Geohot gone geocold on georides: Comma.ai self-driving car kit cancelled George "Geohot" Hotz is cancelling his Comma.ai self-driving car project after the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) threatened to fine him tens of thousands of dollars over safety concerns. Hotz, who made a name for himself jailbreaking iPhone and PlayStation firmware, had been planning to launch Comma …
Once you get past the territorial chest thumping and boilerplate legalese in that letter the specific questions seem like exactly the sort of thing the people responsible for "Highway Safety" should be asking:
1. Describe in detail how the comma one is installed in a vehicle and provide a copy of installation instructions for the comma one.
2. Describe in detail the advanced driver assistance features of the comma one, including how those features differ from the existing features of the vehicles in which the comma one is intended to be installed.
3. Describe in detail how a vehicle driver uses the comma one and provide a copy of user instructions for the comma one.
4. Provide a detailed description of the conditions under which you believe a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safety. This description must include:
a. The types of roadways on which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
b. The geographic area in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
c. The speed range in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
d. The traffic conditions in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
e. The environmental conditions such weather or time of day in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely; and
f. The amount and type of driver inputs necessary for a vehicle equipped with comma one to operate safely.
5. Provide a detailed description of the basis for your response to Request No. 4, including a description of any testing or analysis to determine safe operating conditions for a vehicle equipped with comma one.
6. Describe the steps you have taken or plan to take to ensure the safe operation of a vehicle equipped with comma one, including but not limited to automated shutoff of comma one features and owner education.
7. Provide a list by make, model, model year or year of production of each vehicle for which you support or anticipate supporting use of the comma one.
8. Describe in detail any steps you have taken to ensure that installation of the comma one in any supported vehicle does not have unintended consequences on the vehicle's operation.
9. Describe the functionality of comma one, if any, if installed in an unsupported vehicle.
10. Have you done any analysis or testing of the impact or potential impact of comma one on the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS? If yes, please describe the analysis or testing in detail and provide supporting documentation. If no, describe why not.
11. Describe in detail how the comma one impacts a vehicle's rearview mirror, including whether it requires removal of the rearview mirror or the extent to which it blocks or obstructs the rearview mirror.
12. State your position on how the comma one does or does not affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 C.F.R. § 571.111), and provide any supporting information or documentation to support your position.
13. State the date on which you currently plan to begin selling the comma one, and provide a list of all retailers and/or websites through which you anticipate selling the comma one.
14. State the date on which you currently plan to begin shipping the comma one.
15. Provide any other information which you believe supports the safety of the comma one.
Possibly some of the questions would be premature, like details of the end-user instructions, but most of that reads like a list of things that should have been at least thought through.
The whole thing is premature and unnecessary. Don't they have automotive 'construction and use' regulations there ?
Any such modifications are illegal until approved. There isn't any need to go writing scare letters.
"While the Comma One has been the subject of much fawning from the tech press since its September unveiling, it apparently was never presented to the NHTSA, which is expressing concern over the safety of the project."
A good example of highly intelligent people being brilliant and stupid at the same time. (I guess we've all been there. Not that I think of myself a a genius.)
I wonder what the backers will say. It's certainly an interesting approach that should not be abandoned. Oh well, maybe Tesla will buy it.
If you are serious about "building amazing tech" then you should be fully aware of the requirements of security and the notion of responsibility when selling to the general public.
You should have approached the NHTSA yourself with a description of the project and requested a meeting where you could defend the project and get information on how to proceed to have it approved.
Instead you act like a teenager whose pet concert project got a harsh question from his parents and you shut everything down.
Well I'm glad you shut it down. If you are that thin-skinned when confronted with a minor administrative issue, then I shudder to think of how you would react when faced with hundreds of actually angry people.
Continue playing in your garage, at least there your lack of maturity will be limited to only hurting the people in your own house.
> PT Barnum was right.
Yes and no.
Traditional VC funding is predicated in only a small percentage of the projects working out, BUT the hook with getting such funding is that even if the project falls flat on its face the VC gets the entireity of the R&D and IP developed.
In a lot of cases that's worth more for onsale than a functioning company and vastly more than the amount of money invested - ie, it's a cheap way of getting a lot of R&D done _AND_ in these kinds of cases it tends to be done in a way that sidesteps regulatory oversight which would have hamstrung a larger company working along these lines.
VC funding like this is often just as much a 21st century version of "piecework" as Uber is. You get a lot of work done for a very low hourly rate and much of it couldn't have been done if you'd paid attention to H&S and employment law.
So whilst Barnum is undoubtedly correct, the real question becomes which one is the sucker.
New millennium Californian startup complying with regulatory requirements? Are you f***ing kidding me?
Though shall not use Regulation to prevent disruption through Californication. Such is the gospel of the Valley as prophesied by its holy prophets Uber, Theranos and various lesser followers.
There is a big gap between proof of concept and fully and safe under all circumstances autonomous driving for all vehicles on the road (actually the phase in between will be most challenging). Maybe Hotz realised that and then you see that the task is daunting. Nevertheless, I think his approach is much more promising than the AI/rule based approaches. For my view on it see http://kurt.mobi/193-2/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
