I agree that the supportive community of enthusiasts is likely to rally (pun intended) around Local Motors and any similar crowdsourced design initiatives. In my view, the key issue is likely to be how elastic the definition of relevant community becomes over time — and the extent to which acceptance of related risks extends into that community. For example, the kind of serious auto enthusiast who would build a kit car or engage in extensive customization could reasonably be said to voluntarily assume all risks associated with those activities, but what about a customer who has minimal knowledge of the engineering involved, but simply loves the exotic design of the Rally Fighter and wants to drive one?

In theory, it should be possible to waive related legal claims arising out of any accidents in the same way a terminal cancer patient may be willing to voluntarily undergo experimental treatment that hasn't been approved by the FDA. Without getting into a soapbox rant about tort reform and personal responsibility, I fear that US legal culture imposes harsh liability on businesses for truly accidental injuries, as embodied in the absurd “Warning: Coffee May Be Hot” warnings that have materialized on paper cups in recent years. Perhaps if we can restore a healthy level of personal responsibility that assumes a certain level of unavoidable (albeit tragic) accidental deaths and injuries, and empower consumers to make informed decisions to proceed in the face of fully disclosed risks, Local Motors will prove to be at the vanguard of a significant cultural shift.

I agree that the supportive community of enthusiasts is likely to rally (pun intended) around Local Motors and any similar crowdsourced design initiatives. In my view, the key issue is likely to be how elastic the definition of relevant community becomes over time — and the extent to which acceptance of related risks extends into that community. For example, the kind of serious auto enthusiast who would build a kit car or engage in extensive customization could reasonably be said to voluntarily assume all risks associated with those activities, but what about a customer who has minimal knowledge of the engineering involved, but simply loves the exotic design of the Rally Fighter and wants to drive one?

In theory, it should be possible to waive related legal claims arising out of any accidents in the same way a terminal cancer patient may be willing to voluntarily undergo experimental treatment that hasn’t been approved by the FDA. Without getting into a soapbox rant about tort reform and personal responsibility, I fear that US legal culture imposes harsh liability on businesses for truly accidental injuries, as embodied in the absurd “Warning: Coffee May Be Hot” warnings that have materialized on paper cups in recent years. Perhaps if we can restore a healthy level of personal responsibility that assumes a certain level of unavoidable (albeit tragic) accidental deaths and injuries, and empower consumers to make informed decisions to proceed in the face of fully disclosed risks, Local Motors will prove to be at the vanguard of a significant cultural shift.

Antone, what a good question you asked during the panel. I’ve given some thoughtful consideration to two points: first is safety, second is IP.

In the case of safety I like to be very clear that while a car is a complex piece of machinery, we have been building them for over 100 years – and we know how to do it well, and we know how to make them safe. Our first customers understand what makes cars safe, so they assess the safety of the vehicle based on how it is built, which components it includes, as well as the experience of the people engineering and building.

A vehicle is either safe, or not. While liability is shared for the sake of market entry, we must sell safe vehicles in order to exist. Customers will test out just how safe the cars are – and word will spread.

Now a shorter thought on IP: our community is a tight-nit group which is in the habit of self regulating. Designers keep tabs on other designers, and they know the work of their peers. They call one another out for plagiarism, so it rarely happens. The same goes for unique engineering ideas.

Thanks again for the writeup and for taking the time to catch up with us!

Ariel

aferreira@local-motors.com

Antone, what a good question you asked during the panel. I’ve given some thoughtful consideration to two points: first is safety, second is IP.

In the case of safety I like to be very clear that while a car is a complex piece of machinery, we have been building them for over 100 years – and we know how to do it well, and we know how to make them safe. Our first customers understand what makes cars safe, so they assess the safety of the vehicle based on how it is built, which components it includes, as well as the experience of the people engineering and building.

A vehicle is either safe, or not. While liability is shared for the sake of market entry, we must sell safe vehicles in order to exist. Customers will test out just how safe the cars are – and word will spread.

Now a shorter thought on IP: our community is a tight-nit group which is in the habit of self regulating. Designers keep tabs on other designers, and they know the work of their peers. They call one another out for plagiarism, so it rarely happens. The same goes for unique engineering ideas.

Thanks again for the writeup and for taking the time to catch up with us!

Ariel

aferreira@local-motors.com