3 ms·

I am aware it is a term of art and that the nature of the fix is independent of the presence of a dangerous defect requiring prompt remediation i.e. a recall.

by Veserv 3y ago

I am aware it is a term of art and that the nature of the fix is independent of the presence of a dangerous defect requiring prompt remediation i.e. a recall. Unfortunately, lay understanding of the term results in objectively wrong statements like: “it is not a recall, it is just a OTA software update”. We would be better served if NHTSA replaced the term with a descriptive alternative that better communicates the intent and nature of the term. I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of the remediation.

alistairSH 3y ago
I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of the remediation. Disagree on this suggestion. “Notice” to me doesn’t imply a necessary response, whereas “recall” does. But, I do agree with the general sentiment that people don’t understand the legal obligations that come with a recall. And I wouldn’t object to a change of language by the NHSTA, as long as it’s consistent - I would be against any language that tended to differentiate “OTA recall” from “physical recall” for the same reason I don’t like “notice”. That, and the NHSTA may or may not know the full scope of remediation before issuing a recall. “Mandatory safety update” perhaps?
- Veserv 3y ago
  “Defect” implies a necessary response. A defective product is a product that a manufacturer is legally obligated to repair, replace, or refund. A “defect notice” is thus a notice that the manufacturer is legally obligated to remediate the problem. It is also consistent with existing terminology, see: “Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect”. We see that the “recall” refers not to the remedy, but to the notice that the manufacturer has obligations to remedy the defect. Note that “mandatory safety update” is also incorrect because: “Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.” So, a update is not necessary, it is usually just the cheapest option which is why it is the most common. Also note how the remediations proposed are consistent with standard defect remediation as I laid out above.
mumblemumble 3y ago
If we renamed regulatory terms of art every time members of the public misinterpreted them, we would be changing terminology so often that we'd end up with everyone being confused, not just some people.

by Veserv 3y ago

alistairSH 3y ago

I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of the remediation. Disagree on this suggestion. “Notice” to me doesn’t imply a necessary response, whereas “recall” does. But, I do agree with the general sentiment that people don’t understand the legal obligations that come with a recall. And I wouldn’t object to a change of language by the NHSTA, as long as it’s consistent - I would be against any language that tended to differentiate “OTA recall” from “physical recall” for the same reason I don’t like “notice”. That, and the NHSTA may or may not know the full scope of remediation before issuing a recall. “Mandatory safety update” perhaps?

Veserv 3y ago
“Defect” implies a necessary response. A defective product is a product that a manufacturer is legally obligated to repair, replace, or refund. A “defect notice” is thus a notice that the manufacturer is legally obligated to remediate the problem. It is also consistent with existing terminology, see: “Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect”. We see that the “recall” refers not to the remedy, but to the notice that the manufacturer has obligations to remedy the defect. Note that “mandatory safety update” is also incorrect because: “Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.” So, a update is not necessary, it is usually just the cheapest option which is why it is the most common. Also note how the remediations proposed are consistent with standard defect remediation as I laid out above.

mumblemumble 3y ago

If we renamed regulatory terms of art every time members of the public misinterpreted them, we would be changing terminology so often that we'd end up with everyone being confused, not just some people.