4 ms·
I don't have expertise in why the language is used, but I'd imagine: * this is the language traditionally used in automobiles * the term probably has a specif
by wwweston 2y ago
I don't have expertise in why the language is used, but I'd imagine:
* this is the language traditionally used in automobiles
* the term probably has a specific meaning with regulatory and culturally established implications throughout organizations that touch maintenance and safety
* it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
- curo 2y agoOr it's just a misleading headline
- llamaimperative 2y agoIf only a 5 second Google search could tell you: https://autocrypt.io/transformation-of-vehicle-recall/ https://autocrypt.io/transformation-of-vehicle-recall/
- curo 2y agoThe fact that this thread is full of people who envisioned a physical recall is evidence enough the word is misleading. If reuters was an industry journal, sure.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- llamaimperative 2y agoUhh the point is for people to take it seriously. Which works.
- bumby 2y agoThe headline is correctly using the term according to the NHTSA definition as a requirement for the manufacturer to fix an unreasonable safety issue. Whether it is OTA does not change the fact that it is a recall any more than if a manufacturer sent someone onsite to fix a mechanical issue instead of having the vehicle owner bring it in.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago> it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update I know that for my old ICE car, they keep track of what recalls I apply. I'm usually notified multiple times, when there's recalls. I suspect that lawyers are why they do it. If your brakes don't work, and you run over a kid, whether or not it was a known recall, and, whether or not you applied it, will likely have a lot to do with how the legal process works out.