That's not really accurate. Did you check out the product description or FAQ? https://www.klim.com/Ai-1-Airbag-Vest-3046-000 Default deny would mean the user doesn't ride, because the deny happens before you go, not during the ride.
Yes, if they were to shut off service after signaling it's okay to ride, then it would be an affront to safety standards, and they would lose in court. But... they're not shutting off service during the ride...
This isn't theoretical. A watchdog timer is standard protection against weird "shit happens", one-off things in safety equipment. That means you reboot when something goes wrong (cosmic rays, flaky battery connections, etc.).
DJs wouldn't use software that uses things like FlexLM because it might hang in the middle of their performance because it is "default deny". And that is nowhere near the level of importance as a safety jacket.
I don’t understand why there is a flood of pure speculation in this comment section assuming that the design must be worst-case and trash. There’s no reason to jump to that unfounded conclusion.
The implementation is irrelevant because the fundamental idea is horribly broken.
"Default deny" and "safety equipment" are like oil and fire.
(If you really want to understand why this is stupid: Just go use some software with the FlexLM license manager and you will understand at a deep psychological level why this is a horrible idea.)
Maybe it would be better to propose a clear and workable alternative rather than re-stating your opinion of the thing you imagine this is. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the vest or it’s financing plan, one that doesn’t damage their business model from their perspective and also improves safety?
> “Default deny” and “safety equipment” are like oil and fire.
I’m not sure it’s worth discussing this platitude, it might or might not be true, and it might or might not be relevant. The fact of the matter is that in this particular case, the default deny aspect of the vest’s system and the safety features were designed so they don’t intersect. You’re asserting that they do, but the documentation says otherwise. Why are you ignoring their statements on the matter? It makes the argument weaker. If you’re certain it’s a bad design, then show how it’s a bad design despite what they say, rather than forming reasons by willfully disregarding valid information.
It's not like this airbag is a passive, always-ready device. You can't even just put it on and expect it to work. You need to actually turn it on too, and have the batteries charged. And if you turn it on and it says "NOT ACTIVE" or something like that, would anyone believe that the airbag was going to work?
The addition of the "passenger sensor" added extra failure modes that have to be managed and certified.
Now, car manufacturers did this because people are stupid and put their children in car seats on the passenger side and Honda doesn't want to kill children.
Nevertheless, you have to account for the failure modes and sign off on them. I can't imagine anyone with a PE signing off of this kind of fiasco. I'm sure you can find one somewhere if you pay enough money, but man ...
And, I would go further. This kind of "Default Deny" means that this system simply does not comply with the standards and practices that give you legal shielding and are normally required for "safety equipment". It's going to have a whole host of "failure modes" that normally wouldn't be present because it has to "deny" usage under certain cases.
As such, they're going to lose a really large court case for very good reason.