Yeah, this article is pretty shallow and has pretty significant levels of fanboy-ism. Like

"The little meaningful criticism of Tesla Autopilot (with its state-of-the-art “Autosteer") is rooted in what critics deem insufficient transition warnings"

... the fact that it killed someone notwithstanding.

TFA also seems convinced that there is a large difference between the autonomous capabilities of the Model S vs. other luxury cars, when it's pretty well documented that the main difference lies in more or less conservative safety choices and marketing.

This paragraph from the article is so stupid it reads like a satire on Silicon Valley:

> Does anyone really believe Hotz would give up with $3M+ in the bank and VC firm Andreessen Horowitz behind him? Hotz could have responded to NHTSA. He just didn't want to. With a lean operation, a growing pool of crowdsourced data and seemingly unlimited swagger, Hotz just bought himself press, time and additional mythos.

3M+ in investment and Atlas over here would rather shrug than hire a lawyer and someone to put together quality management systems?

Bulllllllshiiiiit.

Or maybe they'd rather just start selling their product immediately in China?

China has the same level of regulation as other industrialized countries. If it doesn't pass in the US it won't pass in China either.

If they can't get it to drive in the US, I doubt it'll be able to navigate most big cities in Asia. (Maybe a few of those ghost ones.)

I think what's attractive about China may not be its lax regulatory environment with regard to transportation, but rather in regard to investment.

China doesn't have a lax regulatory environment. You're right that what attracts is $.

> China has the same level of regulation as other industrialized countries.

I have to assume you've never driven or been driven in a major Chinese city, because while this may be technically true in practice it is very much not. Cars on the road in China are often lacking in terms of safety.

It is something of a moot point, because I don't see how any self driving car system could perform in Beijing traffic conditions. Basic concepts like lanes frequently go out the window.

Regulation. I live in China since 2010.

Driving on the sidewalk may be easier in China, but selling a self-driving add-on won't be.

Mexico?

They weren't given any government requirements, with the the possible exception of the FHMVSS rule that you can't remove the rear-view mirror of the car. The NHTSA Special Order asked only for documentation of extremely basic test plan stuff (road, speed, weather, and traffic limits for the device, along with user documentation).

That was their request for information, yes. But I have trouble believing that the NHTSA would allow you to market some half-baked crap that takes over control of your vehicle.

Maybe that's legal, though. Not great if it is. Anything short of full, reliable automation seems incredibly dangerous.

The Special Order might be of the "we're looking for a justification to fine you and issue a recall" type, which it looks like they often are.

People have a lot of theories about what this letter meant, but the people on HN who have actually worked with NHTSA orders say the order means just what it says it means, and that NHTSA is pretty reasonable to work with.

Certainly the questions in the order --- I posted them on the first thread about the comma one --- seemed pretty basic and reasonable.

The questions were reasonable, but the cover letter was very negative.

Could you point me to comments with first hand NHTSA experience? I didn't see any.

The cover letter was very "do not blow off the NHTSA". One commenter who had experience with NHTSA provided examples of orders they sent other companies with similar language.

I assume you mean this comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12819423

The listed special orders were the pretext to $70m, $35m and $105m fines. Doesn't inspire confidence.

It might just be reporting bias, but I couldn't find an example of a special order that wasn't associated with a massive scandal.

The idea is that you comply with the request, not ignore it. Those fines only kick in if you decide to go ahead anyway.

Typically when you get to the point of getting one of those it's because you've been blatantly ignoring regulations or regulators up until now and they feel like they need to get your attention.

Well if they were planning on going to market without being able to pass an audit then they deserve every bit of it. I've worked in am FDA regulated field for a little over a decade and getting in touch with regulatory bodies up front is par for the course. Sounds to me like they don't know what they're doing and are in over their heads.

On the surface it looks like a small speed bump compared to what some startups face in, say, medical devices.

But it depends on where Hotz got his capital. We know it's not a big number. The compliance requirements might have cost more in consultants who are experienced in replying to such information requests, than his paid in capital to date, IF Hotz could find good consumtants in time.

It seems like he had alternatives: To delay roll-out and look for more capital, for example. But everything other than shutting down the project would cost a significant, and possibly, depending on Hotz's access to investors, an insurmountable amount of money within the time he had.

Shutting down might get regulators off his back long enough to take the project offshore.

If this was actually game changing, investors would pony up the cash.