5 ms·

As much as I tend to agree philosophically, could it not result in people making changes that endanger other road users?

jazzyjackson 7mo ago
I don’t think that’s the reason, seeing as a car is already endangering everyone around it by existing. More likely about keeping the tooling to diagnose issues proprietary and expensive.
- auggierose 7mo ago
  Obviously, they are both very good reasons. Just because you don't like one of them, doesn't mean the other one doesn't suddenly exist anymore.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 7mo ago
  You could screenshot this and put it under the definition of “perfect being the enemy of good”
chneu 7mo ago
No, one can do that anyway. There is basically no real way to stop folks from modifying their cars. It can be made more difficult, sure. This is about selling tools and access. It's another profit pipeline for car OEMs.
- dr_kiszonka 7mo ago
  Perhaps it is also about liability. Otherwise, we would have people installing OpenClaw on their Teslas.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Then why wasn't it a problem before? People have always been able to install aftermarket or possibly even hacked together physical parts. If there was liability you'd expect some sort of shield blocking access to, for example, the hydraulic system for the brakes. As it turns out though blatant irresponsibility is quite rare (depending on your definition anyway) since people have a strong self interest in not endangering their own lives or wallets. It's similar for homeowners - many states explicitly carve out a requirement that insurance companies cover DIY modifications that are within reason and this generally works out since you have a strong vested interest in not destroying your own house regardless of any insurance policy.
    - lmm 7mo ago
      > Then why wasn't it a problem before? It is. Thousands of people have died because of aftermarket headlights. Harder to assess, but probably much larger, is the number of excess deaths from nitrous oxide etc. emitted by modified cars.
      - pastage 7mo ago
        There are about 3000 deaths per year in Sweden attributed to position from cars, and 300 physical accidents. So it is a really big issue, but it is almost impossible to make people understand that their car use and modification mains people. Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
        mrguyorama 7mo ago
        You can ban modifying your car to pollute more (which we do) without banning modifying your car. This isn't complicated FFS. The difficulty against this in the US is the unfortunate reality that the people coming to these shops to enable their stupid trucks to roll coal are the people who should technically be raiding and shutting down these companies. This can be fixed. Physically, you can already modify your car to be controlled by a stupid program and that has been possible since at least the 90s. You can do the supposed harm by not being aware of damage to your exhaust system. The solution to exhaust harms of ICE engines is electric cars, not a reduction in consumer rights.
        vablings 7mo ago
        The EPA heavily regulates any emissions defeat devices. The problem is they spend most of their time going after tuner shops where most cars run on ethanol rather than diesel shops who cater to brain-damaged customers who think rolling coal is "cool"
        darkwater 7mo ago
        In Spain (but I think in every EU country) you must go through legal inspection and certification if you do modify your car. And most of the aftermarket mods people install are totally illegal and would not pass that exam. I mean changes like putting a spoiler, lowering the height from ground etc
stephen_g 7mo ago
That kind of thing is always the stated justification but never the real reason. Almost invariably when that excuse is trotted out, there are are usually many things that are much more common that are also far more dangerous. For example, texting while driving or driving with bald tires in the wet are both 100x more dangerous than anything almost anybody would do by modifying the car's software.
RockRobotRock 7mo ago
Four 9/11s worth of people die every year from drunk driving. If we can't even get that under control, I don't see why being able to modify your own car is a big deal.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 7mo ago
  It doesn’t have to be a “big deal” for the powers that be to resolve that you shouldn’t have root access to your iPad on wheels, dude.
- CalRobert 7mo ago
  We could do both… Disabling alertness sensors might worsen drunk driving actually.
- mrguyorama 7mo ago
  Isn't this largely a US problem? Enforcement is abysmal for stupid reasons. Courts are reluctant to remove the ability for people to drive because America purposely made itself dependent on cars, and cops are reluctant to actually arrest a lot of people for drunk driving because they tend to be buddies, or worse. You can find plentiful examples of off duty officers trying to get out of drunk driving simply by being a cop. This is what you get when you can vote on the sheriff and judges who insist they are "Tough on crime" because they sentence a dude smoking a joint to years in the joint while ignoring real problems like, you know, murder and theft and violence and all the shit their buddies are doing. The "Tough on crime" people are the ones drunk driving often enough.
  - RockRobotRock 7mo ago
    I think it was pretty clear I was talking about the United States.

jazzyjackson 7mo ago

I don’t think that’s the reason, seeing as a car is already endangering everyone around it by existing. More likely about keeping the tooling to diagnose issues proprietary and expensive.

auggierose 7mo ago
Obviously, they are both very good reasons. Just because you don't like one of them, doesn't mean the other one doesn't suddenly exist anymore.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 7mo ago
You could screenshot this and put it under the definition of “perfect being the enemy of good”

chneu 7mo ago

No, one can do that anyway. There is basically no real way to stop folks from modifying their cars. It can be made more difficult, sure. This is about selling tools and access. It's another profit pipeline for car OEMs.

dr_kiszonka 7mo ago
Perhaps it is also about liability. Otherwise, we would have people installing OpenClaw on their Teslas.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Then why wasn't it a problem before? People have always been able to install aftermarket or possibly even hacked together physical parts. If there was liability you'd expect some sort of shield blocking access to, for example, the hydraulic system for the brakes. As it turns out though blatant irresponsibility is quite rare (depending on your definition anyway) since people have a strong self interest in not endangering their own lives or wallets. It's similar for homeowners - many states explicitly carve out a requirement that insurance companies cover DIY modifications that are within reason and this generally works out since you have a strong vested interest in not destroying your own house regardless of any insurance policy.
  - lmm 7mo ago
    > Then why wasn't it a problem before? It is. Thousands of people have died because of aftermarket headlights. Harder to assess, but probably much larger, is the number of excess deaths from nitrous oxide etc. emitted by modified cars.
    - pastage 7mo ago
      There are about 3000 deaths per year in Sweden attributed to position from cars, and 300 physical accidents. So it is a really big issue, but it is almost impossible to make people understand that their car use and modification mains people. Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
      - mrguyorama 7mo ago
        You can ban modifying your car to pollute more (which we do) without banning modifying your car. This isn't complicated FFS. The difficulty against this in the US is the unfortunate reality that the people coming to these shops to enable their stupid trucks to roll coal are the people who should technically be raiding and shutting down these companies. This can be fixed. Physically, you can already modify your car to be controlled by a stupid program and that has been possible since at least the 90s. You can do the supposed harm by not being aware of damage to your exhaust system. The solution to exhaust harms of ICE engines is electric cars, not a reduction in consumer rights.
        vablings 7mo ago
        The EPA heavily regulates any emissions defeat devices. The problem is they spend most of their time going after tuner shops where most cars run on ethanol rather than diesel shops who cater to brain-damaged customers who think rolling coal is "cool"
        darkwater 7mo ago
        In Spain (but I think in every EU country) you must go through legal inspection and certification if you do modify your car. And most of the aftermarket mods people install are totally illegal and would not pass that exam. I mean changes like putting a spoiler, lowering the height from ground etc

stephen_g 7mo ago

That kind of thing is always the stated justification but never the real reason. Almost invariably when that excuse is trotted out, there are are usually many things that are much more common that are also far more dangerous. For example, texting while driving or driving with bald tires in the wet are both 100x more dangerous than anything almost anybody would do by modifying the car's software.

RockRobotRock 7mo ago

Four 9/11s worth of people die every year from drunk driving. If we can't even get that under control, I don't see why being able to modify your own car is a big deal.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 7mo ago
It doesn’t have to be a “big deal” for the powers that be to resolve that you shouldn’t have root access to your iPad on wheels, dude.
CalRobert 7mo ago
We could do both… Disabling alertness sensors might worsen drunk driving actually.
mrguyorama 7mo ago
Isn't this largely a US problem? Enforcement is abysmal for stupid reasons. Courts are reluctant to remove the ability for people to drive because America purposely made itself dependent on cars, and cops are reluctant to actually arrest a lot of people for drunk driving because they tend to be buddies, or worse. You can find plentiful examples of off duty officers trying to get out of drunk driving simply by being a cop. This is what you get when you can vote on the sheriff and judges who insist they are "Tough on crime" because they sentence a dude smoking a joint to years in the joint while ignoring real problems like, you know, murder and theft and violence and all the shit their buddies are doing. The "Tough on crime" people are the ones drunk driving often enough.
- RockRobotRock 7mo ago
  I think it was pretty clear I was talking about the United States.