3 ms·
the issue is that eventually they'll just make the car not start without it. it's like your inkjet printer refusing to print black and white because it's run ou
by exe34 2y ago
the issue is that eventually they'll just make the car not start without it. it's like your inkjet printer refusing to print black and white because it's run out of yellow.
- hiatus 2y agoThat sounds like it would have profound safety implications.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoHow so?
- CivBase 2y agoPretty hard to get into a vehicle collision if you can't start the vehicle.
- hiatus 2y agoPretty easy to suffer some sort of injury if you're stranded and your car won't turn on.
- CivBase 2y agoGotta be pretty low odds that an OnStar module breaks while someone is in a remote location, leaving them stranded - then they make it back, diagnose the issue, take the manufacturer to court, the court finds the manufacturer guilty, and the punishment is substantial enough to outweigh the benefit of requiring the module in the first place. Even if you could hold the manufacturers liable, I'm guessing most of them would still take that risk.
- JohnFen 2y agoEventually isn't now, though. We'll have to cross that bridge when it happens. Personally, the inclusion of surveillance as a standard feature in cars means that I won't buy cars made so recently. It's easier to do that than to worry about disabling stuff. If that becomes impossible for some reason, I suppose that my driving days are over.