5 ms·
A piece of tape over the cameras is probably enough to immobilize most SDVs. Works on humans too. Guarding against vandalism isn’t really the car makers job. T
by valine 3y ago
A piece of tape over the cameras is probably enough to immobilize most SDVs. Works on humans too.
Guarding against vandalism isn’t really the car makers job. Tires have always been easy to slash. That’s why we have laws and penalties for breaking them.
- fluoridation 3y agoIs this vandalism, though? No actual damage is done to the car. It's even less invasive than a piece of tape, because the cone is just sitting there. It could even be done without touching the car itself. Just place a few mannequins in front and behind the car, so it can't go anywhere.
- JohnFen 3y agoI can't imagine this counting as vandalism in any reasonable world. Vandalism involves actually damaging things. Coning damages nothing. As you suggest, putting tape over cameras is closer to actual vandalism because it could leave tape residue on the lens.
- fluoridation 3y agoYup. If the car is not smart enough to realize that it can drive with a cone on its hood, or that it can run over mannequins that have been purposely placed in front of it, then that's no one's fault but the manufacturer's.
- oh_sigh 3y agoMost human drivers would probably not want to run over a mannequin sized object intentionally for fear of damaging their vehicle.
- oh_sigh 3y agoImagine someone kept doing that to a car with a human driver. Do you think they would be breaking no law?
- fluoridation 3y agoI suppose it would count as harassment, but that's because it'd be done to a person. I don't think it's possible to harass a computer program. If we ignore the harassment side of it, then I don't know what law it breaks, if the object can be trivially removed by the driver.
- oh_sigh 3y agoCriminal law - mischief - which generally includes altering of property and isn't limited to damage or destruction of property. Common law - tortious interference - if the vehicle is a taxi being summoned by a customer, and it cannot fulfill the contract because of the interference of a third party intentionally preventing its movement.
- joosters 3y agoYou are not a lawyer.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoAs we all know, there is a law which says you are not allowed to talk about the law unless you are a lawyer.
- fluoridation 3y ago"Altering" would have to include a permanent change or anything that's difficult to undo, such as completely repainting the car, or putting it upside down in such a way that it's not damaged. It could not include simply placing a lightweight object on top of the hood that anyone can remove at any time. Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens. It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
- dragonwriter 3y agoIt's arguably either or both of criminal malicious mischief and/or public nuisance, and it's also pretty clearly civil trespass to chattels.
- bluescrn 3y ago> That’s why we have laws and penalties for breaking them. Which aren't really enforced in many places. Leading to tyre slashing to become a fashionable form of criminal 'activism' in a social media world: https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers (And promoting that sort of behaviour on social media is apparently just fine, destruction of property apparently isn't 'real violence', yet in many other cases, mere words are now considered to be violence)