Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 137 posts

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#41

Post by burkaman »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #34
teeray wrote: post #19

> For now, Massachusetts’ law is tied up by lobbying and legal fisticuffs. It’s depressing that the will of the people that passed this ballot measure can get pre-empted like this. Before it passes? Sure. But afterward you’re just disenfranchising the voters.

Direct democracy is a threat to order, the unwashed masses know nothing, they're protecting us. I think the saddest part is there probably isn't an auto manufacturer that isn't a participant in the lobbying campaign against bills like this. I can't even vote with my wallet in this situation. At this point I'm hoping I'll be able to buy an electric kit car that can satisfy my minimal needs in the near future so I don'…

You can vote with your wallet by either not buying a car or only buying used cars.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#42

Post by sokoloff »

markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

How will right to repair speed up your particular repair, though? If a part is back-ordered, it's still going to be back-ordered even with right to repair.

Said differently, what is blocking you from doing the repair today? Is it just that the sensor needs coding to the car or calibration?

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#43

Post by 542354234235 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #20
PeterisP wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as simple. For example, look at the distance sensors used for parking and the data coming from them over the CAN bus. That bus needs to be able to (at least indirectly) reach the brakes so that automatic emergency braking can take their measurements as inputs. And that bus needs to be able to reach the audio system to provide audible feedback to the driver when parking, and also mute the radio. Ergo, you hav…

Parking assist is the very definition of bullshit convenience. In this case apparently it's dangerous as well?

>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 188,000 passenger vehicles were backing in crashes reported to the police in the United States during 2015…The combination of Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist reduced backing crash involvement rates by 42%. When Rear Automatic Braking was added to the Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist, vehicles with all three systems had backing crash involvement rates that were 78% lower than vehicles with none of the systems.[1]

The data would seem to contradict that statement.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#44

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

vlovich123 wrote: post #29
markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

Insurance companies (of any kind) are not incentivized to find the cheapest service. Anything they pay out is passed on via premiums. Indeed, the more expensive service is better because a 2% profit on $1000 makes them 10x more profit than 2% profit on $100. There’s some competition here in that a marketplace of insurance companies can compete on the premiums so there can be downward pressure, sometimes. But for thin…

The facts in your post are wrong. Insurance companies establish rigorous processes to steer repairs to the low cost provider and push that provider to make only necessary repairs. Policy holders might go along with it and might not, same as other insurance scenarios.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#45

Post by ineedtosleep »

markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

I guess it depends on the state. A friend recently was hit and had their car only slightly damaged. They went to insurance car shops that insurance recommended, but they all declined to fix the car. They ended up getting paid out and fixed it themselves since they're already skilled with maintaining vehicles, and they pocketed the rest.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#46

Post by cityofdelusion »

markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

I'm curious as to what make/model is damaged -- I self-repair all my cars and have no issues with access to parts and service manuals. Ebay is full of suppliers and mechanics operating a black market on these things.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#47

Post by bluGill »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #24
tkfu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about security by obscurity. A better analogy would be the fight over "tivoization". In safety-critical and highly-regulated systems like automotive and health care, there's a meaningful regulatory interest in ensuring that the devices as sold and authorized to be on the road (or in patients' hospital rooms) don't get modified in dangerous ways. That means that the software and firmware running on each of th…

Could you expand, or point to a good primer on the issues? I love "it's a complicated trade off" - it's way more interesting than whatever slogans end up defining "sides" in a debate

Whenever I dig into this I discover that what people complaining really want to do is modify their cars so it no longer meets emissions standards (you can get more power and/or better fuel mileage by doing this). Nobody is replacing ECUs with one of their own design that otherwise meets emissions. Sensors and parts are easy to replace (sometimes at high cost), and mostly radially available. The OEMs already tell mechanics what all the diagnostics codes mean.

sure most of us reading this have the skills to write new code for their ECU, but realistically almost none of us would do that anyway unless we want to make a trade off that effects emissions.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#48

Post by mrguyorama »

teeray wrote: post #19

> For now, Massachusetts’ law is tied up by lobbying and legal fisticuffs. It’s depressing that the will of the people that passed this ballot measure can get pre-empted like this. Before it passes? Sure. But afterward you’re just disenfranchising the voters.

State governments pretty regularly ignore citizen initiatives if they don't like it. Our state voted to decriminalize weed and our republican governor filibustered it for the remaining 4 years he was in office and even the democrat governor who replaced him took her sweet time.

Right now if you look it up, GOP state governments are working hard to kill the ability for citizens to enact initiatives that could allow them to implement things they want that the state representatives do not want.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#49

Post by MSFT_Edging »

RealityVoid wrote: post #4

Current cybersecurity standards enforced in the automotive industry will probably completely kill the possibility of after-market car parts and the usage of used parts in cars. I say this as someone working in this field that has asked a couple of people doing work in this exact direction. I point blank asked them if this will happen, and they just shrugged their shoulders and said... yeah, kinda'.

There should really be some kind of airgap between internet connected entertainment systems and "mission-critical" aspects such as brake/drive by wire, steering input, etc.

It seems incredibly short sighted to give your radio access to drive the car into a median.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#50

Post by _puk »

ineedtosleep wrote: post #45
markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

I guess it depends on the state. A friend recently was hit and had their car only slightly damaged. They went to insurance car shops that insurance recommended, but they all declined to fix the car. They ended up getting paid out and fixed it themselves since they're already skilled with maintaining vehicles, and they pocketed the rest.

Does this not affect insurance?

We have categories of write off, so if insurance has paid out it affects the future value of the car.

This would be a category D [0], which makes a big difference on resell.

0: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-is-a-catego...

Post reply on HN