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

Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#131

Post by Daniel_Newby »

uptown wrote: post #121
geoffschmidt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think she's thinking logically. From the perspective of a RelatRides lessor, fatal accidents are low probability events. That she experienced such an event yesterday doesn't change the probability that she'll experience such an event tomorrow. She's only naive if every single RelayRides lessor who reads this story is also naive to continue using the service.

She's naive because she's choosing to re-enter a partnership based exclusively on the perceived benefits (make money, save the world, etc.) without having a clear interpretation of the associated risks. Worse yet, she doesn't even have a clear answer on what her current liabilities are from her previous vehicle. I'm amazed her insurance company offers her a policy given her apparent disregard for liability she's pote…

> I'm amazed her insurance company offers her a policy given her apparent disregard for liability she's potentially assuming on their behalf.

Insurance policies generally explicitly exclude commercial leasing of the vehicle, otherwise rental companies would already be ripping them off.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#132

Post by Nelson69 »

tibbon wrote: post #127

Can someone explain to me why it isn't always the operator of the vehicle who is liable for death/destruction caused by their operation? Unless the brake lines were severed intentionally or the vehicle was provably neglected, then it would seem to me that the ultimate responsibility is on the driver who causes the accident- not the owner of the car or the company that facilitated the rental.

Well, he's dead. In some sort of spiritual way, he is liable. What's going on here isn't about the guilt or real liability, it's about trying to turn pain and suffering into money. The simple rules for that are if you're going to try to sue someone, sue someone that has money and sue someone that you can get the money from.

RelayRides, I would think, would be a better target, you might get more money faster but the reality here, unfortunate or not (depending on who's side you take,) is RelayRides is going to be sued and Ms. Fong is probably going to be sued too. Tell me why RelayRide's funders aren't the ones holding the bag here, figure that one out, you nearly never hear about that.

Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes people don't seem to mind. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder (re: as in found not guilty by a jury) and yet he was sued for moneys due to the death of his ex-wife and her friend, everyone sort of felt okay with that. Ms. Fong, strictly speaking, didn't crash the car, but she stood to profit from the cars use and it was her car and she has insurance, she's going to likely get sued. It's a real bummer those folks got hurt, sounds pretty rough to me, I hope someone makes them whole or as whole as they can be. It's the system we've got.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#133

Post by gcb »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #81
gcb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing is: - she don't need the car often - buys expensive new car - buys a car that can't sit for a long time If she researched a little more she would have not got a new hybrid but some old diesel. It's probably cleaner than agasoline hybrid doesn't generate all the upfront manufacturing garbage and batteries that are awful for the environment and reuse a car that is already made anyway.

> If she researched a little more she would have not got a new hybrid but some old diesel. It's probably cleaner than agasoline hybrid I was under the impression old diesels were dirtier than gasoline engines. New clean deisels like in Audi's no, but old ones? But you're saying they're cleaner?

Not suggesting a 50s diesel. But anything up to the price of a prius would be better.

Point is, even a gasoline suv pollutes less than a prius overall if you don't use it that often.

Just arguing that as an engineer, you should look at other solutions instead of jumping the bandwagon. Let pointy hairy bosses and ruby on rails guys do it instead.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#134

Post by caf »

chrischen wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business? The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners…

So what if ms fong dies next next? Is the manufacturer now responsible since they are the next step up in the ladder of profiters of the car? You could assign the consequences of blame arbitrarily like that but it would have negative consequences on society. For example people would be less likely to do anything since association can now always lead to 100% blame. It's like a mobster who tries to get you to repay a r…

...and if the manufacturer goes out of business, are the manufacturers of the parts in the car liable? And after that, the suppliers of the raw materials in those parts?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#135

Post by gcb »

mikeryan wrote: post #63
gcb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for comparison, here in the us insurance for a 25k car and minimal (some 100 or 300k for the described case in the article) plus uninsured driver would be well over 1.2k per month. In other countries i paid that per year for way more peace of mind.

I'm not sure why you're paying $1200 a month for insurance but that's not the norm for US based auto insurance at all.

I'm not. I pay 300 a year, but i don't even cover my car.

But yesterday i did the car coverage for a used 09 bmw 128iC.

Couldn't get any lower than that on several websites

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#136

Post by ajross »

haberman wrote: post #16

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case. If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, bu…

The analogy is flawed. If routine use of VHS tapes caused death and serious injury at measurable rates (which is true for motor vehicles), then yes: they'd be considered dangerous devices, and their owners would be legally liable for their safe use.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#137

Post by fffggg »

jpeg_hero wrote: post #85
fffggg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/…

By "judgement-proof" I believe he meant that the operators probably don't have much money and therefore you could win a case against them, but you could not collect. This is contrasted with the owners of the hypothetical car rental firm that would have assets that could be taken.

And if the hypothetical car rental firm has no assets, let's take the assets directly from the nearest bank! Those guys always have money!

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#138

Post by haberman »

rayiner wrote: post #52
haberman wrote: post #16

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case. If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, bu…

It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Ass…

> while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.

Anyone with a driver's license and enough money can walk into a car dealership and be "operating the dangerous instrument" an hour later. In this case would the car dealership be liable for a crash? Should they be vetting who they sell cars to? Or what about the state that issued the driver's license? After all, it's their actual job to vet drivers. By your logic the DMV should be liable for every accident caused by a driver with a valid license.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#139

Post by ams6110 »

rayiner wrote: post #45

I don't get the people complaining about the tort system. The tort system didn't create the losses here, the car and the driver created the losses. The people being severely injured created the losses, and frankly for severe injuries to 4 people in an accident that killed one person, $1.5 million is not an unreasonable estimate of the actual economic loss in this situation. The tort system is just allocating this los…

Besides seeking reimbursement for medical bills (Mr. Knecht’s alone are nearing $100,000, according to his lawyer, William Doyle Jr.), the injured people could also file pain-and-suffering suits. “If somebody crosses the center line and plows into your car, it does a number on you in terms of how you feel about getting into a car,” said Jonathan Karon, Ms. Hodges’s lawyer.

The above sort of BS is my complaint about the tort system. I've been hit by a car crossing the center line and plowing into my car. It didn't change how I feel about getting into a car, at least not in any debilitating way. I am perhaps (sometimes) a bit more alert to whether oncoming cars seem to be drifting towards the line. And please tell me how "pain and suffering" compensation is going to remedy any "feelings" you have about getting into a car?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#140

Post by kfk »

newbie12 wrote: post #19

RelayRides is not carrying enough insurance. Individual coverage from car owners is inadequate, and car owners can't be expected to purchase commercial car rental insurance just to participate in RelayRides. This kind of reminds me of AirBnB, where new forms of renting rely, in part, on deceiving users about the risks. RelayRides and AirBnbB business models rely in part on the savings from inadequate insurance covera…

I used AirBnB a couple of times, I think is a good idea. Prices aren't cheap at all, but you get an appartment with utilities and not a B&B room. However, I too keep wondering on the risks associated with renting. They are just difficult to estimate. The renter may put a bomb in the appartment, how do you protect yourself financially from this?

For this to make sense the number of the appartments (or cars) destroyed or damaged must me low enough that the cost for repairing is way lower than AirBnB revenues. Not sure this is possible with only 10% fee on renting although.

Post reply on HN