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

81–90 of 137 posts

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

#81

Post by josephcsible »

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'.

If I ever have to choose between security and freedom, I'd pick freedom all the way, every time. But usually this is a false dichotomy and you can in fact have both, despite claims to the contrary.

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

#82

Post by josephcsible »

axus wrote: post #23

The car keys should probably contain the master private key , and the mechanic could use that to authorize third-party components and modifications to the car.

What would people do when they lose their keys? Isn't that a common thing?

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

#83

Post by forgetfreeman »

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.

Removing incentives to actually pay attention to where your two ton death machine is in space isn't how one introduces safety. What you're proposing is a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior. There's no moral to it.

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

#84

Post by alistairSH »

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…

It's not just that. For example, BMW has paired the main battery to the ECU in their cars for years. So a dead battery requires a trip to an authorized repair shop (or buying an OBD scan tool) to have a new battery operate correctly. This is relatively easy & safe ~4 bolt job (2 tether the battery, then 1 for each terminal) in many other cars. Technically, it can be self-repaired, but it's extra steps and cost because reasons.

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

#85

Post by snarfy »

PeterisP wrote: post #15
Loughla wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The infotainment bullshit should be in zero way connected to the actual operation of the vehicle. There is zero reason why the laggy, nonsensical software that controls my radio should control my engine. Someone correct me if I am wrong, please.

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…

> 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 have a bus that reaches both brakes and radio

A $2 speaker would work just fine. You would still hear it over the radio. If your radio is so loud you couldn't hear it while parking you have bigger problems. A shared bus might be more efficient, but it is not more redundant. I would rather spend $2 on redundancy here.

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

#86

Post by NikolaNovak »

chongli wrote: post #59
lokar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All repairs are unlicensed.

Maybe the US is different then, because here in Canada auto mechanics are licensed after a ~4 year registered apprenticeship.

I just learned that recently - I was at a quick oil change place and asked them to quickly look at my brakes while down there. After some commotion their manager came over and explained (In a friendly fashion) they are technically a "lube shop" with "lube technicians" and not licensed mechanics and cannot do or say anything but change my oil and maybe fill up the fluids / change wipers. Interesting!

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

#87

Post by monocasa »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #51
vlovich123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That’s why you see things like medical insurance not being aligned with lowering medical costs Health insurance companies are lambasted all the time for denying coverage for certain procedures or medicines or requiring prior authorizations to prove it is medically necessary or evidence based treatment.

They do both to carefully approach the 20% overhead allowed by the ACA. Denying claims wholesale, and allowing the claims they do approve to increase in cost year over year greater than inflation so that they can make the total pie that they take 20% of greater each year.

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

#88

Post by function_seven »

jkingsman wrote: post #73
MikeKusold wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

> 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.

A friend had paint damage to his truck caused by a canopy (a large EZ-UP) being blown into it repeatedly during a storm. He filed a claim and the adjuster determined it would be something like $5,000 for a proper repaint.

He asked another friend of ours–who worked in insurance—if it was okay to just keep the money and ignore the paint damage: "Yeah, you suffered a loss, you were compensated for that loss, that's all there is to it. It's up to you if you want to repaint, or if you consider it diminished value compensation, or whatever. It's your money free-and-clear."

It feels wrong somehow, but it really isn't. Just don't try to claim the same damage again in the future.

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

#89

Post by chollida1 »

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…

We know someone who backed over their child and the child died.

I assure you, that was not a nuisance.

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

#90

Post by klyrs »

alistairSH wrote: post #77
sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

A mystery that resolves itself by the end of the sentence: who the hell would steal airbags? Clearly, there's demand from people who don't want to wait months for a replacement... talk about making a market.

Post reply on HN