My Nissan Leaf Forum

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 wrote: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.

Yes, we all need to drive peripheral port cars

https://youtu.be/OG_c4wS5Xao

ltbighorn wrote: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 wrote:

ltbighorn wrote: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.

My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?

Turbo3 wrote:

Nubo wrote:

ltbighorn wrote: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.

My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?

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.

Nubo wrote:
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...

You have the last word, so go ahead and make it good, Mr attorney.

Nubo wrote:

Turbo3 wrote:

Nubo wrote:
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.

My Leaf came with a button to disable the sound. What is Nissan trying to tell me by adding that button?

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.

If having the switch on the earlier Leafs was a safety problem there would be a recall to disable the switch. Only Nissan knows why they removed it on later models (cost saving?).

If you assume the backup sound allows you to backup without looking and you run over someone with a hearing problem you can't use the excuse they should have heard the sound so its their fault. Whether the driver chooses to have a backup sound or not the driver is always responsible for insuring safe operation of the vehicle.

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.

Jedlacks wrote:

Nubo wrote:
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...

You have the last word, so go ahead and make it good, Mr attorney.

I'll take your "respectful" commentary in the spirit with which it was intended. As for others, I speak for those with an ear to hear, my minority status notwithstanding.

LeftieBiker wrote:

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.

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. If their vehicle was not playing a fake whirr sound that turns off at 25MPH anyway that no other personal vehicle even has including other fully electric vehicles or otherwise quieter vehicles (hint: most of the noise comes from road noise and tire noise, not engine noise -- many plug-in hybrids make less of all three sounds), when a pedestrian is hit while illegally/unsafely crossing, it's not going to change a thing.

As an example, disabling daytime running lights in a state/country that doesn't require DRLs isn't going to affect your liability. If it were required, it would be codified. Take Canada, where cars are required to be sold with DRLs, it's still not a legal requirement to use DRLs and you won't be fined or held liable in any way for not using them (whether they were disabled by an off-switch, you pulled the fuse, or your car wasn't built with them), because it's not a legal requirement. Having lights on in darkness or poor visibility/conditions is the only requirement, and that's the only aspect that'll matter for legal liability. Similarly in the USA. Operating a vehicle safely and consistent with the norms and legal codes in your jurisdiction are all that matters, and much of the time drivers won't even be held to that standard, sadly. (Just look at how many people drive around with out-of-spec/alignment headlights.)