A Software Malfunction Is Throwing Riders Off of Lime Scooters (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: Riders in Switzerland and New Zealand have reported the front wheels of their electric scooters locking suddenly mid-ride, hurling riders to the ground. The malfunction has resulted in dozens of injuries ranging from bruises to broken jaws. Lime pulled all its scooters from Swiss streets in January when reports of the incidents surfaced there. When the city of Auckland, New Zealand voted to suspend the company earlier this week following 155 reported cases of sudden braking, the company acknowledged that a software glitch was causing the chaos. The company claims that fewer than 0.0045% of all rides worldwide have been affected, adding that "any injury is one too many." An initial fix reduced the number of incidents, it said, and a final update underway on all scooters will soon be complete. "Recently we detected a bug in the firmware of our scooter fleet that under rare circumstances could cause sudden excessive braking during use," Lime wrote in a blog post Saturday. "[I]n very rare cases -- usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur, resulting in a scooter stopping unexpectedly."

Comments

Sounds like they have

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Lime disease! ...

Yeah!

Re:Sounds like they have

[DontBeAMoran]

https://instantrimshot.com/

Re:Understatement

[DontBeAMoran]

And let's be honest here, there's probably not a lot of Limer Scooter riders named Lucky.

what a stupid design

[FudRucker]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software??? the brakes should be the old fashioned hand/lever brakes with a cable going down to the wheels then you dont have to worry about the software for it, by running the brakes though a computer/software is just making a scooter more complicated than it needs to be, the best philosophy is to Keep it Simple

Re:what a stupid design

[Entrope]

They use electronically activated brakes to keep people from using the scooters without paying.

Re:what a stupid design

[FudRucker]

now Lims is paying for that decision, they should have just prevented the motor from turning until it was rented

Re:what a stupid design

[mobby_6kl]

Whether or not they normally use an actual physical brake instead of brake by wire (which they probably are, never used one), the bug could be just unintentionally turning on motor braking, causing pretty much the same problem.

Re:what a stupid design

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well.

These scooters seem to have a lot of enemies.

My first thought that this braking was caused by malevolent hackers who are annoyed by scooters.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

There is nothing inherently wrong with using computer controlled brakes. This is done in all sorts of industrial automation.

However, with that said the Safety integrity level (SIL) is a well known specification used to asses failure levels and the consequence of said failures. And in order to meet the higher levels, you have to have all sorts of fancy analysis that predicts the likelihood of a failure, and provides mechanisms to mitigate that failure.

And I bet that these clowns haven't even considered such a thing and are producing a device that could potentially kill someone (EG sudden braking flipping the rider into the path of a moving vehicle).

As an example I am working on automated cranes used in places where people could be killed if a software/hardware failure occurs. In order to reach our required SIL level we require a safety computer that is physically separate (and runs independently) from the main computer and can shut down operations when it detects certain conditions.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well.

These scooters seem to have a lot of enemies

It comes from being a "disruptor". Which is hipster speak for

I'm going to do what I want and I don't care what you think or how it affects you because you are not our target demographic, (even if doing so breaks laws)

Re:what a stupid design

[dunkelfalke]

Anyone who has actually learned to use two-wheeled vehicles properly knows that the rear brake locks the wheel which leads to skidding and is generally very weak and hence should only be used when riding downhill. Otherwise use either just the front brake or both brakes at the same time while moving your weight backwards and pushing against the handle bars.

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

First-generation Bird and Lime scooters in Austin have mechanical, lever-operated front disc brakes.

The new garbage only has electronic regenerative braking.

I expect that any of them could use the drive motor (front wheel) as a brake regardless.

However, your comment is garbage because in no case can you ride them without payment, as the motor will not turn on. This is what keeps them from being ridden, not an active brake. If you move them far enough for GPS to notice, they start beeping bloody murder.

Re:what a stupid design

[hey!]

Which in a sound design would be controlled by a circuit that was disabled when the wheel is in motion, *thus preventing a software or malware mediated accident*.

Re:what a stupid design

[Rick Schumann]

Anyone who actually is proficient in using two-wheeled vehicles knows you're supposed to use both brakes simultaneously in all but a very short list of circumstances.
Source: being a motorcycle rider for over 35 years, being on a road racing team for the last 10 years.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

Let's flip this around. Here's the functional requirements:

1. You have your toys publicly lying in the street.
2. An interface is required to rent your toys and it needs to electronically work with a mobile phone.
3. This interface should lock the wheels to prevent the toy being used without being hired.

Go forth and design. Let's see if you're as stupid as the rest of those engineers.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

Your industrial knowledge points you towards safety but the standard you are pointing to is about active safety interlocking for mitigating an event. If you're looking at a system whereby failure of control automatically leads to an incident you're working in the continuous operation realm, the standards for SIL in this case are typically applied where failure will result in multiple millions of dollars of damage along with killing multiple people. Additionally to apply SIL need to have a determined safe state ... in this case the safe state is applying the brakes and applying the SIL standards would not prevent people from kissing the pavement.

You don't need to point to this kind of standard to achieve a safe system. Instead another industrial principle should be applied. Rather than applying safety standards for the mitigation of events, the principles of "Inherently Safer Design" should apply. e.g. Other hire companies: The system which locks the wheel electronically on for example O-bikes is 100% decoupled from the braking system while under normal operation and requires a person to actively push a pin through the wheel against the force of a spring, the result of which reports back to the mobile phone that the hiring period has finished.

Re:what a stupid design

[Cmdln Daco]

To say nothing about putting a motor on a stand-up scooter and placing many of said scooters at random places on the sidewalk where the random public can just get on and ride them.

Re:what a stupid design

[gweihir]

Well, they probably have some nice piece of software that is supposed to assure that. After all, software does not have faults, right?

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

I am not precluding inherently safe design, but if you manufacture a system that has a failure mode that causes injury or death then you need to take that into account, and SIL levels are the appropriate method of assessing it. And in those cases mitigation is the correct term to use. SIL analysis is statistical in nature, thus there can be no absolutes, so can only mitigate the affects of a failure, you can't completely design out the possibility of a failure. And yes, even intentionally applying the brakes and causing a face plant could be considered a failure mode.

And as for

standards for SIL in this case are typically applied where failure will result in multiple millions of dollars of damage along with killing multiple people

I don't think you understand the scope of SIL. Even minor injuries can fall under SIL classifications if the frequency of occurrence is high enough.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

Friend, so far as I'm concerned, putting a motor on a stand-up scooter is a momumentally stupid idea to begin with, and when they did it anyway it should have been limited in speed to a fast walk, not double-digit miles-per-hour speed.

Do your requirements also include a person walking in front of them waving a red flag?

Re:what a stupid design

[kevmeister]

It comes from being a "disruptor". Which is hipster speak for

I'm going to do what I want and I don't care what you think or how it affects you because you are not our target demographic, (even if doing so breaks laws)

Palm Springs dealt with Bird by simply pointing out that they were operating with no business license. They then sent out crews to pick up all of the scooters. Bird was informed that they could pick up their property by paying the impound and storage fees. At last report Bird had not responded. I've seen no recent reports as to whether the scooters have been auctioned off as unclaimed property.

Re:what a stupid design

[c]

I'd expect that if they didn't have a way to lock the brakes, they'd have no way to prevent someone from using the scooter "manually".

Re:what a stupid design

[QRDeNameland]

If your functional requirements don't include:

4. The toy should not arbitrarily cause injury or death to the user;

...guess where the stupid starts.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

Well that much is a given in the functional requirements, but then actual injury is not a given of the design.

Can you come up with another system where a computer is in control of brakes, has a system to engage them if it so chooses without any mechanical interlocking mechanism, and is designed to not be fail safe meaning the brakes would be rendered in operative in certain failures?

If you guess the common car then you should give yourself an internet cookie.

Re:what a stupid design

[Rick Schumann]

Nice sarcasm by way of a historical reference, and by the way calling me a 'luddite' out of the side of your mouth is fucking lame.

It's not the scooters themselves it's the idiots using them which is pretty much all of them, which apparently you aren't picking up on for some reason. Too many of these people have problems walking down the street without screwing up, then you put them on a stand-up scooter that can go 10+ miles per hour, and actually expect there won't be any problems? Unsecured load (the rider, standing) plus that speed plus traffic plus the distinct probability that they'll have to stop quick for a pedestrian, car that didn't see them, or whatever? Yeah sure what could possibly go wrong?

Re:what a stupid design

[Ol Olsoc]

Old school keys? So you want people to 1) be handed a key in person to use a scooter and then 2) return the key to a lime station after riding?

Do you know how lime scooters work?

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems. Kinda like what the story is about.

Dearest Coward, you can get keys sent to you in the mail, you can even use your key with an app to unlock the scooter. All it will take is the app and acceptance of the key's programming. Since these things are internet connected, it's not hardly difficult at all. That way the software can be kept away from the brakes.

Re:what a stupid design

[aix tom]

Unless you are holding it wrong....

Re:what a stupid design

[Aighearach]

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems.

Are we sure about cause and effect here? If my software had this sort of problem, I'd feel insecure too! Maybe they just know it is a shit design?

Re:what a stupid design

[Aighearach]

This was my thinking too; this is safety-critical stuff, and it only costs one IO pin and a transistor to do a hardware lockout based on the intended vehicle state. For a lockout when the wheel is in motion, they could use an op-amp for a timed delay. Making sure it is locked out at very low speed is hard, but if you're moving over 1 MPH it should be trivial to detect.

This attitude of, "oh goody, it is smaller than a car, so safety doesn't matter! Yeehah! Freedom Fries!" is just stupid.

Re:what a stupid design

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems.

Are we sure about cause and effect here? If my software had this sort of problem, I'd feel insecure too! Maybe they just know it is a shit design?

Yeah, it could be - well it is a shit design. Something like a scooter should never lock the sprags. And running such a simple machine with software control like that just tells me that some people are trying to extend software where it shouldn't be.

Re: what a stupid design

[pointybits]

They also have cable-actuated drum brakes on the rear wheel. They are terribly weak and usually badly adjusted though.

Re:what a stupid design

[pointybits]

That exploit was for a Xiaomi scooter, but the Limes are not Xiaomis. I expect Lime have slightly better security, although they definitely do have a Bluetooth interface to the app and their software quality is generally diabolical so perhaps not.

Re:what a stupid design

[mlyle]

The "front brake" is almost certainly regenerative braking on the motor, while the rear brake is a mechanical brake.

There is really relatively few choices besides the front motor effort (including regenerative effort) to be under software/firmware control.

Re:what a stupid design

[Kejiro]

I doubt that. If there is one thing that seems like a common thread with all these new services and IoT devices is that they have no idea what security is at all, or that ease of use and speed of idea to market takes more precedence. Security can always be added after an incident.

Re:what a stupid design

[samwichse]

"...usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle..."

It sounds like that's how the software worked, but those darn users found an edge case.

Downhill at top speed: user is not applying motor. So the "motor called for" lockout on braking is off.

While hitting a pothole: User is braking, hits a big pothole with the non-suspension front wheel. This would cause the wheel to momentarily stop turning. Now the "wheel is in motion" lockout on braking is off.

Now imagine their time is up, and the software is ticking down waiting for the wheels to stop turning and power to stop being applied to lock the brakes. And then the above scenario happens.

The fix will probably be as simple as changing the "wheels not turning" value to "wheels not turning for 2s." Those silly users break everything :)

Sam

Re:what a stupid design

[AnotherBrian]

There is no need for electronic breaks. (I'm actually quite surprised they went to the expense of powered breaks.) They're powered by a DC motor so a relay across the terminals will put a massive load on the motor making it effectively unusable. That relay is not triggered by software, the user pushes a button to latch it in (that has to be done to end the ride and end the billing). You can do the same thing with solenoid activated latch on a traditional mechanical hand break.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

I'm actually quite surprised they went to the expense of powered breaks.

You can do the same thing with solenoid activated latch on a traditional mechanical hand break.

You're surprised they went to the expense of an electric brake (which can use up to no additional parts depending on the motor controller) but instead you propose a far more expensive mechanism?

Follow the money, they went with powered brakes precisely because alternatives are an additional expense.

Re:what a stupid design

[AnotherBrian]

By powered breaks, I was meaning electrically actuated mechanical breaks, (traditional bicycle hand breaks + a servo to close them). I'm not familiar with these scooters so I'm assuming they are not relying totally on motor breaking. That would be massively irresponsible for a vehicle that they know isn't going to be subjected to actual fail-safe designs standards and qualifications.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

I'm sure they didn't go with powered braking. It's almost certainly electrical brakes on the DC motor (I haven't used these scooters but I've used other electric scooters). Remember you don't need to lock the wheel to make the scooter completely useless for theft, and a DC brake is capable of a large force when the motor is spinning.

 

That would be massively irresponsible for a vehicle that they know isn't going to be subjected to actual fail-safe designs standards and qualifications.

As a quick comparison do you realise that your car has both non fail-safe brakes (loss of braking system results in loss of brakes), as well as electronic control capable of reducing your ability to brake, and depending on how much you paid for your last car a system where the computer is able to apply the brakes at whim?

Irresponsibility bears out in engineering, not in the original design. Some incredibly critical safety systems are purposefully not "fail-safe" for a reason, which is precisely why we don't

As an exercise of engineering:
You have a scooter. It has a singular braking mechanism. What should the "safe" action be? Brakes engaged, or brakes failed?

Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Re:Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

As the ruleset becomes too complex for humans to understand it there will always be glitches and no way to prevent them. I guess it's up to society whether they want to accept slightly safer driving overall in exchange for rare 20 car pileups because the brakes locked on the highway.

Re:Autonomous

[Rick Schumann]

You, like more and more I'm pleased to see, are starting to realize the trap that is so-called 'self-driving cars'. Imagine the utter horrror of realizing that the vehicle you're in is out of control, about to crash, and there's nothing you can do about it, other than sit there and scream. Worse than a 'normal' accident between two human-piloted vehicles, because it'll happen slower; you'll have more time to fully realize what's about to happen and how you have zero ability to prevent it.

We humans, being tool-makers and tool-users, can do so because the tool becomes, to our brain, an extension of our bodies. So it goes with driving a car (ideally, at least); you drive long enough, become proficient enough at it, the car feels like it's part of you. But you have to have control of the tool you're using, regardless of whether it's a knife, or a hammer, or a screwdriver, or an automobile; with a so-called 'self-driving car', you will have zero control. Thus, terror.

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Wait no longer. (Also side note, how old is your car that it doesn't have these systems? They've been standard in Mercedes for >20 years now).

And for some real fun you should check out how truck brakes are designed, whereby any failure, not just a computer bug would result in the brakes activating.

Re:Autonomous

[Cmdln Daco]

There will be facial gestures on the bodies they pull out of wrecks similar to the facial gestures found on bodies in exumed graves of people who died of Anamita Phalloides mushroom poisoning in the Middle Ages.

It will gradually serve as a warning to us.

Re:Autonomous

[danomac]

Mine's 34 years old.

It doesn't have all these computers in it (outside of fuel injection, which is very dumb - you can unplug sensors and the engine will still run.) It's very reliable and no gimmicks are needed.

I prefer driving it compared to newer cars (I've driven some newer cars - they all feel muddy, especially the steering.)

Re:Autonomous

[rv6502]

My car is from 2014 and has none of those. I can buy this year's model and they still have none of those "features". Not all cars cost $40,000.

Re:Autonomous

[pointybits]

GM has had it for years!

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

*golfclap*. Did you stumble on Slashdot by accident on your way to "Amish Online"? Seriously I don't understand why people jump on a technology forum to praise the fact that they don't like technology and prefer to keep mechanical clunkers running.

I hope you don't get in an accident. And since I'm sure you genuinely like your car I also hope that it doesn't eventually get banned from the roads.

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

My car is from 2014 and has none of those.

Indeed it doesn't. What it does however have is ABS, an electronic system that is designed specifically to inhibit your braking. Government standards are there to protect the likes of you who prefer to sacrifice your own safety over a few dollars, expect these listed to be a standard safety feature even for your cheaper car in the near future.

You are right about one thing, not all cars with this feature cost $40k. Mercedes make cars for less than that with this feature standard. Hell my neighbours crappy Ford Mondeo has the listed features as well, and costs less than half that.

Re:Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

Will you be able to sue them? Is it not your ultimate responsibility to operate the car safely even if it doesn't have a steering wheel or brakes? That's a big part of the problem.

Re:You, Sir, Are a NIGGER

[DontBeAMoran]

Ah, I see you are familiar with my previous posts! Clearly a sign of good taste, sir!

So finally

[fredrated]

the machine rebellion has begun!

Re:It's not a bug,

[Yosho]

Maybe I'm to old to understand the attraction to these things.

Imagine, if you can, that there is a place you need to physically be. Let's say it's a place you could physically walk to, but maybe doing so would take longer than you'd like, plus if you're not in good physical condition -- which I'd expect a old person would be able to sympathize with! -- it may be physically taxing or difficult to walk that long. Even for a young, fit person, if the weather isn't very nice, you might arrive either all hot and sweaty or half-frozen.

Now, imagine that I've got a vehicle you can ride that will get you there in a third of the time and with minimal physical effort, and it'll only cost you about a dollar. To top it off, you don't have to worry about maintenance or security. Do you see the attraction now?

Exclusive!

[DontBeAMoran]

Here is what users of Lime Scooters have to say about this problem.

Re:It's not a bug,

[nnet]

Except the scooter doesn't protect you from the elements, so

if the weather isn't very nice

why would you use one of these things?
Paying a dollar to freeze your ass off, or get soaked in the rain is not at all an attraction, at least to me, how is it one for you?

Note to Lime (and others):

[gweihir]

Do not write critical real-time software if you do not have what it takes to make it work right. This cannot be done on the cheap successfully. But I guess you are learning that now.

Re:It's not a bug,

[gweihir]

No. And you forgot to state in your hypothetical that the vehicle in question is dangerous even without the software problems and requires you to be perfectly healthy and agile to get an approximation of a safe ride.

Note sure why anyone is against scooters

[SuperKendall]

riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur

Just when we thought humanity might be avoiding evolutionary correction, along come scooters to redress the problem!

Re: It's not a bug,

[jnork]

True, but let us not forget the Nirvana fallacy.

Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[thomst]

Posting a software fix for this "very rare" occurrence - that has happened in at least 155 reported instances in New Zealand alone, according to TFS - isn't going to do Lime any good, at this point. It's going to face product liability suits, personal injury suits, and class-action suits (despite the laughable prohibition against filing or participating in class action suits in Section 5.8 of its User Agreement, and other language restricting its users available forum for remedies to binding arbitration, and - rather hilariously, IMnsHO - attempting to limit Lime's maximum financial liability for any injury a user might suffer to a princely $100) that are unquestionably going to be financially ruinous for the company.

Fatally so, because it's a venture-capital-funded startup, and the lawyers for Uber, Google Ventures, and other firms that have financed it to the tune of more than $300 million thus far are undoubtedly going to advise their respective management teams that it's now time to cut their losses, write off their investment in Lime, and apply the losses to offset taxes on companies they've funded in the past that are now producing actual profits, rather than liabilities.

The thing that gets me is how the idiots running Lime's software development team decided that rolling out untested code to their deployed fleet of vehicles could in any way have been considered a good idea. I mean, it's one thing for Mark Zuckerberg to flog his coders to "move fast and break things." Bugs in Facebook's code have no potential to physically injure or kill its users. Motor vehicles operated by biological humans on non-virtual streets, in real-world traffic conditions. are a completely different matter. They entail a whole different order of risks: both to their riders' lives, physical health, and safety, and to the company's own existence, should it be found legally liable for any injuries suffered by the former due to its employees' negligence.

And it almost certainly will be held liable. All a plaintiff's lawyers have to establish is that the code that caused the brake lock-ups had not been sufficiently-well tested (if, indeed, it was tested at all) before it was rolled out to the fleet of scooters that Lime's customers paid it to rent, and it's "Game over! Thank you for playing," because I can't see any court in any country ruling that the company's attempt to duck liability for its negligence via the ham-handed provisions of its User Agreement as enforceable, or in any way reasonable or fair.

Disclaimer: IANAL. If Lime's broken-ass software has caused you to sustain an injury of any kind, I strongly advise you to consult an actual, admitted-to-practice-before-the-bar-type barrister about it - preferably one who has a long record of winning product liability cases against companies with a history of employing predatory user agreements to try to prevent their customers from holding them responsible for their negligence ...

Re:It's not a bug,

[swillden]

No. And you forgot to state in your hypothetical that the vehicle in question is dangerous even without the software problems and requires you to be perfectly healthy and agile to get an approximation of a safe ride.

I'm 50 years old and 70 pounds overweight. I find e-scooters to be convenient, fun, cheap and adequately safe urban transportation when I'm traveling. Quicker and less tiring than walking, more convenient, cheaper and more fun than taxi/Uber or renting a car.

I wouldn't use a scooter in bad weather, though. If it's too hot, too cold or too wet, I'll get enclosed transportation. Though I do agree that a scooter widens my tolerance for heat and cold a bit, especially heat.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Spy Handler]

Now, imagine that I've got a vehicle you can ride that will get you there in a third of the time and with minimal physical effort, and it'll only cost you about a dollar. To top it off, you don't have to worry about maintenance or security. Do you see the attraction now?

I can see the attraction for a jobless millennial living in his parents' basement who can't afford a car because he has crushing student debt payments from his Gender Social Studies degree. But for actual adults with adult jobs who own cars and/or motorcycles, no. There is no attraction.

That's a killer flaw, however "rare"

[EdZep]

Anyone that's ever endo'd on a bike, skateboard, etc. can tell you how unpleasant and really dangerous sudden deceleration is. On a device that leaves you exposed, it's your worst nightmare.

But, hey, when it does (rarely) happen, it's when you're going downhill, at high speed! And, that's when an endo is most dangerous.

"[I]n very rare cases -- usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur, resulting in a scooter stopping unexpectedly."

Re:Understatement

[arglebargle_xiv]

Something is also up with the photo that Qz used to illustrate this. WTF have they done with this, the rider is obviously moving at low speed (look at her hair), and then the background is smeared to imitate motion blur, but look at the railing, theres' breaks in it and features that appear and disappear across different regions of blurring. What a mess!

Re:Understatement

[arglebargle_xiv]

My guess is they grabbed sections of the image and stretched them to fake motion blur.

Not really

[rsilvergun]

old folk probably can't balance on the things (AFAIK no gyroscope) and would either drive or call a cab.

It's a buck to rent plus 15 cents per minute. They can go for about 50 minutes on a charge at around 12 mph (15mph is the max, but that's gonna rise and fall depending on terrain). You could pretty easily spend $8 bucks getting somewhere on one. For a few dollars more I could call a lyft. Maybe even for the same price.

I think they're just a novelty at this point.

Re:what a stupid person

[Ol Olsoc]

Dearest Coward, you can get keys sent to you in the mail, you can even use your key with an app to unlock the scooter.

OK Grandpa. Why not start your own old-fashioned scooter rental business instead of playing armchair entrepreneur?

Y'all even know what a key is these days? many are just electronic devices you plug in or even wear. I can design a key that will record the speed, the location, calculate the cost and take payments. But it is on the key end, not something that might kill you like this system has come close to

Thats the awesome thing about you cowards - standing up for something that is obviously, provably, and in practice, dangerous.

Oops

[Rocketboy0]

A case of braking bad, or moving fast and braking things