3 ms·

I don't know if it has to be that complicated. I own X car, and key is lost/broken/whatever. I go to my dealership, show my ownership. They validate it with th

I don't know if it has to be that complicated. I own X car, and key is lost/broken/whatever. I go to my dealership, show my ownership. They validate it with the systems they already have (again, at least in my country) that communicate with the ministry, and check my ID. Done. All handled at the local dealership level (where they are already familiar with local laws, so it's not onerous to follow local regulation). >Audi refused to unlock the car of a pregnant woman who lost her keys during the emergency, the baby died. Starting to get a bit out of hand with speculation, I think. I don't follow the logic with this one. If there is an emergency, emergency services would be called rather than Audi. >Someone passes or the relationship sours and now you have people begging the car company let them use the car they have been using for years. Dealership says "Please provide ownership documents". It's not a complicated thing or a novel concept.

gambiting 5y ago
Yeah and even if Audi unlocked her car, how does that help exactly? Why didn't she call an ambulance instead?
mrtksn 5y ago
Who knows what were the exact circumstances of that poor imaginary woman? Maybe The only ambulance driver in that little town she lives was her abusive BF? Anyway, the idea is that you will have circumstances where unlocking the car would save somebodies lives but due to procedures not covering situations like this bad things will happen and people will blame the manufacturer. The way system works will be a constant debate.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >Who knows what were the exact circumstances of that poor imaginary woman? Maybe The only ambulance driver in that little town she lives was her abusive BF? I can make up millions of wild scenarios, as well. I'm sure a few will be true here and there. However, I don't think speculating about a hypothetical person with a hypothetical abusive partner who is the sole emergency responder in a hypothetical world where corporate Audi is the only other solution (what about taxi, uber, neighbor, cop, etc.?) to a hypothetical medical emergency is worth discussing.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Okay, what is need for centralised key production mechanism that leaves out any 3rd party? Car theft? Big deal, insurance covers it. You can put the car into a garage, you can install your own tracker, the police can find it and there are many other ways to to steal the car and even if the car is not unlockable the "selling the parts" business model can still make it a target for the thief. What's the argument for leaving it to the manufacturer?
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      My entire comment chain started with me saying that ownership should not be difficult to prove because ownership is recorded on an ownership document and with the government, at least in my country. I'm not sure what you're arguing about anymore.
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        I argue that there are enough edge cases and risks that make it not worth having centralized vehicle locking system.
        ziddoap 5y ago
        And I said it's not a difficult situation to prove ownership. What does that have to do with centralized vehicle locking systems?
ghaff 5y ago
You don't need to get into weird scenarios. There are a thousand reasons why someone may not have immediate access to the title of the car (a document issued by individual states in the US), have a different name on that title, or simply be using the car formally or informally but it belongs to someone else. Depending on the complexity of the situation it may take a week to months to get your hands on a proper title if the dealer requires you to present it.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >have a different name on that title >simply be using the car formally or informally but it belongs to someone else And why in these cases should someone be able to claim ownership of the car, when they are not the owner? I'm wondering if I mistyped something, or miscommunicated something. My whole point, originally, was that it is not some incredibly difficult thing to prove that you own the car. The comment that I originally replied to said: >all kind of disputes people have over the ownership And all I said was >At least where I am, when a car is registered the owner gets an "ownership" document, which is also registered with the government. Lists the vehicle, VIN, owner, etc.Would this not stop whatever disputes over ownership you're referring to? Where that got lost in translation, I don't know.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    To sell a car, it's perfectly reasonable to require a proper title in the seller's name even if it requires jumping through some hoops in order to get a title reissued to that person. (And, if there's some dispute, that dispute will simply have to be resolved.) However, I've never needed a title for any other purpose and I think the last car I traded in I actually had to get a new title because it wasn't in my file cabinet where it should have been.I certainly wouldn't expect to need one to get spare keys issued, the car inspected (though they need an insurance-stamped registration for that in my state), or anything else.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      Sure thing, and what should or shouldn't require proof of ownership via title or proof of insurance, etc., was never the focus of my comment. Just that ownership disputes can generally be resolved quite easily* by reverting to ownership documents. *Easily, but not necessarily quickly in the case where you need the document reissued or whatever.

gambiting 5y ago

Yeah and even if Audi unlocked her car, how does that help exactly? Why didn't she call an ambulance instead?

mrtksn 5y ago

Who knows what were the exact circumstances of that poor imaginary woman? Maybe The only ambulance driver in that little town she lives was her abusive BF? Anyway, the idea is that you will have circumstances where unlocking the car would save somebodies lives but due to procedures not covering situations like this bad things will happen and people will blame the manufacturer. The way system works will be a constant debate.

ziddoap 5y ago
>Who knows what were the exact circumstances of that poor imaginary woman? Maybe The only ambulance driver in that little town she lives was her abusive BF? I can make up millions of wild scenarios, as well. I'm sure a few will be true here and there. However, I don't think speculating about a hypothetical person with a hypothetical abusive partner who is the sole emergency responder in a hypothetical world where corporate Audi is the only other solution (what about taxi, uber, neighbor, cop, etc.?) to a hypothetical medical emergency is worth discussing.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Okay, what is need for centralised key production mechanism that leaves out any 3rd party? Car theft? Big deal, insurance covers it. You can put the car into a garage, you can install your own tracker, the police can find it and there are many other ways to to steal the car and even if the car is not unlockable the "selling the parts" business model can still make it a target for the thief. What's the argument for leaving it to the manufacturer?
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    My entire comment chain started with me saying that ownership should not be difficult to prove because ownership is recorded on an ownership document and with the government, at least in my country. I'm not sure what you're arguing about anymore.
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      I argue that there are enough edge cases and risks that make it not worth having centralized vehicle locking system.
      - ziddoap 5y ago
        And I said it's not a difficult situation to prove ownership. What does that have to do with centralized vehicle locking systems?

ghaff 5y ago

You don't need to get into weird scenarios. There are a thousand reasons why someone may not have immediate access to the title of the car (a document issued by individual states in the US), have a different name on that title, or simply be using the car formally or informally but it belongs to someone else. Depending on the complexity of the situation it may take a week to months to get your hands on a proper title if the dealer requires you to present it.

ziddoap 5y ago
>have a different name on that title >simply be using the car formally or informally but it belongs to someone else And why in these cases should someone be able to claim ownership of the car, when they are not the owner? I'm wondering if I mistyped something, or miscommunicated something. My whole point, originally, was that it is not some incredibly difficult thing to prove that you own the car. The comment that I originally replied to said: >all kind of disputes people have over the ownership And all I said was >At least where I am, when a car is registered the owner gets an "ownership" document, which is also registered with the government. Lists the vehicle, VIN, owner, etc.Would this not stop whatever disputes over ownership you're referring to? Where that got lost in translation, I don't know.
- ghaff 5y ago
  To sell a car, it's perfectly reasonable to require a proper title in the seller's name even if it requires jumping through some hoops in order to get a title reissued to that person. (And, if there's some dispute, that dispute will simply have to be resolved.) However, I've never needed a title for any other purpose and I think the last car I traded in I actually had to get a new title because it wasn't in my file cabinet where it should have been.I certainly wouldn't expect to need one to get spare keys issued, the car inspected (though they need an insurance-stamped registration for that in my state), or anything else.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    Sure thing, and what should or shouldn't require proof of ownership via title or proof of insurance, etc., was never the focus of my comment. Just that ownership disputes can generally be resolved quite easily* by reverting to ownership documents. *Easily, but not necessarily quickly in the case where you need the document reissued or whatever.