Driving Concerns: Chinese Software in American Cars

[00:00:00] Anthony: You’re listening to There Auto Be A Law the center for auto safety podcast with executive director, Michael Brooks, chief engineer, Fred Perkins, and hosted by me, Anthony Cimino for over 50 years, the center for auto safety has worked to make cars safer.

Hey listeners, welcome to the only podcast that will protect you. I don’t know. Yeah,

[00:00:33] Michael: That was a little dramatic. It

[00:00:34] Anthony: was a little dramatic, but, we’re the only podcast that regularly reminds you to wear a seatbelt. That’s pretty good, right? That’s, Surely not,

[00:00:42] Michael: Surely we’re not done

[00:00:43] Anthony: with this.

You think there’s another podcast where people are, yelling at their audience to wear a seatbelt? Nah, I don’t think so.

[00:00:50] Fred: Good morning listeners despite the confusion about our purpose here.

[00:00:55] Anthony: That is true. What is our purpose here?

[00:00:58] White House’s New Policy on Connected Vehicle Technology

[00:00:58] Anthony: Hey, our purpose is gonna talk [00:01:00] about something that just came out of the White House.

The Protecting America from Connected Vehicle Technology from Countries of Concerns. That is a mouthful. That’s, titles like this are just, you’ve been overeducated. Okay? Not sure what’s happening here, but basically, the Biden administration is saying, Hey, we’re going to limit what software and hardware technology from China and Russia can get into your cars because then the Chinese and Russian government can exploit U.

S. driving data. And we only want U. S. companies to exploit U. S. driving data, right?

[00:01:40] Fred: Yeah, that’s right. If people are going to make unlimited amounts of money exploiting your private information that you’d rather not have out there, right? Yeah. It’s got to be American.

[00:01:50] Anthony: Yeah.

[00:01:50] Fred: U. S. state.

[00:01:52] Anthony: From the White House briefing, there’s a great little line.

It says, As the Department of Commerce has found vehicles, increasing [00:02:00] connectivity creates opportunities to collect and exploit sensitive information. Oh, my God. The entire Department of Congress had to figure this out and find this. Like, how does that happen? Is there someone sitting there? Excuse me.

Excuse me. We’re exploiting people and they’ve noticed. What?

[00:02:18] Michael: They have to have a basis for which to issue a rule, right? So they’re going to have to make a finding that Americans are threatened by this issue before tax dollars are going to flow towards making rules to prevent that. So that makes sense, right?

[00:02:33] Anthony: Okay.

[00:02:35] Michael: Also, this, it’s worth noting. This is a fundamentally a bipartisan effort. This I believe the first executive order that was issued came in 2019 under the Trump administration. So this shouldn’t be a political volleyball, there, there should be, pretty significant support from everyone in America.

To prevent these kinds of things from happening. Namely the installation of [00:03:00] hardware and software into connected vehicles that comes from Russian China. And it’s taking some time. I, one of the things that kind of.

[00:03:09] Challenges in Enforcing Software and Hardware Bans

[00:03:09] Michael: I’m a little confused about it, but that is worth noting that the software coming in from those countries is prohibited as of model year 2027, but the hardware band doesn’t take effect into model year 2030, which makes me guess, what software is going to be running that hardware for that 3 year period.

Interim period. But I, that’s the question that’s beyond my capabilities, Fred, maybe you can tell me how software and hardware are separable for the sake of that prohibition.

[00:03:41] Fred: I still have no idea what the basis for that is, but Michael, what is to stop somebody from, Oh, I don’t know, Estonia from selling software that goes into American vehicles and then having them collect the data and sell it to whoever they wish.

Is there some mechanism for [00:04:00] that? This identifies Russia and China, but it doesn’t include any prohibition that I could see against one of our allies. Developing software that collects data, which can then be sold to a third party.

[00:04:14] Anthony: I’ve got a better one for you. How does this stop a software developer in the U S from, using some open source product that was perhaps developed by Russian intelligence?

On Weddingly installs this and releases it in their American made vehicle.

[00:04:30] Michael: Both of the, for the first one I’ll take Anthony’s first. That wouldn’t happen. I don’t think that would happen. It’s probably not going to stop that. But what this focuses on really is not The data that’s being generated here.

There’s actually a separate kind of companion effort going on right now, I believe at the department of justice to address the Americans data being sold offshore to China, to Russia, to [00:05:00] other companies, to other countries. So that’s somewhat separate from this where here they’re talking, specifically about hardware and software and, I think we’ve tried to track automotive.

Supply chains. I think we’ve done it on a couple of occasions, maybe involving batteries. I think we were talking about the Uyghurs in China and some of the bad stuff going on there. We talked about just how hard it is to track components. I guess software might. might pose a similar issue, even though it’s not coming out of a mine, tracking things to their source.

And, that’s going to be critical to ensuring that this, that these rules work is that they’re able to actually track software and hardware to their source, to make sure that Russia and China aren’t. slipping something under the table through the Netherlands that pops up and is sold by a Dutch company to an American automotive company or another company that’s manufacturing vehicles for America.

So the enforcement here is critical. You’re not, [00:06:00] the executive order and the rule on its own, aren’t going to do anything. There’s going to have to be continued diligence on behalf of auto manufacturers and, government officials to make sure that. These rules are being applied and followed and that manufacturers are vetting their hardware and software suppliers pretty significantly.

[00:06:20] Fred: This is a, actually a real problem that I think is extremely difficult to police because every programmer uses virtually every programmer uses a source called GitHub to get a lot of free software. And GitHub is now owned by Microsoft, which is incidental, but it allows the community to put software into the GitHub archives so that anybody else in the world can use it.

And it’s extremely useful for programmers because you don’t have to understand a lot of the functions in order to use the software. Unfortunately, People can hide all kinds of things in the software that they put on [00:07:00] GitHub, including Trojan horses and links and, all that malware that really makes software or a security problem.

Unless and until they go after the real dangerous sources of the malware and the ability to get data unwittingly from a car into the public domain, it’s really not going to have much effect.

[00:07:25] Anthony: Yeah I think this is more of a larger issue of forgetting connected cars. This is a larger ecosystem issue with software and hardware to a lesser extent hardware.

But with software is okay. So in my car, let’s say I have a American made. Model something and it’s got all of the software was made in the U. S. by Americans, but hey, this connects to a server Somewhere to do some software updates and we’re a car company We didn’t want to build the server infrastructure and who knows what that server company is using on their back end what they’re doing And so there’s just so many points of [00:08:00] failure.

So this is This more good policy is or is this more of the Russians are fluoridating our water? You

[00:08:09] Michael: I think it’s a little bit, definitely a little of both. Let me I guess the good news here would be that everyone seems to be in support of this movement. I mentioned, both Democrat and Republicans are in favor of putting up some type of firewall here.

I don’t know if we’re entering, an era where we’ve got a new digital iron curtain going up between the United States and China, the United States and Russia, but it seems like that’s. Where we’re headed. Not just in this policy, but in all the other policies that have been announced in this area.

But also, automakers are in support or at least not against this policy. I think that’s mainly because, the U S the main U S automakers or GM Stilantis claim that they use very little software or hardware from China.

[00:08:56] Anthony: Except all of the microprocessors are made in [00:09:00] China.

That’s never, it’s not going to end the next decade.

[00:09:03] Michael: They say very little now that there’s a, there’s, it’s really difficult to track the source. We’ve, we’ve talked about this in the terms of mining and other things, but also it’s very difficult to just. Figure out what percentage of a vehicle is manufactured. Where, when you when you look at what percentage of cars are actually, manufactured or parts are in Russia, for instance, there’s very little, I don’t even think Russia shows up in the top 20 to 25.

Sources of vehicle parts, at least for American vehicles, but the way that those things are added up manufacturers have to submit and that’s, I think, I want to say it’s a part 583 part 563, maybe report every year that lists exactly, basically the origin of the parts in each vehicle.

I don’t know that extends to software. I think it’s more focused on the physical parts of the vehicle, but, when you look at. Look at that. It’s pretty clear that the [00:10:00] vast majority of American made vehicles are using parts that are sourced from Canada or Mexico. There is a question as to, whether some of those parts are coming into Mexico via China.

I don’t think so. I think that the reporting goes into enough detail to figure that out. But, there’s, that’s one of my biggest problems in reading and looking at this issue is trying to figure out exactly what percentage of the hardware and software in American vehicles or vehicles that are imported to America actually comes from those countries that are of concern.

It’s really difficult for me to figure out. It’s probably, it’s a lot less difficult for individual manufacturers who are of concern. Part of the supply chain and actively working in it to figure out so that a lot of the burden, like we saw with some of the supply chain tracing, we looked at in the weaker episode a lot of the burden is on the individual manufacturers to.

Prove the source, or at least, do their diligence to, to [00:11:00] show that they’ve done everything they can to ensure that these software and hardware components are not sourced from China or Russia. So a lot of this is going to come down to industry compliance with the rules, which as we know, is always somewhat of a problem.

[00:11:16] Fred: Yeah. The recent events in in Lebanon have shown the difficulties of supply chain And the consequences of poor supply chain management.

[00:11:26] Anthony: And I’m curious how a manufacturer will claim they’re doing this with software. Because no company, I don’t know, Microsoft, Apple, no one is writing all of their own software that they sell to the public.

It’s just not how software has been developed for 20 years, at least, more than that. More than that. So anyway, the in this briefing also, there’s a nice little exit clause. It says, The Department of Commerce is also proposing procedures to let certain parties, such as small producers of vehicles, to receive exemptions from the [00:12:00] prohibitions on an exceptional basis in order to minimize unanticipated, unnecessary disruption to industry.

So hey, we’re gonna stop all this, we got friends, yo. We’re gonna stop all this, we got friends, yo. We got friends and they, uh, we’re gonna play a little ball with them. But this is important, except for and this is I hate this. I hate these Weasley punks at the Commerce Department who stole the internet back in 1995.

Anyway,

[00:12:27] Michael: You sound like you have a longstanding beef with Commerce. They don’t, Commerce doesn’t enter our purview too often here at the Center for Photo Safety. This is one of the few issues I’ve encountered over the years with them, but they’ve apparently snuck into your back door and taken some of your stuff.

[00:12:43] Anthony: Yeah, that’s

[00:12:43] Fred: a vulnerable grudge, Anthony. What did your therapist say about that?

[00:12:48] Anthony: I, my, my therapist has an exception, okay, to this rule, and I don’t know who makes her software. Hey, in different government news, this is better.

[00:12:58] Counterfeit Airbags and Automotive Parts

[00:12:58] Anthony: The Department of Homeland [00:13:00] Security, which I found was interesting they’re warning consumers about counterfeit airbags so that’s great.

We’ve talked about the problem of counterfeit airbags in the past, really bad for people really dangerous. But my question is, why is the Department of Homeland Security doing this instead of, I don’t know, the Department of Transportation or our friends at NHTSA?

[00:13:19] Michael: I believe it’s because the Customs and Border Protection are under the Department of Homeland Security.

So they’re working with NHTSA. Because, we’ve seen it so worn. I believe earlier this year, there were three deaths that the agency had counted due to counterfeit airbags being installed on vehicles without the owners knowing. And so that’s why they’re working. It’s surely a matter of, Trying to figure out how these things are getting into the country.

But, the part of the release from the Homeland security, that’s frankly a lot more interesting to me than the airbags, which are, what the release was intended to address, the CBP, the Customs and Border [00:14:00] Patrol so far this year has seized 490 counterfeit airbags. That’s 10 times more than they seized last year.

Now, whether that’s. Because they’re looking for them more or for whatever reason, I’m not sure, but on top of that, they sees 211, 000 counterfeit automotive ports, excuse me, automotive parts. In fiscal year 2024. So that was double the number they see they seized in fiscal year 2023. That suggests there is a gigantic problem with counterfeit parts coming into America.

And we’ve seen evidence of this on eBay, on Amazon, who, have been somewhat resistant to policing their own websites to ensure that people aren’t buying counterfeit airbags from China on eBay and having them shipped to America. Amazon has had issues selling child seats.

And we’ve also heard of [00:15:00] a lot of other areas where counterfeit parts are coming in that, that don’t work. They don’t meet federal standards and yet they’re sold as though they do. Particularly in a vehicle lighting, lighting replacements and other things. That’s a lot of counterfeit automotive parts coming to America.

And keep in mind that those 211, 000 parts that they seized this year only represent, what they’ve caught. So you could probably, fairly readily make a guess that there are really millions of these things floating around out there. And accessible to, not just an American replacing a light on their car, but also, to repair shops.

Automotive supply shops and, independent repairs, all sorts of areas where these counterfeit parts can enter your vehicle. And they may not be compliant with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. They may have, Issues with electrical issues that cause fire. They may have issues that cause your lights to turn off [00:16:00] while you’re driving.

They may be blinding other drivers. Your car seat may not work properly to protect your child because you ordered it on Amazon. It’s a fake. Your motorcycle helmet may not be protected because it doesn’t meet the standards because it was a fake one manufactured in China. So there’s a huge issue here and it looks like it’s growing and it’s not going away anytime soon.

And there needs to be, you know, I wish part of the ban on hardware and software that we just talked about would extend to, your simple. Parts and maybe some of that will, maybe a, I’m assuming a headlight manufactured in China that doesn’t meet federal motor vehicle safety standards qualifies as the type of hardware that would be banned from import under the executive order.

We just spoke about. So maybe that will be helpful.

[00:16:52] Consumer Tips for Avoiding Counterfeit Parts

[00:16:52] Michael: But we are noting this just to make sure that consumers. When you’re shopping for repair parts, when you’re, when you’re [00:17:00] getting your, if you’ve had a crash and having your airbag replaced, make sure that these are being done by licensed reputable mechanics.

Make sure that if you’re sourcing your own parts, that you’re sourcing them from, you’re not buying them off eBay without some type of guarantee that they’re OEM or equivalent parts.

[00:17:20] Fred: Michael, that sounds like an argument for going back to the. Dealers to have your car maintained is that was that what you’re

[00:17:28] Michael: recommending here?

No, not necessarily because you can certainly get certified. Or imparts or even their equivalent from independent mechanics. That’s not an issue. Oh, sure. So much

[00:17:41] Fred: as I’ve never challenged. The authenticity of the oil that, my local gas station was going to be putting into my car, how do you really do that as a consumer?

[00:17:54] Michael: You really have to a lot of it is trust and hoping for the best because it’s very [00:18:00] difficult as a consumer to verify, the provenance of some of the parts that are going into your vehicle, you can go to a Ford dealer and you might have your headlights replaced and you have no idea if.

Those are coming down the right path that ford sets up to buy its parts or another path that the you know there might be a rogue employee at the dealer who’s found a way to make a buck by You know buying cheap lights and putting them on cars versus buying the ones that are certified or recommended by ford So there are any number of ways where a certain?

Sneaky person looking for to score a buck can get into the system and, put a bad airbag on your vehicle or something like that to make a dollar. So it really it’s very difficult for consumers to verify here and it, it requires trust and sometimes it may require you in this article, they mentioned that you should go to a reputable mechanic and have an airbag inspection.

That’s NHTSA is encouraging people to do. [00:19:00] is to make sure that they have an airbag that’s going to meet federal standards and that, isn’t just a wad of paper stuffed into what looks like an airbag inflator. So it is not an easy thing to do for consumers and that’s why we need, DHS and that’s and all the other government agencies who are responsible here to be really putting the clamps on the type of, vehicle parts that are coming to the country to make sure that they comply with federal motor vehicle safety standards.

[00:19:31] Anthony: So I want to flag this for a future episode of something we can do to help consumers do this. Cause I remember years and years ago. It was my first car, and I take it to, some some lube place to get the oil changed, and the car’s maybe got a couple thousand miles on it, and the guy comes out, and he’s Oh, I gotta replace the air filter.

I have no idea what an air filter looks like. I don’t know what he showed me, I don’t know, he could’ve just taken it out, rubbed grease on it, I, could’ve showed me anything, but I, Found out later on that you shouldn’t have to replace an air filter after 3, 000 miles. It wasn’t like living [00:20:00] out in the Mojave Desert or, submerging the car.

But, so I’d like to flag we do some like consumer tips for a future episode. And if listeners, you want that, go to autosafety. org right now. Click on donate and tell us, hey, I want consumer tips special episode in the podcast thing. Fred?

[00:20:18] Fred: I just wanted to give a tip to consumers. One of the things you can do, and that I’ve done at dealers, is when they ask or when they tell you that this part needs to be replaced, or in your case the air filter, ask them what the specification is.

That will really knock them back on their heels. And they’ll say this is just what we do and just insist on that, say, what’s the specification and where do I stand with respect to the specification and you’ll end up paying for a lot fewer part replacements.

[00:20:50] Anthony: I like that. At

[00:20:53] Michael: a bare minimum, I’d say go to your owner’s manual and make, look up the preventative maintenance schedules, [00:21:00] which should give you an idea of when your air filter should be replaced.

[00:21:03] Fred: It does. It does. There’s nothing like asking them to go back to the books and Consider the numbers, which actually we’ll be talking about with respect to Torc Robotics later on.

[00:21:13] Anthony: Ah, so I like that. Ask one of the specifications, but as a consumer, he can come back and be like, Oh, gamma seven.

Clearly it’s gamma seven. Yeah. Yeah, put in two, but we got a two, two. So yeah, let’s It’s

[00:21:27] Fred: just you’re right, but it just forces them to go back and take a second look and Justify a little bit more detail concerning the repair they’re about to undertake.

[00:21:37] Anthony: Yeah. I like that.

Let’s do this future episode, but for now, since, hey you’ve got the the wherewithal, the generosity, I should say, the foresight to donate to the Center for Autosafety, perhaps you also have a subscription to The Economist because we like to put out links in our podcast description of what we’re talking about and see some reference material, but we have a great article from The Economist, but unfortunately it’s paywalled, so we can’t give you a [00:22:00] link.

But.

[00:22:01] Michael: I will say this. If you want to read the article, you can just, give the economist your email and hope they don’t track you down and, whatever the economist does when we’re not looking. But I think it’s okay to give them your email and that’ll allow you to read a few free articles if you do.

And that’s how I got the article.

[00:22:17] Fred: Ah there’s also an institution in the United States called public libraries.

Just, you don’t want to overlook that.

[00:22:28] Anthony: But the library is like three blocks away, and I have to, ugh.

[00:22:31] Fred: Oh, I know. It’s a deep state. You need to walk those three blocks to engage the deep state.

[00:22:35] Discussion on Vehicle Weight and Safety

[00:22:35] Anthony: So the article is titled What to Do About America’s Killer Cars. And this article is great.

They are clearly fans of this podcast. In the early pages of it, it says If you are in America, the chances are that 1 in 75 Passengers in a car will be killed by another car. Wait. So it says, hey, you’re driving down the road, look at the passengers, and 1 in 75 people will be killed [00:23:00] from a car crash in the U.

S.? Is that right? Is that what I’m reading here? This sounds crazy.

[00:23:05] Fred: It sounds high to me, but I don’t know their numbers. They’re, they didn’t really discuss the source or their numbers.

[00:23:11] Anthony: The numbers is that we know it’s roughly 40, 000 people every year killed in the U. S. on the highways. But further down they’re saying, Using data for 7.

5 million crashes in 14 American states in 2013 to 2023, we found that for every 10, 000 crashes, the heaviest vehicles Kill 37 people in the other car compared with 5. 7 for cars of a median weight and just 2. 6 for the lightest cars. So basically they’re pointing out what we’ve mentioned countless times in this podcast that vehicle weight matters.

Vehicle weight is you’re likely gonna cause someone to die the bigger your vehicle is. Can I make that logical leap? Yeah, no, that makes perfect

[00:23:53] Fred: sense. It’s kinetic energy, right? So kinetic energy is linear with increasing mass and [00:24:00] increases the square of the speed. So if you’re in a car and you’re driving 30 miles an hour and you want to bump it up to 60, it’s good to know that you’re now saying I have four times the amount of kinetic energy in my car.

than it had before. And maybe I ought to be driving a little bit more carefully.

[00:24:17] Anthony: So can I make the further leap that for those people who buy large vehicles, that they’re possible sociopaths?

[00:24:25] Fred: You can certainly make that leap. Anthony, but again, what does your therapist say about that?

[00:24:29] Michael: Oh yeah. That’s a really, that’s a difficult issue.

I, I know lots of people who have based their car buying decisions on, protecting themselves and their families and they buy bigger cars for that reason the article even. References a Sopranos episode where Tony Soprano has that similar conversation with his son. So yes, if you are in a very large truck, your chances of being killed in an accident with a smaller vehicle are much smaller than the occupants of the [00:25:00] smaller vehicle.

That’s It’s fairly basic physics and it’s, that’s a real part of the problem here is that, you really are safer in those larger vehicles they have their own little quirks and they make rollover easier and they may have greater stiffness depending on the type of crash and what you’re hitting.

There’s all sorts of different. Things that can happen there, on average, the larger vehicles are going to kill a lot more people than the smaller vehicles.

[00:25:29] Fred: Absolutely right. And they only confer safety if you’re preying upon smaller vehicles. So if you have one of these giant vehicles, and you happen to hit another giant vehicle head on, overall, there’s just a tremendous, tremendously large amount of kinetic energy in that collision, and then you all die.

[00:25:50] Michael: Yeah, and the article goes on to mention, it went off track for me, it was great at the start, but it mentioned redesigning the road system here. That’s great. We do need more roundabouts. We [00:26:00] do need a lot of things at the arcade that the article mentions, but that’s not going to address the vehicle weight disparity.

Also, it mentions, getting people to slow down, which. We will talk about and continue to talk about endlessly on this podcast because of the problems that produces and there’s a kinetic energy issue there, but Ultimately, I mean we’ve got to slow down the growth of these giant trucks. We’ve got to start buying Vehicles that make more sense from environmental perspective.

We got to, prevent people from driving to their office in a suit and tie and a 10, 000 truck that they simply don’t need for that task. And, if that’s too big brother for you, then, I guess you’re okay with the status quo where, 40, 000 plus people are dying every year and a significant percentage of those are dying because of, the inequities in weight between vehicles.

[00:26:55] Fred: Not to nitpick, but I think you may have said 10, 000 pickup truck rather than 10, [00:27:00] 000 pound pickup truck. You are correct. If that’s an important distinction. So he should have said 10, 000 pounds.

[00:27:06] Michael: We all know there are no 10, 000 pickups left in the world. It may be a hundred thousand seems to be the new bar for pickup trucks.

[00:27:14] Fred: There’s a used Tacoma down the street. That’s rusty that they’ve got a sign on the window that is under 10, 000. I can set you up with them if you’re interested.

[00:27:23] Michael: I know why that Tacoma is rusty and it’s from a longstanding issue that Toyota had with those models that probably should have been recalled and remedied, but Toyota avoided a hit on a lot of those, that’s off topic.

[00:27:36] Anthony: Yeah, that’s off topic. All right. So we’ve gotten some very heavy stuff early on in this podcast. Let’s Let’s switch it up and go into a little gaslighting.

[00:27:44] Gaslighting of the Week: Sam Altman and CarMax

[00:27:44] Anthony: I’m gonna start off this week with Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI. Now, I know Michael’s wait a second, don’t you wanna go after GM Cruise?

Cause they started mapping roads in California again. Nah, I don’t, they’re too easy. So anyway, Sam Altman one of the Silicon [00:28:00] Valley Persons who like took one computer class and people believe everything he says. So he he came out with his blog post saying, Hey, in thousands of days, artificial intelligence will be smarter than people.

I love thousands of days. I’ve been alive for thousands of days, and I plan to continue to be alive for thousands of days. From his blog post, he says such nonsense that I can’t believe no one caught it. It says, quoting, Eventually we can each have a personal AI team full of virtual experts in different areas, working together to create almost anything we can imagine.

How about, we don’t need a team? Why do I need a virtual team of all these people if everything’s super intelligent? Our children will have virtual tutors who can provide personalized infrastruc Our children will have virtual tutors who can provide personalized instruction in any subject, in any language, and at whatever pace they need.

That sounds great, but why does Billy need a tutor now? Why does Billy have any incentive for education where he can just go, Sorry, do this for [00:29:00] me! That’s as far as education will go. I, this is nonsense. He also claims that this intelligence that will be here in thousands of days will solve all the physics.

All the physics! Wow! Asshole. Can we just, can I just change this to Asshole of the Week? This is just that would be too easy. Oh my god. But anyway the reason I bring this up in this Concept of auto safety is because assholes like him Extend this nonsense to self driving cars and whatnot and say hey but ladies and gentlemen Just listen between the lines of their bullshit.

That is my nominee Next victim. Michael, what do you got?

[00:29:47] Michael: This week, my I wouldn’t call it a victim. They’re certainly not a victim. But the gaslight of the week for me comes from the CEO of CarMax. There was a a story on recalls that I [00:30:00] was reading this week. And the CarMax. CarMax has a deep, long history of selling consumers vehicles that have open recalls.

CarMax doesn’t want to get those fixed before they flip the car onto another consumer, despite the fact that they’re knowingly selling a consumer a vehicle with a safety defect. They do this large, Checklist on your vehicle to ensure that your car or ensure the consumer purchasing the car that the car is safe and operable before they sell it.

But none of that includes an actual check for open recalls in the vehicle, followed by a repair. And so in response to questions on that, the Carmex CEO says. As CARMAX is not authorized by manufacturers to complete recall repairs and close out recalls, we work hard to ensure our customers have the information they need to take action and have recalls repaired at a [00:31:00] manufacturer authorized facility.

This is just, this is a great example of gaslighting because they’re making a statement here that suggests that CARMAX Can’t do anything here. We’re not authorized to complete recall repairs and close out recalls. Guess what? You are. You’re 100 percent authorized to take those vehicles to the nearest dealership, have them repaired prior to the sale, but instead, take You’re choosing to sell the vehicles with safety defects to save money on your end.

You’re to suggest that somehow you’re unable or not authorized by the manufacturers to complete those recall repairs. Yeah. You’re not allowed to do them yourself at CarMax, obviously, because you don’t have the. technical expertise to conduct a recall repair, but you’re certainly authorized to have those vehicles loaded up on a flatbed as many as you want to take at a time down to the GM dealership near you, have those recalls [00:32:00] performed and take them back to CarMax for sale.

There’s it’s aggravating to see this type of nonsense go out unchallenged in, in the media and it’s certainly worthy of the gaslight of the week.

[00:32:13] Fred: No, that’s a good one.

[00:32:14] Anthony: We’ve never seen Michael so animated and passionate about a gaslight. This is great.

[00:32:21] Fred: His earphones are burning. I can see the smoke coming out of his head, coming out of his head.

[00:32:26] Anthony: A long

[00:32:27] Michael: history

[00:32:27] Anthony: with CarMax. They’re your department of commerce, huh? Yeah, it could be. All right. Fred, Tiny Perkins. Let’s go.

[00:32:37] Fred: Tiny’s gTorc Robotics ics. In my sights today, and in particular gentleman named Michael Fleming, who at least at the time of publication of their voluntary safety self assessment was the CEO of Torc Robotics.

A lot of nice people over there.

[00:32:56] Critique of Torc Robotics’ Safety Claims

[00:32:56] Fred: Sorry to see them constrained by this terrible approach to safety. [00:33:00] So the voluntary safety self assessment is basically a gaslight institution set up by the previous administration’s National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or NHTSA to allow people to propagandize with the government’s imprimatur.

On a government website. And so the Torque VSSA includes a lot of interesting things in there. And it sounds pretty good. It says, for example. A framework for safety contained in this report is founded on a relentless institutional safety culture and embodies the 12 safety elements delineated in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Automated Driving Systems 2.

0, a vision for safety. That sounds pretty good.

[00:33:49] Anthony: Yeah,

[00:33:49] Fred: Doesn’t it? I think it sounds pretty good. So what interested readers might do is go back and actually read what’s in the. Automated driving system 2. 0 [00:34:00] revision for safety. And it turns out. That what they, what NHTSA did in that, is they vacated all the requirements that had been in the version 1 system, and they said we don’t need no stinking requirements because people are going to go out and build safe cars.

So the first sentence in the TORC VSSA says, basically, We don’t have to do nothing, which is a pretty good precedent for them, and then they say, they go on to say that the, they Torc Robotics goes on to say the deep rooted safety culture at Torque permeates all personnel and activities, including our established safety driver training program.

We at Torque have a clear understanding of the steps required to guarantee safety. As our development moves us closer to on road deployment of level 4 trucks. That sounds pretty good too. Unfortunately, they didn’t present any details. They didn’t present any requirements. And they didn’t [00:35:00] say who determined what the steps are to require to guarantee safety.

In fact, if you go back to the reference to Automated Driving Systems 2. 0, the NHTSA document, what you find is that document relies upon a critical parameter called minimal risk condition. Now, a minimal risk condition sounds pretty good, too, if a vehicle goes to minimal risk condition. It sounds like.

It’s going to be safe, right? Minimal risk is associated with that. So again, it sounds wonderful until you actually read the words that are associated with that. And so if we go back and do that. Then what it says in that document, and it’s a document, is entities are encouraged to have a documented process for transitioning to a minimal risk condition when a problem is encountered or the ADS, automatic driving system, cannot operate safely.

That sounds pretty good too. But it doesn’t say [00:36:00] entities are required. It says they’re encouraged. So encouragement is good, but requirements are better. And then it says transitioning to a minimal risk condition. That sounds pretty good too. But then again, the problem is if you go back to the words, they define that as a minimal risk condition means low risk operating condition that an automated driving system automatically resorts to either when a system fails or when the human driver fails to respond appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task.

CSAE international J 30, 16, blah, blah, blah. The problem is, what they define as a minimal risk condition is not what is defined in the SAE International J3016. The different words, they have different import. What J3016 says is actually insufficient because it too is ambiguous. The entire pyramid, Of Torque’s safety is built upon ambiguous and unworkable [00:37:00] definitions that were presented by the previous administration’s NHTSA managers.

I’m going to, I’m going to give it this week to Torc Robotics, because what they say in their voluntary safety voluntary system safety assessment, or whatever the hell that means, is completely contradictory with actual requirements. Thank you very much. For the safety of the vehicles, it’s not enough to just say you might do some of this stuff.

You might do some of these things that are required for safety. It’s important to actually tell people what you’re going to do and then do it. There’s nothing in torque that talks about. unambiguous safety. There’s no reference to unambiguous safety fallback. And in fact, no reference even to documents that have an unambiguous definition of safety.

So since the Torc Robotics content completely conflicts with its introductory statements, I’m hereby offering Torc Robotics the [00:38:00] trophy for Gaslight of the Week.

[00:38:02] Anthony: Pretty good. I scored a 5. 73.

[00:38:06] Fred: Thank you. Degree of difficulty.

[00:38:08] Anthony: Gamma seven. That’s

[00:38:09] Michael: pretty difficult.

[00:38:10] Anthony: Yeah. And I’m going to be very ambiguous on what score, what scale this is judged on.

Yeah. All right.

[00:38:18] Mercedes’ Level 3 Driving System: A Deep Dive

[00:38:18] Anthony: So you’re talking about here, minimal risk condition, and I’m going to jump to our friends at Mercedes. Mercedes has this level three driving system that they’ve been putting out in California and Nevada. And this in California, Nevada allows you to go hands free at 35 miles per hour, less than pre mapped highways and whatnot.

And they’ve got a whole bunch of systems in there that will make it blah, blah, blah. They’ve been doing this in the German Autobahn. And now in the German Autobahn, they’re expanding this that you can go up to 50 miles per hour in the right lane and allow you to do this. And what Mercedes says in this article I’ve linked from MotorTrend press one of the buttons on the steering wheel and if the system sensors and computers are happy, heh the lights glow turquoise and you can take your [00:39:00] hands and feet away from the controls.

You’re now free to sit and do emails or maybe watch a movie on the central touchscreen. Pardon me one second. No, you’re not! It’s dangerous! Don’t do that! That’s stupid! Because a level 3 system, as we all know requires the human to immediately take over when the system’s I don’t know what to do.

And so if you’re in the middle of watching, the guy and the girl finally fall in love in that movie you’re crying, you’re like, this is beautiful, and the car’s Hey I don’t know what’s going on. Or in the case of Mercedes, Hey, it’s raining. This system doesn’t work anymore. Or it’s night.

Or, eh, I just don’t, software update. Or I’m in a tunnel. You’ve got a All of a sudden, wipe the tears from your eyes and hope you don’t crap your pants. This is a, I don’t know if this is a problem for auto manufacturers, just journalists? Not sure. Gentlemen?

[00:39:56] Fred: It’s only a problem for living human beings and and [00:40:00] animated things like, pets and wild animals.

[00:40:03] Anthony: You’re right. It did say if the system’s sensors and computers are happy. And we all know that’s all we try to do is make inanimate objects happy.

[00:40:12] Fred: That’s right. Does Germany have a restriction against Russian and Chinese software? Seems to be a moral threat.

[00:40:20] Anthony: Oh, that’s an excellent point. I

[00:40:23] Fred: don’t

[00:40:23] Michael: know. ,

[00:40:23] Challenges of Adapting Autonomous Systems to U.S. Roads

[00:40:23] Michael: The most compelling part of this article to me came in a sentence that was talking about, how tweaking the Mercedes drive pilot systems to operate in the United States brings in some challenges that they don’t see in Germany.

For example, quoting from the article, U. S. freeways are differently designed Speeds are not as high on German autobahns. The traffic flow is also very different with American drivers paying scant attention to the lane discipline that in Germany ensures slow moving traffic keeps to the right.

I, I [00:41:00] can see that, I can see how it is very difficult for Mercedes to adapt those systems to American drivers who. Frankly, I think compared to Germany have very little discipline when it comes to concern about other drivers and the flow of traffic, whereas in Germany, you are, I think essentially viewed as an outcast if you can’t get out of the left lane on the Audubon.

[00:41:23] Fred: Oh, yeah, they honk and blink their lights and all kinds of things happen. I’ve experienced that. There’s another key thing here though which relates back to dash lighting which is that Mercedes is building up their experience in level three operations under 25 miles per hour, which is 60 kilometers per hour And in metric, but anyway, they’re building that up and then saying we’ve, have this sterling record under 25 miles per hour.

Therefore, we’re going to drive a 50 miles an hour as a problem here, because. Injuries serious injuries and death rarely happen [00:42:00] under 25 miles per hour. They are quite common over 40 miles per hour. So to say that you’ve got any kind of safety in your experience driving under 25 miles per hour. Is not relevant to how safe your system’s going to be over over 50 miles an hour.

And by the way, there’s another thing that our astute listener, Phil Kopman, brought up this week, which is that if your objective for automatic driving is to have them have the vehicles overall being as safe as human drivers, you have completely failed. And the reason is that. All human driven cars have a human being behind the steering wheel, right?

And the most common injuries that occur in vehicle accidents is to the driver who is behind the steering wheel, right? Automated driving systems don’t have a driver behind the steering wheel. So you need to, in order to [00:43:00] have equivalent safety established for self driving vehicles, you must have an overall injury rate that is only a quarter or a third.

Of what the overall statistics are for human driven cars. I just wanted to throw that in there that there’s really no basis at all for saying that I’ve got X miles of experience on the 24 miles per hour. Therefore, I’m going to be safe at high speeds on the Autobahn or in our case on the interstate highways.

That’s just overall bullshit and really a misreading of how the statistics need to be accumulated and interpreted.

[00:43:37] Michael: Isn’t that exactly what Waymo is doing in California in their move to the freeway, freeways? Yes, it is. It is.

[00:43:45] Anthony: This sounds like a good backdoor way, though, to improve backseat safety.

Rear seat safety. Ha. Cause we can always hope it’s not as safe.

[00:43:54] Michael: That’s actually become a, a more compelling argument recently. And as ride share has [00:44:00] grown, more people are riding in the back seats, we’ve and which makes you wonder, why does it take.

20 years for the government to get a requirement in that reminds, people to buckle their seatbelts in the back seat, which they’re still trying to get put into law very simple thing like that. And, moving a moving what’s in the front seat to the back seat has taken the agency 20 years, a very simple.

Rulemaking makes you wonder, if these more complex rulemakings required to do things like reduce vehicle size and weight and monitor autonomy are going to be impossible in our lifetime.

[00:44:37] Fred: What’s more important, freedom or saving lives? Come on.

[00:44:40] Anthony: Or digging your hands in that backseat of a rideshare and be like, where’s the seat buckle receptacle?

Oh, is that a Cheeto? Oh God, that was wet. Oh, you

[00:44:48] Michael: got cornered.

[00:44:49] Understanding GPS and Its Vulnerabilities

[00:44:49] Anthony: Let’s go into a little we’re going to go into the TAO, but before we go into the TAO, because this week it’s on GPS we’ve discussed this in the past, but what prompted it for me. was the Wall [00:45:00] Street Journal had this article about airplanes and airlines suffering from GPS spoofing.

That is, their planes are flying over and near a war zone, and the military’s on those grounds, they’re spoofing the GPS signals, and all of a sudden these planes are not on the course they were meant to be. And I thought, hey, Isn’t this going to be a problem for, robo taxis when GPS signals can be spoofed by anybody and they won’t know where they are?

Now with an airplane, you have trained pilots and you have a whole bunch of other ways to calculate your location without relying on GPS. But, so then it’s how does this work inside automated cars? Things of that level. So be afraid is my moral of the story. No, it’s not because Fred Perkins, live from the great state of Massachusetts, will explain a little bit more about

[00:45:50] Fred: You’ve now entered the Daryl Thread.

That’s quite a burden you put on me here. I did. I didn’t

[00:45:56] Anthony: even discuss it with you ahead of time. I just dropped it right on you.

[00:45:59] Fred: [00:46:00] There’s another big distinction between cars and airplanes, which is that cars are operating in crowded circumstances, and airplanes generally have miles of open air around them, so you’ve got a lot more time to recover.

That’s a separate issue. So I just wanted to remind people about how GPS works. Basically, that’s there was a constellation of satellites. I can’t remember the exact altitude, 12, 000 miles or something like that. And there are other systems by other countries, but they all operate basically the same way.

So our system, global navigation system is what it’s formally called. You’ve got these satellites that are circling the earth. And they know, through a variety of technical means, exactly where they are, or very precisely where they are, right? So they also know, with very special atomic clocks, exactly what the time is for their location.

So they then broadcast signals [00:47:00] to receivers on the Earth. And if you, think of it for a second, right? If you know where something is, and you draw a circle around it, you know that, compared to that satellite, you are somewhere on that circle, right? If you have two satellites and you draw circles around both of those, knowing where they are and where you are, or knowing where they both are, then you’ve got an intersection of a couple of circles.

So there’s still some ambiguity and where you are. Does that make sense? Cause that’s the basis behind this. With GPS

[00:47:33] Anthony: drive, using a sextant to figure out where I was. And it was very confusing.

[00:47:38] Fred: You can, yeah. Sextant is really difficult. Yeah. So basically you’ve got satellites that know where they are and what time it is, and then, what time it is in your receiver, because it’s also got a very accurate clock.

So the speed of light is a constant. So if you know where you are. Or, excuse me, if you know where the satellite was at some time t, [00:48:00] and you know what the time t is now when you receive the signal, then you can calculate exactly how far you are from that satellite, right? Because of that distance but you still only know you’re somewhere on that circle.

So you need 2 or more satellites to start to neck down the uncertainty and your location. By the way, something handy to keep in the back of your mind is that 1 nanosecond equals about 1 foot of light travel. So in order to determine where you are, Relative to the satellite knowing that the speed of light is constant, you need to have very fast processors.

So if you’ve got a one nanosecond discriminator in your receiver, then you can only know within one foot where you are. Because one nanosecond relates to one foot of light travel. If you’ve got several different vehicles, or several different satellites you’re listening to, they [00:49:00] all help to narrow down the uncertainty in where you are, but they all take a certain amount of time.

To get the signal to process it and you may have noticed on your iPhone that sometimes when you look at the location of your parked car, for example, you’ll see it hunts for a little bit, right? You’ll see the, you’ll see the little blue dot moves around a little bit. That’s because over time, more and more hits on the satellites allow you to refine the location more and more.

The problem for cars and airplanes is you’re moving pretty fast, so you’ve got to have a very fast receiver in order to get the uncertainty in your location down to a usable number. Now for airplanes, that doesn’t have to be that high. Because the airplanes typically have a lot of room around them, if you’re trying to drop a bomb on somebody, you need to have more precision, and there are ways of doing that, but you need to [00:50:00] have more precision if you don’t want the bomb to go to the wrong place, and there, that’s one of the military uses for this, but in a car.

You’re only three feet away from the car next to you, or maybe two feet away from the car next to you, right? And there’s a lot of stationary things by the side of the road. You can be only a couple feet away from them. None of the GPS systems have accuracy that they can give you closer than about a few feet, maybe five feet.

That’s the typical resolution. So you can’t use them to navigate between lanes on a highway. You can use them to discriminate between highways, which are 50 feet apart or lanes, which are 50 feet apart, but you can’t use them to discriminate between two points that are only three feet apart, which is basically you in the car next to you.

[00:50:50] The Threat of GPS Spoofing

[00:50:50] Fred: So there are limits on that, but where does spoofing come in? Spoofing comes in because. You’ve got these satellites that are, 10, 000 some odd miles away broadcasting a [00:51:00] signal. It is a very weak signal by the time it gets to your car. You need to have a quiet receiver in order to get it. But if you’re a bad person, what you can do is you can set up a transmitter in some certain area that broadcasts a very similar signal without a lot of power, and your receiver has trouble discriminating between what’s in the GPS?

And what’s in the spoofing signal, and that spoofing signal can overwhelm the signal that your car should be receiving. And so it’s getting information that it is wrong, is intentionally misleading the direction of the car. And since you need to have four satellites in view to get the maximum available accuracy, if you knock out any one of them, then you no longer have as much accuracy available to your car.

If you knock out two, then Of course, that makes it even less reliable to know where your car is. Now, one of the things Mercedes does is that [00:52:00] clear so far?

[00:52:01] Anthony: Yes.

[00:52:02] Fred: So one of the things Mercedes does is they set up GPS beacons along the roads when they’re mapping the roads that have signals they control and that are able to be interpreted by the GPS systems in their vehicles.

So they know exactly where they are relative to those stationary beacons that they’ve set up. So that’s one way around the spoofing problem. Of course, in order to have that. widespread, you need to have a signal strong enough to be listened to by the car, wherever it is. And there are limits on how much power you can broadcast and the extent of coverage around that beacon that you’ve set up.

So that’s one way around the spoofing, but of course that’s only intermittent because you need to be near the beacon in order to do that. So that’s probably a lot, probably enough for today about how the GPS works, but I just wanted to throw that out there when somebody says GPS. It’s not an accurate [00:53:00] solution for the safety operation of your car.

It’s just guidance for whether or not your car is on the right road, or is, approaching the correct entrance of a building. But not whether or not there’s an obstacle in that right of way. That’s not accurate. Very small, like a pothole that’s marked by GPS, and you want to avoid it, but in order to do that, you need to have very careful markers on that pothole in order to make it avoidable using GPS systems.

They’re good. I like them, right? Maps work pretty well, but there’s limits on what they can do. So again, this is, this pervert, this excuse me, this borders on the, on gaslight in some ways, but it’s just important to understand how these things work and what the limits are. Thank you. So if

[00:53:52] Michael: if I had a, a, a.

Level, you know, I’ll just a Tesla [00:54:00] type vehicle, but one that use GPS for determining whether or not it should turn on the vehicles, autopilot or full self driving, what we’d like to see, I think, is a, a geo fencing rule, something that required vehicles to ensure that they’re in a safe place, like a divided highway before they’re able to turn on those type of features.

If the GPS spoofing in that case could impact vehicle safety. You can’t use it to distinguish which lane you’re in. You can’t really use it to make immediate decisions about vehicle operation, but you could be using it as a way to determine, if the vehicle is in a safe location to use some of its more advanced technologies and, a.

GPS spoof could be telling all these vehicles on the road. Yeah, you’re fine. Everything’s good. You’re in a, you’re in a, you’re on a divided highway when in fact you’re not. So there could be ways, where that could impact safety. And [00:55:00] also, is this ultimately something that can be solved with good cyber security?

Are GPS satellites and their communications secure at all? Is that it? We all receive them on our phones, millions, billions of us every day. Is there any security on those satellites and on, on those processes that ensures we’re getting accurate data or, could Russia or China send up 300 satellites tomorrow into orbit that are spoofing GPS and wreck the whole, the world’s entire network.

[00:55:30] Fred: If you talk about what could happen, yeah, a lot of things could happen. In fact, what they’re finding in the Ukrainian battlefields right now is that the Russians are spoofing the GPS signals that the Ukrainians want to use to control their drones. Okay. So there’s, that’s actually happening now on the battlefields.

It’s, it may be technically possible for somebody to launch a entire fleet of satellites that can disrupt GPS communications worldwide, but there are now several [00:56:00] systems up there. One put up by the U S one put up by the Europeans, one put up by the Chinese and one put up by the Russians that are all doing essentially the same things.

So most receivers now. Can select data from any or all of those systems that are up there. So the worldwide spoofing is a big technical problem. I’m not sure anybody’s really willing to address that because it’s very expensive to put up these satellites. And in order to put up a satellite with dual purpose to one control navigation and to spoof all the other navigation systems that are up there.

It would be a huge technical challenge, maybe possible, but I don’t think anybody’s engaged in that challenge yet, but if they did, of course, it would be highly classified and I’m not in that arena, so I don’t, the folks in the CIA may be laughing at me and what a fool I am, but [00:57:00] Hey, that’s what we know in the public domain.

[00:57:02] Anthony: And for, hey, look, Fred’s going to read this stuff and dig into it on his own time, what helps is he supporting his habit of digging into this stuff. So go to autosafety. org, click on donate, tell your friends, click on donate. And now you’re like, Hey, I’m on the donation page. What do I do now?

Fill out the form. It’s easy. It won’t hurt you. Just ignore your next credit card bill. It’ll be okay. No, donate. It’s good. It’s tax deductible. It’ll make you feel better. It’ll make you go, hey, Fred had to suffer through all of this stuff, and he doesn’t have top secret security clearance anymore. If you ever did you ever have that?

[00:57:37] Fred: Yes, in fact, I did, but If I told her any more, I’d have to kill you,

[00:57:42] Anthony: I could just be an AI anyway.

[00:57:44] Recalls and Safety Concerns

[00:57:44] Anthony: I would love to go into some more stories, but we’re running low on time, so let’s do recalls!

[00:57:49] Fred: Okay, first we’re gonna start with Kia.

[00:57:51] Anthony: 12, 400 vehicles, the 2024 Kia EV9. Oh, this is a rare entry with their EVs.

This is an [00:58:00] issue with their Smart Parking Assist. Is this what’s going on here? This

[00:58:04] Michael: Oh, no,

[00:58:05] Anthony: it is their, wait, their, oh.

[00:58:08] Michael: Remote smart parking assist. Yes,

[00:58:10] Anthony: so if you have that, the issue is with their integrated electronic brake software logic error. That’s all it says to this. Huh, what?

[00:58:18] Michael: Yeah, I’m just going to go ahead and recommend that people don’t use this feature at all.

But essentially, it allows you to remotely move the vehicle and forward or reverse by pressing and holding a button on your key fob. I don’t like these systems. There’s Tesla Smart Summon. There’s a few others, but movement and control of a vehicle from an operator that’s outside of that vehicle.

And I don’t know, it just seems more of one of these convenience features that’s destined to result in a tragedy at some point. Now, these are lower speeds that the vehicles are operating on here, but still get in the car and move it on your own. Don’t fall prey to [00:59:00] some of these convenience features.

So that you don’t have to move. But ultimately this is just one of the issues that can occur with it, that we’re going to see on these types of remote parking things. And if you’ve got this car and you want to use this feature, despite our warnings, your owner notification date, it looks like it’s coming up in about a month where you can go in and get it fixed.

[00:59:23] Anthony: Great. Next up General Motors. 449, 000 plus vehicles. The 2023 Silverado 1500, the 2023 to 2024 Tahoe Suburban. It’s a whole mess of them. Oh, I’m not going to read them all. The Cadillac Escalade GM has decided that certain 2023 models in 2024 has an issue with their light vehicle brake systems. A driver may not receive an indicator of loss of brake fluid before the level is below Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 135.

Ooh. I don’t even think I have a light that tells me I have low brake fluid. Do I? Do [01:00:00] all cars have this?

[01:00:01] Fred: I think new ones do. I’m not sure when they came out.

[01:00:05] Michael: Yes, required. It’s FMDSS 135. I, there are some things under 135 or something, it may or may not be required for all vehicles.

I’m not sure the provenance of that yet, but I do know that these vehicles don’t match it and that this is an issue that was caught by a GM engineer in the factory. They were doing a forced brake fluid leak test and The telltale light on the dashboard didn’t show up warning of a brake fluid leak. And he reported it up the chain and, a few months later, they’ve decided to do this recall.

I think it’s going to ultimately just be a software recall. And some of the folks who have the ability to receive over the air updates will be able to get this recall performed without even going into their dealership. Otherwise. It looks like those software updates are gonna be coming down sometime towards the end of October,

[01:00:56] Anthony: bro.

So if it’s over the air, it’s not a recall bro. . [01:01:00] Anyway next one Ford 144,516 vehicles. The 2022 to 2024 Ford Maverick. They’re connected touch radios. Rear view camera image may freeze while in reverse. Oh, for this is like the winner who got this on their bingo card. Ford in the recall roundup and rear view camera image.

Come on. Next we have limp home mode and we win.

[01:01:25] Michael: This is just yet another recall where manufacturers are rounding safety systems. It’s through components like the vehicles, radio or stereo and something that we highly oppose. And we think, there should be separate systems there.

You shouldn’t be having a mix of safety features with convenience features and have them on the same architecture because, um, there’s there, there are far fewer rules around the types of electronics you would have to use to power and make sure radio stays on versus powering [01:02:00] and making sure a safety device stays on.

In this case, a rear view camera. And we’ve. Seen multiple recalls, probably a dozen or more, maybe more than that, where the stereo or the radio software is being updated because it’s causing a problem with the rear view camera. And we just think there needs to be a better architecture that would separate those two systems.

But if you do have one of these vehicles with a poorly designed system you can expect to hear from Ford very soon in the next week or so.

[01:02:29] Anthony: Great, last one up. General Motors, coming back, 13, 241 vehicles, the 2024 GMC Canyon. Certain issues have, certain vehicles have issues with their required lamps and reflective devices.

The left and or right headlamps may flicker under various conditions, such as while using them. Including while driving while the vehicle is in park. I love that under various conditions. Like when you want them to operate.

[01:02:58] Michael: [01:03:00] Yeah, this one is a another one where the software in the headlight is causing this issue.

And the fix is going to be replacing a module in the headlamp to add the correct software. So once again, software recalls. And if you’re an owner of one of those vehicles, you’ll hear from GM sometime around the end of October.

[01:03:22] Anthony: All right.

[01:03:22] Final Thoughts and Farewell

[01:03:22] Anthony: And with that, we’re going to wrap up. We’ve taken way too much of your time, but thank you for sticking with us and enjoying us and telling all of your friends rating us five stars, leaving comments and goodbye.

[01:03:32] Fred: All right. Thank you for listening. Bye bye. Bye everybody. For

[01:03:35] Michael: www.

[01:03:36] Fred: autosafety. org.