Autonomous vehicles, robotaxis, driverless cars, Johnny Cabs, et cetera. These were supposed to be the next big thing and, yet, they mostly make the news for bad reasons these days. Ford and VW-backed Argo.ai completed folded. GM’s Cruise is mostly notable lately for getting its driverless cars stuck on this one San Francisco street. Amazon’s subsidiary Zoox has mostly avoided negative attention, until this week when we found out the feds are looking into the company’s self-certification.
If there’s a theme of our morning news roundup today it’s that, well, things don’t always work out the way you want them to in this business. Let’s start with Zoox and work our way through the mess.
The U.S. Government Has A Few Questions For Zoox
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), like most government entities with investigative powers, has to be careful about what it says. The wrong choice of words can send a company’s stock crashing down and generally upset financial markets. When reading a government report or statement, it’s therefore often necessary to read into what is being implied.
Here is a link to the brief statement from NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation about Amazon’s Zoox, if you want to look yourself, but it’s short enough that I’ll just quote it here:
On June 30, 2022, Zoox, Inc. (Zoox) certified that a passenger vehicle it had produced met all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Zoox issued a press release shortly thereafter announcing the certification. Zoox describes the “purpose-built” vehicle as bi-directional, equipped with an automated driving system, and lacking traditional driving controls. On September 6, 2022, NHTSA issued a Special Order directing Zoox to answer certain questions and provide information relating to the company’s basis for certifying that the vehicle met all applicable FMVSS. Zoox responded to the Special Order on November 7, 2022. As NHTSA continues to evaluate these responses, the agency has determined that further examination is necessary into the process and technical data on which Zoox relied when certifying the Zoox vehicle and related issues. In particular, NHTSA will consider the extent to which Zoox’s certification basis depended upon unilaterally developed test procedures or determinations that certain standards were inapplicable due to the unique configuration of the vehicle.
There’s a lot of coded language here, which we’ll go through (especially the bolded parts), but it ain’t good news if you’re Zoox.
First, some background, as reported by Automotive News yesterday:
Unlike a conventional car and the vehicles most other robotaxi developers are using, the Zoox vehicle lacks the steering wheel, brake pedal and other controls human drivers need.
Zoox started using the robotaxi last month to transport employees between two company offices in Foster City, Calif., after receiving a permit from the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. To obtain the permit, Zoox self-certified that the EV met existing FMVSS, CEO Aicha Evans said.
Ok, so Zoox makes an autonomous vehicle that looks like a futurustic robotaxi. It’s important here to note that people generally have a false impression of how cars become road legal. I’ve gotten the sense from regular consumers that they assume the government gets every car model before it goes to market, looks it over, evaluates its mileage, and crash tests it. The reality is that the government merely creates guidelines and allows companies to do all the testing themselves. Only a small fraction of models on the road are ever actually tested.
This is called “self-certification” and it means the government doesn’t have to engage in a lot of expensive or time-consuming testing. I’d argue the government should do that, but it’s not how it works.
So Zoox designs a taxi, “tests” it, submits its self-certification, and puts out a press release on June 30th of last year saying they were the first real robotaxi (i.e., not a regular car turned into a robotaxi like Waymo or Cruise) to be road legal. Here’s the key bit from what the company said:
The Zoox robotaxi was built from the ground up for riders and does not rely on traditional driving controls such as a steering wheel or gas and brake pedals. So how does Zoox meet the FMVSS requirements prescribed for traditional vehicles without relying on this historical equipment?
From the beginning, we challenged ourselves to create a vehicle that would be compliant with FMVSS requirements within the current regulatory structure. We intended to self-certify our purpose-built vehicle without the need for regulatory changes or requesting exemptions.
Again, bolding is mine. The FMVSS acronym stands for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, i.e. all the requirements needed to make a car legal (you can see the full list here). According to NHTSA, the agency immediately requested information to find out how Zoox met the requirements with its robotaxi. This announcement from NHTSA today implies that the information Zoox turned over did not quell the concerns of the feds. Let’s get back to the key bit I excerpted above:
NHTSA will consider the extent to which Zoox’s certification basis depended upon unilaterally developed test procedures or determinations that certain standards were inapplicable due to the unique configuration of the vehicle.
The “unilaterally developed test procedures” is completely in line with what Zoox implied in its press release. Federal guidelines weren’t built for these types of vehicles so it sort of makes sense that new test procedures have to be created, though it’s maybe slightly hubristic to think the Feds will just accept them.
What really gets me, though, is this bit: “determinations that certain standards were inapplicable due to the unique configuration of the vehicle.” The FMVSS contains a whole section (571.204) on how a steering column and shaft works, for instance, which is an interesting question for a car that doesn’t have one.
This is merely my interpretation, but it sounds to me like NHTSA is implying that Zoox just tossed a bunch of laws it didn’t think applied to it out the window. The FMVSS, to be fair, does contain guidelines for low-speed vehicles and motorcycles, and not all of those are applicable to all vehicles.
Automotive News got a quote from Zoox and it’s important to include the company’s side here:
“Safety is foundational to Zoox. Given we are the first in the industry to self-certify a purpose-built robotaxi to the FMVSS, this is an expected next step for our regulatory journey,” he said in the statement. “As you’ll see in NHTSA’s request, there are no concerns, violations or accusations made by NHTSA regarding Zoox. This is a request to gain an additional level of details and information on the self-certification tests Zoox performed, which have met or exceeded applicable FMVSS performance requirements.”
It is entirely possible that Zoox just nailed it and NHTSA is merely double-checking the company’s work or, perhaps, hoping to learn from Zoox all about how awesome they are at testing. It’s also possible this is like when you’re a freshman in college and your prof asks for a paper on the role of primogeniture in “A Winter’s Tale” with a complete list of citations and you explain you don’t have any because you didn’t cite anyone!
GM’s Cruise Cutting Costs After Spending $2 Billion Last Year
GM’s autonomous vehicle company, Cruise, isn’t exactly cruising along smoothly, either. Last year was rough. It had whisteblowers complaining about the safety of its robotaxis. There was that weird accident. The solution? Cost cutting.
Per a Reuters article on Cruise’s plans:
“We’ll continue to look at hardware, software – both in terms of component costs as well as the quantity of components that are on the vehicle – and continue to drive cost out as we move forward,” Cruise’s chief operating officer Gil West said at a technology conference.
At Cruise, General Motors burned through nearly $2 billion last year. West did not give details of spending estimates this year.
The “burned through” is rough here, because it implies that randomly shutting down on San Francisco streets with a small fleet of Chevy Bolts isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. Cruise is working on a vehicle called Origin which, like the Zoox taxi, has no steering wheel and is more shuttle-like.
London Has More EV Black Taxis Than Diesel Ones
The great city of London still relies on humans–famous for their great memories and the zeal with which they share their problematic views–to drive its taxis. The cool news is that the most common black taxi in London is now the all-electric TX, representing 40% of the total fleet.
“We are witnessing a significant tipping point in the push towards cleaner transportation, with the TX overtaking the diesel-powered TX4 as the cab of choice in London. There are now more than 6,000 TX electric taxis operating in the capital, accounting for over 40% of the black cab fleet.
“Since LEVC launched the revolutionary TX taxi, it has successfully delivered an unrivalled sustainable mobility solution, perfectly suited for urban environments. With each new TX on the road, we are preventing thousands of tonnes of harmful emissions, helping to create healthier and happier cities.”
My guess is that the rest are gas-powered. This news comes as the London Electric Vehicle Company, which makes the taxis, considers making regular passenger vehicles.
Rivian To Investors: Money Please!
Electric carmaker Rivian’s latest call with investors didn’t go well and, unsurprisingly, they’re asking for more money. Here’s the unintentionally funny headline from Bloomberg about the move:
“Rivian Drops on Plan to Offer $1.3 Billion in Green Convertibles”
I’d love a Shelby Dodge Dakota Convertible-style Rivian R1T, but that’s not what’s going on here.
Rivian Automotive Inc. is seeking to raise $1.3 billion through the sale of green convertible bonds due in 2029. Shares fell in extended trading.
The electric-vehicle maker intends to use the proceeds from the offering to finance, refinance or invest in current and future green projects which are eligible, the company said in a statement Monday. Rivian plans to settle conversions through Class A common stock or a combination of cash and stock, the company said.
This is not great if you’re a current shareholder as it could lead to a dilution of your shares. In early trading this morning the stock was down to $15.50 per share, down from over $40 a share just a year ago.
What Was Your Best Rule Interpretation?
Let’s have fun here. This doesn’t need to be strictly car-related, but what’s the best example of interpreting the rules in your favor?
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
Tesla Filibustered The World For Four Hours Yesterday
Now Audi Has Plans For An American EV Factory Too
Tesla Cuts Model X, S Prices As Electrification Enters ‘Darwinian Period’
Vietnamese Automaker VinFast Massively Lowers Lease Prices Overnight As It Fights To Stay Relevant
Subaru needs a bit of a makeover
Photos: Zoox, Cruise, LEVC
My classic cars are insured for occasional driving, so all my driving is occasional off course, wouldn’t want to break any rules 🙂
I’m curious about how that type of insurance works in other countries. Does it have a yearly limit on total driving distance, or any other drawbacks/limitations? Here in Portugal there’s usually a 500km limit and a clause that you must have at least one insured car under the same insurance policy that isn’t insured as occasional. Some companies even specify what’s considered occasional driving, limiting it to parades, driving to and from car meetings, etc. I ended up going with a normal insurance policy for my Renault 4 because I drive way more than 500km/year, so that’s enough of a deterrent for me.
I bought my ’67 VW squareback as “junk” so I had to get it inspected before I could get a license from California state. I could not figure out how to get the reverse lights to work. Knowing that ’67 was the first year for such lights, if I just removed them, the holes in the bumper might be noticed. So, I welded up a pair of T’s to install in those locations as tie-downs. If the lights are not there, they can’t be inspected.
I built 6-person pedal powered vehicle (The Shamancycle) and I generally flat tow it to events. It is technically a bicycle and I also researched requirements for trailers. Turns out there are no rules for what I built, so it isn’t a trailer which requires lights and a license. It is a bicycle and there are no rules for a bicycle also being a trailer.
I like green convertibles . I had a ’90 LX 5.0 and a ’96 SN95 . That ‘s all I got .
Here’s a mistake of a younger VanGuy, back when he actually had a conversion van.
Well, it was a mistake in terms of responsibility for other people. Legally, I’m pretty sure I was *technically* in the right, but I also knew I’d have a fun time explaining that to an authority figure.
Pennsylvania. Taking myself and 9 friends on a day trip to SoccerFest (watching the Women’s World Cup in Bethlehem). Except the conversion van only had 7 seat belts. So what do the remaining 3 do? Why, #TeamFloor of course!
But I read the rules carefully. The PA rules seem to state this (I was 18+):
1. Front seats must be buckled. No exceptions.
2. (If driver 18 or older) Back seat occupants must be buckled if under 18.
It only said blanket “all occupants must be buckled up” if the driver is 16-17.
But it did seem to indicate, reading between the lines, that occupants in the back 18 and up could sit on the floor.
I never had to defend myself, and nobody got injured, although I’m not stupid enough to try anything like that anymore.
This is the kind of loophole my friends and I used to fit 17 of us in a Honda Odyssey in Hawaii. You’re allowed to ride in a pickup bed there, though vans are a bit of a grey area, so we’d just duck whenever cops were around lol.
Zoox tests a lot of their (semi) autonomous cars here in Vegas, and they’re a rolling road hazard. Sensible drivers get around/past them as quickly as possible.
“On June 30, 2022, Zoox, Inc. (Zoox) certified that a passenger vehicle it had produced met all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).”
“In particular, NHTSA will consider the extent to which Zoox’s certification basis depended upon unilaterally developed test procedures or determinations that certain standards were inapplicable due to the unique configuration of the vehicle.”
Actual translation: “EX-FUCKING-CUSE YOU, WHO THE FUCK SAID YOU GOT TO DECIDE FEDERAL FUCKING LAW?”
Everyone involved in this shit should not only be fired; that’s worthy of being banned for life from anything related to cars, period. Not so much as a goddamn driver’s license. Just unilaterally ‘certifying’ your ‘self-driving’ bullshit ‘car’ as meeting federal safety standards without doing so much as a single legitimate test?
That’s so far beyond the pale that people should be in prison and their lives permanently ruined. The company should be permanently banned from roads and prohibited from ever applying for certification again. And they should be thanking their lucky stars they weren’t one of the inevitable fatalities.
You do not fuck around with safety rules. They are literally written in blood.
“Electric carmaker Rivian’s latest call with investors didn’t go well and, unsurprisingly, they’re asking for more money.”
Fire up the Rivian Death Pool. As I have been saying from the start, and keep saying: they never had any chance of survival.
“Let’s have fun here. This doesn’t need to be strictly car-related, but what’s the best example of interpreting the rules in your favor?”
That’s how rules lawyers get involved and take away the fun.
I wonder how many of the EV startups never planned to stay independent. They’re started by silicon valley bros who’s goal isn’t to build a sustainable company, but rather build something with smoke and mirrors until Google, MSFT, Facebook, Apple, Amazon etc came along and bought them out to get the tech. I wonder if they were waiting for GM or Ford to come a knockin’ to pick up an 85% complete up and running EV company so that they didn’t have to retrofit their own stuff or train their own people?
Absolutely correct, I think.
Plot twist, lawyers read this site every day! 😉
Yes, but they aren’t the lawyers that scare me.
If you work for the EPA or DOT, you have to tell us. That’s the law.
I’ve got a load of rule interpretation stories covered by various NDAs (I’m an automotive design engineer mostly). I worked on a thing that, while it was technically legal, got banned by a rule change after its first race. That’s how you know you’ve found a good loophole. Anyway, mostly secret stuff.
However, I used to compete at autotests (driving around cones quickly following a set route) and because of how tight the courses were, there was a handicap system based on the length of your car: the longer your car the longer the time you had to complete the course.
Measurements were taken at the start of the competition. I hadn’t built a car just for this, I used an MX5 I’d built for drifting. The car had a tow hook that stuck out at the front, so I insisted on using that as the front measuring point.
So they measured the length of the car. Then I’d pull the bumpers off (only held on with cableties, because drifting) and attack the course.
That tow hook at the front? It was taller than the cones, so it was never in the way.
“…the zeal with which they share their problematic views…”
Anglophile here who essentially regards London as a second home. Can confirm the accuracy of this statement.
The Zoox thing reads fine to me. This is the path that it has to take. Obviously the government isn’t going to preemptively provide guidance for this sort of thing. The government has to wait for someone like Zoox to tell them they have something and now there needs to be a back and forth to establish whether this thing is working at a sufficient level. In theory by looking at what Zoox is doing and what others in the pipeline are trying to do a new set of regulations can be set.
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. The Congress can pass any law it wants to, certainly subject to what I’m sure will be intense lobbying. The Executive Branch itself can impose a whole host of regulations that trace back to law, usually subject to a period of public comment. If the President signs that law then it can be challenged in court. I don’t have a great deal of faith in the Congress to do any of that, a tiny bit more expectation of federal agencies. I mostly think an agency can apply existing rules and regulations to new vehicles. But we don’t have to jump off a cliff before we see what might happen if we jump off a cliff.
“It’s also possible this is like when you’re a freshman in college and your prof asks for a paper on the role of primogeniture in “A Winter’s Tale” with a complete list of citations and you explain you don’t have any because you didn’t cite anyone!”
This is oddly specific.
“Self-certified” is the biggest pile of shit ever.
Did Norfolk Southern “self-certify” the wheel bearings that failed?
Did the TVA “self-certify” the coal ash basin in Roane County?
Did BP “self-certify” Deepwater Horizon?
They did. Well, see how that goes.
IIRC wasn’t this (or something similar) part of the problem with the 737 MAX as well?
Yes it was with a twist:
The FAA delegates their approval authority to people within Boeing and other companies. So it may be a Boeing employee signing off, they are signing as the FAA.
Boeing fucked up big time, but the FAA had gotten a little to laissez-faire with the process and didn’t do enough oversight and part of the blame lies with them.
Unfortunately, the FAA is underfunded, and the aerospace companies’ executives bend over to take it from shareholders. The 737max was the very tragic outcome of this.
I’m in aerospace, let me tell you, Boeing lost a lot of credibility amongst their peers over it. Their current executive team seems to be steering in the right direction now, to be fair.
I approve designs just below the equivalent of the FAA delegate equivalent here in Canada. If I don’t have full confidence in what is in front of me, I don’t sign until others can show me answers to my concerns.
As for the self approval process in automotive, I would like to see some sort of licensing system by the NHTSA put in place that would also come with severe repercussions if you skirt the system.
Has the IIHS skooshed a Zoox yet? Fair is fair….
One has to think mainstream manufacturers are on the up-and-up with their assertions of FMVSS compliance, because a) this is not their first rodeo with the Feds and b) they know someone will eventually crash one of their babies, and the penalties for skimping on the details are pretty severe.
Not sure about the Amazon buggy, though. Even if it doesn’t have to meet some standards, the ones it needs to comply with are pretty important. I would hate to think they just decided “Yeah, it’s all okay” without doing appropriate engineering studies and tests…even if something (my natural cynicism, at least) tells me it might have gone that way.
Best example of interpreting the rules in my favor? Doesn’t really qualify specifically, but I used to own a Renault 5/Le Car into which the previous owner had installed the more powerful Euro-spec engine from the R5 Alpine. I got it for very little because he was afraid the California DMV would come down on him hard at smog-test time.
I took it in for a test. The guy manning the sniffer said “I haven’t done one of these Le Cars before. What smog controls is it supposed to have?” I was honest: “The engine has all the smog devices the factory installed.” So I aced the visual inspection and, by some miracle, a slight mixture adjustment got it through the exhaust-gas test.
P.S. It was a fun little piece. Golf GTI owners hated me.
‘they know someone will eventually crash one of their babies, and the penalties for skimping on the details are pretty severe.’
How can “someone eventually crash” an autonomous vehicle with no driver controls?
Ask Tesla about that.
Yes, Teslas have all the requisite drivers’ controls, but the things can still run into other things.
“I would hate to think they just decided “Yeah, it’s all okay” without doing appropriate engineering studies and tests.”
You might indeed hate to think that. And yet…
I see no way this vehicle passed any side impact crash testing. It appears that Amazon just decided that this thing was some sort of bus and not a car, and therefore the rules didn’t apply.
Through a strange series of job changes, I became an expert in the field of ADA accessibility guidelines as they apply to signs. I worked for two of the people who helped write those giudelines, and I worked for years as a designer/project manager helping architects and interior designers meet the codes. I know huge sections of the ADAAG Section 703 by heart, and at one point I could read Braille by sight, which must rank as one of the most useless party tricks ever.
Architects and interior designers famously hate having to put up signs. They’re ugly, they say, and detract from their “vision” of an interior space. So they try to hide them, by making them as small and unobtrusive as possible, or they come up with some grand ornate design that ends up being illegible.
I don”t much like architects or interior designers. So I took perverse delight in being an absolute hardass stickler for the ADA rules. Nope, can’t use that font; the stroke width is 2% narrower than the guidelines allow. I’m sorry, you have to pick a different background color; my spectrophotometer says there isn’t enough contrast between the text and the background. I would redesign their sign packages in the most rigid, institutional way possible, just to make the signs stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of their monuments to self-importance.
I hated that job. I’m very glad I don’t do it any more. But if you ever find yourself in a hotel or hospital and are able to find your way around easily, due to the hideous but highly effective signage, you’re welcome.
Whenever I see a braille sign in a public place I wonder how the visually impaired know there is a sign there. Do they have to touch all the walls to find the sign?
They are all in the same place relative to the door frame, and at the same height off the floor. Or at least, they’re supposed to be.
You really could have given me a more creative answer. Like they use echo locating or something. 😉
I was inside the Apple Spaceship years ago. Someone must have buried the inspector for the signs somewhere on the property. Same building where people would walk into the windows, so after someone had to call 911 for the injured, Apple had to stick decals on the windows.
I wish someone like you had been consulting on the signs at some airports I’ve visited. Putting signs for public transit on light blue backgrounds and white letters, right next to a bright red sign is like hiding something in plain sight. I felt stupid when I finally noticed them, but I’m pretty sure the sign designer is the real idiot here.
Do you know how it works with disabled parking proximity to doors and signage? I went to an auto parts place years ago and passed by the 3 open spaces by the door to leave them for people who might not be in as good shape. Parked about 8 spaces down from the doors in an unmarked spot only to have someone yell at me like a pedophile being escorted into a courthouse for parking in a handicapped spot. I’m like, WTF, so I look and there’s a single fairly small sign on the wall of the building and not particularly stand out among the bullshit ads, though the curbing was cutaway as a ramp (which I should have noticed and questioned). Most places seem to have the spots clearly painted and outlined with ramp van clearance and obvious signs on posts while this only had the unobvious sign a decent way from the doors. I figured the former model met the standards, but either they’re just going above and beyond or Autoparts Generica was courting a fine.
The ADA laws have had updates from time to time and what passed 20 years ago may not pass now. But, if I remember correctly, old standards are grandfathered in until significant renovations are made. I.e. your 30 yr old parking lot, no longer meets current regulations, but you’re ok until you renovate; then you have to upgrade to meet current regulations.
The (LEVC) TX is definitely NOT all electric, but rather a PHEV. I’ve seen Geely spin this story elsewhere, about the “electric” London Taxi, but they’re constantly forgetting the 1.5 l Volvo-sourced ICE engine mounted under the hood…
Also, the story doesn’t actually back up the headline that there are more “electric” taxis than diesel in London. Just that there are now more EREV TXs (40% of the fleet) than diesel TX4s (presumably about 39.9% of the fleet). That means there is another approx. 20.1% of the fleet that is other vehicles. While a few of these may be Mercedes eVitos and Nissan eV200s modified to have the required turning circle, many of them will be other diesel vehicles (diesel Vitos, maybe a few now-ancient diesel Metrocabs). Maybe the specific reference to the TX4 actually means there are still quite a few TX1s still around (which most people wouldn’t notice as different from the TX4 without reading the badge). Maybe older diesel TX1/TX4 models still make up most of the fleet, but by splitting the TX1 and TX4 they can make a headline case for the new TX.
They’re converting some of the TX’s to LNG as well, that might make up part of the numbers.
Or how the electricity is being produced.
‘The (LEVC) TX is definitely NOT all electric, but rather a PHEV. I’ve seen Geely spin this story elsewhere, about the “electric” London Taxi, but they’re constantly forgetting the 1.5 l Volvo-sourced ICE engine mounted under the hood…’
It’s a REX setup, not quite a PHEV. The REX is disabled in “pure EV” mode inside the city and only supposed to be used for longer trips outside the EV geofence. On top of that the REX only generates electricity as opposed to the ICE in a PHEV which provides both electricity and mechanical power to the wheels.
So by those arguments yes it is a pure EV (at least while in pure EV mode).
Yes, you’re right, it’s not a PHEV, seems more like Honda’s system (and others) of using an decoupled ICE engine as a range extender. Even though I wouldn’t say its more of an EV than a normal PHEV.
“bi-directional, equipped with an automated driving system”. How did they not call this Zoox BEADS? It’s right there, like the BRAT
The Zoox is a cute design for a low-speed environment, but I don’t want to think about being T-boned by an SUV in one. “Move fast and break things” indeed.
“What’s the best example of interpreting the rules in your favor?”
I’m a bureaucrat at a public utility, in charge of permitting. I have soooooo many examples of this – both on my part and by customers/contractors/developers – that my head explodes just trying to select one. The sad part is that in order to share any I’d have to write an article-length comment just so you have the background to understand the anecdote.
Rules-lawyering is just a way of life. When the stakes are high, always interpret the rules in your own favor. If you have the ability, also interpret them in the other parties’ favors, in their best light, and (if possible) in their original intent.
Then start with a better-than-possible interpretation for yourself and negotiate from there.
That said, I think someone at Zoox just glanced at the rules and did a “I ain’t gonna read all that” take, figuring that by the time it became an actual problem, it wouldn’t be THEIR problem anymore.
Speed Limits are lower limits.
Ah, wouldn’t fly in Quebec, where they post Maximum/Minimum signs on the autoroutes. Freeways.
I think most of Canada states MAXIMUM very explicitly on the signs
I am believer in malicious compliance when treated badly. For example, I was laid off and the final paycheck bounced, causing me to be late on bills.
Per the law at the time, I gave the company one chance to remedy, 2nd bounced check.
Then to the labor board to get the payment and any fees that were resulting. The owner tried to countersue as I was “out of line” but I used the legal standings to say they would lose and I would sue them for time lost.
I have used this to make sure both sides are acting per the rules. I am just as much responsible as the other party.
My friend bought Rivian stock at the peak. His wife told him he was stupid. At first we thought it was funny to kid him about it. Now, no one mentions it – EVER.
Lordstown’s also looking pretty cheap these days. Maybe the bottom is coming…
There’s an expression in investing that it’s hard to catch a falling knife. No EV startup is a particularly safe bet so if you’re putting money you care about into one then you’re foolish. It doesn’t matter how low you buy if the company goes bankrupt.
Bought a small amount of Rivian @ 31 ” just to dip my toe in ” …bailed @ 17 something …
No I think old Peugeots are actually legal for import.