> First off the device itself is completely optional to use, and infact millions of people don't use or have this device. They operate their motorcycles every day just fine. So it isn't really a life or death situation. It isn't a pacemaker or medical device where the user dies if it is turned off. So let's not be so dramatic.

Well, I guess eating is optional too then... you know if you're willing to die. Which is what this product is supposed to prevent. And it's is just like a medical device. If you turn off a pacemaker, or ICD, or an insulin pump, you don't die outright either. Your risk of death only goes up. While I do agree that it's not a medical device, it is a safety device designed to prevent or limit injury and harm. So I don't think we're being dramatic to be appalled that someone would make things less safe, where the risk of death goes up, for less than 400USD.

> Yes it might improve your chances of survival if you get into an accident. But you know what will improve your odds significantly? Not riding a motorcycle in the first place.

So if I'm riding a motorcycle, and someone hits me it's my fault for riding a motorcycle? What if I'm in a car and get tboned at an intersection, my fault as well for daring to go outside right? I agree with the point I hope you're trying to make, which is the user should accept the risk for their actions. If a user does something that's risky. It's on them, it's obviously their responsibility. But the risk they're willing to accept is independent from what's reasonable behavior from someone else. If I buy a car, and stop paying, and someone comes to repossess the car. That's is a risk, but it's a risk that can't lead to injury or death. With out a car, I might not be able to work and I lose my job. I think that's a reasonable risk that a lender could subject someone to. But in this case, the risk is someone dies.

> A user would also know ahead of time if the device is active or not. It might be a different story if it suddenly stopped working with the user unaware. It is up to the user whether or not to risk using a motorcycle without the device.

> Let's take this same scenario and change the product in question and still see if it is so horrible.

> If you own a SAAS business and a client stops paying. Do you continue to provide the service? Probably not.

Would my users die if I didn't? because if I was doing something like providing medical records, I might continue let them access the service. The critical difference here though, that you seem to have decided to ignore is that this is an additional cost for doing this. Renting servers or buying bandwidth has a cost. If my airbag didn't need to phone home and ask permission to work, they wouldn't have any additional expense. So it's not the same.

> If you are a car rental company, and a customer stops paying. Do you continue to let them use the vehicle? Again no.

I addressed this above, but there's a huge cost difference here. Cars, usually are thousands of USD. Where this can't be more than 400. Is it reasonable to repossess a car, risking inconvenience, or reversible hardship to reclaim thousands? Yeah, probably. Is it reasonable to let someone die or be maimed for less than 400? After they've already given you at least 1/2 the cost of the system? No, it's not. Especially if you consider that you make a mistake and take my car, I can sue for the damages from that. Where as if I die or become paralyzed, there's no amount of money that could undo that. So again, it's different from a service or convenience.