- Joined
- Apr 30, 2023
- Messages
- 1,006
- Reaction score
- 901
- Cars
- Lucid Grand Touring
- Referral Code
- WDATGN78
I’m really sorry to hear about your symptoms, and I hope a healthcare professional can help you identify what’s going on. But based on how you’ve described it, this is almost certainly a medical or physiological issue. And not something caused by the car itself. This is the first time I’ve heard of anything like this, which I believe is the sentiment shared by many here.
I’d also just note that most vehicle leases govern equipment performance, not how a user physically reacts. If there’s no demonstrable mechanical or software fault affecting driveability, Lucid has no contractual or regulatory obligation to cancel a lease based on a customer’s personal reaction.
When a logical next step—seeking medical evaluation—is raised, the OP has not offered evidence that this has been tested in the vehicle and conclusively linked his symptoms to the vehicle. Without that, they’re asking others to conclude Lucid is responsible for a condition that may have nothing to do with the car.
It’s also worth noting that just because the symptoms didn’t present during a short test drive doesn’t make Lucid responsible for what emerged after extended use. That’s unfortunately the case with many physiological issues. Motion sickness, vestibular disorders, or pressure sensitivity often build with sustained exposure.
Just like a person might not get seasick on a harbor cruise but feel awful on a longer boat ride, that doesn’t make the boat manufacturer liable. Similarly, Lucid isn’t accountable for how someone’s body reacts over time to riding in a vehicle that has no defect.
I’d caution against the legal route as a first step and gear it more towards a medical route, either with a doctor or with trial and error tests. Like riding with noise cancelling headphones or on nausea meds. Litigation is like putting poison in your own ear and expecting your enemy to die.
I’d also just note that most vehicle leases govern equipment performance, not how a user physically reacts. If there’s no demonstrable mechanical or software fault affecting driveability, Lucid has no contractual or regulatory obligation to cancel a lease based on a customer’s personal reaction.
When a logical next step—seeking medical evaluation—is raised, the OP has not offered evidence that this has been tested in the vehicle and conclusively linked his symptoms to the vehicle. Without that, they’re asking others to conclude Lucid is responsible for a condition that may have nothing to do with the car.
It’s also worth noting that just because the symptoms didn’t present during a short test drive doesn’t make Lucid responsible for what emerged after extended use. That’s unfortunately the case with many physiological issues. Motion sickness, vestibular disorders, or pressure sensitivity often build with sustained exposure.
Just like a person might not get seasick on a harbor cruise but feel awful on a longer boat ride, that doesn’t make the boat manufacturer liable. Similarly, Lucid isn’t accountable for how someone’s body reacts over time to riding in a vehicle that has no defect.
I’d caution against the legal route as a first step and gear it more towards a medical route, either with a doctor or with trial and error tests. Like riding with noise cancelling headphones or on nausea meds. Litigation is like putting poison in your own ear and expecting your enemy to die.