Hong Kong removes autopilot

[ohmman]

Should Tesla have to appear before every regulatory body in the world prior to releasing a new feature to gain their approval? Or should it work with a "greater majority" stance and only highlight those *known* to cause problems?

Yeah, the idea that Tesla would have to work with every governing body in the world before developing and releasing a feature is absurd. By the time they made it to the last country, the first one would have changed their laws. There would be zero progress if that's the way things worked.

I think this is one of those examples where it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

 

[msnow]

I'm sure Tesla believed they did have regulatory approval. Remember how 7.0 was delayed for a while in certain countries? The problem is that there's a dynamic to regulators and they are influenced by current events (new safety info, videos of people abusing it, politics, etc...). I agree with FlasherZ and jeffro01, you can't hold Tesla responsible for removing the feature if the regulator tells them to.

 

[gizmoboy]

I'm not sure I agree that Tesla has no culpability. It's one thing for the government to tell people they are not allowed to use the functionality. It's another for Tesla to remove the functionality that people paid for. Also, perhaps they should have considered the regulatory climate in certain markets before marketing autopilot. Just trying to be objective. I'm curious, is it just auto-steer that's gone? Or TACC as well? It seems that TACC and auto-dimming, etc. should be enabled. This is why I didn't order autopilot up front. I'm going to wait a bit and enable it later if it survives all this initial scrutiny. I think it's awesome and probably very safe if used as directed. But we are regulated to the least common denominator most of the time:-/

Most contracts you sign include a clause that you will comply with all government requirements and formal requests, and it would surprise me if Tesla didn't have such a clause in their licensing agreements that indicates they will comply with all valid requests from governing bodies in their respective regions of influence.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm worried about it in the US - what happens when the first death is attributed to autopilot? I know the defense - you're always in control and responsible for your car. That won't stop people from blaming autopilot though, if they were using it and it dives under a truck or off the road. I use it every day, and it scares me every once in a while. Good lane markings, clear weather, and just because the road curves too sharply or I go over a bridge it just changes lanes and starts beeping with the red take-over-immediately. Its "beta". When will in be updated? I continue to be amazed Tesla had the guts to put this out there, and I love using it, but there's no question its dangerous if miss-used. Is there any question people will miss-use it? If not then its only a matter of time before we're reading about the Tesla autopilot accident. Will it then be pulled in the US? Stay tuned...

This is a slippery slope. I think that Tesla's attorney's will easily be able to show that the exact same condition applies to automation features in virtually every car (up to and including normal cruise-control) if mis-used. Don't think anyone has been able to sue or get CC removed from cars due to it being misused.

However, if a defect in a system causes an issue, that's what recalls are there to remedy.

 

[freeewilly]

I don't think it's Tesla's fault, and I won't sue Tesla for this matter. The MS is capable with AP, this is a government policy, not Tesla's fault. When government changes the policy to allow AP, all these MS can enable AP function again.

If you're living in California, are you going to sue Tesla when CA white HOV sticker expire in the future?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

To those complaining, from Fortune:

"If a driver got into an accident with Autopilot engaged, the lawmaker said, he or she could face prosecution and the possibility that his or her insurer would not cover costs from a collision."

So would you rather Tesla pull the software until it receives approval, or would you rather go to jail? Imagine that headline of someone being prosecuted for illegal use of Autopilot. You think Tesla would have no culpability in that scenario??? Let's get a grip. Ultimately if you are upset over this situation, you should direct your anger at Hong Kong's government and not Tesla. For some people it's easy to blame Tesla for everything.

If Tesla cannot obtain regulatory approval, then perhaps it might owe limited refunds for the lane keeping, auto lane change, and auto park portion of the Autopilot convenience suite. However it certainly wouldn't be for the full amount of $2,500 or whatever Tesla charged on the web site. That amount also includes value for other convenience features such as TACC, lane keep assist, speed assist, and blind spot warning.

 

[tom66]

I think that Tesla may be able to get away with a disclaimer every time the Autopilot is engaged.

Legally speaking it should be the owners risk not Tesla's but they may not be able to cover their ass should an accident occur.

I would be surprised, for example, that the Model S allows you to specify an "offset from speed limit" which is positive when the speed changing feature is implemented. This would mean the car could be programmed to deliberately break the law (regardless of how you feel about speed limits it does make for an interesting legal problem)

 

[Max*]

I think that Tesla may be able to get away with a disclaimer every time the Autopilot is engaged.

Legally speaking it should be the owners risk not Tesla's but they may not be able to cover their ass should an accident occur.

I would be surprised, for example, that the Model S allows you to specify an "offset from speed limit" which is positive when the speed changing feature is implemented. This would mean the car could be programmed to deliberately break the law (regardless of how you feel about speed limits it does make for an interesting legal problem)

Welcome to the 1950s and cruise control!

 

[rcarpen22]

If Tesla cannot obtain regulatory approval, then perhaps it might owe limited refunds for the lane keeping, auto lane change, and auto park portion of the Autopilot convenience suite. However it certainly wouldn't be for the full amount of $2,500 or whatever Tesla charged on the web site. That amount also includes value for other convenience features such as TACC, lane keep assist, speed assist, and blind spot warning.

I agree with this. If it's just auto-steer, then a fairly limited portion of the functionality has been removed and perhaps a small refund is appropriate. This would depend on whether the removal is temporary, or permanent (for the foreseeable future). I am all for Tesla's innovation and am not at all advocating that they stop putting out great new features. I am also not blaming Tesla, as the mandate seems clearly to have come from the government. However, autopilot features are an option that people have paid extra money for. That creates a bit of a moral dilemma when Tesla (even at the request of the regulator) removes them.

 

[JonG]

Yeah, the idea that Tesla would have to work with every governing body in the world before developing and releasing a feature is absurd. By the time they made it to the last country, the first one would have changed their laws. There would be zero progress if that's the way things worked.

I think this is one of those examples where it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

Maybe they should just wait until they have regulatory approval before selling it in that country. Hell, here's a radical idea, maybe even finish the development and testing.

 

[msnow]

Yeah, the idea that Tesla would have to work with every governing body in the world before developing and releasing a feature is absurd. By the time they made it to the last country, the first one would have changed their laws. There would be zero progress if that's the way things worked.

I think this is one of those examples where it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

It's not just any feature though. It's a feature that impacts a safety issue and legitimately in the regulators domain. Also, what you describe above is precisely how it works. Almost all companies selling products and services have to deal with this including the drug, insurance, banking, automotive, IT hardware/software and thousands of other sectors. Yes it's a roadblock to progress but it exists and mature companies know they have to deal with it.

 

[Khatsalano]

Tesla owners, raise an umbrella for Hong Kong.

- K

 

[brianman]

I would be really really pissed off if I had autopilot and the next morning I came out it was greyed out and unavailable due to a "silent push".

time to sue Tesla to get your money back!

Counterproductive at best.

 

[MsElectric]

Maybe they should just wait until they have regulatory approval before selling it in that country. Hell, here's a radical idea, maybe even finish the development and testing.

You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy or use Autopilot; right?

 

[MrAustraliaTax]

You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy or use Autopilot; right?

Right, they are forcing you *NOT* to use it, despite the fact that you bought it.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Maybe they should just wait until they have regulatory approval before selling it in that country. Hell, here's a radical idea, maybe even finish the development and testing.

Yes, in a perfect world where Tesla could take all the time it needed and expend more resources to do something like this. But after following Tesla for 3 years, it's clear that's not how they operate.

 

[ohmman]

It's not just any feature though. It's a feature that impacts a safety issue and legitimately in the regulators domain. Also, what you describe above is precisely how it works. Almost all companies selling products and services have to deal with this including the drug, insurance, banking, automotive, IT hardware/software and thousands of other sectors. Yes it's a roadblock to progress but it exists and mature companies know they have to deal with it.

Your argument has plenty of validity, and I definitely believe that's how things will be in the future. That said, the difference between your examples and the example of AutoPilot is that those mature industries already have regulatory frameworks. When drug, insurance, banking, etc. were just getting started, the frameworks weren't in place, and they just played Wild West. By observing what goes wrong (or doesn't), entities can decide how they want to regulate.

 

[mikeash]

You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy or use Autopilot; right?

Certainly not, but people have bought it on the assumption that they'd be able to use it, and that it would be legal to use.

If Hong Kong were merely blocking sales of the autopilot feature, that would be one thing. Annoying and perhaps dumb, but not completely unreasonable. But they've blocked it for people who have already purchased it, which makes everything ten times more complicated.

 

[yobigd20]

Counterproductive at best.

Yea but bitching and moaning is what seems to best motivate Tesla to get off their ass.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

It does create a bit of a conundrum for Tesla. They sold a software package promising certain functionality before the functionality was available. That by itself is a bit scary for any manufacture (it assumes there isn't anything unforeseen), but lots of companies do this. Where they sell a widget promising that in the next SW update they'd add some feature. It happens all the time as we progress further and further into "always in beta" world.

What's different is Tesla did that with a car, and they put it all under the umbrella of autopilot.

The title of this thread is "Hong Kong removes autopilot", but Tesla didn't pull autopilot. They simply pulled a component of it (lane-keeping) because of regulatory issues. I imagine what's actually going on is discussions on how to meet regulatory approval. Without knowing what kinds of cars with Lane-Keeping one can get in HK I can't even imagine how this will play out. It might be a temporary thing (if other cars have like the S Series MB are available there, and all Tesla has to do to meet regulations is to add nagging. Or it might be gone for the foreseeable future if there isn't any precedence.

If it's gone for good should Tesla partially rebate customers in HK?

For me personally I think the answer is no. The reason is the entire car and lots of its subsystems are in state of flux. Whether you accept it or not you bought into an adventure. Things might get pulled/changed without notice at all. The clock/date might just disappear from the Instrument cluster when all you wanted to do was to say "look ma, no hands".

Plus how would one even price a SW component feature of Autopilot such as lane keeping? It's one of those things that in pure SW Engineering time likely consumed the most amount of time, but isn't exactly the most important element like TACC. Lane Steering is mostly a necessary step in trying to reach Level 3 semi autonomous (building the database). I think a lot of people (including lawmakers) don't seem to understand that Tesla is NOT level 3. All the liability is on the driver, and it's the same as if someone was driving any other car. Just like if you were driving an S-Series MB and caused an accident because you overly relied on it's "driver convenience" options.

 

[Lerxt]

leave communist out of this, mainland China doesn't ban Tesla's autopilot.

The communists have everything to do with the controlling mindset, the inflexible and ill-informed attitudes and understanding of the HKTD.