4 ms·

No, one can do that anyway. There is basically no real way to stop folks from modifying their cars. It can be made more difficult, sure. This is about selling

• dr_kiszonka 7mo ago
  Perhaps it is also about liability. Otherwise, we would have people installing OpenClaw on their Teslas.
  • fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Then why wasn't it a problem before? People have always been able to install aftermarket or possibly even hacked together physical parts. If there was liability you'd expect some sort of shield blocking access to, for example, the hydraulic system for the brakes. As it turns out though blatant irresponsibility is quite rare (depending on your definition anyway) since people have a strong self interest in not endangering their own lives or wallets. It's similar for homeowners - many states explicitly carve out a requirement that insurance companies cover DIY modifications that are within reason and this generally works out since you have a strong vested interest in not destroying your own house regardless of any insurance policy.
    • lmm 7mo ago
      > Then why wasn't it a problem before? It is. Thousands of people have died because of aftermarket headlights. Harder to assess, but probably much larger, is the number of excess deaths from nitrous oxide etc. emitted by modified cars.
      • pastage 7mo ago
        There are about 3000 deaths per year in Sweden attributed to position from cars, and 300 physical accidents. So it is a really big issue, but it is almost impossible to make people understand that their car use and modification mains people. Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
        • mrguyorama 7mo ago
          You can ban modifying your car to pollute more (which we do) without banning modifying your car. This isn't complicated FFS. The difficulty against this in the US is the unfortunate reality that the people coming to these shops to enable their stupid trucks to roll coal are the people who should technically be raiding and shutting down these companies. This can be fixed. Physically, you can already modify your car to be controlled by a stupid program and that has been possible since at least the 90s. You can do the supposed harm by not being aware of damage to your exhaust system. The solution to exhaust harms of ICE engines is electric cars, not a reduction in consumer rights.
          • vablings 7mo ago
            The EPA heavily regulates any emissions defeat devices. The problem is they spend most of their time going after tuner shops where most cars run on ethanol rather than diesel shops who cater to brain-damaged customers who think rolling coal is "cool"
          • darkwater 7mo ago
            In Spain (but I think in every EU country) you must go through legal inspection and certification if you do modify your car. And most of the aftermarket mods people install are totally illegal and would not pass that exam. I mean changes like putting a spoiler, lowering the height from ground etc
    • CalRobert 7mo ago
      People get killed by changes to exhaust, height (lift kits), bumpers (bull bars in particular), etc pretty often, though. And I can imagine software changes (exhaust is part of that actually) could kill people too. Maybe you think daytime running lights are stupid and want to disable them for instance.
      • fc417fc802 7mo ago
        Sure. Point is nothing has really changed. Largely there's no problem and to the extent that bad things happen it isn't something novel that's only just come up. It's not in and of itself an excuse to erode private ownership. If intervention is required then regulation should be passed deliberately by the legislature.
        • cj 7mo ago
          I dunno, I think there's a big difference between making digital modifications to software vs. making physical modifications to hardware. The risk profile is very different and non-obvious to your average car owner. It's the difference between trying to repair your leaky dishwasher vs. trying to repair the electrical panel in your basement.
          • fc417fc802 7mo ago
            Well both of those examples could potentially electrocute you or start a fire and both can be done by a homeowner if he feels like it. I don't disagree that it's a bit different in certain ways but I feel like that's drifting off topic. It shouldn't be up to manufactures to determine these things unilaterally but rather the legislature. Particularly any justification to the contrary rings hollow in this case because there's a very strong conflict of interest.