Massachusetts voters are deciding in this year’s election on whether they---and not the vehicle manufacturers---have control over the repair data generated by the vehicle they purchased.

The Auto Care Association and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) have supported efforts by the Massachusetts Right to Repair Committee to obtain public support for ballot Question 1, which would give the consumer choice in vehicle repair. 

“While the battle has been hard fought and expensive, the Auto Care Association is pleased that the most influential publications in the state have seen through the negative advertising campaign being funded by the vehicle manufacturers and have unanimously urged their readers to vote ‘yes’ on Question 1,” said Bill Hanvey, president and CEO, Auto Care Association. “We trust that voters in the state will agree with these publication that the right to repair is important and that advances in vehicle technology should not be used to limit the ability for owners to have their vehicle repaired by the shop of their choice."

These “‘Yes’ on Question 1” endorsements include: 

The Boston Globe on Oct. 13 declared, “The reason the new Right to Repair measure should pass is simple: It is inherently unfair for car manufacturers to have sole access to a vehicle’s mechanical data, because it gives their dealerships an advantage over independent auto-repair shops. That ultimately hurts consumers, because with limited options come higher prices.”

The Boston Business Journal on Oct. 15 maintained, “Without the ability to repair cars equipped with wireless electronics, repair shops will see declines in business in coming years as car owners are forced to get repairs done at more expensive dealerships. In the end, more of the millions of dollars that Bay State residents spend every year to fix their cars would go to out-of-state manufacturers. More neighborhood car-repair shops will go out of business."

The Sun Chronicle on Oct. 21 stated, “…we think the opponents of the law have done themselves no favors by overhyping the risks it poses. For example, the ‘No’ campaigners lean heavily on a statement from ‘Jane Doe Inc.,’ a Massachusetts advocacy group against domestic violence and abuse. But, on its website, that group now says its position on the referendum has ‘evolved’ and, while saying it’s staying neutral, complains that it’s wrong to use the fears of abuse survivors to promote a political position. For that alone, we think the opponents of Question 1 deserve to get their comeuppance at the ballot box.”

The Berkshire Eagle on Oct. 21 stated, “Question 1’s opponents had ample opportunity to explain why this lobby should keep a monopolistic grip on your car’s telematics. They instead spent their campaign dishonestly fear-mongering in an attempt to distract consumers from asking why carmakers should be able to flout the spirit of the extant Right to Repair law to drive more repair jobs to their dealership garages. Hopefully voters will see through this charade.”

For more information about the Right to Repair ballot initiative in Massachusetts, visit massrighttorepair.org.

Source: https://www.autobodynews.com/index.php/northeastern/item/21245-right-to-repair-ballot-initiative-endorsed-by-major-massachusetts-news-publications.html?start=1

If Question 1 is approved, cars 2022 model or newer must be equipped by manufacturers with a standardized, open access platform that would allow auto repair shops to wirelessly access mechanical data using a smartphone-based app with owner’s permission.

Currently, telematics data generated by sensors in the cars is transmitted to servers only the automakers can access.

Supporters of Question 1 say that the telematics data only being available to the manufacturer means car owners must take the car to its original automaker to receive service and make repairs, diminishing consumer choice in where they can take their cars.

“If a person goes out and buys a car, they should own the data that enables that car to be fixed, and they should be able to choose where they want the car fixed. If shops like mine don’t have that information, then we can’t fix the car, which kind of forces someone to go to a place where they don’t want to go,” said Robert Wallace, President and Treasurer of Cape Tire and supporter of Question 1.

Wallace said that the limits on customer choice on where they can receive service for their car will lead to a monopolization of the industry by car manufacturers, with a rise in prices and a drop in quality service.

Wallace said that he and other supporters would be willing to purchase the data, similar to how the auto repair shops already purchase parts, and that they are not requesting that the data be made available for free.

“We’re willing to pay for it, we just want the information to keep our customers rolling.”

Conor Yunits, spokesperson for the Coalition for Safe and Secure Data which opposes Question 1, said that the issue of telematics is already covered under the right-to-repair-law that was introduced in 2013. 

“It specifically says that any information necessary to diagnose and repair a vehicle that is provided to dealer repair shops and only available through telematics must be made available to local repair shops. This is already covered,” said Yunits.

Yunits said that currently data is only sent to secure servers owned by manufacturers, then to repair shops or customers through secure systems developed with the automaker.

According to Yunits, Question 1 would prevent manufacturers from being a part of the development process of security systems and apps that share the information in the future, sacrificing a layer of security for consumers.

Yunits also said that Question 1 unnecessarily risks owners’ personal data by creating opportunities for bad actors outside as well as inside repair shops to access personal data wirelessly.

While mechanics or others may be able to intercept and use the data for malicious purposes, Wallace said that is a risk that comes with a lot of modern technology, such as cellphones and other smart devices that collect data on their users, and that it is up to the customer to decide whether they want to take that risk.

Yunits also said that Question 1 would also force car manufacturers to comply with an unrealistic timetable which would be impossible to do in a safe and effective manner, with new requirements that would be enforced as early as January 2021.

Source: https://www.capecod.com/newscenter/cape-cod-auto-shops-pushing-for-question-1/

Thanks in advance for any information.

Yvonne 

Here's an inexpensive solution available on Amazon, available in 2,3, or 4 shelf cabinet versions: 

Here's another option available on Amazon:

OSHA minimally acceptable number and type of first-aid supplies for first-aid kits required: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.266AppA

- General liability was $1,032 per year if paid in full for $1,000,000 limit and $2,000,000 aggregate

- Garage keepers was $1320 per year if paid in full for $75,000 coverage

Does this sound right? I am in the process of getting other quotes but wanted to see if I am in the right ballpark. This is my first time getting insurance for the business and it seems like some places don't want to insure you unless you have history.

Shop size:

Employees:

Location:

Own or rent:

Coverage:

Insurer:

Thank you

How many are BBB accredited? Is it worth the cost? Any experiences or feedback?

- Nick 

Example, in NYS we are required to capture a signature or document approval with the customer complaint to begin work on the vehicle before we touch it. We must record mileage when the vehicle enters the shop and when it is finished. We must state the warranty for each item and the terms and time limit for any guarantee on repair work. We have to collect a non taxable $2.50 waste tire management fee for every new tire sold. We have a state safety and emissions inspection that is varies in fee and is non taxable.

The problem of no techs and more importantly unqualified techs were present in the 70s when I started. ASE came along and they were going to fix the problem. All techs were going to have to get certified to be able to work in the automotive field, i'm still waiting for that to happen. Then ASE said that if we certified on our own that we would be more attractive to prospective employers and could command higher wages, still waiting for that to happen.

A couple of months ago Mitch Schnieder wrote an article about the tech shortage and that something needs to be done. Donny Sieffert from ASA has been writing articles about the connected car and all the complexities and how we are going to need very talented diagnosticians to figure them out and repair them. These same articles were written in the 80s about the new computer controlled cars and the 90s about the new fuel injected cars and the, well you get the idea.

We as an industry need to come together and fix this problem. Instead we complain to each other about how hard it is to find qualified techs while we hire unqualified /barely qualified techs to work in our bays.I include myself in this ,I'm just as guilty.

The reason we do this is we have no way of knowing if that person applying for the tech position has any schooling or even knows what he says he knows.

I feel shop and tech licensing fixes a lot of these problems. I'm sure there will be a bunch of you that will disagree with me and thats fine. I know you only hire certified people and run the best shops except the three shops down the road or around the corner don't and it says auto repair on the front of their buildings too.

If you knew that the person coming through your door had to pass a rigorous licensing requirement and that every shop had to have the same basic equipment and could only hire these licensed techs it levels the playing field for all of us.

Think it can't be done? Look at the Right To Repair laws and agreements that have been forged and passed in different states. It can be done but only if we start the discussion on a national level.

Using an organization like ASA and bringing together some of the leaders in our industry to work on this with our input I feel would be a start in the right direction.

I know it won't be a cure all but it would be a start. We need to start some where .

Thoughts, insights??

So it gets towed back to the shop and the mechanic pulls the valve cover and said it jumped time and not worth fixing. I go and pick it up and bring it to my shop( an hour and a half north) to take a look. Started doing a leakdown to see if it bent valves, get to #2 and found a valve sitting on top of the piston.

So I tell my cousin to call his insurance since it was stolen and they destroyed the engine. He does and after almost 2 months they finally tell him it isn't covered because of the pre-existing condition of the engine when it was brought into the shop. Found out the mechanic told them the engine was junk when it came in the first time which is a crock! It was running when it was brought in, it ran for 7 miles after being stolen. It may have jumped time causing the initial problem but was probably only off 1-2 teeth, the car thief caused it to jump enough more to hit the valves and break one off. The mechanic threw my cousin under the bus to protect his own hide as I'm sure he knew if there was a claim the insurance would come after him for giving the keys to who knows who and then leaving them in the car overnight.

I just texted my attorney, we're going to talk about it tomorrow. Ben should get paid for the car and I'd sue the shop if the insurance doesn't pay. They can also pay me $10/day storage fees for the last 2 months too. I've been plowing around that damn thing all winter.

To give you a little background on where I am coming from: My brother and I are taking over the business, our father is 69 and is working his way into retirement. He has done a great job on teaching us how to run a shop, we are both very good service managers, however we have little experience on the business end of things. The reason that I am so interested in insurance is at the end of last year we were dropped by our underwriter, not for too many claims, just because, well I don't really know why. I think it had more to with the insurance company and the direction they were heading. Anyway our insurance guy scrambled to get us insurance at the 11th hour and needless to say we are paying out the nose.

We have 2 locations and do general automotive repair. The kicker is, we also have 2-3 service trucks and do on site tire repair for semi and construction tires. Yes, I know, there is my expensive insurance issue. However we have never paid this much before and I think part of it is who we are dealing with.

With all that being said I am trying to be proactive and learn as much as I can, so that maybe when it is time to renew we can get this expense a little more inline.

Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Scott

Examples-

*Vehicle that had a coolant leak, over heated prior to you working on it???

*Oil leaks, if you repair it and the engine knocks afterwards?

*Check engine lights, you repair any P0300 codes and the car comes back with a Cat code?

*Declines a brakes job, and car is unsafe to drive

Do you think any of the waivers/ disclaimers will protect you as a owner??

Thanks

Some articles to read about it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...SbAMcv4EqdBQjiw

http://www.carnewsreport.org/

In a nutshell, if you are not familiar with this:

Under the House bill, car owners could get a voucher worth $3,500 if they traded in a vehicle getting 18 miles per gallon or less for one getting at least 22 miles per gallon. The value of the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the mileage of the new car is 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The miles per gallon figures are listed on the window sticker. Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 mpg or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV is at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 mpg higher than the older vehicle. Consumers could also receive vouchers for leased vehicles.