4 ms·

I choose not to trust documentation when a company shits all over everything we know about building reliable safety systems. To be blunt, if they're dumb enough

by hluska 5y ago

I choose not to trust documentation when a company shits all over everything we know about building reliable safety systems. To be blunt, if they're dumb enough to think this is a good idea, they're too dumb to make safety equipment. This is an awful idea and it's impossible to defend with any kind of integrity.

dahart 5y ago
Your strong language and hyperbole isn't convincing me there's something wrong. What is the safety risk, exactly? Can you elaborate on specifically what is unreliable or why this is awful? The vest will clearly indicate the lack of protection before a ride, just like a car or computer or any reliable safety system. What is the alternative that this product should be doing that would make it safer? Isn't there a much higher safety risk of using safety products as a user, and not reading or trusting the documentation?
- hluska 5y ago
  In short, the safety issue is that a company that makes gloves and jackets decided to build a passive safety system with an on/off switch tied to payment networks. The alternative is obvious - get rid of the on/off switch and just sell the thing. Not everything in life should be reduced to a monthly subscription.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Not everything in life should be reduced to a monthly subscription. Hell, I am in complete agreement with that. I'm just as tired of rent-seeking subscriptions as everyone else. They do just sell the thing, that is an option. They messed up their terminology and marketing message by calling it 'subscription' and 'service'. They should have stuck strictly to "lease plan", which some of their marketing does say. If everyone here had the exact same information but had never thought of this as a subscription, I'd bet all the pitchforks would still be tucked away in their sheds.

4 ms·

I choose not to trust documentation when a company shits all over everything we know about building reliable safety systems. To be blunt, if they're dumb enough

by hluska 5y ago

dahart 5y ago
Your strong language and hyperbole isn't convincing me there's something wrong. What is the safety risk, exactly? Can you elaborate on specifically what is unreliable or why this is awful? The vest will clearly indicate the lack of protection before a ride, just like a car or computer or any reliable safety system. What is the alternative that this product should be doing that would make it safer? Isn't there a much higher safety risk of using safety products as a user, and not reading or trusting the documentation?
- hluska 5y ago
  In short, the safety issue is that a company that makes gloves and jackets decided to build a passive safety system with an on/off switch tied to payment networks. The alternative is obvious - get rid of the on/off switch and just sell the thing. Not everything in life should be reduced to a monthly subscription.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Not everything in life should be reduced to a monthly subscription. Hell, I am in complete agreement with that. I'm just as tired of rent-seeking subscriptions as everyone else. They do just sell the thing, that is an option. They messed up their terminology and marketing message by calling it 'subscription' and 'service'. They should have stuck strictly to "lease plan", which some of their marketing does say. If everyone here had the exact same information but had never thought of this as a subscription, I'd bet all the pitchforks would still be tucked away in their sheds.