Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Car Right to Repair Law in Maine (404media.co) 37
Jason Koebler reports via 404 Media: Voters in Maine overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure Tuesday that enshrines the right to repair cars, a major win for consumers and a blow to auto manufacturers who have spent millions lobbying against similar legislation and fighting against it in the courts. "Question 4," which enshrines consumers' data access to car diagnostics for the purposes of repair, passed by a margin of 84.3-15.7 in Tuesday's election with 94 percent of the votes tallied. The yes/no question was simple: "Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?" "Maine residents have won the right to control their destiny when it comes to car repairs," Tommy Hickey, director of the Maine Automotive Right to Repair Coalition, told 404 Media. "There's a new technology in cars, they've become computers on wheels, and with this law owners in Maine will be the gatekeepers of that information."
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to HR4820, can you point out the remote kill switch part? https://www.congress.gov/118/b... [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea about "driving performance" but this [axios.com] is a very real thing. Mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, automobiles will need to have some sort of passive (i.e., not blowing a tube) alcohol detection technology that does not yet exist. If it believes you're driving under the influence it will disable your vehicle. How that will work if you're on the freeway at 75mph is left unsaid. How they will avoid false positives (diabetics can trip a false positive on a breathalyzer) is le
Re: (Score:2)
Such a device would be used before a vehicle is started.nkt constantly in use.
Such blowing tubesis already done.
And since the tech doesnt exist the law will never take effect. Sort of like NJnautomstic las that states thst sll hand guns beed an electronic auto lock. Once ghey work. 10 years later they still dont work.
Re: (Score:2)
"Honey, can you blow into this tube please, daddy's late for his nightly trip to the strip club."
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't actually work with an interlock installed after a DWI conviction. They take a picture as you blow into the tube.
and it may lead to someing wining an DUI case whil (Score:2)
and it may lead to something wining an DUI case while dunk.
Where they say that my car with an state mandated breathalyzer give me an ok so it must be the one that cop used is not working right and then the report that it gave is wrong and you must aquit!
Re: (Score:3)
and it may lead to something wining an DUI case while dunk.
Where they say that my car with an state mandated breathalyzer give me an ok so it must be the one that cop used is not working right and then the report that it gave is wrong and you must aquit!
No you are still absorbing alcohol into your system for some time after you stop actually drinking. [google.com]
Plus you could be still drinking in the car on the way home.
Re:Remote Kill Switch (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no idea about "driving performance" but this [axios.com] is a very real thing. Mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, automobiles will need to have some sort of passive (i.e., not blowing a tube) alcohol detection technology that does not yet exist. If it believes you're driving under the influence it will disable your vehicle. How that will work if you're on the freeway at 75mph is left unsaid. How they will avoid false positives (diabetics can trip a false positive on a breathalyzer) is left unsaid. How it will determine it's the driver rather than a passenger that's drunk is left unsaid.
Sorry folks, this isn't new https://priuschat.com/threads/... [priuschat.com]
Lane detection and drift detection are built into cheap Toyotas, fuck up too often and the car knows. It's not rocket science, and it's got nothing to do alcohol detection. Shutting off the car is a bit extreme, but if you manage to set this alert off you deserve it because your driving sucks. But I'd rather see it set a governor to 40/45 mph for some time instead.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea about "driving performance" but this [axios.com] is a very real thing. Mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, automobiles will need to have some sort of passive (i.e., not blowing a tube) alcohol detection technology that does not yet exist. If it believes you're driving under the influence it will disable your vehicle. How that will work if you're on the freeway at 75mph is left unsaid. How they will avoid false positives (diabetics can trip a false positive on a breathalyzer) is left unsaid. How it will determine it's the driver rather than a passenger that's drunk is left unsaid.
What's indisputable, even if the technology works perfectly (spoiler: it won't), this will add a non-zero amount of additional cost to your next vehicle. Tens of millions of vehicle purchasers will be compelled to spend additional money because a very small minority drive drunk.
Thanks Biden Democrats. Side note: I am a Biden Democrat, but I didn't vote for this, and I think it is braindead. This is my party living up to the worst nanny state stereotype imaginable. Some fucktard slipped this into the legislation and nobody noticed in time to call it out.
Nobody outside of MADD will be happy when they learn this is a thing. After the inevitable false positive -- or, perhaps, an accurate disablement of a vehicle in an emergency situation, the defense of justification [wikipedia.org] applies to DWIs as it does to any other crime -- just wait for the lawsuits.
"My husband died because I'm a diabetic and my car refused to start when I needed to get him to the ER." "My daughter died because she had two glasses of wine and her car wouldn't start after the Level 3 Go Now wildfire evacuation order."
There's two sides to this. One is that mandated safety systems in common vehicles have truly escalated costs far more quickly than they've actually increased driver safety. Two? After 9/11 it seems a huge chunk of our country became obsessed with security theater that actually does nothing but stomp on the citizens' necks. "Protect me Mommy Government" has become a near battle-cry for an entire generation and some change, not to mention a lot of the parents of those folks. There's no nuanced discussion to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is unrelated to the federal House roll call the OP posted. Massie appears to be from Kentucky.
The OPs post about the DEMONCRAT gubbermint a-comin fer our FREEDUMS!!11! is unrelated to the right too repair ballot measure in Maine which is the topic of this discussion. aka OFFTOPIC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nh... [nhtsa.gov]
Seems to be dependent on fairies and unicorns.
Re:Remote Kill Switch (Score:5, Interesting)
Here you go [slashdot.org].
Two [arstechnica.com] other [wthr.com] sources if you don't trust Axios.
Oh, you want the actual text? Glutton for punishment, lol, but here you go [govinfo.gov], it begins at the bottom of page 423.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. It's more republican (ie. Kremlin) talking points. Doing their damnedest to destroy America while claiming the opposite.
Also Biden isn't polling lower than Trump. They're about equal. Personally I think they are both really bad choices.
Sadly, in the last month, Biden actually is polling lower than Trump. It could just be that Biden doesn't do a lot of grandstanding, and Trump is in the public consciousness because he's making an ass of himself during his trials so he's in people's heads, but it's still a frightening precedent to see. We'd rather re-elect a known fraudster who appears on the cusp of doing some prison time than Milquetoast Bumbleberry McBlandgramps? Maybe our worship of utter assholes is finally coming to its culmination? S
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile 90% of House Democrats want your new car to have a mandatory remote kill switch:
The two nay Democratic votes on that make for interesting company. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez [house.gov], who I know very well, she's one district over. Moderate Blue Dog Democrat, who perhaps not coincidentally, happens to own a car repair shop [deanscarcarepdx.com]. She presumably has first hand knowledge as to how mind-numbingly stupid this idea is.
The other nay, AOC [house.gov], requires no introduction. Her nay vote genuinely shocks me. Did she press the wrong button or does she actually have a problem with this mandate? Inquiring minds want
Re: (Score:3)
The other nay, AOC [house.gov], requires no introduction. Her nay vote genuinely shocks me. Did she press the wrong button or does she actually have a problem with this mandate? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm racking my brain how to write this without coming across like a right-wing loonie, but usually it's because the bill didn't do enough to address some social justice issue completely unrelated to the original scope of the bill. Seriously, Bernie did the same thing once (damned if I can remember what the vote was about, though) too, which seemed a bit of a head scratcher until he came out and said there was some entirely unrelated issue that the bill had ignored, so he wouldn't support it.
It would be kin
It's not usually SJW (Score:2)
Usually it's one of two things:
1. Posturing for a particular voter demographic. This isn't "social justice", it's just politics. It's something way, way older than the SJW (formally "Political Correctness) stuff the right wing was in a tizzy about until they moved onto their next moral panic (currently trans kids & drag queens, though they've now lost 2 elections running on that so they're probably looking for a new one).
2. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine most stuff wouldn't pass if the representatives voting on it actually read what they were voting on. This [youtu.be] was a real eye-opener.
Re: (Score:2)
Inquiring minds want to know.
Given that you didn't make any attempt to find out or try and contact her office for an answer[*], I suspect you're just JAQing it.
[*]
Q: how do I know?
A: duhhhh.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to find out what this killswitch is. Something related to impaired driving?
Anyway, I'd have thought it would be obvious why AOC would vote against it.
Two stories about Maine in a week (Score:2)
We voted down the state government takeover of the the power company [slashdot.org] though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's kinda weird, right? Maybe we'll get a slashdot article on the Bangor Walmart getting torched.
Re: (Score:1)
Lemme guess. This wasn't by Trumpers.
Re: (Score:3)
Aww shucks I was looking for another random story about AI.
Gives me hope. (Score:2)
We have always had... (Score:4, Insightful)
...right to repair for our entire history, until now when scumballs found a technological way to take it away
We don't want new rights, we want rights we have had for thousands of years
Good luck with this (Score:2)
CANbus is a piece of shit without a tool capable of interpreting registers. Modern vehicles can achieve far more with modern LVDS interconnectivity. Of course, there is no point standardizing this if the car can provide a web page to access and even alter data. Maybe requiring a JSON API and Swagger support would be smart.
The real issue is aftermarket parts. In modern cars, this may not make sense
Does this have any loopholes? (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a guy on YouTube fixing a Porsche and Porsche refused to sell him certain parts (claiming that the parts are only available to authorised repairers) with said individual then traveling to the UK to buy the parts in question.
Will this law mean manufacturers like Porsche are forced to sell people like him all these parts or can they still keep selling, say, body panels or structural components to authorised repair shops only?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? If Porsche doesn't want to sell to you, forcing them doesn'