101–110 of 137 posts
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.
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.
Because people want things like remote start, remote climate control, etc. that they can control from phone apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate computers. Seems like lately they're only used to make our lives worse.
It sometimes seems that way, but when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse. Cars in the 1930s were not fuel efficient, polluted a lot, and you have to do things like file the points every couple months. I remember when you called buildings not people - the phone was attached to the wall, and what just a voice device, it didn't hold Wikipedia or current maps to everywhere. However we forget…
In some ways. In other ways, things are worse now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Trade certification for automotive service technicians is compulsory in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta and available, but voluntary, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
> Automotive service technician (transmission) trade certification is compulsory in Ontario.
> Automotive service technician (steering, suspension and brakes) trade certification is compulsory in New Brunswick and Ontario.
https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/marketreport/requirements/14799/ca
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 will just follow the money like they do in (USA) healthcare. Expensive repairs create a world where there are two kind of people, those who are insured, and those who aren't. A high cost of repair guarantees you _really_ don't want to be in the latter group, so you'll pay whatever is asked to be in the first part. On their end, the insurance companies will use their weight to negotiate much lower…
Are there really people out there who wouldn’t otherwise buy insurance, but they choose to do so only because the cost of repairs is too high?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
I would have assumed that someone who would go out of their way to steal somebody else's airbags would also not bother with safety inspections or whatever that might have kept their broken car from being on the road.
I suspect that most people who need airbags are still buying them; they're just buying them at the end of a chain of fencing stolen bags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insurance companies will just follow the money like they do in (USA) healthcare. Expensive repairs create a world where there are two kind of people, those who are insured, and those who aren't. A high cost of repair guarantees you _really_ don't want to be in the latter group, so you'll pay whatever is asked to be in the first part. On their end, the insurance companies will use their weight to negotiate much lower…
I’m not sure how this logic applies when having insurance is mandatory. If you don’t have insurance, you’re not driving legally. Are there really people out there who wouldn’t otherwise buy insurance, but they choose to do so only because the cost of repairs is too high?
I don't carry collision insurance on my daily drivers (the newest of which is 9 years old), because it's too expensive for the coverage offered.
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…
What? Accidents, even after repair, decrease the resale value of a car, significantly in the case of a young or exotic car, less so for an older, more pedestrian car.
Having been in an accident removes some possible buyers from the pool. (Some buyers will not knowingly buy a car with damage history.) That necessarily changes the balance of supply and demand for that car.
If you had a choice between buying a car that was in a crash and repaired versus the otherwise identically equipped car that had never been crashed, which would you choose? Lots of buyers prefer the latter option, which is why they're worth more than the former option.
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…
We know someone who backed over their child and the child died. I assure you, that was not a nuisance.