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

71–80 of 137 posts

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

#71

Post by MikeKusold »

adrianmonk wrote: post #64
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.

> would have happily repaired on my own if possible I actually did that once. The claims adjuster was pretty surprised at the request, and she confirmed multiple times that I really wanted them to pay out less money (parts but no labor). Then she was like, "Well, I don't know why you'd want to, but it's your decision, so OK." The reason: someone stole my stereo and, in the process, they destroyed several pieces of th…

They were probably surprised because the insurance company would have paid the fair market rate for the replacement (parts & labor based on various quotes), regardless of if a professional did the work, if you DIYed it, or even if you never decided to repair it.

You likely talked yourself out of additional money.

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

#72

Post by BenjiWiebe »

bluGill wrote: post #47
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mech…

OEMs only tell authorized mechanics what the codes mean. Most cars have the basic standardized OBD-II codes, and an additional much-more-useful set of codes/diagnostics that are proprietary.

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

#73

Post by jkingsman »

MikeKusold wrote: post #71
adrianmonk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would have happily repaired on my own if possible I actually did that once. The claims adjuster was pretty surprised at the request, and she confirmed multiple times that I really wanted them to pay out less money (parts but no labor). Then she was like, "Well, I don't know why you'd want to, but it's your decision, so OK." The reason: someone stole my stereo and, in the process, they destroyed several pieces of th…

They were probably surprised because the insurance company would have paid the fair market rate for the replacement (parts & labor based on various quotes), regardless of if a professional did the work, if you DIYed it, or even if you never decided to repair it. You likely talked yourself out of additional money.

Yeah this process caught me off guard during a recent repair. In my mind, the model was "Insurance company will pay what the repairs cost." How it actually works is "Insurance company will give you the cash to cover what they believe the repairs cost. If it costs more, they'll cover the difference. You are free to do anything you want with the money."

Walking away with leftover cash in your pocket is a normal and above-board part of the process if you can do the repair more cheaply/by yourself/don't get it fixed; it's not fraud.

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

#74

Post by bluGill »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #72
bluGill wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mech…

OEMs only tell authorized mechanics what the codes mean. Most cars have the basic standardized OBD-II codes, and an additional much-more-useful set of codes/diagnostics that are proprietary.

They tell the third party scan tool manufactures as well. (for a "reasonable" price - where reasonable can be 6 figures) I used to work on those scan tools, and so I saw the data (I probably shouldn't talk about it - lets just say were reversed engineered their tools often).

Many mechanics will read and tell you the codes for free. Auto part stores will as well.

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

#75

Post by forgetfreeman »

542354234235 wrote: post #69
forgetfreeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but…

I don’t think it needs to be some Michael Bay crash to be significant. Let’s say that all these crashes are minor, as you state. If repairs ranged from $500 to $1,500 evenly, that is about $188 million in property damage a year. That’s not nothing. I agree that systems need to be better designed with infosec in mind.

It's not nothing, it's the consequences of people's general disinterest in operating a motor vehicle effectively. I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making.

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

#76

Post by bluGill »

bityard wrote: post #63
_puk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

In the US, firstly it is considered unfashionable by many to buy a used car altogether ("you're just buying someone else's problems!") and secondly, the only thing that can reliably affect resale value is if it condemned with a "salvage title." Which can mean a few things but usually means the car suffered more damage than it is economical to fix. But just the fact that a car was in a collision or had a claim against…

The majority of cars sold are used cars. Yes there are some who won't consider a used car, but they are a minority (a large minority, but still a minority). The average car last 12 years, the typical new car is replaced every 3 years with a newer one.

A salvage title is only used when someone intends to restore the car, and then it goes back to a normal title once restored (or at least that is how my state did it 15 years ago - each state is different). You get the salvage title only to justify paying taxes on the actual value of the car (sales tax on a car is for actual value not the price you paid, so a salvage title is useful to prove it isn't worth what the book says) It will show up on CarFax as restored then. (though as you note most such issues never get a salvage title as they are not sold)

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

#77

Post by alistairSH »

sokoloff wrote: post #42
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?

This.

Back in 2013/2014, my Jeep was rear-ended. Some of the body panels were back-ordered, so the repair took 2 months longer than expected. Even if I was could have done the body repair, I couldn't have purchased the parts.

Likewise, a co-worker had his airbags stolen last year and it was many months until Acura had replacements available.

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

#78

Post by alistairSH »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #66
542354234235 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sy…

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but…

Some portion of those incidents were backing over pedestrians and children, not just backing into stationary objects.

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

#79

Post by fragmede »

dsr_ wrote: post #70
dsr_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people like the following remote features: * Where's my car? Press the button, get a honk. * Lock the doors. If they're powered, close themi first. * Unlock the doors. If they're powered, open them afterward. * Warm up the car, it's cold outside. * Cool down the car, it's hot outside. So that's five buttons on a remote, maximum. None of them require connection to infotainment systems.

If I didn't care about discoverability, I could reasonably reduce that to: * Lock button. Hold it down to get a honk. * Unlock button. Hold it to get the car started; if the interior temperature of the cabin is outside a set range, warm or cool it appropriately. Make one button big and round and smooth and bright, and the other one big and square and textured and dark.

That's easy enough for the salesman to tell the customer when they're looking at the car. Still need a button to open the trunk tho.

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

#80

Post by 542354234235 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #75
542354234235 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it needs to be some Michael Bay crash to be significant. Let’s say that all these crashes are minor, as you state. If repairs ranged from $500 to $1,500 evenly, that is about $188 million in property damage a year. That’s not nothing. I agree that systems need to be better designed with infosec in mind.

It's not nothing, it's the consequences of people's general disinterest in operating a motor vehicle effectively. I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making.

> I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making.

You want less safety in order to teach some sort of moral lesson to people? Thank god we don't design planes that way, I guess.

Post reply on HN