Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 564 posts

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#411

Post by kube-system »

otterley wrote: post #386
vel0city wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Merriam-Webster: Definition of collide intransitive verb 1 : to come together with solid or direct impact https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collide Its a stretch to describe road debris coming together with solid impact to the undercarriage a collision?

Important words in contracts are usually defined in the contract itself. "Collision" is almost certainly defined in any automobile insurance contract you purchase. If you can read code, you can (and should!) read the contracts you sign, especially contracts that could pay you money. Relying on the dictionary alone can mislead you. Here's the pertinent definition from my policy (USAA specifically): "Collision" means t…

Whenever I see contract language like

> bird or animal

I want to know the background behind why some lawyer found that necessary. :)

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#412

Post by abrokenpipe »

anfilt wrote: post #351
abrokenpipe wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually rentals require/include max comprehensive insurance (regulations vary based on the state in US), so if the warranty doesn't cover it then the insurance should. While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligen…

A bit off topic, but tar should only be used as temp repair to prevent further damage from water and moisture. For example its winter and you have asphalt shingle roof. Asphalt shingles are brittle when cold so attempting a proper repair could damage more shingles on what was a rather localized problem. Also ice and snow makes working on a roof more hazardous. An other possible reason would be you don't have enough m…

Thats interesting, I never knew that about tar but it makes sense.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#413

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #186
privateSFacct wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice. CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault. You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour…

I kind of took for granted the fact that my customers are typically the party with the money by several orders of magnitude so I don't have to worry much about joint liability even though I live in one of those states. You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't reall…

Perfect - the best defense BY FAR is to have less / little / no $$.

This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#414

Post by Marsymars »

kbenson wrote: post #204
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault. Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused…

> Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault. I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random "brake rotor" that wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing, the…

The auto shop by my house lets you bring your own parts, but if you do so, they charge a higher labour rate, and don't provide any warranty.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#415

Post by kube-system »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #405
kube-system wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn’t say his insurance wouldn’t cover it. It says his comprehensive coverage on his insurance wouldn’t cover it. Which is highly likely because this type of incident is usually a collision claim. If he has comprehensive at all then he almost certainly has collision coverage. It’s just that, then it’s $16k accident that’s he’s at fault for.

I'm not sure if it said he had comprehensive, sounds like he didn't, but the wording is a bit strange. > "the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris" My guess was that this would have been a comprehensive claim, but he didn't have that insurance plan. Could just be a deceptive play on words to evade the real issue...

I am not aware of any US insurer or state where striking an object on a road would be a comprehensive claim. After watching the video I think he’s probably just confusing the two. Which might be likely since he clearly doesn’t have his whole insurance situation figured out.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#416

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

tzs wrote: post #280
privateSFacct wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice. CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault. You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour…

> Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything. It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share. For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k. I mig…

I think you meant injured at end.

Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.

Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#417

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

tzs wrote: post #287
systemvoltage wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me want to move out of CA as soon as possible.

Your choices then are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several…

Threshold fault is much much less bad / weird

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#418

Post by Marsymars »

effingwewt wrote: post #379
tylersmith wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision". The insurance that covers such an event is literally called collison insurance.

Indeed. I have full coverage with Geico, as well as uninsured motorist coverage, damage etc. Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones on the highway late at night so we had to navigate a field of almost impossible to see cones (the borders are black and there were no lights up). Several cars, including mine ended up running over a few. I got lucky as it just messed up my paint a bit on the f…

> Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should.

What's your alternative to mandatory liability insurance, given that there are drivers with much greater liability risk than others?

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#419

Post by bserge »

Meph504 wrote: post #323
Spooky23 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what the specifications are, as Tesla flaunts the law and doesn’t publish them? Given the many examples of poor build quality with Tesla cars, it’s laughable to make some sort of case that any third party part doesn’t meet some standards that nobody can see. I have leased many cars in my lifetime, and never used anything but the cheapest parts available for out of warranty parts. Federal law allows yo…

Firstly, did you read the article, this isn't a replacement part, its a hack job, look at the pictures, read what they did, this isn't about 3rd party part, this is a service, and a poor one. Additionally, the terms of your lease, dictate how maintenance is done, and if third party parts are allowed. Magnuson-Moss act is likely what you are talking about, which wouldn't apply here, firstly because it only applies to…

Oof, you'd have a heart attack if you knew what mechanics regularly do to "normal" cars.

But yeah, it's the lease contract dictating things. Read your contracts carefully kids, they're often designed to screw you over and (sadly) rarely negotiable.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#420

Post by bitbckt »

kumarvvr wrote: post #380
toss1 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although I think it is about an order of magnitude less of a problem than that. My house runs at 60psi, +/-3psi, and I think it is pretty bog-standard for US plumbing. It's about 11m from the basement to the attic, and still needs decent pressure upstairs, so, yes, 2-5 psi is silly low pressure to worry about - it's only going to be a slow leak even while running, the only problem is if it runs out, for which I…

Wow, 60 psi? Thats like 40 meters of head. So you must be using booster pumps to get the pressure. Never knew this. In India, 99.99% of all homes have gravity flow and static pressure, so except for very tall buildings, no one gets pressure more than 5 - 10 psi.

I have to _reduce_ the mains to 55psi to keep my water heater functioning.

Plenty of pressure here (USA) without a pump.

Post reply on HN