Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

Post by defrost » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:45 AM UTC

forgetfreeman wrote: post #130

chollida1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

    Year  USofA    Australia
    1990  17.88    13.66 
    2021  12.89     4.4

Post by forgetfreeman » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 4:12 AM UTC

chollida1 wrote: post #132

forgetfreeman wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> There have been no significant changes to vehicle-related death statistics since the 90 I mean, if you look at the data, you'll very quickly see you're wrong https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/... Fatalities have gone only down over teh past 20 years. Your assertion that car deaths haven't moved is false

Post by 6510 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

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?

Post by bityard » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 3:08 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #109

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…

> But just the fact that a car was in a collision or had a claim against it does not automatically affect the car's ... resale value. 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 d…