Quote:
Originally Posted by drofgnal
You didn't read my post very well. The Manuson-Moss Warranty act allows someone to work on their car. It doesn't allow you to modify it to be out of spec, or to disable systems like emissions and safety.
Relative to software code in the vehicle, I think the manufactures can always argue you don't own the code. It's liscenced and a part of your vehicle, just like the OS on your computer, phone, tablet is liscenced for you to use, you don't own the operating system. The SW code also controls much of the safety critical functions. Given the rash of high dollar lawsuits for safety related issues, I can see why they are pushing for this.
You still have the right to do normal routine maintenance on your car and have your warranty 'intact'.
|
Exactly. But it is a waste of time pointing it out here.
The opportunity for many to extrapolate a situation to ridiculous levels in order to then be able to have a whine based on one's own construct into it including all maintenance, no matter how simple, is far more important than taking a sensible and informed view of vehicular safety matters.
It has also become apparent that many here are ignorant of, or have no familiarity with the safety systems that are now appearing in vehicles such as adaptive lane control, increasingly capable stability control systems, etc.; nor of the rapidly increasing capabilities and complexity of those. Their knowledge seems to be back in the last century, it extending, at most, to only the simple and long been around non vehicle safety based emission control systems, and the so called engine "chipping".
In my own country vehicle injury accident insurance for owners of vehicles built over the last few years, and having an increased level of these systems (as well as better structural design for accident survivability), are decreasing to approximately 40% of that applying to older vehicles without them, such has been their impact (sic) on improved safety {EDIT: mine included it seems
).