3 ms·

It is likely untrue... Why do you believe this?

themartorana 12y ago
Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. More likely is someone who has had a remote start block activated in the past (keeps you from starting the car) likely experienced engine failure while the car was running and associates it with past experiences. This has no bearing on any argument for or against this practice, in any way. If it was found to be true that the engine could be remotely stalled while moving, it would be horrifying.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  > Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. This isn't as outlandish a thought as you imply, especially when it comes to vehicles and the sales practices around them. Also, someone could believe it's okay to stall a car at any time without even considering the ramifications in the case that it's moving. All they need to be thinking is "deadbeat owes me money, brick his car." Any questions of timing, context, ethics or other considerations needn't enter into the picture.
  - sk5t 12y ago
    Yes, it _is_ an outlandish thought. The folks who design and manufacture auto parts of this type have to think about this stuff, or else they'd be quickly sued into oblivion.
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. No, it only requires them to fail to test that their device cannot be used to shut off an operating car. Stop and think -- what criteria define an "operating car"? It's not "the car is on" since it's entirely possible to stall out while moving. It's not "the car isn't moving" since that doesn't cover the stoplight situation. It would be trivially easy to code a device that would not permit the car to be restarted even if the car stopped in a dangerous situation.

Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. More likely is someone who has had a remote start block activated in the past (keeps you from starting the car) likely experienced engine failure while the car was running and associates it with past experiences. This has no bearing on any argument for or against this practice, in any way. If it was found to be true that the engine could be remotely stalled while moving, it would be horrifying.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
> Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. This isn't as outlandish a thought as you imply, especially when it comes to vehicles and the sales practices around them. Also, someone could believe it's okay to stall a car at any time without even considering the ramifications in the case that it's moving. All they need to be thinking is "deadbeat owes me money, brick his car." Any questions of timing, context, ethics or other considerations needn't enter into the picture.
- sk5t 12y ago
  Yes, it _is_ an outlandish thought. The folks who design and manufacture auto parts of this type have to think about this stuff, or else they'd be quickly sued into oblivion.
dogecoinbase 12y ago
Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. No, it only requires them to fail to test that their device cannot be used to shut off an operating car. Stop and think -- what criteria define an "operating car"? It's not "the car is on" since it's entirely possible to stall out while moving. It's not "the car isn't moving" since that doesn't cover the stoplight situation. It would be trivially easy to code a device that would not permit the car to be restarted even if the car stopped in a dangerous situation.