Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lazare | Hacker News Reader

Of course it's not legal. However, the article also quotes the "other side" claiming that it's impossible for the device to do that, and the manufacturer claiming that the device has is not designed to do that, and that they have no record of it doing such a thing. And on their website they say the device "can never shut down a running vehicle."

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective. It's possible that her car broke down on the freeway, and she assumed it was the starter interrupt when in fact it was not. But it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design.

(Or Passtime is about to get one humongous fine and/or judgement...)

View on HN

Any company that did this would be risking crippling judgements. And it doesn't look like the technology (starter disabling) permits it.

Cars die. I once had an old car, a Saab 900 SPG (160 hp!), which completely died when I was going at speed on I-78 in the left lane. Turns out it was the ECU. I managed to coast to the side of the highway without incident.

Most of the cars mentioned in this article are older ones, which would have more mechanical difficulties. Put another way, if you can buy a nice reliable 911 Turbo S to cart your groceries around in, you're probably not doing that with a subprime car loan.

I used to work at a company that sold devices for exactly what this article is about. One of the biggest selling features of the device was the fact that they could remotely stop a car from starting. I can't speak for any of the companies competitors but I know the devices we sold were not possible to shut the vehicle off, only disable the starter after it's already been turned off.

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective.

But the manufacturer, of course, could neither be lying nor could have produced a device that didn't perfectly represent this notional design.

This entire thread is full of people who have no idea how the device actually works or what actually happened jumping to the conclusion that the female poor person is lying or doesn't understand what happened with her own car that she was driving at the time. It is, of course, possible. But it's also classic Hacker News.

The article doesn't provide enough information to know specifically how the devices really work, but people blaming mechanical systems for driver error is nothing new (see Audi and Toyota unintended acceleration cases).

The company can not lie in this case because it would be trivial to expose the lie by studying any device in the field. I think its more reasonable that she is blaming the device because she was in a scary situation and the device is the best cause given her information. I think it's safer to assume no one has hidden motives here.

So I say:

> ...it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design. (Or Passtime is about to get one humongous fine and/or judgement...)

In other words, I'm saying that it might be defective, but it's unlikely (albeit possible) that the company is lying, due to the massive liability this would incur. And your response is to suggest that I'm saying it's literally impossible for it to be defective or for the company to be lying?

In short: You replied to someone suggesting that the device might not be operating according to design by complaining that nobody is suggesting this. I don't believe you are discussing this in good faith.

Passtime really should embrace the full Micheal Barr treatment toothsweet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com