this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
366 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
60035 readers
3753 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think a "recall" has a very specific legal definition, where the manufacturer has strictly defined responsibilities (identifying and notifying owners of affected vehicles would be one of those). It wouldn't surprise me if there was some external agency that acted as an auditor on that.
On the other hand, manufacturers can put out a "service action" bulletin, where a particular repair is free to the vehicle owner, but none of those recall responsibilities are in place. This means that, for example, vehicle owners are not notified, so you just need to bring your vehicle in with the complaint specified in the service action. In this case, the vehicle owner might need to point out that there's a service action, because a shady dealer will pretend it doesn't exist, charge you for the repair, and also submit the repair to the manufacturer for reimbursement. This was a lot easier to do before the internet, since the information about that service action wasn't readily available to the public.
A recall implies the product is irreparably damaged, or too expensive to repair, and needs to be returned/replaced.
This framing benefits corporations, because the average recall is relatively minimal and inconsequential, the public will grow to consider "recalls" as normal instead of "potentially deadly failure/defect", and make it easier for corporate sociopaths like Space Karen to scream gubberment overreach. The wording should reflect the risk to life/public health (e.g. potential to cause harm/death) as well as the cost to repair/replace (quantify the severity of the failure/defect).
The greater the access and granularity consumers have to this type of data, the greater the benefit to society. Any corporation, politician or lobby group arguing otherwise is your enemy.
No, it does not. I can't think of an automotive recall that wasn't repaired and resulted in a buyback. I'm sure there was one or two, I just can't think of them. Edit: Here's the list. And most of those have to do with bad welds or badly adhering paint (which affects windshields in collisions).
Lots of cars from all manufacturers end up with recalls that get fixed as a matter of course.
Tesla owners are not notified as such when the recalls are fixed by SW updates, they just get an update pushed to the car and a request in the car that there is an update ready to install.
Maybe that counts as the notification? I've never owned a car that does OTA shit. All the recalls that have applied to any of my cars have been mailed to me directly, sometimes even well before they are even able to be repaired, waiting on parts availability.
They absolutely do have to notify people of mandatory recalls and it's not even up to the company. This person does not know what they are talking about. There's a difference between a mandatory recall (mandated by the NHTSA/Government), and a voluntary one. Every other car manufacture sends out information to their customers about mandatory recalls (yes, even software updates, yes, even when they're OTA fixes). Tesla isn't special. They still have to comply with the law.
Maybe, IDK...I've never had a car with a recall on it before.