Right, but they built and sold it. No-one is forcing anyone to use the design.
There’s nothing stopping me from going online right now and grabbing a design for a car, building it, doing an IVA test and putting it on the road - the original designer is dead, who would get sued in that scenario?
Alternatively, can I copy the design of an existing model, build it to the exact spec, sell it to someone else and absolve myself of all liability if a design flaw is found in the vehicle?
I’m ignoring the fact an open source design is likely to get more analysis than just about any other car on the market.
There is no equivalent to an IVA where I live. It also is likely going to become a major government problem needing to process a sizeable portion of the country’s vehicles through an IVA like process which requires an in-depth inspection and, a lot of times, comparison against the design standards for which the car was imported from.
And, as I noted earlier, the issue isn’t analysis but liability. A lot of the burden involving design and verification falls on various manufacturers who designed the cars they manufactured. Hell, few countries allow people to build their own cars from aftermarket parts only. The supply chain is there, but no one is building older cars that they just have to assemble with aftermarket parts.
There is no equivalent to an IVA where I live. It also is likely going to become a major government problem needing to process a sizeable portion of the country’s vehicles through an IVA like process which requires an in-depth inspection and, a lot of times, comparison against the design standards for which the car was imported from.
An IVA is only checking the car meets established standards - it won’t say there’s no design flaws or attribute liability. Hence my previous comment about meeting standards. Presumably there is type approval of some kind where you live. Again it’s UK centric, I’m not a car lawyer and I’ve mostly skimmed the page, but there’s nothing glaringly insurmountable in what I can find here:
From what research I’ve done in the UK at least the responsibility appears to fall on the manufacturer and I can’t really see an argument for how it would fall anywhere else as they’re the entity producing the product. By using the design there has to be a presumed level of acceptance that they have liability for the product. (I can’t just go and make an exploding kettle and sell it and say “I downloaded these plans off the internet and built it, it’s not my fault”)
In reality they’d have insurance to cover it, the insurance would most likely require the type approval in place.
The supply chain is there, but no one is building older cars that they just have to assemble with aftermarket parts.
If the demand is there and the products are available and possible within the legal framework then it’s happening. Believe it or not I watched a video on YouTube in the last 7 days about Tuksedo Studio in Indonesia who do pretty much that.
If it’s not doable within the legal framework of a country it’s a moot point.
They built the thing and sold it as safe, the liability is implicit. If you produce something you need to produce it to established standards.
And what if the established standards get people killed? Open source doesn’t provide a person or organization who is liable for design faults.
Again, the manufacturer, why would that change?
Because, in this case, the manufacturer didn’t design the car.
Right, but they built and sold it. No-one is forcing anyone to use the design.
There’s nothing stopping me from going online right now and grabbing a design for a car, building it, doing an IVA test and putting it on the road - the original designer is dead, who would get sued in that scenario?
Alternatively, can I copy the design of an existing model, build it to the exact spec, sell it to someone else and absolve myself of all liability if a design flaw is found in the vehicle?
I’m ignoring the fact an open source design is likely to get more analysis than just about any other car on the market.
There is no equivalent to an IVA where I live. It also is likely going to become a major government problem needing to process a sizeable portion of the country’s vehicles through an IVA like process which requires an in-depth inspection and, a lot of times, comparison against the design standards for which the car was imported from.
And, as I noted earlier, the issue isn’t analysis but liability. A lot of the burden involving design and verification falls on various manufacturers who designed the cars they manufactured. Hell, few countries allow people to build their own cars from aftermarket parts only. The supply chain is there, but no one is building older cars that they just have to assemble with aftermarket parts.
An IVA is only checking the car meets established standards - it won’t say there’s no design flaws or attribute liability. Hence my previous comment about meeting standards. Presumably there is type approval of some kind where you live. Again it’s UK centric, I’m not a car lawyer and I’ve mostly skimmed the page, but there’s nothing glaringly insurmountable in what I can find here:
Type approval guidelines
Type approval fees
From what research I’ve done in the UK at least the responsibility appears to fall on the manufacturer and I can’t really see an argument for how it would fall anywhere else as they’re the entity producing the product. By using the design there has to be a presumed level of acceptance that they have liability for the product. (I can’t just go and make an exploding kettle and sell it and say “I downloaded these plans off the internet and built it, it’s not my fault”)
In reality they’d have insurance to cover it, the insurance would most likely require the type approval in place.
If the demand is there and the products are available and possible within the legal framework then it’s happening. Believe it or not I watched a video on YouTube in the last 7 days about Tuksedo Studio in Indonesia who do pretty much that.
If it’s not doable within the legal framework of a country it’s a moot point.