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

91–100 of 137 posts

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

#91

Post by 83 »

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…

Seems like that would be trivially managed with a firewall (canbus security gateway). Is it purely cost that they don't lock down or segment off the canbus? Being able to steal a car by talking to the immobilizer through the headlights comes to mind.

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

#92

Post by lotsofpulp »

monocasa wrote: post #87
lotsofpulp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then why do some of them exceed the minimum medical loss ratio by quite a bit? Why did Elevance simply not deny more claims so it could get closer to 80% rather than 90% and book more net income?

https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2023/mar/...

> MEDICAL LOSS RATIO TRENDS

>Reported loss ratios are 89.4% for Elevance (fka Anthem), 86.0% for CVS Health (Aetna), 83.8% for Cigna, and 82.8% for UnitedHealthcare. Loss ratios have been impacted by seasonal patterns and the return to more stable utilization than seen in 2020.

Seems like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

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

#93

Post by groos »

aoweijrti wrote: post #38
forgetfreeman wrote: post #6

Here's a hot take: legislate an airgap between operation control and infotainment/convenience horseshit.

Nice in theory but almost impossible in practice, unless you start installing two copies of many things, one for safety-critical purposes and one for infotainment purposes.

Tesla already does this. You can reboot the user screen while driving the car. Everything works but the only negative thing I've noticed is that you get no indication of turn signals working (they're flashing).

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

#94

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

Yup. I know a body guy, and always get quotes from an expensive shop, then he does it for less.

I hit a deer a few years ago and made $5000.

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

#95

Post by mwint »

Spooky23 wrote: post #94
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.

Yup. I know a body guy, and always get quotes from an expensive shop, then he does it for less. I hit a deer a few years ago and made $5000.

Did you suffer any increase in premiums? I’ve never been involved in any sort of accident (other than being a passenger), so what happens after an accident re. premiums, etc. is a Scary Thing that I’d love to demystify for myself before I learn by experience.

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

#96

Post by mwint »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #86
chongli wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Likely this has more to do with their professional liability insurance than any government regulation, directly.

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

#97

Post by compiler-guy »

bluGill wrote: post #76
bityard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don’t know what state or country you are in, but that isn’t the way a salvage title works in any US state that I am aware of.

A car with a salvage title stays branded with “rebuilt” or “restored” in all common scenarios. There are ways to wash them to unbranded, but most are unethical and involve retitling in different states and such, rather than simply restoring the car.

Regardless, unless dealing directly with the DMV, most people call a branded title a salvage title, or at least say something like, “the title isn’t clean”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_title

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

#98

Post by sokoloff »

klyrs wrote: post #90
alistairSH wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> who the hell would steal airbags?

Someone who didn't want to pay $400-800 per bag to get their banged up car back on the road.

Who the hell buys used tires? Who buys used catalytic converters? Who puts mismatched fenders on their car?

People who need a car to get to work and don't have a lot of money and, in the case of bags and fenders, may (wisely) not have collision coverage...

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

#99

Post by Spooky23 »

bluGill wrote: post #76
bityard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Salvage titles are restored wrecks. Back in the day when it was easy to get clean titles, people would steal cars and “restore” wrecks… or move parts from wrecks into stolen cars to launder them.

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

#100

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> Ergo, you have a bus that reaches both brakes and radio.

But do you? Why not have a plain old audio connection that goes to the audio system? It doesn't have to be on the CAN.

Post reply on HN