-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
A news article on the electrek.co site, regarding removal of calendar app:
Hong Kong forces Tesla to update its software in order to walk back an innocent feature
Obviously this has been removed due to the infamous CAP 374A regulation 37, which only permits:
(a) information about the current state of the vehicle or its equipment;
(b) the current closed-circuit view of any part of the vehicle or the area surrounding the vehicle;
(c) information about the current location of the vehicle; or
(d) any other information which is only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle.
It is obvious that Transport Department are selectively enforcing this, rather than fixing the broken legislation. Other vehicles in Hong Kong display things like:
1) time of day
2) outside temperature
3) weather icons
4) album artwork
5) mobile phone integration, address books, calls, etc
6) image of caller
which are all in violation of this regulation. Where is the enforcement against that?
Hong Kong forces Tesla to update its software in order to walk back an innocent feature
Obviously this has been removed due to the infamous CAP 374A regulation 37, which only permits:
(a) information about the current state of the vehicle or its equipment;
(b) the current closed-circuit view of any part of the vehicle or the area surrounding the vehicle;
(c) information about the current location of the vehicle; or
(d) any other information which is only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle.
It is obvious that Transport Department are selectively enforcing this, rather than fixing the broken legislation. Other vehicles in Hong Kong display things like:
1) time of day
2) outside temperature
3) weather icons
4) album artwork
5) mobile phone integration, address books, calls, etc
6) image of caller
which are all in violation of this regulation. Where is the enforcement against that?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't know about others (some of them can be speciously explained as related to driving), but this is definitely a big one that is very common and absolutely has nothing to do with drive-ability of the car.
I am not sure where the 'related to driving' comes from. It is not in the legislation. Presumably some bureaucrat trying to justify his actions by denigrating the function.
The legislation is clear. Only the following functions are permitted:
(a) information about the current state of the vehicle or its equipment;
(b) the current closed-circuit view of any part of the vehicle or the area surrounding the vehicle;
(c) information about the current location of the vehicle; or
(d) any other information which is only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing probably "d" is where that come from. Weather for example you can explain by saying knowing if it will rain can help you safely drive.
Anyone know any other cars sold in HK that can display calendar?
it's kinda obvious that TD is picking on Tesla (as a way to inhibit OTA updates so they don't have to spend time on vetting in future?)
as a good citizen, we should cooperate with the govt, i think we can petition TD for
1) banning all calendar by major car makers (so they will force TD to reverse the ban), or TD can commit disparity in treatment, unfairness against Tesla, which we can ask Ombudsman for help;
2) enforcing the CAP 374A regulation 37 properly and ban all the above displays (similar idea as item 1)
it's kinda obvious that TD is picking on Tesla (as a way to inhibit OTA updates so they don't have to spend time on vetting in future?)
as a good citizen, we should cooperate with the govt, i think we can petition TD for
1) banning all calendar by major car makers (so they will force TD to reverse the ban), or TD can commit disparity in treatment, unfairness against Tesla, which we can ask Ombudsman for help;
2) enforcing the CAP 374A regulation 37 properly and ban all the above displays (similar idea as item 1)
My letter to Ombudsman:
Dear Sir,
I write to complain concerning the Transport Department of the HKSAR, regarding its implementation and interpretation of CAP374A, with respect to type approval of vehicles in Hong Kong. Given the advances in technology, that legislation (and in particular regulation 37) has become ridiculously outdated. The Transport Department is selectively enforcing the regulations and demonstrating prejudice and bias against certain vehicle manufacturers.
Recent examples of this include:
* A failure to adequately respond to my enquiry regarding the Apple Carplay and Android Auto systems now sold in Hong Kong (copies of replies via 1823 attached). I asked a very simple question (have any such systems been approved in Hong Kong, and if not why are they on sale in the Hong Kong market), but have yet to receive a substantive reply.
* Action against Tesla Motors to remove the web browser functionality from Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong since 2014, presumably due to regulation 37.
* Failure to approve the rear-facing seats in the Tesla Model S in 2014 and thereafter, presumably due to regulation 27, and failure to update the legislation to account for child seating.
* Without justification, imposing restrictions on the use of Auto-pilot technologies in Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong in 2015, limiting it’s usefulness and increasing the danger to drivers using the system.
* Demanding that Tesla Motors remove the calendar functionality from Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong just this week, presumably due to regulation 37.
To be clear, these technologies are in use in every country around the world today. It is only Hong Kong that is blocking their use. Such technologies, and others like them, strive to make vehicles safer, and the HKSAR Transport Department is holding them back for no good reason other than maladministration.
If the concern is driver distraction, I would suggest that Hong Kong already has plenty of legislation to address that problem, and the offences that derive from it. It is impossible to legislate against any and all sources of driver distraction, and folly to try. I would also suggest that if the HKSAR government really want to restrict every possible source of driver distraction, for the public good, then they restrict them only when the vehicle is in motion and otherwise permit them once the parking brake has been applied.
CAP374A regulation 37, in summary, concerns the installation of visual display units within view of the driver. It lists the permitted functions of such visual display units as:
(a) information about the current state of the vehicle or its equipment;
(b) the current closed-circuit view of any part of the vehicle or the area surrounding the vehicle;
(c) information about the current location of the vehicle; or
(d) any other information which is only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle.
I would content that the following functions are present in many vehicles on the roads of Hong Kong today, but are not permitted under CAP374A regulation 37:
* Time of day,
* Outside temperature,
* Weather icons or other indicators (such as frost, etc),
* Album artwork (from phone integration, USB stick, or otherwise),
* Mobile phone integration, in particular image/information of caller, and
* Audio selection and control.
And ask why the Transport Department is selectively enforcing CAP374A against some vehicle manufacturers, but not others.
Clearly the legislation in CAP374A, and in particular regulation 37, is out of date and unenforceable. It should have been updated years ago, to take advantage of improvements in technology. This has led to the ludicrous situation nowadays, whereby drivers are placing one or more removable cellphones or tablets, in mounts on the dashboard of their vehicles; due to limitations in the functionality of in-vehicle fixed displays. Systems such as Apple Carplay and Android Auto are specifically designed to avoid such distraction, and their approval in Hong Kong would avoid many such problems.
I ask that the Ombudsman intervene and demand that the Transport Department rectify it’s maladministration in this respect.
Sincerely,
Mark Webb-Johnson
Dear Sir,
I write to complain concerning the Transport Department of the HKSAR, regarding its implementation and interpretation of CAP374A, with respect to type approval of vehicles in Hong Kong. Given the advances in technology, that legislation (and in particular regulation 37) has become ridiculously outdated. The Transport Department is selectively enforcing the regulations and demonstrating prejudice and bias against certain vehicle manufacturers.
Recent examples of this include:
* A failure to adequately respond to my enquiry regarding the Apple Carplay and Android Auto systems now sold in Hong Kong (copies of replies via 1823 attached). I asked a very simple question (have any such systems been approved in Hong Kong, and if not why are they on sale in the Hong Kong market), but have yet to receive a substantive reply.
* Action against Tesla Motors to remove the web browser functionality from Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong since 2014, presumably due to regulation 37.
* Failure to approve the rear-facing seats in the Tesla Model S in 2014 and thereafter, presumably due to regulation 27, and failure to update the legislation to account for child seating.
* Without justification, imposing restrictions on the use of Auto-pilot technologies in Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong in 2015, limiting it’s usefulness and increasing the danger to drivers using the system.
* Demanding that Tesla Motors remove the calendar functionality from Tesla Model S vehicles in Hong Kong just this week, presumably due to regulation 37.
To be clear, these technologies are in use in every country around the world today. It is only Hong Kong that is blocking their use. Such technologies, and others like them, strive to make vehicles safer, and the HKSAR Transport Department is holding them back for no good reason other than maladministration.
If the concern is driver distraction, I would suggest that Hong Kong already has plenty of legislation to address that problem, and the offences that derive from it. It is impossible to legislate against any and all sources of driver distraction, and folly to try. I would also suggest that if the HKSAR government really want to restrict every possible source of driver distraction, for the public good, then they restrict them only when the vehicle is in motion and otherwise permit them once the parking brake has been applied.
CAP374A regulation 37, in summary, concerns the installation of visual display units within view of the driver. It lists the permitted functions of such visual display units as:
(a) information about the current state of the vehicle or its equipment;
(b) the current closed-circuit view of any part of the vehicle or the area surrounding the vehicle;
(c) information about the current location of the vehicle; or
(d) any other information which is only for the purpose of navigating the vehicle.
I would content that the following functions are present in many vehicles on the roads of Hong Kong today, but are not permitted under CAP374A regulation 37:
* Time of day,
* Outside temperature,
* Weather icons or other indicators (such as frost, etc),
* Album artwork (from phone integration, USB stick, or otherwise),
* Mobile phone integration, in particular image/information of caller, and
* Audio selection and control.
And ask why the Transport Department is selectively enforcing CAP374A against some vehicle manufacturers, but not others.
Clearly the legislation in CAP374A, and in particular regulation 37, is out of date and unenforceable. It should have been updated years ago, to take advantage of improvements in technology. This has led to the ludicrous situation nowadays, whereby drivers are placing one or more removable cellphones or tablets, in mounts on the dashboard of their vehicles; due to limitations in the functionality of in-vehicle fixed displays. Systems such as Apple Carplay and Android Auto are specifically designed to avoid such distraction, and their approval in Hong Kong would avoid many such problems.
I ask that the Ombudsman intervene and demand that the Transport Department rectify it’s maladministration in this respect.
Sincerely,
Mark Webb-Johnson
Tam
Well-Known Member
I am not familiar with Hong Kong's vehicle regulation. Is Hong Kong much stricter than mainland China next door?
Recent 2016 youtube of mainland China Tesla Model S P90D with Autopilot seems to show all icons:
Music App
Navigation App with a map active on the 17" display.
Calendar App
Energy App
Internet Browser App
Rearview Camera App
Phone App
Recent 2016 youtube of mainland China Tesla Model S P90D with Autopilot seems to show all icons:
Music App
Navigation App with a map active on the 17" display.
Calendar App
Energy App
Internet Browser App
Rearview Camera App
Phone App
This is nothing about the nanny state really, it's just shear stupidity by an unaccountable government.
Last edited:
This is strange to say the least. Best thing to do is simply not update the software. However, in my case that may not be an option given that my car is at the service center - (as per usual)
Some TD contacts:
Ingrid Yeung, Commissioner for Transport. Tel No: 2829 5200
Fanny Hui, Principal Information Officer (head of the Information and Public Relations Unit) 2829 5222
Office of the Ombudsman - www.ombudsman.hk/en-us/contact_us.html
Oh. I was thinking that maybe someone has the idea that a car should not have features that don't help you drive, because this would be an unnecessary distraction; but I guess I'm giving them too much credit...
you will get a standard "your concern is noted" reply from TD (if you get any reply at all)
ombudsman should be our best shot, i am sure this thing will get sorted out if (and only if) the ombudsman decides to intervene and starts investigations
the most powerful unit against maladministration should be the Audit Commision, but the Audit Commision decides which cases to investigate on it own, we cannot email them
After two days thinking, finally I understand the logic behind this action. Some people inside the TD is yellow, so when 698 said he knew Elon Musk, and recommended the high tech Tesla is offering, these yellow people had to accept the auto pilot with restrictions, however, they wanted to give a blow on CY, therefore, prohibits the use of the calendar app which is not so high tech.
In fact, CY is introducing a new department of technology, he will not notice what the yellow people in the TD is doing. If we want to complain, we should also send complain letter to CY at his office, his Facebook, Twitter etc. also send one to the head of the new department of technology.
In fact, CY is introducing a new department of technology, he will not notice what the yellow people in the TD is doing. If we want to complain, we should also send complain letter to CY at his office, his Facebook, Twitter etc. also send one to the head of the new department of technology.
on one hand, the gov promotes innovation. on the other hand, they took away useful function on our car. Ironically, the gov allows phone holder, thus, one could browse the internet on the phone. I know you are not suppose to operate the phone while driving, but have you noticed how many phones the taxi drivers are operating while passengers are on board.
Ok, i can understand you don't need browser. but what about calendar.
they took away auto-pilot too, and after Elon visited HK, it comes back again. Perhaps we need Elon to come to run HK
Ok, i can understand you don't need browser. but what about calendar.
they took away auto-pilot too, and after Elon visited HK, it comes back again. Perhaps we need Elon to come to run HK
Similar threads
