Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by chollida1 » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 11:09 AM UTC

forgetfreeman wrote: post #110

chollida1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know someone who backed over their child and the child died. I assure you, that was not a nuisance.

I know three guys that got hit by lightning. I still don't consider wild-ass outliers when making decisions.

Luckily for you, you don’t need to. Consider outliers.

The reason they the US mandated backup cameras was due to accidents like this.

They were that common.

from your original point.

> 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're not talking Michael Bay style 8 lanes of exploding cars here.

Given the complete lack of any empathy at all you've shown, I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but please try to consider if we have a way to prevent deaths, then maybe we should try and not just consider a parent backing over their child to "represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into."

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

#122

Post by deadly_penguin » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 11:46 AM UTC

_puk wrote: post #50

ineedtosleep wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on the state. A friend recently was hit and had their car only slightly damaged. They went to insurance car shops that insurance recommended, but they all declined to fix the car. They ended up getting paid out and fixed it themselves since they're already skilled with maintaining vehicles, and they pocketed the rest.

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...

Just as a note, since 2017 it's cat N for Non-structural damage: https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/cat-b-s-n-motorbikes-new-insu...

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

#123

Post by Tangurena2 » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 12:41 PM UTC

RealityVoid wrote: post #17

PeterisP wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Current cars usually have gateways that route messages around different busses. This would protect you from having unwanted messages arriving on secured buses, but pass through the wanted messages.

Unfortunately, those gateways are pretty poor when they do exist. There are some thieves in the UK popping off headlights to access the CAN bus, where they then inject a message that tells the system that a valid key has been used so go start the engine.

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

#124

Post by 542354234235 » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 1:38 PM UTC

forgetfreeman wrote: post #83

forgetfreeman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A camera and sensors that give you more information about "where your two ton death machine is in space" and are literally proven to improve safety and reduce accidents means you pay attention less? So cars would be even better if we removed the side and rear view mirrors, since those are nothing but "a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior"? I mean, people have necks so shouldn't they just turn around and look instead of being lazy and relying on mirrors? I'm sorry, but I cannot take your position seriously.

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

#125

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 2:35 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #7

forgetfreeman wrote: post #6

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

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.

There really isn't any reason why your infotainment system can't be separate from core functioning control. It's just cheaper for the manufacturer to slap it all in one platform with the added advantage of huge profit margins on getting it fixed when something simple fails.

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

#126

Post by bethly » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 2:50 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #103

bluGill wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse In some ways. In other ways, things are worse now.

I’m curious what maximization function you are considering

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

#127

Post by bethly » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 3:07 PM UTC

brnaftr361 wrote: post #34

teeray wrote: post #19

> For now, Massachusetts’ law is tied up by lobbying and legal fisticuffs. It’s depressing that the will of the people that passed this ballot measure can get pre-empted like this. Before it passes? Sure. But afterward you’re just disenfranchising the voters.

Direct democracy is a threat to order, the unwashed masses know nothing, they're protecting us. I think the saddest part is there probably isn't an auto manufacturer that isn't a participant in the lobbying campaign against bills like this. I can't even vote with my wallet in this situation. At this point I'm hoping I'll be able to buy an electric kit car that can satisfy my minimal needs in the near future so I don'…

Direct democracy is easier to buy than representative democracies for two reasons: first, voters have other things to do with their time than become experts on every bit of law that comes before them. And second, they don’t have the ongoing interest in rule-making, implementation & enforcement an interested legislator does.

Reading the book Street Level Bureaucrats was eye-opening for me on why seemingly “common-sense” solutions like Direct Democracy end up either just not working or having the opposite of the intended effect. Laws are less like writing software for a computer and more like designing processes for a team writing software.

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

#128

Post by hooverd » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 4:11 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #54

hooverd wrote: post #22

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…

For a fleeting moment they seemed like something about actually increase freedom, but now...

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

#129

Post by kwhitefoot » Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #44

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…

The facts in your post are wrong. Insurance companies establish rigorous processes to steer repairs to the low cost provider and push that provider to make only necessary repairs. Policy holders might go along with it and might not, same as other insurance scenarios.

> steer repairs to the low cost provider and push that provider to make only necessary repairs.

That's not my experience in the UK and Norway. At least with the good insurance companies. I creased the rear passenger door of my Tesla S in the UK three years ago. It was purely cosmetic damage confined to a 10 cm diameter area at the front bottom corner. My Norwegian insurance paid 4 kUSD for a new door skin and a repaint of almost the whole side of the car at the Tesla recommended body shop and ten days of car rental.

It's interesting to see how such things differ from country to country and insurer to insurer.

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

#130

Post by forgetfreeman » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:26 AM UTC

chollida1 wrote: post #121

forgetfreeman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know three guys that got hit by lightning. I still don't consider wild-ass outliers when making decisions.

Luckily for you, you don’t need to. Consider outliers. The reason they the US mandated backup cameras was due to accidents like this. They were that common. from your original point. > 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 "…

We're getting pretty far afield from the original point of decoupling control systems from network connected infotainment systems, which doesn't necessarily eliminate backup sensors or cameras. The current everything-in-one-bucket implementation is a matter of convenience and cost savings for the manufacturers, not a hard technical requirement.

I could go on at length about the consequences of trying to play whack-a-mole with human stupidity and how that just breeds stronger idiots. There have been no significant changes to vehicle-related death statistics since the 90s when airbags were mandated, despite significant improvements to crash protection and countless here-let-me-help-you-with-that safety features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. So what do you call it when improving safety doesn't actually improve safety?