5 ms·

What an outlandish claim. This is like suing bottle makers after you step on broken glass. If anyone is to blame it's tiktok and even that is fraught with free

What an outlandish claim. This is like suing bottle makers after you step on broken glass. If anyone is to blame it's tiktok and even that is fraught with free speech concerns

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
That's not an accurate comparison. The chief complaint cities have is that stolen cars result in other crimes, which drains law enforcement resources. > Yet in 2015, 96% of new cars sold by other manufacturers did come with immobilisers, which cost at most a few hundred dollars. For Kia and Hyundai vehicles, the figure was just 26%. Todd Henderson, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, says that on the face of it, the cities suing might have a case. It would rest, he says, on the argument that when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This seems like a reasonable argument to me, and Kia/Hyundai deserve to be pushed to answer why they're pinching pennies over a widely used, cheap and effective anti-theft technology.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Do cities have the right to block the sales of certain items based on this kind of logic? Do cities have the right to restrict what its citizens can purchase? What other methods would cities/states have? Pass local taxes on specific brands to "cover the costs" and encourage its citizens to purchase something else?
- tlogan 3y ago
  Conversely, automakers can demonstrate that the incidence of theft for identical car models is relatively low in other regions. They can also show that car theft rate is highly collerated with retail theft.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  > when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This is a reasonable argument (except for blaming poor anti-theft technology for "causing enormous damage"), but I don't like where it leads. Thefts would be further deterred if the car took a photo of the driver every time the engine starts (and used facial recognition to refuse to start if they're wearing a mask), then sent that photo, with date+time+GPS coordinates to a central server somewhere. There are countless other cheap and corrosive to liberty "solutions" you can use to deter crime. Like force cars to act as networked security cameras. No laws have been passed, just a creative legal theory, and suddenly it's illegal to sell a car that's not an arm of the police state. I'd rather see the manufacturer just forced to reveal the known serious vulnerabilities before purchase.
  - LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
    Yeah, but you're taking it much further than they are. They're arguing that Kia should use an immobiliser that is standard in most other cars. They're not asking Kia to install cameras, etc. It's a sane default that deters crime because those other types of cars are stolen at a lower rate.
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      But am I taking it much further than they're going to? We've seen how anti-consumer, anti-privacy, anti-freedom technology becomes when left to its own devices. I'd rather not make it illegal to sell an ethical product when the "standard" set by other firms is abuse.
forgotmypw17 3y ago
There is a reason many places do not allow glass bottles. It is because they turn into a hazard that is difficult to remediate completely when dropped, and dropping them is probable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tzs 3y ago
No, it would be like suing a couple bottle makers whose bottles are the source of the vast majority of broken glass people are stepping on, even though those bottles are just a small fraction of the bottles in use, and the reason their bottles are so much more likely to end up as broken glass is because there is a simple ingredient that can be added to bottles to make them much less likely to break but they only put that in about 25% of their bottles, whereas the other bottle makers put it in 96% of their bottles. The cars in question are so much easier to steal than nearly every other car that in several cities insurers will no longer cover them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

What an outlandish claim. This is like suing bottle makers after you step on broken glass. If anyone is to blame it's tiktok and even that is fraught with free speech concerns

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

That's not an accurate comparison. The chief complaint cities have is that stolen cars result in other crimes, which drains law enforcement resources. > Yet in 2015, 96% of new cars sold by other manufacturers did come with immobilisers, which cost at most a few hundred dollars. For Kia and Hyundai vehicles, the figure was just 26%. Todd Henderson, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, says that on the face of it, the cities suing might have a case. It would rest, he says, on the argument that when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This seems like a reasonable argument to me, and Kia/Hyundai deserve to be pushed to answer why they're pinching pennies over a widely used, cheap and effective anti-theft technology.

dylan604 3y ago
Do cities have the right to block the sales of certain items based on this kind of logic? Do cities have the right to restrict what its citizens can purchase? What other methods would cities/states have? Pass local taxes on specific brands to "cover the costs" and encourage its citizens to purchase something else?
tlogan 3y ago
Conversely, automakers can demonstrate that the incidence of theft for identical car models is relatively low in other regions. They can also show that car theft rate is highly collerated with retail theft.
SenAnder 3y ago
> when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This is a reasonable argument (except for blaming poor anti-theft technology for "causing enormous damage"), but I don't like where it leads. Thefts would be further deterred if the car took a photo of the driver every time the engine starts (and used facial recognition to refuse to start if they're wearing a mask), then sent that photo, with date+time+GPS coordinates to a central server somewhere. There are countless other cheap and corrosive to liberty "solutions" you can use to deter crime. Like force cars to act as networked security cameras. No laws have been passed, just a creative legal theory, and suddenly it's illegal to sell a car that's not an arm of the police state. I'd rather see the manufacturer just forced to reveal the known serious vulnerabilities before purchase.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  Yeah, but you're taking it much further than they are. They're arguing that Kia should use an immobiliser that is standard in most other cars. They're not asking Kia to install cameras, etc. It's a sane default that deters crime because those other types of cars are stolen at a lower rate.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    But am I taking it much further than they're going to? We've seen how anti-consumer, anti-privacy, anti-freedom technology becomes when left to its own devices. I'd rather not make it illegal to sell an ethical product when the "standard" set by other firms is abuse.

forgotmypw17 3y ago

There is a reason many places do not allow glass bottles. It is because they turn into a hazard that is difficult to remediate completely when dropped, and dropping them is probable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tzs 3y ago

No, it would be like suing a couple bottle makers whose bottles are the source of the vast majority of broken glass people are stepping on, even though those bottles are just a small fraction of the bottles in use, and the reason their bottles are so much more likely to end up as broken glass is because there is a simple ingredient that can be added to bottles to make them much less likely to break but they only put that in about 25% of their bottles, whereas the other bottle makers put it in 96% of their bottles. The cars in question are so much easier to steal than nearly every other car that in several cities insurers will no longer cover them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]