Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 568 posts

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#421

Post by autoexec »

chucksmash wrote: post #327
lmkg wrote: post #36

Well if this is how the new cars are gonna be, I guess I'll just go ahead and teach myself to be a Car Guy so that the one I have now will run forever. It's not that I'm afraid of missing a payment. At this point I would probably buy the car outright. But after the robo-signing debacle with BoA repossesssing houses that they were never party to, the mere capability renders the machine fundamentally untrustworthy.

Having trouble thinking what user-facing technology cars have gained recently that I actually need. Backup cameras are nice, my last two cars had them but my current one does not. Life goes on. Heard anecdotally that new cars in US require then now, so I guess next car will probably have one again. Blindspot indicators on side mirrors are nice too, but physically turning and looking is too engrained in me to stop doi…

I'm with you, I like the additional warnings, but I have no interest in a car that acts on its own based on what it thinks is best. I like backup cameras, but don't want OnStar connected or people being able to remotely disable my vehicle.

> It seems like there has to be a market for something other than what we are getting.

I might have a few small wishes, like I'd appreciate windshields and rear windows that quickly adapt to blinding headlights (or better regulations for highlights with actual enforcement), but cars have been mostly "good enough" for ages.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#422

Post by autoexec »

elil17 wrote: post #16
gwbas1c wrote: post #7

Uhm, it seems like the auto industry is still letting its imagination run away with self driving cars. I don't see how a patent like this can be granted if we still generally don't have working self-driving cars. Even Tesla is getting forced to admit that "Full Self Driving" isn't really full self driving.

Patents don't need to be safe. You can patent a transportation device that works by firing a human out of a cannon, or a self driving car that simply runs over pedestrians, or even just a method of killing someone.

> You can patent a transportation device that works by firing a human out of a cannon, or a self driving car that simply runs over pedestrians, or even just a method of killing someone.

Can I patent a self driving car that runs over pedestrians so that I can sue any company whose self driving car does it that hasn't paid me a license fee?

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#423

Post by Galacta7 »

version_five wrote: post #392

This is like automatic speed enforcement: the current laws and limits are set up with the understanding that people break them, and that it's not really a big deal. If you want to change that so that they become unbreakable, all the benefit can't accrue to one side. There needs to be a rational compromise. In the case of speed limits, it means having adult ones like in europe. In this case it would mean making the ca…

I possibly could see a free market compromise existing. Perhaps one where automakers charge a higher base price for vehicles without the ability to repossess themselves. Or where one's insurance premium goes up if you opt-out of this feature, since it's likely you'd also miss an insurance payment as well. I could see people going with the default save money, but for those who are worried about their car driving off, paying extra to have the feature turned off might be worthwhile.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#424

Post by turdprincess »

JohnFen wrote: post #385
HomeDeLaPot wrote: post #358

The problem with this isn't the idea of a car repossessing itself per se, because repossession is already a legitimate thing; it's the idea that your car can be remotely controlled by anyone other than you. There are already so many things that can go wrong. I don't want to buy a car that can be remotely disabled because I drove near a protest, or because there was a "clerical error" at Ford, or because my payment di…

> I'm pretty happy with the old, non-Internet-connected car that I drive. I'm so happy with it that I will never own one that is internet connected, unless I can disable the internet connection in some way.

Curious whats your plan if new cars become increasingly internet connected, kinda how smart TVs went? Will you keep driving early 2000s cars until they become "vintage"?

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#425

Post by fomine3 »

ultrarunner wrote: post #147
rqtwteye wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The automotive press uncritically reports that American consumers are crazy about huge vehicles but what I've observed is that dealers are crazy about selling huge vehicles." Very true. Same for houses. A lot of people probably would prefer a small house over not being able to afford a big house and renting eternally. But big houses are more profitable, so that's what's being built. That's why in a lot of markets su…

In both scenarios there are laws encouraging these outcomes. Minimum lot sizes and CAFE standards, respectively, lead to bigger cars and houses. There are also small utility trucks and electric vehicles in other countries, but they’re unfortunately illegal in the land of the free, ostensibly for crash test performance opposite the giant trucks that are considered safe. Indeed, distorted markets are worse.

Theoretically CAFE standards should be work for encourage small cars. Regulators shouldn't give bad fuel bonus for big cars.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#426

Post by Panzer04 »

turdprincess wrote: post #424
JohnFen wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty happy with the old, non-Internet-connected car that I drive. I'm so happy with it that I will never own one that is internet connected, unless I can disable the internet connection in some way.

Curious whats your plan if new cars become increasingly internet connected, kinda how smart TVs went? Will you keep driving early 2000s cars until they become "vintage"?

Presumably you could always just break the 5G module - the carmaker can’t assume internet connectivity, so it should work fine without.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#427

Post by lovemenot »

version_five wrote: post #389
eduction wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a better lesson than “confront / physically endanger the tow truck driver who is doing his job” is “don’t block traffic in an 8 house cul de sac because you wanted to get something from your room but didn’t want to actually bother finding parking.” This all reads like entitled driver behavior to me. Or dumb college antics that are best left behind. -former car owner

You had me until "former car owner"

Pointing out sanctimony or hypocrisy is not a valid argument against. It's is a kind of ad hominem.

A person can be both right and sanctimonious

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#428

Post by hd95489 »

notch898a wrote: post #132
kube-system wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford The issue is that "Making finance accessible to low income Americans" and "predatory lending" are approximately two sides of the same coin. And so it is not politically popular.

Lowering the cost of repossession lowers the risk/cost to lending to low income. It's good for the poor.

In theory it should but I’m practice it probably won’t since the market isn’t actually competitive

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#429

Post by mjfl »

eduction wrote: post #383
rconti wrote: post #375

In college, a roommate of mine was double-parked, or parked in a fire zone, or something, in our 8-house cul-de-sac. He ran upstairs to get something from his room, and a tow truck appeared (this all happened in well under 5 minutes). When he came out, he argued with the tow truck guys a bunch, but they kept hooking up his car and arguing back and couldn't be reasoned with, etc etc. My friend sat on the hood to keep…

Maybe a better lesson than “confront / physically endanger the tow truck driver who is doing his job” is “don’t block traffic in an 8 house cul de sac because you wanted to get something from your room but didn’t want to actually bother finding parking.” This all reads like entitled driver behavior to me. Or dumb college antics that are best left behind. -former car owner

> don’t block traffic in an 8 house cul de sac

Isn't the whole point of a cul de sac that there isn't much traffic through it? Doesn't the cul de sac itself block traffic?

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#430

Post by ilyt »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #397
rconti wrote: post #375

In college, a roommate of mine was double-parked, or parked in a fire zone, or something, in our 8-house cul-de-sac. He ran upstairs to get something from his room, and a tow truck appeared (this all happened in well under 5 minutes). When he came out, he argued with the tow truck guys a bunch, but they kept hooking up his car and arguing back and couldn't be reasoned with, etc etc. My friend sat on the hood to keep…

In many places where illegal parking is common, tow truck drivers stage close by or hire spotters so they can hook up cars quickly. They can make a lot of money hauling away cars from drivers who only plan to stop for 2 minutes. https://nyti.ms/3xW9OQX

This seems like stuff that should never be privatized or under non-police control.

Police hires company to tow stuff away sure, but not "some random bumblefuck have right to do the police's job of "law enforcement"

Post reply on HN