acceptable level of assurance for the average car accident.
I won't take your word for it, since you aren't even in that career. Citations needed. I gave specific plausible examples of possible complications. Your generic "I Know Best" response addresses none of them.

By the way, I agree that diminished compensation specifically for seatbelt use, is a morally acceptable idea.
Interior vehicle devices (like seatbelts) will survive operating conditions and natural wear and tear far longer than exterior devices (an underhood speaker exposed to weather elements through vent holes that retain dirt, water, road salt).
 
Last edited:
I won't take your word for it, since you aren't even in that career. Citations needed. I gave specific plausible examples of possible complications. Your generic "I Know Best" response addresses none of them.

LOL o…kay. Um…how about you go google NTSB accident investigations. It’s amazing what they can figure out even after planes crash into the ocean and very little remains.

This is hardly a generic “I know best” BS, but please acknowledge your own inadequacy and BS. What’s fair is fair, call it on yourself please.
 
Sure, so since the NTSB can figure out a PLANE crash (don't know what that has to do with this automotive boombox thread), they can also figure out whether a boombox speaker was unplugged or ripped out in a accident? How, exactly?

Here, I'll give you head-start: the boombox speaker plug is held in place by a very small plastic tab on one side of the connector. I'll link you a picture from service.tesla.com if you like.

Now your job is to tell us how the NTSB, or ANYONE in the world, is going to figure out exactly how that little tab broke at exactly what time, in order to judge whether to deny an insurance claim. Try to stick to the topic of this thread this time, instead of wandering off onto planes and space and who-knows-what...


After that, we can move on to how they're going to reliably determine whether water or road salt damage to the speaker was pre-accident or post-accident... we've got a whole list to go down here, and that's just examples off the top of my head in less than 1 minute.

Oh and I never said they can't reconstruct plane accidents.
You said that BECAUSE they can reconstruct plane accidents, THEREFORE yes they can easily prove whether the boombox speaker was purposely unplugged or accidentally ripped out at the time of an accident.
Funny, I don't see a shred of similarity between those 2 situations.
 
Last edited:
Funny, I don't see a shred of similarity between those 2 situations.

One is inherently more complex than the other, and yet they can figure out everything they need to in order to be VERY CERTAIN of causation - which could include a disconnected electrical connection (whether PWS or other part). Not that this level of effort would be used on a routine traffic accident, but therefore it IS a possible, which is ALL you requested citation for.

There ARE engineering and accident reconstruction firms and investigators as well for vehicular traffic accidents, too, by the way.

QED