3 ms·

I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of

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.