• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        A recall implies the product is irreparably damaged, or too expensive to repair, and needs to be returned/replaced.

        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.

    • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.