• IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What’s confusing about it? A recall in the automotive world has a very specific definition, and it covers not only software related issues but hardware related ones as well.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is a part of the US Department of Transportation, and they publish a 20 page pamphlet that describes what a recall is. Here are the relevant parts from that brochure:

    The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) defines motor vehicle safety as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.” A defect includes “any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.” Generally, a safety defect is defined as a problem that exists in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that:

    • poses a risk to motor vehicle safety, and

    • may exist in a group of vehicles of the same design or manufacture, or items of equipment of the same type and manufacture.

    Furthermore:

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives NHTSA the authority to issue vehicle safety standards and to require manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related defects or do not meet Federal safety standards.

    In other words, federal law gives NHTSA the authority to issue recalls for any defect that is considered a safety defect. There is no qualifier for it having to be mechanical in nature.

    I’ve had software-related recalls issued for both a Toyota and a Honda that I used to own. The Toyota one resulted in them sending me a USB stick in the mail and telling me how to install it in the car (basically plug it into the entertainment system and wait). The Honda one required a trip to a dealer to update the software in the ECU to prevent the cars battery from dying due to the alternator being disabled improperly. Just because these were software related in no way means they weren’t recalls. They were both mandated by NHSTA, both resulted in official recall notices, etc.

    Edit: Just for fun you might want to go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls and do a search there. If you enter “Tesla” in the field for “VIN or Year Make Model” you can browse all their recalls. The very first one on this page is titled “Incorrect Font Size on Warning Lights”. That’s most definitely a software recall. It’s assigned NHSTA recall #24V051000, and they list the affected components as “ELECTRICAL SYSTEM”. If you read further it also shows the remedy was an over-the-air software update.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      I love seeing comments like this on Lemmy. Reminds me of early reddit. Super informative.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Just because the government defined it that way 60 years ago when software updates weren’t even a thing doesn’t mean it makes sense to call a user-applicable fix a recall. It’s literally in the name. Is it being re-called back to the manufacturer or not

      • 2ncs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        “user-applicable fix” is hardly correct, they are installing a fix provided by the company that has the recall. The company just so happens to provide an over the air download to patch the issue instead of having owners go to a dealer.

        • Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Where is the car being recalled to? I get that that’s the word that stuck for ‘critical fix’ or whatever but if you don’t need to bring it back that’s not a recall. Call it something else.

          they are installing a fix provided by the company

          So the user is applying the fix? What else do you expect that to mean?

            • Lojcs@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m sorry for wanting things to mean what they mean

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                It could easily be written in a longer statement such as “recalled for service” which is still 💯 accurate but the service is being done remotely instead of at a shop.

                There are just so many other things to give a shit about in even the realm of “words meaning what they mean” that it seems like a very random, stupid thing to get hot and bothered about.

                You’re probably one of those guys who has Twitter threads where you’re quoting Webster as an argument aren’t you?

                • Lojcs@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  If it’s being done remotely it is not recalled, that’s my entire point.

                  Most of my bother comes from how people are reacting with kneejerk appeals to the status quo instead of actually responding to what I (and others) wrote, think of me what you will

        • Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yes, and as I said it is inaccurate. Legalese can be updated to better match the meaning of the word. Why is that such an unacceptable concept?

          Edit: I’m really worked up about this. Seriously, why is changing the term that unimaginable to you people?

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It’s seems like you’re saying “we should change the legal term of art ‘payment intangible’ because it’s something that is general intangible under which the account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation.”

            But that’s already what “payment intangible” means.

            • Lojcs@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Wtf are talking about?

              I’m talking about this specific word that means bringing the thing back from where it went in every context but cars.

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            By your logic, the software bug in my Honda’s ECU would be called a recall because it required me going to a dealership and having them perform the software update. An owner can’t simply download and install ECU updates themselves in the vast majority of cases.

            But then by your same logic the software update that Toyota mailed to me on a USB stick for my Prius shouldn’t be called a recall because I was able to plug the USB stick into the car myself. The only reason Toyota mailed that USB stick to me and thousands of other Prius owners is because they were legally required to fix a software bug identified by NHTSA in a recall notice. Toyota decided the USB approach was better than having all of us drive to dealers to have them apply it.

            And the various over-the-air software updates that Tesla, Rivian, and others shouldn’t be called recalls either by your same logic.

            Why cause confusion over calling software updates different things based solely on who installs it and/or how it’s installed? In all these cases NHTSA received reports about a safety issue, opened a formal investigation, and ultimately issued a legally binding directive to the manufacturer that required them, by law, to address it. That legally binding directive is a recall notice, and it can apply to software that you have to visit a dealer to install, or to software the owner can install, or to software the manufacturer can install automatically.

            That entire process is what makes something a recall. Not how it’s addressed in the end.

            • Lojcs@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Why cause confusion over calling software updates different things based solely on who installs it and/or how it’s installed?

              Because they’re different things? For the user it doesn’t matter if they’re both same legally, in one case they need to bring their car somewhere, in the other one they don’t. If anything it’s confusing to call them both a recall.

              • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                But they are NOT different things. In every one of these examples:

                1. A safety issue is identified
                2. NHTSA opens an investigation
                3. The cause of the issue is identified by the manufacturer and reported back to NHTSA
                4. NHSTA approves the proposed remedy
                5. The manufacturer sends the recall notice along with instructions on the remedy to all known vehicle owners, as required by NHTSA

                The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied. Every single step other than that is identical.

                • Lojcs@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied.

                  And that’s the thing that matters to the person who owns the car. Currently when a user sees that word they don’t know what they need to do to fix it. You can have some other name encompassing both (like ‘critical fix’), but if you keep recall for when that fix isn’t user applicable, (and furthermore have specific names for the fixes themselves if they’re user applicable) people would immediately understand

                  Lots of people here are disagreeing with me but I’m yet to see an argument about why that shouldn’t be the case other than that it currently isn’t. But even that’s an argument for why changing the term would be difficult, not for why calling every fix ‘recall’ makes sense.