Who is right and who is wrong here in this Tesla wrongful death Lawsuit?

"KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time" (kngt) 01/10/2019 at 11:42 • Filed to: tesla, tesla crash, car crashes, stupid teenagers, Tesla model S, lawsuit, lawsuits

0

72

“The crash of the 2014 Tesla Model S sedan likely wouldn’t have happened if a worker at a local service center had not removed a device the teen driver’s parents had installed on the luxury car to prevent it from going faster than 85 mph, the lawsuit filed on behalf of the estate of Edgar Monserratt Martinez said.

Martinez, of Aventura, was the front-seat passenger when the Tesla driven by his classmate, Barrett Riley, traveled at 116 mph, lost control on a curve, careened into a concrete wall on Seabreeze Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale and burst into flames.

Martinez and Riley, 18, died at the scene. The medical examiner identified the young men by their dental records.

After Riley was clocked at 112 mph and ticketed while driving his father’s Tesla a couple months earlier, his parents had the car manufacturer install a device that would !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to 85 mph, according to the lawsuit.

But when the car was taken in for maintenance at a local service center about a month before the fatal crash, employee James Constantino removed the device without telling the Rileys, the suit said. If they had known, the suit said, “they would not have permitted their son, Barrett Riley, to operate the vehicle.”

If the device hadn’t been removed, Riley wouldn’t have been speeding, wouldn’t have lost control, wouldn’t have crashed and neither he nor Martinez would have died, the lawsuit claims. Filed in Broward Circuit Court on Tuesday, the suit also alleges that the electric luxury car had an unsafe, defective !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , intensely and uncontrollably. “The batteries have been causing problems in Teslas all over the world,” said lawyer Philip Corboy Jr. “This has been a long ongoing problem with Tesla cars.”

Teenage boys tend to behave in an extremely stupid, reckless and irresponsible way. Let’s get that out the way right away. My question is on the 2 issues in the lawsuit:

1. The speed limiter

2. The apparent higher risk of battery fires vs regular ICE fuel fires

Who’s responsibility/fault is it? 100%? or 50% or 0%?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

OPPOsaurus WRX > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:42

9

85 on a 30 would still end up bad.  

CB > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:42

6

The issue mainly stems from the removal of the limiter, but to me, the driver is 100% at fault in all this. He should have known better than to drive at those speeds.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > CB 01/10/2019 at 11:45

1

So the sequence of events, the idiot kid was caught doing 112 and ticketed, parents install limiter, but as soon as they do that is the onus on the manufacturer if something intentional or unintentional is done to disable it? What if the kid had figured out a way to disable it? Will they sue Tesla for making something that can be “hacked”?

Does their warnings on manuals and elsewhere to “Observe all local laws and speed limits” take them off the hook?

And on the fire risk, how does it matter if he is already dead from hitting a wall at 116MPH? The speed risk was greater and came first before the Fire danger right?

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:46

12

Typical trying to point the blame elsewhere.

Your kid was driving like an asshat and paid the ultimate price, suing the shop that worked on the car will not bring them back, it will just make even more people’s lives miserable.

You wanna know who is to blame for the crash, it’s the driver, after the driver, it’s his parents for allowing his dumbass to continue to drive.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > OPPOsaurus WRX 01/10/2019 at 11:47

4

Good point. It’s up to the driver end of the day.

OPPOsaurus WRX > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:49

9

the car may have allowed him to do what he did, but it did not decide for him to do it.

nermal > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:50

11

The driver was 18 , they are 100% at fault. That whole adulting thing.

This was completely preventable with good parenting, however . Don’t give an 18 yr old access to an extremely fast car, especially after they’ve proven they can’t be responsible with it. 

WHY did the service center remove the speed limiter? That’s an important detail that is left out. Software update? Was it causing other options? Was the 18 yr old now-dead driver the one that requested it?

fintail > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:50

13

Oh, affluent parenting.

Kid caught going 112 shouldn’t have been back in the car to begin with.  240D automatic for you.

WilliamsSW > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:51

1

Oof, that’s terrible. I’m wondering what circumstances led the mechanic to remove the speed limiter?

I’m guessing the kid brought the car in and paid to have it removed - if so, I find it *very* hard to blame the mechanic, as he was requested to remove a device by the “owner” that was not necessary for safe operation.  I suppose that it may hinge on the definition of “owner” and whether or not it’s reasonable for the tech to have known that the parents would not have wanted that removed.

facw > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:52

1

They may have some claim on the removal of the limiter (assuming it was actually removed without notification by the shop) , but obviously the driver is bears the vast majority of the blame.

The fire claim is absurd, every car is big fire risk in a crash (especially ones as violent as this), and Tesla meets all safety standards.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > fintail 01/10/2019 at 11:54

3

Kid caught going 112 shouldn’t have been back in the car to begin with.

I hope the defense attorney asks this exact same question. I do expect the lawsuit to be thrown out before it even gets to that stage though. B ut you never know

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/paul-walkers-daughter-settles-wrongful-death-lawsuit-porsche/story?id=50694081

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > WilliamsSW 01/10/2019 at 11:55

4

It’s not like most shops check the title to see who’s car they’re working on.

You bring “your” car in, pay them to do work, they do the work, you both go about their business.

Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:55

4

The fault is the driver, and his parents. He showed previously that he was not responsible enough for a car with that performance, and even with a limiter, going 85 in a 30 zone could end badly. There seems to be, in my opinion, no proof that the crash was a direct or indirect result of removing the limiter. I’m sure hitting that wall at 85 would have the same result.

As for the battery catching fire, if this is something that is known to be an issue then possibly there’s some responsibility on Tesla. But very little, if any, since the crash and deaths were a direct result of reckless driving by the kid. Now, if the issue is batteries randomly catching fire under normal operation and then causing a crash, that’d be different.

You can’t take the effect and make it the cause.

InFierority Complex > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:56

3

Not being snarky at all, but h ow much of a difference is 85mph vs 116mph into a concrete wall? He still probably would have been speeding as much as he could.

I would have thought going 112mph in a 50mph zone would get your license taking away.  

smobgirl > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:56

2

Obviously the kid made the poor choice to drive that fast (as an adult) so he’s completely to blame. HOWEVER, if I had a kid caught going 112 in my car, they sure as shit would not be driving that car ever again.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > nermal 01/10/2019 at 11:57

0

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yup, that will clear a lot of things. In any case kid shouldn’t have been doing 112 or 116 in the first place.

WilliamsSW > Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness 01/10/2019 at 11:57

4

I agree - and I *suspect* that the kid brought the car in to have the device removed.

This sounds like a severe (and fatal) case of affluenza to me.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > facw 01/10/2019 at 11:59

0

The fire claim might be valid if the occupants were able to survive the initial crash but died as a result of a battery fire, when they wouldn’t have in case on a ICE fire. But then again in this case they were probably dead already.

Chuckles > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 11:59

7

If I had to list who was at fault, in order from most to least at fault, it would be:

1. The driver, for doing dumb things behind the wheel.

2. The parents, for loaning an absurdly quick car to a teen that had already proven untrustworthy. (And even if it was limited to 85, that’s plenty fast enough to do something dumb.)

3. The service tech who disabled the device without telling the owner of the car.

999. Tesla, for making a car capable of doing car things.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > OPPOsaurus WRX 01/10/2019 at 12:00

1

I hope the J udge uses this very line when throwing out this lawsuit

Mercedes Streeter > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:01

10

1000% the fault of the driver. Even 85 into the curve would have been too fast and likely would have had similar consequences. This reeks of rich parents trying to point fingers instead of living with the fact that teens are stupid and mistakes happen, especially when you give them a car that is incredibly powerful.

Still, not as bad as the “Affluenza” kid..

fintail > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:05

1

That one grinds my gears.  Legal action brought forth by the type of of people who whine about “personal responsibility”, no doubt.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > nermal 01/10/2019 at 12:06

0

WHY did the service center remove the speed limiter?

This is probably what the whole case hinges on. If they removed it because they ran a standard software update that ended up wiping that limit, then it’s likely they never even knew there was a limit in place.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Mercedes Streeter 01/10/2019 at 12:06

9

Wish that Affluenza kid had died in that crash. There, I said it. His mere face makes my blood boil with anger.

facw > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:07

0

I wouldn’t even give them that. If the Tesla catches fire in cases where a traditional car, that might make it less safe, but some cars are always going to be less safe than others. As long as it meets regulations and they aren’t hiding anything horrible , I don’t see that that is Tesla’s issue. I certainly doing think a car burning in 100+ mph crash is really anything that indicates a huge safety issue.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > fintail 01/10/2019 at 12:08

6

The Paul Walker lawsuit was a total sham. Porsche shouldn’t have had to pay out a single D ollar.

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > Chuckles 01/10/2019 at 12:10

2

I would rule out #3 as the tech likely had no idea the car wasn’t the kid’s. It’s not like they check who the “owner” is, they get paid to do a job, they do the job.

Chariotoflove > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:11

1

The battery thing sounds like just piling on.  I’m betting the case will hang largely on whether going 85 vs 116 would have made a real difference in the outcome.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:12

2

Entirely on the driver. The parents get a honorable mention for being dipsticks as well.

Shift24 > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:13

2

Simple, kids 100%. Don’t bull shit me with that limiter. The kid was ticketed and told not to do it again. Didnt learn and Darwinism took it’s course. Rich parents suing because they are bad parents. 

Also t hey lost control at a speed well above the posted speed limit. So at fault.  

Als o no one crash tests a 115 mph, so bull on battery fire. Anything could happen.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 01/10/2019 at 12:14

0

Maybe Tesla should sue the parents for lost business as a result of bad publicity and eroded brand value as a result of this lawsuit arising out of their kid’s moronic actions.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:16

0

Nah, suing the parents of dead children is not something I’d personally recommend. Tesla at this point is used to sensationalist stories challenging their cars, autonomy, etc.

Urambo Tauro > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:17

1

Why did Constantino remove the device? If he didn’t have the owner’s permission to do so, did the young driver ask for that modification? I’m not saying he’s responsible for their deaths, but he could be responsible for modifying the car without the owner’s permission.

Ultimately, it’s the driver’s fault for the crash and subsequent death. Maybe he wasn’t raised right, and maybe his parents should have taken the keys away instead of depending on a limiter, and maybe there was peer pressure involved, but free will is still a thing and he made the wrong choice.

EDIT: Oops. I t took me WAY too long to compose this reply. Nermal already said basically the same thing.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:18

0

This is 100% on the kid, the fact that the limiter was removed is immaterial. 20mph difference wouldn’t have changed the outcome of this accident.

Don’t raise a spoiled little shit if you don’t want your kid to do spoiled little shit things.

WilliamsSW > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:19

3

Wish that Affluenza kid ’s parents had died in that crash. There, I said it. His mere face makes my blood boil with anger.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:20

0

Kid should have been sat in a new Carolla after the first speeding ticket. Or not driving at all. Obviously these parents could afford for this kid to Uber around or to buy him a cheap car Un till he can handle a bit more responsibility

It harsh but the parents are ultimately to blame.

Chuckles > Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness 01/10/2019 at 12:21

1

Why did the tech remove the device? At the request of a teenager? Maybe I should have ranked the tech 10th or so, but that tech probably feels a little responsible. If a kid asks you to remove a top speed limiter, it's probably best to cover your ass and ask a few questions.

WiscoProud > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:22

0

Personally i think whomever removed the limiter is at least partly responsible. The kid is entirely res ponsible though.

I don’t think Tesla is responsible though. There aren’t many street vehicles were someone would survive an accident at over 100 miles an hour. 

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Chuckles 01/10/2019 at 12:26

3

But we don’t know for sure if he was asked to do it by the kid, or it got removed during a software update he was doing or something. The article does suggest the latter. It says “He didn’t inform them” but does that include the kid or just the parents?

SPAMBot - Horse Doctor > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:28

0

The adult behind the wheel is 100% to blame. End of story.

If you want to dig into the claim a little more:

If the device hadn’t been removed, Riley would n’t have been speeding at 85 mph , wouldn’t have lost control, wouldn’t have and crashed and neither he and nor Martinez would may have died, t he lawsuit SPAMBot claims.

You gotta love needless lawsuits because people think they should not have been liable for their actions. In this case, the poor decision making skills of the driver, the poor decision making skills of the passenger agreeing to stay in the car, and the parents, for not teaching their son responsibility.

If anything, the parents of the passenger probably have a case against the insurance company of the driver. The rich people sue, don’t find closure, all the while raising everyone’s rates. The American way.

DipodomysDeserti > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:28

1

Why did this asshole have a license and access to a car after being ticketed going 112 mph in March?

Also, his first name is Barrett, so it’s his fault regardless, and what  what adult goes by the name Jenny?

The Barrett’s should be flogged in public and forced to work in a Tesla gulag for the remainder of their natural lives.

DipodomysDeserti > nermal 01/10/2019 at 12:30

2

I mean, cars has been able to do 100 mph for decades. Don’t give your dumbass kid access to any car.

Chuckles > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:33

0

I feel like if you do any kind of service that has a big effect on the performance of the car, you should probably make sure that the owner is aware.

But again, the tech is maybe only a little at fault.

Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street. > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:34

1

He wouldn’t have been speeding if it had an 85MPH limiter? As someone who grew up with cars that couldn’t hit triple digits...

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:38

0

Gasoline also explodes when presented with the right variables; like say a fuel tank rupture after a car hitting a concrete barrier at over 100MPH...

These people are assholes. Their kid was an asshole.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

No parent should have to bury their child. However, they should also do a better job of raising them to understand that their actions have consequences, and that driving recklessly on public roads is not permitted. Their ‘speed-muzzle’ was addressing the symptoms, not curing the problem. That kid should have had his license taken by his parents until he learned his lesson. Clearly their electronic nanny didn’t work.

I did not read the article, so I could be entirely wrong in my assumptions here. Also, opinions are like assholes; I probably am one.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:43

1

1. This is entirely the teen driver’s fault.

2. If he had taken that corner at 85 instead of 116, he almost certainly would have crashed, likely to the same result. He crashed on a 25 mph recommended curve with a 30 mph limit.

3. Why is an 18 year old driving a car that can even hit 116, much less something that’s arguably a supercar?

So in summary: it’s entirely the kid’s fault, but there is gross negligence on the parents’ part for allowing him to continue this pattern of behavior.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:47

0

The article doesn’t say much on the nature of the device- was the governor a Tesla manufactured or approved device? It said it was a Tesla mechanic, which leads me to believe they wouldn’t have been (nor should they have been) trained on how to service a device that the car would not normally be equipped with.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:48

0

Goddamnit. I had forgotten about that kid, and now I’m angry again.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 01/10/2019 at 12:51

0

Seeing as the car was drive by wire (duh) it was almost definitely some sort of module interacting with the software. The wording of “device” makes me think it was a physical device rather than software.

Mercedes Streeter > InFierority Complex 01/10/2019 at 12:52

2

I would have thought going 112mph in a 50mph zone would get your license taking away. 

If you’re rich enough you’re not subject to the same laws as us mere mortals.

Doing 50+ over in my state can earn you a night in jail and your car seized.

RallyWrench > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 12:55

0

I girl I went to high school with crashed her 914 into a tree while apparently looking for a CD, and the passenger was disabled (I saw the chassis later, the right front wheel was in the passenger compartment) . This was in the late 90's, mind you. The car was well over 20 years old at the time, yet there was still a suit against Porsche for its safety , as well as the city where it was crashed... you know, for the location of the 100 year old tree that was there before the road was. Totally out of line. 

RallyWrench > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 13:01

2

I’m going to steal a line from another Oppo’s one-time handle (HondaBro, I think) and say that after the first offense, that kid should have been driving a Bus Pass GT. 

RallyWrench > fintail 01/10/2019 at 13:02

1

Volvo or Mercedes, either 240 automatic will suffice. 

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > RallyWrench 01/10/2019 at 13:04

0

I girl I went to high school with crashed her 914 into a tree while apparently looking for a CD,

Tangential, but c ould this be anecdotal proof for those people who bitch and moan about screens in modern cars and makes blanket statements like “I hate screens, they are all distracting ” ? T hat anything is as distracting as you want it to be, and it’s not always the screen’s fault ? Are manufactures putting more and more controls in the infotainment systems instead of physical buttons than before? Yes. But we had lots of buttons b efore screens and it was the CD player and before that the radio and the 8 track or cigarette lighter or whatever that was distracting us.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > nermal 01/10/2019 at 13:05

1

I would wager that the speed limiter was actually a software setting and not hardware. Either the kid figured out how to eliminate the limiter on his own or it got undone by a software update. I would guess the second one is what happened. Tesla didn’t make the limiter an official setting until after this accident so the implementation probably wasn’t accounted for in the update process. Car gets an OTA or dealer installed software update and suddenly the idiot kid who has probably been driving around against the 85mph limiter discovers he can go as fast as he wants again. 

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > Chuckles 01/10/2019 at 13:09

0

I doubt the limiter was a hardware device. It’s probably a software setting that was implemented by request of the parents and then either defeated by the kid or unintentionally eliminated by a software update that wasn’t designed to account for an unofficial speed limiter setting (it didn’t become an official setting until after this accident).

facw > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 13:12

0

Ma ybe next time, I don’t get much of an impression that he’s likely to change his ways.

I feel bad about his dog, for what that’s worth.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 01/10/2019 at 13:12

1

Tesla Model S: Bring your own Dipstick.

facw > Mercedes Streeter 01/10/2019 at 13:15

1

Doing 11 over in Virginia can get you a reckless driving with a jail term attached. 

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 13:21

0

I seriously doubt the limiter was a hardware device. It was likely some backend setting in the cars software that Tesla enabled at the parent’s request. Software updates may not have been setup to account for this limiter setting so the next update could have wiped out the setting. If the owners hadn’t completed the update themselves I would imagine that checking for and applying any available updates would be part of any visit to a Tesla service center. I doubt any intentional actions where taken by the Tech to remove the limit. 

facw > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 01/10/2019 at 13:23

0

3. There aren’t many new cars that can’t hit 116. Slowest I can find is the Soul EV which tops out at 90, but even a wimp like the Versa Note has a 113 mph top speed. Once you get out of that bargain segment, pretty much everything can manage. Of course very few things on the road can get there as quickly as the Tesla.

2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 13:27

0

Definitely the kids fault first, but there is definitely something weird going on with the limiter. The service center taking off the limiter is not the direct result of the crash, but it is a factor. I just don't understand why it was removed, especially since it says Tesla installed it?

facw > DipodomysDeserti 01/10/2019 at 13:27

0

I don’t think adults should be telling other adults what they should call themselves. In any event, at one point I worked with a Jenny. She had a previous job where they called her Jennifer, even though she’s actually named Jenny, because they already had a Jennifer who went by Jenny. As you might expect, it was a source of tension.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > facw 01/10/2019 at 13:32

0

new cars

He’s 18. It’s a rich family. Should have gotten him a boring as shit car that doesn’t want to go 116. CPO Hyundai whatever. It’ll be reliable, maintenance free, and safe. Bam.

You’re right about pretty much everything being capable of that speed, though. It just strikes me as irresponsible for a parent to let their teen drive a vehicle that can get to that speed as fast as a Tesla can. Plus, it can actually handle going ~100 on curvy roads- something that can’t be said of a normal car. 

facw > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 01/10/2019 at 14:05

1

Oh , I agree completely, he’d have been safer and just as mobile in some 10 y/o thing (hell I drive a 12 year-old non-performance vehicle, and there’s only been one situation where I felt like it was too slow ).

To me the biggest issue with the Tesla is not even the top speed, but how quickly it accelerates. Even with an 85mph limiter, it would still be quite dangerous for a novice driver (who has already shown poor judgement), you’d really want something that would cut acceleration across the range of speeds.

RallyWrench > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 01/10/2019 at 14:19

1

I don’t know about proof, rummaging around for stuff while driving is always a bad idea, but it’s not part of regular vehicle operation. It’s not a built-in distraction.

The thing for me on screens vs. switches is that switches have positive feedback and operate at one touch , and can thus be operated at a single rapid glance, or even without looking once they’re learned. It’s one movement. Screens require attention and multiple touches, both to themsel ves and to separate controls. I’ll concede screens can be useful given the number of functions in modern cars , but the huge, dominating, do-everything units we’re starting to see are too much for me . I work for a Euro car shop, so I’m always comparing infotainment systems and interiors, and the only infotainment system I’ve come to like a little is older Audi MMI, with a relatively small screen for audio, nav control, and car settings , with simple and intuitive controls and individual menu buttons . Importantly, HVAC and comfort functions like seat controls are separate. Most of my clients have no idea how to operate their own infotainment beyond changing stations. They can’t even set their clocks. I wonder how much of this content that new cars are stuffed with is actually used in regular vehicle operation. I also hate how much it costs to fix all this shit, especially given how quickly it becomes obsolete . 

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > facw 01/10/2019 at 14:53

0

Yeah, that's what I meant, those cars accelerate in way that novice drivers (even most experienced ones) can't reliably control. I've never been wanting for power in my 23 year old shitbox, either, honestly. 

DipodomysDeserti > facw 01/10/2019 at 15:25

0

“ I don’t think adults should be telling other adults what they should call themselves.”

I don’t either, but that doesn’t mean I won’t mock people over the internet for the decisions they make.

But holy shit, if I ever worked a job where office tension arose over whether someone was called Jenny or Jennifer, I’d probably go insane.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 01/10/2019 at 16:08

3

VW didn't have an actual emissions defeat device, it was software 

nermal > DipodomysDeserti 01/10/2019 at 17:35

1

Remember, this is Broward County. The same county that ignored every warning sign in the book about the kid that shot up the school there at the beginning of last year. Much like that kid’s problems , th is was probably swept under the rug  in the interest of keeping crime stats low and appearing “safe” so that property values and taxes remain high.

ranwhenparked > WilliamsSW 01/10/2019 at 20:19

1

That whole family are just garbage people. 

WilliamsSW > ranwhenparked 01/10/2019 at 20:44

0

Abso-fucking-lutely.