Rendered at 15:45:12 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Terr_ 3 days ago [-]
Hold up folks, this isn't quite the usual debate about the merits of the technology or overselling what it can do. That lawsuit stems from where the cars were manufactured.
1. Tesla "FSD" on its own isn't street-legal in South Korea.
2. However it is street-legal if it comes with a car imported from the US, because of a trade-agreement between the two countries.
3. Tesla took "FSD" money from customers while providing them China-made cars that don't get that exception.
MiroslavPokorny 2 days ago [-]
I think your third point is broken. It doesnt matter where the cars are made, the law of SK states that FSD cannot be used for either car.
Terr_ 2 days ago [-]
> It doesn't matter where the cars are made
Counterexample from the article:
> FSD can be used on about 20% of Tesla vehicles registered in South Korea — those manufactured in the US, Tesla Korea country manager Seo Young-deuk said in parliamentary testimony last month. Those cars meet US vehicle-safety standards that South Korea recognizes as part of a free trade agreement, according to the forthcoming complaint to the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), seen by Reuters.
MiroslavPokorny 2 days ago [-]
> Those cars meet US vehicle-safety standards that South Korea recognizes as part of a free trade agreement
Does Korean law concerning cars and automation actually state this exception ?
Terr_ 2 days ago [-]
Just to be clear, you accept that the reporting is corect and the situation exists, and you're just curious about how and why?
I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Korean lawyer or an international trade lawyer, but this US copy of the agreement [0] has an addendum (PDF) linked as "2011 Exchange of Letters (revised as of January 1, 2019)", where it states:
> Korea shall provide that an originating motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer that sold no more than 50,000 originating motor vehicles in the territory of Korea during the previous calendar year shall be deemed to comply with Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS) if the manufacturer certifies that the motor vehicle complies with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
I tried to pull up Korean legal code and run it through a translator, but... ugh. Anyway, an agreement of this nature might take precedence while absent from the KMVSS rules.
I am not disputing that the article and others from the US or even the Korean trade department can promise or say what they wish.
A website belonging to America does not replace or superced actual Korean law.
Until the Korean law itself is changed, the trade agreement is just a piece of paper with a promise, it is not actual law.
The trade agreement and the representatives from Korea do not have the legal authority to change any law, that privilege belongs to the Korean Parliament.
Terr_ 21 hours ago [-]
> that privilege belongs to the Korean Parliament.
*sigh* OK, I think I understand what's so weird here. You've been operating under the mistaken assumption that the "trade agreement" is just sweet whispers between unelected bureaucrats from two different nations, published as legal fanfiction on their respective websites.
No, KORUS [0] is is an actual real treaty, one which the Korean Parliament voted for and ratified. Its provisions have the same effect as regular laws, because the Korean Constitution [1] directly says so:
> (1)(6)(1) Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution [...] shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea.
> No, KORUS [0] is is an actual real treaty, one which the Korean Parliament voted for and ratified. Its provisions have the same effect as regular laws, because the Korean Constitution [1] directly says so:
There are always contradictions between government departments. My country AU for example has different laws which are bested by state laws and those laws are also superceeded by more exact local government laws. The EU is no different, there are treaties with the EU, and many country level laws.
> Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea.
What exactly is GENERALLY RECOGNISED RULES... ?
2 days ago [-]
tomsellin23 1 days ago [-]
Ok, Tesla's supervised FSD is just plain amazing. Sure it's not perfect, but man, it's almost. It will get there eventually and I'm here for it. Don't get me wrong, I like to drive myself, but those times where I'd rather just not, I have the option.
matt3210 3 days ago [-]
What a coincidence, Tesla mislead everyone else about automated driving too!
1. Tesla "FSD" on its own isn't street-legal in South Korea.
2. However it is street-legal if it comes with a car imported from the US, because of a trade-agreement between the two countries.
3. Tesla took "FSD" money from customers while providing them China-made cars that don't get that exception.
Counterexample from the article:
> FSD can be used on about 20% of Tesla vehicles registered in South Korea — those manufactured in the US, Tesla Korea country manager Seo Young-deuk said in parliamentary testimony last month. Those cars meet US vehicle-safety standards that South Korea recognizes as part of a free trade agreement, according to the forthcoming complaint to the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), seen by Reuters.
Does Korean law concerning cars and automation actually state this exception ?
I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Korean lawyer or an international trade lawyer, but this US copy of the agreement [0] has an addendum (PDF) linked as "2011 Exchange of Letters (revised as of January 1, 2019)", where it states:
> Korea shall provide that an originating motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer that sold no more than 50,000 originating motor vehicles in the territory of Korea during the previous calendar year shall be deemed to comply with Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS) if the manufacturer certifies that the motor vehicle complies with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
I tried to pull up Korean legal code and run it through a translator, but... ugh. Anyway, an agreement of this nature might take precedence while absent from the KMVSS rules.
[0] https://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/...
A website belonging to America does not replace or superced actual Korean law.
Until the Korean law itself is changed, the trade agreement is just a piece of paper with a promise, it is not actual law.
The trade agreement and the representatives from Korea do not have the legal authority to change any law, that privilege belongs to the Korean Parliament.
*sigh* OK, I think I understand what's so weird here. You've been operating under the mistaken assumption that the "trade agreement" is just sweet whispers between unelected bureaucrats from two different nations, published as legal fanfiction on their respective websites.
No, KORUS [0] is is an actual real treaty, one which the Korean Parliament voted for and ratified. Its provisions have the same effect as regular laws, because the Korean Constitution [1] directly says so:
> (1)(6)(1) Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution [...] shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Korea_Fr...
[1] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq...
There are always contradictions between government departments. My country AU for example has different laws which are bested by state laws and those laws are also superceeded by more exact local government laws. The EU is no different, there are treaties with the EU, and many country level laws.
https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq...
> Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea.
What exactly is GENERALLY RECOGNISED RULES... ?