-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'm sure Tesla is working on it, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Around the world, Tesla are using the 'only on private roads' exclusion to be able to release this.
The problem is that Hong Kong legislation is written such that pretty much anything that is a road is a public road, even on private property, and as such subject to the road traffic ordinances.
It will be interesting to see how Tesla get around this here. Our transport department are notoriously stubborn. Look how they crippled autosteer by tying it with GPS to just a subset of our roads.
Around the world, Tesla are using the 'only on private roads' exclusion to be able to release this.
The problem is that Hong Kong legislation is written such that pretty much anything that is a road is a public road, even on private property, and as such subject to the road traffic ordinances.
It will be interesting to see how Tesla get around this here. Our transport department are notoriously stubborn. Look how they crippled autosteer by tying it with GPS to just a subset of our roads.
Anywhere where they can impound or "lock" your car by immobilization device should be a private road. Places where you may use Summon (not test out), aka car park, should largely be private road.
The Road Traffic Ordinance states that traffic offence are applicable to private roads and (public) roads. But if you have any experience asking for police help on private road, then you will realize how difficult it is to invite the laws to visit you. Of course the story will be different if the laws choose to come to the private roads in order to make your life difficult
The Road Traffic Ordinance states that traffic offence are applicable to private roads and (public) roads. But if you have any experience asking for police help on private road, then you will realize how difficult it is to invite the laws to visit you. Of course the story will be different if the laws choose to come to the private roads in order to make your life difficult
Pretty much all roads in HK (private or otherwise) are subject to the road traffic ordinance. It doesn't matter if it is in a private car park, so long as it is open to the public. Exceptions are special areas such as tunnels and the airport, which have their own (sometimes more restrictive) ordinances.
This has been discussed in relation to vehicles such as electric bicycles, segways, hoverboards, etc. Even on private property, those are reportedly illegal, so long as the 'road' is open to the public.
This has been discussed in relation to vehicles such as electric bicycles, segways, hoverboards, etc. Even on private property, those are reportedly illegal, so long as the 'road' is open to the public.
Cannot voice enough how disappointed i am at the bureaucratic red tape there is to cut through in HK.
It would make sense if it was in the interest of safety but a lot of archaic/ outdate/ ambiguous legislation deserves to be revisited as technology (and the way we use it) changes.
Sadly this is something that will never happen with the current guard. Its systemic and not only limited to the transport dept.
-rant over-
That said, I'm sure Tesla is pulling every card they have to be able to get around this. Elon was pretty sincere about Tesla's commitment to HK when he visited and he knows what's at stake here.
I don't understand why TD can't just take the nerfed-AP route and geo fence it to certain areas/ residences.
How about gated private residences first? They're not exactly "accessible" to the public. Could be a good test bed.
It would make sense if it was in the interest of safety but a lot of archaic/ outdate/ ambiguous legislation deserves to be revisited as technology (and the way we use it) changes.
Sadly this is something that will never happen with the current guard. Its systemic and not only limited to the transport dept.
-rant over-
That said, I'm sure Tesla is pulling every card they have to be able to get around this. Elon was pretty sincere about Tesla's commitment to HK when he visited and he knows what's at stake here.
I don't understand why TD can't just take the nerfed-AP route and geo fence it to certain areas/ residences.
How about gated private residences first? They're not exactly "accessible" to the public. Could be a good test bed.
Large part of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 374) is applicable to private roads in Hong Kong, even if it is not open to public. So you can assume anything that is illegal under the Road Traffic Ordinance in (public) road, it's illegal everywhere. And the definition of "road" is wider than you may think, it includes "place"
For Segway, it can be defined as vehicle and TD can ban it's use in HK (anywhere in HK, I believe even within your home) by refusing to register it
http://www.td.gov.hk/en/publication...ases/transport_department/index_t_id_929.html
I could not find anything that is related to Summon in the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 374). There is one related law in Chapter 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, under Regulation 44 Vacating a motor vehicle; and opening of door of a vehicle:
(1) No person in charge of a motor vehicle on a road shall vacate the vehicle-
This regulation 44 pretty much bans Summon in (public) roads. However, Chapter 374G did not state whether regulation 44 is applicable to private roads. (The Road Traffic Ordinance, i.e. Chapter 374, contains a specific section about its application to private roads: Cap 374 s 117 Application of Ordinance to private roads (Road Traffic Ordinance))
For Segway, it can be defined as vehicle and TD can ban it's use in HK (anywhere in HK, I believe even within your home) by refusing to register it
http://www.td.gov.hk/en/publication...ases/transport_department/index_t_id_929.html
I could not find anything that is related to Summon in the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 374). There is one related law in Chapter 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, under Regulation 44 Vacating a motor vehicle; and opening of door of a vehicle:
(1) No person in charge of a motor vehicle on a road shall vacate the vehicle-
(b) where the vehicle is fitted with a brake capable of being set, without having set the brake so as effectually to prevent 2 at least, or in the case of a vehicle with only 3 wheels, 1 at least of the wheels from revolving
This regulation 44 pretty much bans Summon in (public) roads. However, Chapter 374G did not state whether regulation 44 is applicable to private roads. (The Road Traffic Ordinance, i.e. Chapter 374, contains a specific section about its application to private roads: Cap 374 s 117 Application of Ordinance to private roads (Road Traffic Ordinance))
Remember our experience with autopilot (AP) beta? According to this website,
Tesla 雙手離軚自動駕駛被煞停 【獨家踢爆】運輸署發警告信後知後覺 – Tesla系統更新 – TESLA自動駕駛 – WilliamS – ezone.hk - 網絡生活 – 網絡熱話
who claimed to be actively involved in the ban of AP, TD may have banned AP because it can function with 雙手離軚 (hands off the wheel). But there is no laws in HK requiring the driver to put one or both hands on the wheel.
Apparently TD was using Chapter 374A Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations to stop Tesla from pushing anything they want to us before TD's approval. But Chapter 374A did not say anything about software update.
You still think TD make their decision by laws or regulations? I don't think so
It specifies that you can't "vacate" the vehicle if you were in charge of the motor vehicle, but what if you were outside the vehicle to begin with (i.e. summon the car out of your drive way).
You can ask a lawyer for their legal advice (I am not a lawyer), but what they say are just their opinions, not the final answer. And you cannot ask the Department of Justice for their interpretation (which may, still, be different from the court ruling, but since the Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution, anything they say is legal will be practically legal to do), only TD can.
But I believe the idea of this regulation 44 is to prevent any car from rolling and causing injury / damage when no one is inside. So it should not allow anyone putting the car into D / N / R gear when no driver inside. But until someone get caught for this, we will not know the real answer (how Department of Justice / the court interprets this regulation)
But I believe the idea of this regulation 44 is to prevent any car from rolling and causing injury / damage when no one is inside. So it should not allow anyone putting the car into D / N / R gear when no driver inside. But until someone get caught for this, we will not know the real answer (how Department of Justice / the court interprets this regulation)
Similar threads
