4 ms·

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

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?'.

kefka 10y ago
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.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  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/2016/03/01/2016-04311/civil-penalty-factors https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/01/2016-04...
- jahewson 10y ago
  When he kills a bunch of people in China, you're going to feel silly about having made this comment.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Guy can't navigate the regulatory environment in the US, goes to China ... this is the setup for a joke.

kefka 10y ago

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.

smallnamespace 10y ago
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/2016/03/01/2016-04311/civil-penalty-factors https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/01/2016-04...
jahewson 10y ago
When he kills a bunch of people in China, you're going to feel silly about having made this comment.
- inimino 10y ago
  Guy can't navigate the regulatory environment in the US, goes to China ... this is the setup for a joke.