It's not TD's responsibility to give Tesla exemption, it is Tesla's responsibility to work within the current framework and get approved. We can all complain that TD is outdated, but sometimes we can still work around it. I don't think TD was out to get Tesla, From TD point of view, they don't want another Mr Jim complaining to the media that he can be using the calendar while he is doing hands free autopilot in the middle of Nathan road. We have outdated laws that serve to protect the Mr Jim out there. In hindsight, Tesla response to stir up public awareness was misplayed.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't know how many times it has to be said. TD was very clear: no calendar app would be allowed. They never implied there was any way to get an exemption or work around it. The only thing they did in their PR statement was use roundabout convoluted language to make it seem like it's Tesla's decision to offload some of the public outrage.
while we're at it we can also include any display indicating the date or external temperature.
soooo....
Displaying today's date is totally fine with TD in any car.
Displaying more than today's date and a to do list in a Tesla isn't illegal (but TD would suggest that you not have it)
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Long thread here about this. On face value, that law would ban almost every single new car with an infotainment screen.
Restrictions on Hong Kong Model S spec
However, a lot of those features are grandfathered in or TD decided to do selective enforcement and turn a blind eye to older functionality. A calendar is a feature other cars didn't have, and I guess TD decided to enforce it on this.
Current calendar app is not allowed but doesn't mean Tesla can't work around it. Obviously I don't know the details but any layman can come up with a simple solution to resolve this. Simple things like displaying power drained per day or put the current range in the app. As long as it serves any purposes that is related to the car's hardware, then it is ok to have.
As long as the app can control/display car hardware, then it is exempt. Ie if it controls the radio/speaker. So once again, yes TD didn't talk about exemption, it's not their job to give solutions. It is Tesla's job to work around/with it. Tesla HK is also quite incompetent, we don't even have auto wipers in the X. I think it is more fair if we give pressure to both Tesla and TD. It is definitely not a one sided deal.
Given that I'm not a lawyer, would welcome any fellow lawyer Tesla enthusiasts to comment on the followings.
- Based on the TD's response, any visual display installed inside a particular vehicle in front of the driver which don't conform to its prescriptions would not be allowed
- I still fail to see how Apply Carplay, for example, is compliant by applying TD's interpretations
- When the regulation was drafted, it is not sophisticated enough (at the time) to define some pertinent points such as: Does "any person" include the vehicle manufacturer? Is the visual display unit or its contents or both prohibited unless compliant? What's the definition of vehicle's equipment; i.e., does the Bluetooth module hence its functionality be considered as a vehicle's equipment? What's the definition of a visual display unit, does the fancy tourbillion clock inside a Bentley or Porsche's chronometer count?
- Most disappointingly the TD announcement noted "Hence, the decision made by Tesla this time to remove the calendar app from the new model and Tesla vehicles in use is based on legal requirements, instead of what Tesla told vehicle owners ...". This indicates there is: 1) there was no TD formal ruling or approval or disapproval on the Calendar; 2) Tesla didn't lodge a formal request for approval but taken TD’s guidance letter of advice as given (btw, TD’s is an administrative branch of the government, it has no final interpretation authority of the laws / regulations)
In conclusion, I can easily think of a dozen non compliant visual display inside vehicles of various made by applying TD’s stated prescriptions.
Nor that I’m planning to make a big fuss out of this, but should it be Tesla HK’s job to make a big fuss out of this with TD???
PS. Given the no. of Tesla sold in HK, I'd imagine that Tesla can afford to hire a lawyer and formally seek a ruling (as well as subsequent application for a court ruling) from TD on the Calendar
- Based on the TD's response, any visual display installed inside a particular vehicle in front of the driver which don't conform to its prescriptions would not be allowed
- I still fail to see how Apply Carplay, for example, is compliant by applying TD's interpretations
- When the regulation was drafted, it is not sophisticated enough (at the time) to define some pertinent points such as: Does "any person" include the vehicle manufacturer? Is the visual display unit or its contents or both prohibited unless compliant? What's the definition of vehicle's equipment; i.e., does the Bluetooth module hence its functionality be considered as a vehicle's equipment? What's the definition of a visual display unit, does the fancy tourbillion clock inside a Bentley or Porsche's chronometer count?
- Most disappointingly the TD announcement noted "Hence, the decision made by Tesla this time to remove the calendar app from the new model and Tesla vehicles in use is based on legal requirements, instead of what Tesla told vehicle owners ...". This indicates there is: 1) there was no TD formal ruling or approval or disapproval on the Calendar; 2) Tesla didn't lodge a formal request for approval but taken TD’s guidance letter of advice as given (btw, TD’s is an administrative branch of the government, it has no final interpretation authority of the laws / regulations)
In conclusion, I can easily think of a dozen non compliant visual display inside vehicles of various made by applying TD’s stated prescriptions.
Nor that I’m planning to make a big fuss out of this, but should it be Tesla HK’s job to make a big fuss out of this with TD???
PS. Given the no. of Tesla sold in HK, I'd imagine that Tesla can afford to hire a lawyer and formally seek a ruling (as well as subsequent application for a court ruling) from TD on the Calendar
Last edited:
Last time I checked, Hong Kong doesn't practice class action suits.
If it did i'm sure this this conversation and many conversations like it wouldn't be necessary
Last time I checked, Hong Kong doesn't practice class action suits.
If it did i'm sure this this conversation and many conversations like it wouldn't be necessary
But can Tesla officially submit a request for a ruling / decision by TD on the Calendar? On receiving such TD ruling, seek an overturn or clarification of the ruling through the judicial court system?
This is about waaaayy more than just the calendar guys, it is about crippling the car in general. The calendar is only the tip of the iceberg.
The list is as long as your arm....calendar, web browser & third party apps, summon feature, autopilot features etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
The list is as long as your arm....calendar, web browser & third party apps, summon feature, autopilot features etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Owners already talked with the Ombudsman to try to work out a solution with TD, but in the end ombudsman agreed with TD's decision and the case was closed. It doesn't really get clearer than that on the calendar issue.
Restrictions on Hong Kong Model S spec
No, that is just TD using PR speak to mislead people. Quote the whole passage instead of leaving out the important part:
" Hence, the decision made by Tesla this time to remove the calendar app from the new model and Tesla vehicles in use is based on legal requirements, instead of what Tesla told vehicle owners recently that "The calendar app has been removed as the Transport Department determined that the calendar app has no bearing on the drivability of the car"."
TD's response to media enquiries on removal of Tesla calendar function
What TD disputed was that they used the exact wording about "drivability". But obviously Tesla was just paraphrasing the regulation.
Here's what they say above that:
"In processing an application for type approval of a new Tesla model recently, the TD found that the visual display unit on the vehicle has displayed the calendar functional images. The TD then reminded Tesla that the new model must comply with the above legal requirement, otherwise it would not be able to comply with the requirements for type approval."
That is TD's formal ruling on the calendar app and Tesla's formal application: Tesla applied to get the car type approved for Hong Kong roads. TD would not approve the car for Hong Kong roads if it had the calendar app in it. Yes, Tesla had a choice, but the choice as either having a car that would be illegal to operate on Hong Kong roads, or removing the calendar app. That's the false "choice" TD presented to mislead the public that it was Tesla's decision to remove the app.
TD commonly uses PR speak to mislead people, they even did it towards the ombudsman:
Restrictions on Hong Kong Model S spec
Let's get to the point of this. The HK TD administers less than 2000km of roads' traffic. The US TD looks after safe transport on 6,500,000km of roads. HKTD really have no idea what they are talking about about and should accept anything the US authorities accept.
The real reason is HK being a prisoner to big money and the mainland government. They are trying to cripple Tesla because it's not a "local" company and because it doesn't have deep pockets. Once again, the people have no say and are subject to the whims of the powerful.
The real reason is HK being a prisoner to big money and the mainland government. They are trying to cripple Tesla because it's not a "local" company and because it doesn't have deep pockets. Once again, the people have no say and are subject to the whims of the powerful.
i respectfully disagree. The US is the US, what they do with their regulations etc are their business. the rest of the world (including HK) looks to them for pointers but that doesn't mean we just blindly follow whatever they put in place at all. every region has its own unique sets of traffic issues to deal with. The US has tons of highway whilst a much larger proportion of HK's roads are high density hectic traffic, where autopilot doesn't help much anyway (e.g. a lot of time if you just let TACC/Autopilot takeover, there's always too much gap in front and other cars dive into your lane causing your car to slow down abruptly when it sees 'danger').
I'll admit that the TD's way behind the times and aren't exactly competent, but we can only look at what other countries are doing as a pointer.
as for the the deep pocket/ big oil lubricating politicians issue, that's projecting way too much (even tho i subjectively feel this way a tiny bit, admittedly). Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity and incompetence.
Another case of Tesla reps getting things wrong... Lets hope we get all the other nice simple features we had on the S back in the X. ie. rear trunk memory and auto wipers.
In general, I would agree. But in this case, section 37 of the regulation is so ridiculously restrictive that NO modern cars meet it's requirements. The only way modern cars can be approved by TD is by TD selectively enforcing and turning a blind eye to some violating features but not others.
TD has a regulatory mechanism to clarify this and follow the law (formal exemption) but they instead opt to 'tolerate' (the Ombudsman's words, not mine) certain violations. My issue with this is that it makes it impossible for a vehicle owner in Hong Kong to know if a particular display is legal / illegal / tolerated or not.
This begs an interesting question for TD - I've another car equipped with Apple Carplay, can I apply to the TD to have Apple Carplay dis-approved from my vehicle for non compliant (which would carry significant implications for the auto industry in HK)?
i respectfully disagree with your disagreement with @Lerxt. The HK govt refuses to put in enough resource to formally assess most new tech stuff. While we do have regulatory offices within the govt on tech stuff in various departments, we never have enough technical capacity to fully understand the situation. I worked in one of these regulatory offices before (which i refuses to disclose further information), the number of engineers working in a similar regulatory offices in the Western world is already around 10 times more than the total number of staff (tech + admin + management) in my office. We simply lack the necessary technical input or capacity to fully appreciate a new tech and decide whether or not to approve their use in HK. We could only "make reference" to other Western countries' assessment results and make decision for their use in HK. And I can tell you for sure, my office is not the only one relying (near solely) on foreign inputs. So in our almighty HK govt, we do accept something the US / Europe authorities accept all the time.
But you are absolutely right, the HK govt always tell people they never "blindly follow". As you can see, the term "blindly" is a frank attack on our superb govt, everyone in HK must know it's always OUR own assessment (with heavy reliance on "pointers" from Western countries) [sentence in blanket usually omitted due to lack of space]
Anyway, I do agree we can't follow everything US takes, as they trying to be the leader in autonomous cars while HK always position ourselves as buyer of new technology (forget about the Innovation and Technology Bureau, you know they are not going to make any difference when their head only knows "meeting Steve Jobs"). We can't just let any company to research their autonomous cars on our busy roads. But I do believe we can take in whatever new tech stuff that are legally sold in the states, this is what we have been doing in the past
How far you will go? If you are prepared to submit a judicial review in the end, this may be a good start
- You need to make sure Tesla has applied for the calendar (assume that will be rejected)
- Then you gonna ask TD about Apple Carplay (assuming TD "tolerates" Apple Carplay but not Tesla's calendar)
- Then you go to the Ombudsman (assuming they find no fault)
- Then you head for judicial review
You can skip Ombudsman if you have enough money or legal background
And I believe you now see why the HK govt is always so confident in doing something similar to this calendar vs Apple Carplay thing. Either you are too poor to be affected or you are not rich enough to go for JR (if you are poor enough, legal aid will have you covered for JR)
Similar threads
