> it is nevertheless an extremely supremely poor idea Can you elaborate on exactly what's wrong here, now that you know more about the implementation? Are you

> it is nevertheless an extremely supremely poor idea Can you elaborate on exactly what's wrong here, now that you know more about the implementation? Are you sure this isn't a case of getting the wrong impression about what it is because Vice said so? It's not a safety issue, the vest will notify whether it's working before the ride. > A safety vest, for this purpose, it is not providing any value to anyone except a slimy money person. The irony of your statement here is that KLIM is offering an expensive product for a half price down payment, and allowing the consumer to cancel it after trying it out without having to return the hardware or pay any penalties on the remainder. Or they can resume payments a year after lapsing. You don't find this kind of presumably money-losing proposition with any other financing plans I can think of.