ltbighorn
Well-known member
By that argument, buying/driving any vehicle without a backup beeper could constitute reckless endangerment, or worse. After all, those safety features were available and specifically not put to use.
ltbighorn said:By that argument, buying/driving any vehicle without a backup beeper could constitute reckless endangerment, or worse. After all, those safety features were available and specifically not put to use.
ltbighorn said:By that argument, buying/driving any vehicle without a backup beeper could constitute reckless endangerment, or worse. After all, those safety features were available and specifically not put to use.
My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?Nubo said:ltbighorn said:By that argument, buying/driving any vehicle without a backup beeper could constitute reckless endangerment, or worse. After all, those safety features were available and specifically not put to use.
I assume you were responding to me? There is no comparison between not adding an aftermarket feature, and going out of your way to intentionally disable a safety mechanism that is already built into the car.
Turbo3 said:My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?Nubo said:ltbighorn said:By that argument, buying/driving any vehicle without a backup beeper could constitute reckless endangerment, or worse. After all, those safety features were available and specifically not put to use.
I assume you were responding to me? There is no comparison between not adding an aftermarket feature, and going out of your way to intentionally disable a safety mechanism that is already built into the car.
Nubo said:Bottom line if a pedestrian should be injured by a car where the automatic safety system was disabled via hack, the court is probably going to be less interested in what Nissan had to say, and more interested in what the owner did.
You seem to fail to understand that the drive is always responsible. Having safety equipment does not override the drive's responsibility to not drive over/hit someone with their vehicle.Nubo said:Turbo3 said:My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?Nubo said:I assume you were responding to me? There is no comparison between not adding an aftermarket feature, and going out of your way to intentionally disable a safety mechanism that is already built into the car.
Conversely, what were they trying to tell you when they removed the button on later models?
Bottom line if a pedestrian should be injured by a car where the automatic safety system was disabled via hack, the court is probably going to be less interested in what Nissan had to say, and more interested in what the owner did.
You seem to fail to understand that the drive is always responsible. Having safety equipment does not override the drive's responsibility to not drive over/hit someone with their vehicle.
Jedlacks said:Nubo said:Bottom line if a pedestrian should be injured by a car where the automatic safety system was disabled via hack, the court is probably going to be less interested in what Nissan had to say, and more interested in what the owner did.
I respectfully suggest that you refrain from playing an attorney and giving what you believe to be legal advice, because if you hit someone in an ICE or a BEV, you are still at fault. Your argument will not hold up in any reasonable court, because if someone puts on low-profile tires on their car, that also modifies the intended performance of the car. If they change the rotors and brakes to anything besides what the manufacturer specified... same thing. In short... quit playing an attorney, because your line of argument suggests that you are not one.
Maybe I should walk over to my neighbor that has an S550 and ask him to put on an exhaust system. He even said that his car is quieter than our Leaf at low speed. When he made that "joke" I looked it up, and he may have a point. You should look up the quietest cars and you will see that "noise-makers" are not standard, but was a knee-jerk reaction because the regulatory bodies thought that we were going to drive our cars on the sidewalks.
It is astonishing that you posted so many times on this thread about this issue, and you still can't get it that you are in the minority on this discussion. Give it up and buy yourself a rotary if you feel that strongly... :lol: :lol: :lol:
You have the last word, so go ahead and make it good, Mr attorney.
LeftieBiker said:You seem to fail to understand that the drive is always responsible. Having safety equipment does not override the drive's responsibility to not drive over/hit someone with their vehicle.
Laws vary by state, but it's very generally true that "jay walkers" who get hit by a vehicle while crossing a street illegally are the ones held responsible for their actions, not the drivers who hit them. I think that the amateur lawyering is much worse on the anti-VSP side of this argument than on the pro side. If you hit a jaywalker with your VSP working, you are held harmless as long as you weren't violating any traffic laws. In the same situation, but with your VSP disabled by you, there is a very good chance that they will throw the book at you, especially if the pedestrian has a good lawyer.
ltbighorn said:People literally run over pedestrians all the time with the excuse "he came out of nowhere" or "the sun was in my eyes", both verbal admissions in most urban situations that they were driving at a speed unsafe for the conditions. They almost universally get off without even a ticket, and often in a worse case get only a citation for an infraction. ...
Nubo said:ltbighorn said:People literally run over pedestrians all the time with the excuse "he came out of nowhere" or "the sun was in my eyes", both verbal admissions in most urban situations that they were driving at a speed unsafe for the conditions. They almost universally get off without even a ticket, and often in a worse case get only a citation for an infraction. ...
Certainly a legitimate point. Our society is remarkably tolerant of taking lives if the instrument is a motor vehicle. And while the likelihood of ever being prosecuted is undoubtedly low, I'm more concerned about the moral and ethical aspect. Being able to get away with something is not the measure of right and wrong. The law might forgive me. Could I forgive myself? And that's really the end of what I have to say on the subject.
VSP control is only available on the LeafSpy Pro version as a Service function. It only works on 2013 and newer Leafs as 2011/2012 Leafs have a fixed non-CAN connected VSP board.TheSmith said:Hi folks,
To Turbo3 or anyone who knows the answer, is the added feature available in the Leaf Spy (neither Pro nor Lite) app?
I have reports from 2018 owners that it does work for them.monfiston said:Hello
does it work for the 2018 leaf 40kw?
That's an old version. You need to update to the latest version.monfiston said:
Enter your email address to join: