Thursday, September 28, 2017

CarMax Survey Finds 27% of Vehicles for Sale with Dangerous Unrepaired Safety Recalls


"CarMax is selling huge numbers of unsafe, defective recalled cars that are ticking automotive time bombs. They pose a serious threat to the safety of all American motorists and their families,..." 


CarMax Survey Finds 27% of Vehicles for Sale with Dangerous Unrepaired Safety Recalls


Posted September 28th, 2017 for Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group

\Percent has more than doubled since 2015
Thursday, September 28, 2017
NEWS for Immediate Release: September 28, 2017
Contacts:  Rosemary Shahan, CARS Foundation, 530-759-9440
Deirdre Cummings, MASSPIRG Education Fund, 617-747-4319
Jason Levine, Center for Auto Safety, 202-328-7700

CarMax Survey Finds 27% of Vehicles for Sale with Dangerous Unrepaired Safety Recalls
Percent has more than doubled since 2015
One CarMax “Certified” vehicle had 6 unrepaired safety recall defects

            The nation’s largest retailer of used cars, CarMax, has more than doubled the percentage of dangerous, defective unrepaired recalled used cars for sale to consumers, according to Used Car Roulette, a new report released today by the Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety Foundation, MASSPIRG Education Fund, and the Center for Auto Safety.
            The report is based on recent surveys conducted by the Frontier Group of nearly 1,700 vehicles CarMax advertised for sale in Northern and Southern California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, compared with data about CarMax’s sales of unrepaired recalled cars in those states in 2015. The report also found that more than one in four cars for sale on the surveyed lots have unrepaired safety recalls.

CarMax is selling huge numbers of unsafe, defective recalled cars that are ticking automotive time bombs. They pose a serious threat to the safety of all American motorists and their families,” said Rosemary Shahan, President of the Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) Foundation, a non-profit auto safety organization based in Sacramento, CA.
            “Over the last two years CarMax has expanded across the state. Meanwhile our survey found one in four of their cars for sale is unsafe,” said Deirdre Cummings, Consumer Program Director for MASSPIRG Education Fund, a non-profit consumer protection organization in Massachusetts.  “No one should have to gamble with their safety or the safety of those who share the roadways.” 
            “Recalls happen when there is an unreasonable safety risk or the car fails to meet a safety standard. Evidence of these defects is readily available to CarMax and calling an unrepaired recalled car ‘safe’ is deceptive on its face,” said Jason Levine, Executive Director of the Center for Auto Safety, an independent, non-profit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, DC.
            The survey of nearly 1,700 vehicles for sale at eight CarMax locations – four in Massachusetts, two in California, and two in Connecticut – found that more than one in four vehicles (27%) had unrepaired safety recalls.  Researchers surveyed vehicles for sale at all four CarMax locations in Massachusetts (Danvers, North Attleboro, Norwood, and Westborough), two locations in California (Oxnard and Sacramento), and two in Connecticut (East Haven and Hartford). They found that:

  • More than one in four (27%) vehicles surveyed had unrepaired safety recalls.
  • At each of the 8 CarMax locations surveyed, at least 20% of vehicles CarMax advertised for sale had at least one unrepaired defect subject to a safety recall.
  • At North Attleboro MA, Westborough MA, and East Haven CT, more than 30% of vehicles CarMax offered for sale had at least one unrepaired safety recall defect.
  • On average, the percentage of vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls CarMax offered for sale has more than doubled, jumping from 12% to 27%, compared to survey results from 2015, which covered five of the eight locations newly surveyed.
  • In 2015, for example, 10% of vehicles sold at the Hartford CarMax location had unrepaired safety recalls. In the newly updated survey, 28% of vehicles at the same location had unrepaired safety recalls, an increase of 180%. In North Attleboro the percentage of vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls rose from 17 to 31%.
  • 43 vehicles had unrepaired safety recalls for which no repairs are available, so consumers who purchase them are stuck driving unsafe cars for an indefinite period before they can get the cars repaired.
  • The survey found 86 vehicles that had more than one unrepaired safety recall; 19 vehicles had 3 or more unrepaired safety recalls. One GMC Sierra Light Duty Pickup Truck for sale in Westborough had 6 unrepaired safety recalls.
            “For a customer at CarMax, about one out of four cars they look at will contain an unsafe recalled part,” said Gideon Weissman of Frontier Group, report co-author. “Those are bad odds, and far worse than the results of surveys from just two years ago.”
            It is dangerous and irresponsible for CarMax or other dealers to assume that car buyers will have time to get unsafe, defective vehicles repaired before disaster strikes. In one tragic case, a California Highway Patrol officer, his wife, their 13-year-old daughter, and his brother-in-law, were all killed by a runaway Toyota Lexus the same day, within hours after a dealer handed the CHP officer the keys. (That was the crash that led to the Toyota sudden acceleration recall, affecting millions of cars.)[1]
            “It is illegal in Massachusetts for any car dealer to sell a used vehicle to a consumer that is not fit to be driven safely on the roads,” said Sebastian Korth, an attorney who specializes in representing Massachusetts consumers in cases against auto dealerships and lenders.  Mr. Korth is representing Bonnie Belanger of Mansfield, MA in a case against a different dealership. On June 17, 2016, Ms. Belanger purchased a 2013 Chrysler Town & Country for approximately $19,000 from Fafama Auto Sales in Milford, MA. It was not disclosed to her that the minivan had two unrepaired safety recalls. In December of 2016, the driver’s door caught on fire without warning, just as described in the recall notice. Ms. Belanger says about her experience: “If you are buying a car from a licensed car dealer in our state, you shouldn’t have to worry they didn’t bother to get the free safety recall repairs done first. That’s their job, to make sure all the cars they sell are safe to drive before they sell them to a consumer.”
            The consumer groups are calling on state law enforcement officials to curb CarMax’s sales of unsafe recalled cars, and on the Courts to overturn consent orders finalized by the Federal Trade Commission which allow dealers including CarMax to advertise that unsafe vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls are “safe,” “repaired for safety,” and passed a “rigorous inspection” and are offered for sale as “certified” cars, without getting the free repairs, if they merely disclose that the cars they offer for sale “may” have an “open recall.”  Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, USPIRG, and the Center for Auto Safety are suing the FTC to get the consent orders overturned. The case is pending before the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
CarMax advertising and “disclosures” are false, misleading, and deceptive
            CarMax claims that they provide disclosure about safety recalls. However, the information CarMax provides verbally and in writing is often false, contradictory, deceptive, or misleading, or presented too late to be an effective form of disclosure.
            CarMax advertises that "We select the best" and that "We renew each car."  In Massachusetts, a CarMax sales contract for a Jeep with 3 unrepaired safety recalls included this information in bold type: “ATTENTION PURCHASER: All vehicles are WARRANTED as a matter of state law. They must be fit to be driven safely on the roads...”
            The new report found that sometimes the AutoCheck vehicle history reports provided by CarMax to prospective car buyers falsely indicate that there is NO safety recall, when according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on data provided by the manufacturer that issued the safety recall(s), there are in fact multiple unrepaired safety recalls.
            CarMax sometimes does not present the “disclosure” form to car buyers until AFTER they have already signed a purchase contract. That is what happened to safety advocate Sean Kane, who purchased a Jeep from CarMax in North Attleboro, MA, in 2015. He shopped for the car with his 15-year-old son, and told sales personnel that it was very important to have a safe vehicle for his son to drive. CarMax did not present him with the recall “disclosure” form until AFTER he had already signed the purchase contract.
            The “disclosure” form itself was false and misleading, indicating that according to NHTSA there was an “open recall(s)” but according to AutoCheck there was NO safety recall. In fact, the Jeep CarMax sold him had 3 unrepaired safety recalls – it was prone to catching on fire, had faulty brakes, and was prone to stalling in traffic.
CarMax has Safer Options
            CarMax is not authorized to perform safety recall repairs. But that is no excuse for selling unsafe cars. The company, which took in over $15 billion in 2016, can easily afford to pay employees to deliver unrepaired recalled cars to dealerships that are authorized to perform the repairs, and incentivize the dealers to perform the repairs promptly. Under federal law, auto manufacturers must provide the repairs to owners, including auto dealers, for free. CarMax could also sell the recalled vehicles at wholesale, instead of retailing them to consumers for top dollar.

Links to key documents:
Used Car Roulette: Full Report, with Appendix that includes details about each recalled vehicle
Used Car Roulette: Executive Summary
Purchase contract for Jeep Sean Kane purchased from CarMax, including warranty mandated by MA law that the car is "fit to be driven safely on the roads...”
Disclosure form for Jeep that Sean Kane purchased from CarMax (Jeep had 3 unrepaired safety recalls)

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/carmax-survey-finds-27-vehicles-sale-dangerous-unrepaired-safety-recalls

Lying cop doesn't know Uber driver was actually a lawyer



Lying cop doesn't know Uber driver was actually a lawyer


When defense attorney Jesse Bright was pulled over in North Carolina while moonlighting as an Uber driver, he
began filming the encounter. Allegedly, he had been pulled over for picking up a passenger from a known ‘drug
house,’ but that didn’t stop Bright from continuing to film, despite the police officers incorrectly telling him that it was
illegal to do so. Jesse Bright shared the video on his Facebook page.





Lying cop doesn't know Uber driver is actually a lawyer



When defense attorney Jesse Bright was pulled over in North Carolina while moonlighting as an Uber driver, he began filming the encounter. 

http://nypost.com/video/lying-cop-doesnt-know-uber-driver-was-actually-a-lawyer/

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Volkswagen not cooperating with Ontario probe of emissions 'cheat devices': court documents



Volkswagen not cooperating with Ontario probe of emissions 'cheat devices': court documents

If the responses from VW’s Canadian office were getting chilly, the apparent feedback from VW in Germany was out-and-out frigid, investigators suggest


Officials from Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change raided Volkswagen Canada's headquarters in Ajax on Sept. 19, 2017.Peter J Thompson/National Post


Ontario’s environment ministry investigators probing the international Volkswagen emissions scandal accuse officials with the German automobile company of not fully cooperating in their investigation.
Internal communication between Volkswagen and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change reveal increasing friction over two years of scrutinizing VW’s use of “cheater devices” on vehicles to evade environmental regulations.
From VW’s head office in Germany refusing to accept couriered letters from the ministry to VW Canada’s employees appearing reluctant to speak, several complaints about a lack of assistance are contained in a sworn affidavit in support of a search warrant for VW Canada’s headquarters in Ajax, Ont.
 “We do not view the level of cooperation we have received as consistent with this commitment to your customers or the assertions of your counsel,” a ministry investigator wrote in a July letter to VW’s president, Maria Stenstroem, according to the affidavit, called an Information to Obtain, or ITO, filed in court.
The ITO notes VW’s public statement to customers on its website says VW Canada “will cooperate fully with the Ontario Government’s investigation.”
The Ontario probe stems from stunning revelations two years ago of software in some of VW’s diesel vehicles designed to hide the amount of contaminants released during emission tests. In the United States, VW agreed to pay more than $20 billion to settle criminal charges and civil claims over the scheme.
Ontario has now charged Volkswagen AG, the parent company in Germany of VW Canada, with breaching the province’s Environmental Protection Act by causing or permitting motor vehicles to operate with higher than allowed emission levels.
The breadth of the ministry’s investigation is highlighted in the court filing.
The ITO lists three “suspects”: VW’s parent company in Wolfsburg, Germany, and two wholly owned subsidiaries: Volkswagen Canada Group Inc. and Audi Canada Inc.
The ministry alerted VW to its investigation in October 2015 in a written request to Stenstroem for cooperation and information. The letter sought various types of information, according to the ITO.
The reply came from VW’s lawyer, Teresa Dufort, saying the company would cooperate and, a month later, some information was provided to investigators.
“No one currently employed at VGCA had knowledge of the software described… until after the disclosures” in the United States in 2015, Dufort wrote, according to the ITO.
Thus began a series of what appear to be increasingly strained exchanges between the ministry and the company.
VW suggested the province was wading into federal affairs and that since VW Canada only imported cars, not made them, investigators’ resources were misplaced. VW sought assurances information would remain confidential. VW complained the requests were becoming “very onerous” in terms of workload and “tenuous” in terms of value.
The investigators’ replies often noted missing information or answers they felt were incomplete and usually asking additional questions. They started requesting interviews with specific VW employees. The ministry also asked if VW would loan the ministry a 2011 and 2013 diesel Jetta for its testing, but a response is not noted in the ITO.
If the responses from VW’s Canadian office were getting chilly, the apparent feedback from VW in Germany was out-and-out frigid, investigators suggest in the ITO.
On May 12, 2016, a letter from investigators was sent through Purolator courier to Matthias Müller, the chief executive officer of Volkswagen AG in Germany who was named to the post after the resignation of his predecessor in the wake of the emissions scandal.
The package was refused, the ITO claims.
The ministry asked VW Canada’s lawyer to help deliver the letter to VW’s parent company. A response is not noted.
By July, ministry investigators were showing up at VW headquarters and phoning company officials asking for information they felt was missing. VW’s lawyer complained of the in-person visits over a voluntary request.
VW was cooperating “but is concerned about the tenor of the communications,” VW wrote to the ministry, according to correspondence quoted in the ITO.
In August, investigators went to more than two dozen VW dealerships around Ontario asking more than 60 employees what they new about the cheat scheme and when they first knew of it.
The ITO notes a lengthy series of questions investigators asked employees at various levels.
“The second series of questions related to whether the witnesses had any idea there was something wrong with the car because of the service they were performing on the car and whether they became aware they were working on an emission defeat device,” the ITO says.
Many of the employees said they first learned of the emissions scandal through the news media, the ITO says.
Some dealership managers said they attended a meeting in Toronto with VW officials and then had online meetings for updates. One described the meetings as “crisis management,” according to the ITO.
What was on the dealers’ minds at the meetings, one dealer told investigators, was “How do they stay in business,” the ITO says.
Little of the meetings were of a technical nature about the cheat devices, beyond company officials telling them their engineers are looking at it, the ITO says.
Service technicians and managers at dealerships generally told investigators they had no knowledge of what the software did, according to the ITO.
On July 21, investigators went to VW Canada’s headquarters to try to speak with two staff members they had been asking to interview, according to the ITO. They were told they would need to make an appointment. Later, the ministry was told the employees were on vacation.
On Aug. 3, an investigator went to the VW Canada’s headquarters to hand deliver a letter to Stenstroem asking to interview her.
“As part of its plea agreement in the United States, Volkswagen AG has admitted to certain facts in relation to the after sale modification of North American Volkswagen vehicles that had the defeat device, and these modifications occurred after you joined Volkswagen Canada,” the letter said, according to the ITO.
The next day, an email from VW’s lawyer said Stenstroem needed time to “obtain independent legal advice” before answering the investigators.
At the time of the raid on VW’s headquarters on Sept. 19, a VW Canada spokesman said: “We’ll continue to co-operate with them until they have the information they require … We’re not hiding anything.”
In correspondence with investigators quoted in the ITO, VW Canada denied contravening the environmental act.
Thomas Tetzlaff, a spokesman for VW Canada said: “Volkswagen Canada has not seen the document. It would not be appropriate to comment.”
Both electronic and paper documents were taken in the raid, according to an evidence log entered in court after the search — including binders, files and agenda taken from Stenstroem’s desk drawers and shelves and a box from her office windowsill.
Copies were taken of some employee’s computers, file folders and internal user directories. Also taken were copies of PowerPoint presentations.

Tesla hits back after $200,000 supercar destroyed by truck





Tesla hits back after $200,000 supercar destroyed by truck






Car manufacturer Tesla has hit back at claims its “safest SUV in history” has a fault after a $200,000 supercar was destroyed by a truck.
Shocking footage obtained by 9NEWS shows the moment the door of the Tesla Model X supercar was all but ripped off when it opened automatically on a major Sydney road.
Sam Kovac, the car’s owner, told 9NEWS the doors opened automatically on the Princes Highway, sending debris flying and causing “carnage”.
Mr Kovac claims he was meters away when it happened without notice.
“I came out to find my car in bits, it was just carnage,” he said.
“They key was nowhere near me at the time, it was 25 metres away from the car and the car obviously did it all on its own.”
The optional feature on the Model X requires two double clicks for both front doors to open.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/09/26/11/26/shock-moment-tesla-supercar-destroyed-by-truck

Gen Y suspect of autonomous vehicles. Is mistrust based in reality?




Gen Y suspect of autonomous vehicles. Is mistrust based in reality?

 -September 25, 2017


Just a few months ago, J.D. Power released its 2017 U.S. Tech Choice Study. In it, those representing Gen Y (1977 – 1994) are shown to not be confident in self-driving cars. The study polled 8,500 Americans for a pulse on how they felt about emerging self-driving technology.
Results in some cases were predictable. Mistrust of autonomous cars by pre-Boomers (born before 1946) grew by 9%, while 81% of Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964) also showed a growth in wariness this year over last. Eleven percent of Generation Z’ers (1995 - 2004) old enough to participate in the study said they would “definitely not” trust self-driving technology, while 23%, “probably not”.
(What happened to Generation X? The study pretty much ignored their opinions in favor of discussing the drop in acceptance across most of the other groups.)
Generation Y was the only group to see acceptance of the technology grow compared to last year. Generation Z respondents do want and will pay for convenience and autonomous safety gear such as automatic emergency steering and automatic breaking in their next vehicle. A system that predicts a driver’s needs while controlling vehicle functions, a self -parking feature, or a limited self-driving mode was of interest to 53% of Generations Y and Z.

What other groups think
Other studies join the Powers survey, including those from AAA, Kelley Blue Book, MIT, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, the Consumer Technology Association, Gartner, & Deloitte, and the results are pretty consistent:
  • MIT’s white paper states that trust in full automation is on the wane. A recent MIT AgeLab survey claims that only 13% of motorists indicated comfort with taking away all control of their vehicles. This figure is down from 25% the previous year.
  • AAA reports that more than 75% of Americans are afraid to ride in a self-driving vehicle.
  • Kelley Blue Book’s survey agrees, stating that 80% of people said that drivers should always retain the option to drive, while two-thirds said they want to be in full control at all times.
  • Gartner’s survey shows that half of respondents in the U.S. and Germany would not consider riding in a fully autonomous vehicle. “Fear of autonomous vehicles getting confused by unexpected situations, safety concerns around equipment and system failures, and vehicle and system security are top concerns around using fully autonomous vehicles,” stated Gartner research director Mike Ramsey.
  • Alone in its results is the Consumer Technology poll, representing 2,200 consumer electronics industry companies, showing that 70% of U.S. consumers want to try out an autonomous car. Personally, I would like to “try it out” too. I would feel differently about testing an autonomous vehicle at a WalMart parking lot after-hours, however, than I would driving in San Francisco traffic. Would I be listed as part of the 70%?
  • Deloitte contacted 22,000 respondents worldwide. Their conclusion is that the best way to ease fears is the gradual implementation of autonomy and in-car controls so that drivers could change their destination or order the car to pull over.
  • 84% of consumers fear a software malfunction in a driverless car. Eighty percent worry about a hardware breakdown, while 77% are concerned that their car could be hacked, an AlixPartners survey of more than 1,500 U.S. drivers found.

All told, 55-84% of survey respondents have serious reservations about self-driving cars—and manufacturers truly have their work cut out to change existing perceptions.

Mistrust has basis
The problems are real. In just three years, the California DMV received 37 Autonomous Vehicle Accident Reports, and they are increasing rather than diminishing. The first autonomous car fatality recently occurred after a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a white truck that the system could not distinguish against a bright sky, and failed to apply the brakes.
What else may be operating, however, is the reputation of auto manufacturers. The industry that says, “Trust me,” as to self-driving cars, is the same on responsible for:
  • Cheating on emissions test results
  • Faulty switches causing 169 deaths
  • Unexpected acceleration
  • Exploding airbags
  • Supercar recall based on wheel arch glue that melted from exhaust pipe proximity
  • Exploding tires
  • Cars prone to rollovers
  • Defective transmissions

Is it any mystery that mistrust is growing?

Also see:
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/engineering-on-wheels/4458878/Gen-Y-suspect-of-autonomous-vehicles--Is-mistrust-based-in-reality-

The price tag of automotive electronics: What’s really at play?




The price tag of automotive electronics: What’s really at play?

 -September 25, 2017


One of the first articles I wrote was on the cost of electronics in passenger cars. It was the early 1990s, and the cost per vehicle hovered near 15% of sales price. That figure pales, however, when looking at the predicted 50% of cost that is expected by 2030.
Figure 1  Automotive electronics cost as a share of total car cost from 1950 to 2030. (Source: Statistica)

There are reasons why, in each decade since 1970, there is an explosion in vehicle electronics growth, especially in the U.S. The oil embargo of the 1970s, competitive pressures from offshore, and advances in a myriad of technologies.

Reactive growth
Early on, most of the growth in electronics was in reaction to events. For example, during the oil embargo, fuel prices rose astronomically. It was clear that if cars were to consume less fuel, they would have to be constructed from lighter materials, be smaller – requiring miniaturization of all systems – and be fuel-efficient.
This put pressure on energy-saving features. Unfortunately for the American manufacturer that continued to build gas-guzzling cars, this realization came from outside the country. Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen successfully delivered what the U.S. car buyer needed, and Michigan was slow to catch up.
Advances in technology began to catch up with reality, and grew to include:
  • Microprocessors, which enabled new automotive applications. Ignitions and fuel injection were electronically controlled, providing lower emissions and greater fuel economy.
  • Engine control units (ECU) were developed that now include modular transmission control and engine control modules. Up to 50 engine parameters are used, measuring pressure, temperature, flow, engine speed, oxygen level, and NOx levels. ECU outputs connect to up to 30 actuators, for the throttle valve, EGR valve, rack, fuel injector, etc. ECUs and transmission control share data, sensor, and control signals for transmission operation.
  • Electric car electronics handle engine management, climate, propulsion, antilock braking, passive safety systems, navigation, battery system management, etc.
  • Sensor technology advances and signal processing algorithms provide the groundwork for a variety of new systems.
  • Autonomous cars incorporate advanced sensors, networking, and navigation systems.
  • Several chassis subsystems are actively controlled, including anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, electronic brake distribution, and electronic stability.
  • Passive safety is electronically controlled and includes air bags, hill descent control, and emergency brake assist systems.
  • Driver assistance, passenger comfort, and infotainment systems are the latest to be designed and implemented. These groundbreaking segments are having a major impact on vehicles and price tags.

Many of the innovations took place and continue to do so as the governments mandate increasingly stringent energy and environmental standards. These regulations increase complexity and prompt the creation of additional systems. Sensors, in particular, have experienced major growth as the need for real-time control and feedback was introduced.

Figure 2  The impact on vehicle cost resulting from greater automotive electronic content. (Source: Freescale Semiconductor)

Consumer demand vs. government control
Both government involvement and customer demand for greater automatic control of systems has led to increased levels of electronics in vehicles. For several years before and throughout the financial crisis, the automotive market was in a downturn. Even though sales ebb and flow, a strong U.S. lobby continues to spend huge amounts pushing through favorable legislation. GM spent approximately $8.5 million on federal lobbying in 2014, down from $11.1 million in 2011. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spent nearly $6.7 million in 2014, while Ford spent $4.5 million.
Since the 1990s, GM employees and PACs have spent than $12.3 million on federal political candidates and committees. And auto dealers outspend manufacturers. In 2014, for example, the National Auto Dealers Association contributed more to political candidates than Ford, GM, and Toyota combined.
Case in point—the House of Representatives just passed a bill called the SELF DRIVE Act, with bipartisan support, establishing a basic federal framework for autonomous vehicle regulation. The bill passed with a two-thirds vote, and now the Senate will need to pass its version before it will become law.
Because there was no congressional oversight of self-driving vehicle testing on public roads, states created no less than 21 often conflicting state laws and guidelines with inconsistencies as to purpose, definitions, and priorities. The tech and automotive industries want to be able to test their cars on all roads. Others think that given that the industry is still early in autonomous vehicle design, it’s premature to have the federal government interfere.
What passed is that federal rules override state laws and rules. The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) has the power to regulate vehicle design, construction, and performance, and states maintain vehicle registration and licensing without governing what is inside the vehicle. The NHTSA has 24 months to create safety certification rules for automakers. Under this bill, the companies involved must also create privacy plans that describing how they will collect, use, and store data.
The NHTSA can grant 2,500 FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) exemptions each year. The new legislation increases that number to 25,000; 50,000 by year two, and by years three and four, 100,000.
The point about what the government is doing to pave the way for autonomous vehicles is that electronic content will continue to get a boost – a quite substantial one. The demand, however, isn’t coming from the consumer. They will not be beating down the doors of car dealers to get their hands on a self-driving car if the surveys are correct.
While electronic content is increasing in response to demands for ever more vehicle systems, the public is still insisting that they ultimately want control left in their hands. Maybe electronic content demand should let people catch up until they are comfortable with the little control they will retain.


Also see:

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/engineering-on-wheels/4458881/The-price-tag-of-automotive-electronics--What-s-really-at-play-

VOLKSWAGEN EXPLODING SUNROOF LAWSUIT SAYS GLASS INJURES PEOPLE






VOLKSWAGEN EXPLODING SUNROOF

LAWSUIT SAYS GLASS INJURES

PEOPLE



California lawsuit alleges sunroofs explode and shatter in multiple Volkswagen models.

Posted in News


 — A Volkswagen exploding sunroof lawsuit alleges numerous models going back to 2004 have defects that cause the sunroofs to explode and shatter into shards of glass that injure occupants.
Included in the proposed class-action lawsuit are consumers who purchased or leased in California the following vehicles equipped with factory-installed sunroofs:
  • 2005-2017 Volkswagen Jetta
  • 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf
  • 2006-2015 Volkswagen GTI
  • 2009-2010 Volkswagen CC
  • 2007-2016 Volkswagen Eos
  • 2006-2009 Volkswagen Rabbit
  • 2012-2017 Volkswagen Passat
  • 2004-2006 Volkswagen Touareg
  • 2011-2017 Volkswagen Touareg
  • 2008 Volkswagen R32
  • 2009-2017 Volkswagen Tiguan
Plaintiff Rosaura Deras says she leased her 2013 Volkswagen Jetta in June of 2013 and in 2017 the sunroof exploded. Deras says she was driving on the freeway when she suddenly heard a loud sound like a gunshot or explosion, followed by shards of glass falling on her head and the interior of the Jetta.
Deras says there was a large hole in the center of the sunroof and the glass edges were pointing outward and upward. The plaintiff says she wouldn't have leased and eventually purchased the Jetta if she would have known the dangers, or she would have paid substantially less for vehicle.
In addition, Deras says she had to pay for repairs even though the Jetta was allegedly within the period of the new vehicle warranty.
The lawsuit says sunroofs are an engineering challenge because of replacing metal portions of car roofs with large plates of glass, a job that requires precision in the strengthening, attachment and stabilization of the glass. But the plaintiff claims VW failed to meet these engineering challenges and chose to sell allegedly defective vehicles.
According to court documents, Volkswagen has allegedly known about the sunroof problems since at least 2009 and likely before that date because of consumer complaints.
The plaintiff says rocks or other objects thrown up by cars and trucks on the roads would not impact the sunroof with enough force to cause it to shatter, let alone shatter outward. Additionally, some VW sunroofs have spontaneously shattered while the vehicles were parked.
Volkswagen also allegedly conceals the defects even while the automaker continues to receive complaints, and drivers continue to operate the vehicles unaware of the safety dangers of doing so.
One big claim of the lawsuit is how VW allegedly refuses to repair exploded sunroofs even while the vehicles are under warranty, primarily because the problem is blamed on objects hitting the glass. The plaintiff claims this has left owners and lessees with huge repair bills for a problem they believe the automaker shouldn't have let occur in the first place.
The Volkswagen exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Rosaura Deras, et. al., v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of Robert L. Starr, APC, and the Law Office of Stephen M. Harris, APC.

https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2017/volkswagen-exploding-sunroof-lawsuit-glass.shtml


Tesla Model 3 Door Handles: NO mechanical handle for rear doors. Seriously?






NO mechanical handle for rear doors. Seriously?
Discussion in 'Model 3'
started by EvanLin,
September 24, 2017 at 6:28 PM.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/no-mechanical-handle-for-rear-doors-seriously.98748/
-----------------------------------------------------------------


EvanLin
Member
Joined:Oct 9, 2016
Location:Asia
EvanLin, September 24, 2017 at 6:28 PM  Last edited: September 24, 2017 at 6:37 PM
According to
There is no mechanical release handle for rear doors.
In an accident, anything could happen.
What if front doors are blocked or unable to open due to impact, and people must leave the car immediately?
What if people in front are unconscious?
Few seconds makes a difference.
Control wipers from screen only to simplify the interior is poor but barely acceptable.
NO mechanical handle for rear doors? It's life or death. Totally nonsense!
Copyright © 2006-2017 Tesla Motors Club LLC. All rights reserved.


MODEL 3
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE GUIDE
(36 pages)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(page 28 of 36)
OPENING FRONT DOORS WITHOUT POWER
To open the Model 3 front doors from the inside without 12 volt power, lift the mechanical release handle located near the window
switches.
NOTE: Only the front doors are equipped with a mechanical release handle.