With that kind of talk, only those "well connected" can readily do that.

Hmm. Regulatory capture? Yeah. That.

Yes, being "well connected" is critical to working with regulatory agencies. A minimum of 56 kbps is recommended.

Seriously, with agencies like the FAA, FCC, EPA, FDA, NHTSA, etc. you can just call them up and you will be connected to a regulator who can help you with every step of getting your product past regulatory requirements. The Small Business Administration also has a lot of people dedicated to helping entrepreneurs with regulatory oversight.

If by 'well-connected', you mean people who have the means and resources to properly test their products, then I agree.

"Product" ? I'm seeing a demo he wasn't selling.

And when a big govt stick comes a'knocking, unless you're also big and well connected, you will get shut down.

This was clear as a way to "do insane amount of documentation in a laughably short timeframe, or fuck your business with a fine-stick."

Yeah, GeoHotz is an ass, but this is inane. Great way to kill small businesses.

So what would you have the regulator do here--wait until the product is on the market first?

He's publicly stated they were aiming for year-end release.

That may be what he stated. I can say that I plan to launch pigs from a catapult tomorrow. Doesn't make it true.

I would understand filing that documentation prior to selling. But I'm also familiar with using "Filing with govt" as a tool of oppression that large companies try to pass as a barrier of market entry. Lawyers are rather expensive, and requiring more volumnous paperwork requires more lawyers.

And speaking of that, what is the repercussions of what you send to NHTSA? Say he sends something inaccurate or glosses over details. What is the liability of sending something wrong to govt? Hmm...

Yes. Wait till he's selling them. And when there's a claim, act on it. Not before.

One problem with that model is that if the product ends up being unsafe and someone dies, it becomes the regulator's fault that they failed to prevent an unsafe product from being marketed and sold in the first place. Heads will roll.

We as a democratic society decided awhile ago that the benefit of knowing a car product was probably safe outweighs the frictional burden of testing them before they can be sold.

There's a lot of insinuation here that the regulator is actively trying to kill his product, but no evidence. This seems like a run-of-the-mill request, one that the NHTSA probably sends out thousands of times a year to various automakers and auto parts suppliers.

As a counterpoint, I'm sure Tesla has gotten these letters as well, but the NHTSA didn't prevent them from putting AutoPilot on the market.

> what is the repercussions of what you send to NHTSA? Say he sends something inaccurate or glosses over details.

The letter specifically says that estimates are ok. There's nothing wrong with telling the regulator 'We're not sure yet, give us a month to figure it out please?'.

If that was true, then they could have left off the "or else, pay $21k/day for noncompliance". I've seen plenty of big-companies use forced compliance to kill smaller and more agile upstarts.

I remember the tactics used to kill most butcheries and local meat shops. Same games, with onerous and idiotic requirements of "compliance" that the big guys can do. Of course, the big companies got legislation to enforce their standing.

This is not opening a dialogue, this is a shakedown to kill a product.

The $21k is standard regulatory boilerplate and simply notes the maximum statutory rate.[1] If the NHTSA really wanted his company dead, they'd have already gone to a judge to get an injunction to shut him down.

Yes, regulatory capture exists, and incumbents often benefit from it. But I'm having trouble seeing how this particular case is a 'shake down' -- the NHTSA is simply asking him to follow the law, which he should be doing anyway.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/01/2016-04...

When he kills a bunch of people in China, you're going to feel silly about having made this comment.

Guy can't navigate the regulatory environment in the US, goes to China ... this is the setup for a joke.

So it's ok for people to die because a business couldn't be bothered to test if their product passed the most basic of safety criteria? Because that's what you're saying.