• TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 days ago

    I can see criminals easily exploiting this default behavior to stop the car and steal from those inside.

    Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it, it knows how to deal with criminals.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn’t even carrying cash is anyone’s idea of a good payoff.

      • Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        idk i think plenty of people carry expensive stuff on them

        what a thief could actually get for them is another matter but clearly that doesnt stop them from trying

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          This is where you carry a window spike and smash and grab. Why make it so much more complicated?

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.

      It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.

      Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.

      Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 days ago

        This is the seatbelt argument all over again. The safety features protect people in the majority of scenarios. While there may be scenarios where it does more harm than good, they are rare. You’re much safer with the safety feature.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 days ago

          I don’t think there is a car where the seat belt is tied to anything besides a little notification beep. Seems like a different situation if the “safety” feature dictates how the car is used.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            Seatbelts are legally mandated. When that was going through, some people argued against that requirement on the grounds that there edge cases where it dies more harm than good.

            Just like the case here, those edge cases are vanishingly rare.

            Note: my car won’t move without a seatbelt, but it’s an EV so furthers the argument that EVs are taking control from the driver.

            • jacksilver@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              Fair point then about the arguement around safety. For me the bigger issue is control. Cars with kill switches and conditions to use is a slippery slope. Just look at what’s happened with software and media. Don’t want to have to pirate my car or load custom firmware so I can use it as I want.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 days ago

        You don’t complain about having to open your door or start the engine when escaping a threat.

        Having to unplug a cable during a very specific, imagined threat seems like a niche problem.

        • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 days ago

          Additionally: if you’re at a gas station filling an ICE vehicle and you get mugged, and you panic and peel out, there’s gas going everywhere, plenty of potential ignition sources etc.

          The argument “I have more control and agency therefore I am quantifiably safer” can fuck alllllll the way off. Safety regulations are written in blood.

        • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          The difference being that not being able to start the motor with the door open is only a problem if the driver was being attacked in a parking lot.

          It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in. Now the car is immobilized. Smash the driver side window and they’re in business.

          Sure, there are some safeguards that can be added like requiring a current to immobilize the vehicle, but it’s far from the simplest or safest answer. Car manufacturers need to stop putting in hard limits and just use alarms instead. I bought a new Subaru that has collision detection standard. The hedge next to my driveway was overgrown, but I drove right through it. The car sounded an alarm and flashed a bunch of lights, but it didn’t engage the brakes, I was able to blast through an obstacle that I knew was minor even though the car thought it was a threat. If a manufacturer feels compelled to add a safety system, it’s possible to do so without taking control away from the driver.

          • nef@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 days ago

            It’s not too big of a leap

            I think it is. I’d like to see at least one documented case of this happening before people start demanding that cars be able to move while plugged in. Plus, in the very scenario you describe, the car would still be able to move, no? Attaching a charger does nothing unless you’re changing to parked at every red light.

            The only time you’d need to drive away while charging is if the attacker walks up while you’re sitting in your parked car, or kindly decides to let you get in before doing anything.

            I can’t find a single instance of someone being unable to escape because of their charger, so maybe let’s worry about it if it ever becomes a problem.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in.

            Sounds like a lot of hassle. If they want to immoblise a self driving car they just stand in front of it.

            Why carry a plug cut off from a public charger when you can just stab the tyres?

            Use the pry bar to smash the window and open the door. Not open the charging port.

            • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 days ago
              1. It’s about hitting electric cars, self driving or otherwise.

              2. Cars can still move with punctured tires, at least far enough that a would-be robber or carjacker could get dragged a good distance.

              3. You smash the window and open the door. Now the panicked driver is speeding away, leaving you high and dry or dragging you along.

              Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream. It’s incumbent on car manufacturers to consider that while implementing safety features.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            How would they open the charge port door? I can still imagine it because I have a good imagination but it’s just not going to happen.

            Is someone really going to go through the trouble of carrying a cut off cable and a piece of electronics to open the charge port, and have time to walk up to the car click to open, wait for the door to open and insert the cable? There are faster and easier ways to immobilize a car, why would anyone make it so complicated?

            And that assumes that safety feature is still engaged when you’re already driving

            • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              Pry bar to open the hatch, like I said.

              And yes, today people are walking around with angle grinders to chop off catalytic converters.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                Not at a stop light, nor as a way to immobilize you. While they can steal your catalytic converter surprisingly quickly, they’ll look for a minute or two of quiet time to slide under your car.

    • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍

      Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 days ago

        In public the group of people watching and in close proximity prevents a lot of crime. Criminals feel shame too and at the very least want to prolong their ability to continue to make money how they do.

        A single person in a car is vulnerable simply because they are alone. They think the car protects them but its trivial to smash a window and pull someone out.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          10 days ago

          That was in response to being robbed.

          I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 days ago

            I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              I don’t live in a 3rd world country

              lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it’s literally the #1 killer of children.

              which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.

                If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.

              • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.

                Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.

                  I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

                  Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.

                  I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.

                  I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.

                  I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.

                  Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.

                  Still wear my seat belt though.