Hacker News Reader

Comment by Veserv | Hacker News Reader

The meaning of the word “recall” has been eroded. At this point we would be better served by renaming it to a more descriptive term.

Dangerous defect notice.

“Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects.

A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards.”

So to rewrite the prior example: Tesla issued a dangerous defect notice on all of the vehicles it has sold in the U.S. because some warning lights are too small to meet minimum safety standards.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls

View on HN

Recall is a term of art in the automotive safety world, as you just posted. It isn’t eroded - if the government decides the fix has to be applied, that’s a recall. Whether or not the fix is OTA doesn’t play into the classification as a recall.

I am aware it is a term of art and that the nature of the fix is independent of the presence of a dangerous defect requiring prompt remediation i.e. a recall.

Unfortunately, lay understanding of the term results in objectively wrong statements like: “it is not a recall, it is just a OTA software update”. We would be better served if NHTSA replaced the term with a descriptive alternative that better communicates the intent and nature of the term.

I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of the remediation.

I suggest: “dangerous defect notice” as it is descriptive, unambiguous, sufficiently alarming, and clearly indicates it is a property of the product instead of the remediation.

Disagree on this suggestion. “Notice” to me doesn’t imply a necessary response, whereas “recall” does.

But, I do agree with the general sentiment that people don’t understand the legal obligations that come with a recall. And I wouldn’t object to a change of language by the NHSTA, as long as it’s consistent - I would be against any language that tended to differentiate “OTA recall” from “physical recall” for the same reason I don’t like “notice”. That, and the NHSTA may or may not know the full scope of remediation before issuing a recall.

“Mandatory safety update” perhaps?

“Defect” implies a necessary response. A defective product is a product that a manufacturer is legally obligated to repair, replace, or refund. A “defect notice” is thus a notice that the manufacturer is legally obligated to remediate the problem.

It is also consistent with existing terminology, see: “Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect”. We see that the “recall” refers not to the remedy, but to the notice that the manufacturer has obligations to remedy the defect.

Note that “mandatory safety update” is also incorrect because:

“Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.”

So, a update is not necessary, it is usually just the cheapest option which is why it is the most common. Also note how the remediations proposed are consistent with standard defect remediation as I laid out above.

If we renamed regulatory terms of art every time members of the public misinterpreted them, we would be changing terminology so often that we'd end up with everyone being confused, not just some people.

> Recall is a term of art in the automotive safety world, as you just posted.

Also in consumer products in general. Here is a list of recalls from the Consumer Products Safety Commission for example [1].

Sometimes the remedy is to take the product to a dealer to be fixed. Sometimes it is an OTA update. Sometimes it is that the manufacturer will send a repairperson to your home to fix the problem. Sometimes it is a non-OTA update (e.g., there was one for a Samsung washer a while back where if your model didn't have WiFi they would send you a dongle to plug in that would install the update).

[1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls

We use the same term in the med device industry as well. I primarily work on software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) and a "recall" typically almost always involves a software and/or documentation update.

Especially when the recent recall over driver attention detection was obviously the NHTSA going after Tesla and not a real problem that needed a solution: and the fix seems to have made using autopilot/FSD more dangerous by increasing the amount the screen nags the driver.

It’s not warning lights. If you’re getting that wording from NHTSA, they have their heads up their asses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com