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

111–120 of 137 posts

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

#111

Post by pandaman »

legutierr wrote: post #106
speed_spread wrote: post #30

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?

Only liability insurance is mandatory in many (all?) states. And even if you believe that your car can only be damaged by insured drivers and you will always be able to make a claim against their insurance, the sufficient coverage on the property damage liability is just $5K in California, for example.

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

#112

Post by forgetfreeman »

JohnFen wrote: post #102
VectorLock wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people want things like remote start, remote climate control, etc. that they can control from phone apps.

I can't be the only one who actively doesn't want any of that. Surely there's a market for those who just want a car, not a smartphone on wheels.

There aren't many of us left but you aren't alone.

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

#113

Post by NikolaNovak »

mwint wrote: post #96
NikolaNovak wrote: post #86

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.

I feel you've typed that out of best thoughts and Intentions but no actual knowledge, which is an alluring and common but slippery path for all of us :-)

In Ontario, as parent and I indicated, it's a compulsory trade. It is, in fact, a government regulation directly.

https://www.skilledtradesontario.ca/about-trades/work-in-the...

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

#114

Post by bluGill »

alistairSH wrote: post #84
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…

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 becaus…

This is the first i've heard of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

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

#115

Post by rasz »

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.

Why? Bigger payouts -> bigger premiums -> bigger profits.

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

#116

Post by rasz »

chongli wrote: post #52
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.

Wouldn't an insurance company naturally want to avoid the additional liability of personal, unlicensed repairs? What if someone improperly repairs the brakes on their own car and they fail on the road, causing a collision?

No such thing as licensed repair thanks to Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

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

#117

Post by Spooky23 »

mwint wrote: post #95
Spooky23 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on your policy. In my case, no. But it think multiple incidents will raise it. Also, they’ll drop you if you’re too unlucky.

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

#118

Post by VectorLock »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #28
VectorLock wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people want things like remote start, remote climate control, etc. that they can control from phone apps.

Do they though? I mean if it's there sure people will mess with it but I don't recall any public outcry for either center dash ADHD factories or keyless anything.

I do, yes. It'd also be nice to know things like state of charge/how much gas I got, whats the car temperature now - tell me when it reaches X, look at my car's cameras. There are plenty of compelling use-cases.

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

#119

Post by forgetfreeman »

VectorLock wrote: post #118
forgetfreeman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they though? I mean if it's there sure people will mess with it but I don't recall any public outcry for either center dash ADHD factories or keyless anything.

I do, yes. It'd also be nice to know things like state of charge/how much gas I got, whats the car temperature now - tell me when it reaches X, look at my car's cameras. There are plenty of compelling use-cases.

There was a time when vehicles had dedicated gauges for vital info like operating temp, oil pressure, rpms, etc. so it's not like solutions don't already exist that don't involve a fucking tablet in the middle of the dash. Backup cameras I'll give you though.

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

#120

Post by FloatArtifact »

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.

Why can't the owner set up their own private key when the car is purchased or transfer ownership? It's the owner that needs it protection from unauthorized use and not the manufacturer.
Post reply on HN