3 ms·
No mention of the surest counter-strategy: Drive a car that is just too old to have offending technology.
by bell-cot 2y ago
No mention of the surest counter-strategy: Drive a car that is just too old to have offending technology.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoI want something that will last longer
- sonofhans 2y agoIf you want something that lasts a long time, buy something well-made to begin with. I’m driving a 20-year-old Mercedes. I expect at least another decade from it. It’s not even the oldest one I’ve owned.
- TimeBearingDown 2y agoWhat’s going to last longer than a mid-00s / early-10s Honda or Toyota?
- AStonesThrow 2y agoI don't know about Australia, but "Cash for Clunkers" deprecated those and enabled faster iteration. Good luck finding an authorised mechanic who can work without OBD-II or other computerized diagnostics.
- ssl-3 2y agoI don't know about Australia, but "authorized mechanic" doesn't seem to mean much (if anything) in the context of old cars in any of the lower 48 when it comes to general repair. (Inspections? Sure. But inspections are by no means universally required.)
- notjulianjaynes 2y agoIn some states there is additionally the personal benefit of older vehicles (usually 20+ years old) being exempt from annual emissions testing. This is probably a wash for society (harm from extra emissions - however much C02 emmissions you save by not purchasing a new car). Not having to pay $500 to replace a malfunctioning hard to reach sensor on a $1000 car is helpful if you don't have a lot of income though.
- ssl-3 2y agoIn some areas of the US, there's no statewide emissions testing (or inspections) to be exempt from to begin with. For example: Ohio is broadly this way, with the exception of some counties near Cleveland that require emissions testing for vehicles that are between 4 and 25 years old. To extend that example: For most of Ohio, anyone can hire anyone else to work on their their cars (or DIY) without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
- AStonesThrow 2y ago> without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification." Or "geniune parts" or "insurance" or "liability" or "loss of use" or "damages" or "employment-related injuries". Just sign this waiver; payment in cash only, up front...
- ssl-3 2y agoWhat kind of bizarro-world are you living in where these things happen? I just take my car to the [both "unauthorized" and "uncertified"] shop when that is necessary. My mechanic looks at it and either generates an estimate while I wait or he calls me later -- depending on how busy they are. I then either agree to have him do the work, or I don't. If I do, then: He gets it done, and then I pay the bill, and then I drive my car home. It's a very straight-forward kind of transaction.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoIt sounds like you enjoy elements of loyalty, mutual trust, negotiation skills, and perhaps even a lack of bigotry or Marxist class struggles. Congratulations to y'all from Bizarro-World.
- mistrial9 2y agoCalifornia is certainly cleaning out older cars with cash buyouts.. no question about it. Unsolicited offer via US Mail to the registered owner of a running car, offering cash to End-of-Life the vehicle.
- smcin 2y agoWhen and in which city/county did that happen? I've never heard of BAR sending out unsolicited mail offers before. You always had to go to them.
- TimeBearingDown 2y agoThe sweet spot has been 1996-2007 ish for a while. OBD-II, electronic port fuel injection, decent crash structures and side airbags, often better suspension design, no DI carbon fouling, decent mileage. Cheap parts and nearly no remaining depreciation.
- tensor 2y agoOr just choose one of the vendors that don't collect data? They did list three.
- stavros 2y agoWhich ones? I missed those in the article.
- anigbrowl 2y agoThen read it again?
- 10u152 2y agoIsuzu, Mitsubishi and Subaru according to the article. Although as someone else points out Subaru is substantially owned by Toyota and Toyota does collect so that will probably change soon.
- stavros 2y agoAhh, thanks. For anyone else curious, the data is in a table widget, not in the main article body.
- Ocha 2y agoThe article mentions that it is only not collecting in Australia. Do you know that those brands are not collecting information in other countries?
- 10u152 2y agoI have no knowledge, just replying to a post as to the content of the article.
- edm0nd 2y agoAt some point you being to trade safety innovations for zero-tech. I feel a lot safter (and you are) in a 2024 vehicle VS a 1980s vehicle. Always on headlights, side airbags, better impact ratings and engineering, etc.
- doubled112 2y agoWhy the 1980s? You don’t have to go back that far for less tech or tracking.
- smeej 2y agoI love my '07. Juuuust old enough that smartphones had barely been invented, so nobody expected the car to be able to connect to the internet.
- inkyoto 2y agoYes and no. The problem with older or old cars is that eventually spare parts become sparsely available or downright unavailable, and even getting the normal wear and tear serviced becomes a problem. I went through it with my previous car that I owned close to 20 years, and it became a headache. It appears that legislation is the only way to restrain nefarious parties from inflicting the data collection upon us. The legislation has to codify the definition of the primary function of a consumable object (a car, a smart TV, a smart whatever), and any technology that does not directly assist the consumable object to fulfil its primary function, should be a strict and legally enforceable opt-in (or, better, banned) with the object manufacturer being legally held accountable for a failure to disclose the dodgy data collection or similar functions. Hefty fines, then more fines for failing to comply. It is a windy road and a uphill journey ahead of us, and it will not be easy to counteract the misdeeds of the middle level management.