undefined

points

[-]

> 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.

by pastage13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by mrguyorama4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by vablings1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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"

by CalRobert11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

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.

by fc417fc8028 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by cj8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by fc417fc8026 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.