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, everybody. Welcome
to another episode. Today is Tuesday, March 31st.
Keep in mind, we're recording this on Tuesday,
March 31st. This is not an April Fool's Day episode.
I mean, yes, there'll be nonsense, but none of
it is made up. It's unofficial nonsense. Well,
that's just my role on this. So anyway, thanks
for joining us, listeners. Let's start off with
the Institute for Insurance. And I can't. Oh,
God. You know, I can't do anything. IIHS. There
you go. Okay. Keep it simple. Yeah. They have
an article, safety benefits stack up from driver
assistance features. So what these guys did is
they went through, because they're really good
at research, and they said, hey, how much does
AEB plus seatbelts, plus all these other things,
how does it help reduce injuries? And basically
one of their headlines. They didn't look at seatbelts.
They didn't look at seatbelts. Look, this is,
you know, A, B, but seatbelts are part of it,
right? Look, it's driver assistance features.
Yes, seatbelts are tangentially going to be,
you know, associated with what they're looking
at in insurance claim frequencies here. However,
what they're really looking at here are the driver
assistance features, specific ones, you know,
automatic emergency braking. lane departure warning
um prevention lane departure prevention pedestrian
aeb rear automatic emergency braking all these
sorts of things and they're looking at you know
So they're basically looking at Mazda vehicles
and they started looking at them, I think, around,
I want to say 2011, maybe it was 2015 model year
where these features were starting to be introduced.
They've looked at them, you know, kind of over
time and noticed that as more of these things
are bundled together, the the insurance claims
go down because they are preventing crashes.
That's the short of it. Yeah. One of the things
they mentioned is people get concerned with these
modern vehicles that are a lot more expensive
to repair if you get into an accident because
they've got all these sensors and the bumpers
and cameras. And so quoting from this says, if
you're worried about rising repair costs, the
smartest thing you can do is get a vehicle with
rear AEB and make sure it is turned on, which
I think is hilarious because make sure your car
has more sensors in it that are more the ends
of the cost of repair. But I was in a car once
with a head rear AEB and it annoyed me at first
because I wasn't ready for it. But then I really
appreciate it. Yeah, I mean, all these systems
are there, you know, there still is not a federal
rule in place that's guiding. the development
or the safety of any of these systems. The automatic
emergency braking rule was put into effect by
NHTSA. However, it is under challenge, I guess,
both by the current NHTSA and by automakers who
filed suit to stop it. There are no rules on
lane departure warning on adaptive cruise control,
lane departure prevention, pedestrian AAB, rear
AAB, driver attention alert, driver monitoring.
All of these things kind of exist in a realm
where they could be very different from manufacturer
to manufacturer. So, you know, the HLDI study
here is looking specifically at Mazda vehicles
and judging, you know, the rate of decline in
insurance claims in those vehicles as evidence
that, you know, these features overall are helping
safety on our roads. obviously could be an objection
here that some manufacturers don't do as well
as others, which I think is a fair objection.
And that, you know, some, you know, for instance,
adaptive cruise controllers here, well, you know,
we have concerns about certain adaptive cruise
controls that, you know, tend to convince the
drivers that they are driving a vehicle that's
autonomous and lead to complacency and, you know.
crashes because of the technology's presence.
So there still remain concerns, but I think overall,
you know, it's a good look at how this technology
is advancing safety. I will add that, you know,
I think a lot of these technologies could advance
safety even more if there were minimum safety
standards that adhere to them and required manufacturers
to put a certain level of good ADS in their vehicles.
I also want to point out there are certain bewildered
United States presidents and legislators who
are saying that, well, this is why cars are so
expensive because you've got all these whiz -bang
protective devices in them, so let's get rid
of them. But the truth is, cars are so expensive
because of the tariffs put in place against Chinese
vehicles. Cars would be half as expensive and
have about the same quality if they merely removed...
the protected tariffs that are currently keeping
the automobile prices so high. If that were done,
there would be no discussion about removing safety
devices to reduce the cost of vehicles. So just
as an aside, I think it's important to maintain
the perspective on what's really driving the
price of cars for American consumers. And ultimately
here, what these figures are showing is that
These systems are reducing the claim frequency
associated with these systems. And so they are
reducing costs overall, even if they might cost
something on the front end. Ultimately, they
are providing a benefit that's going to outweigh
the cost to install them or the cost to purchase
them. So the advice for the consumer is I go
into a dealership and I want to buy a car and
there's all these. package add -ons and whatnot
you're saying smart money is if you can afford
it get the ones with all the safety features
added in i mean from a simple perspective yes
however depending on the manufacturer you might
you know there might be a manufacturer whose
automatic emergency braking doesn't work as well
as what we saw from toyota for instance in the
evaluations and it's a did of a b in support
of its its automatic emergency braking rule i
mean It's not as though this is one system that's
being installed on every vehicle in America and
works the same way. There are dozens of manufacturers
making dozens of different systems. So I think
it's important for consumers to understand that
going in and to look to studies like this and
to some of the other ratings that IHS does around
ADAS features to determine which manufacturers
are installing really good systems in this area.
I wasn't suggesting at all that anyone go purchase
a Ford. Because they get recalled all the time.
Well, you know, Ford's got a hearing with the
MTSB today on their Blue Cruise feature, so we'll
see how that goes. Just wrapping up this article,
another part I'm going to quote from. In contrast,
the effects of a feature called traffic sign
recognition were unclear. This feature uses a
Ford sensing camera or recorded information in
the navigation system to identify and display
traffic signs such as speed limit and stop signs.
The lack of a clear benefit may stem from systems
limitations or may simply be the result of a
small sample size since fewer vehicles are equipped
with it. than other features from a data point
of one garbage my car has something like that
and it's right 70 of the time a for for speed
limits signs uh it gets confused if you're in
a construction zone and it just chooses what's
ever on a white sign because i guess that was
only trained on with a black text on a white
background versus construction signs are more
orangey black i think right yeah so Not a useful
feature in my experience. Yeah, and you're seeing
variations here. Like there was one, I think
it was the fifth bundle in the IHS study that
looked at the driver attention alert. You know,
I think you probably have something similar in
your Toyota where after a while of driving, it'll
say, hey, you need a cup of coffee or whatever
it is it says. You know, do you need to pull
over? Blah, blah, blah. Mine comes with a little
cup of bourbon. Hey, you want some bourbon? For
some reason, they saw that there were raised
costs in that bundle in the area of bodily injury
liability. So I don't know. I didn't dive in
deep enough to figure that one out completely,
but I do know that these driver retention features
are kind of all over the place. This is not driver
monitoring. It's basically – it's similar, somewhat
similar to driver monitoring. Apparently, you
hop into the Mazda. And then it studies how you
drive for 20 minutes and learns you. And then
as you continue driving, it can detect differences
in your behavior over time that suggests you're
not completely paying attention. You know, this
is in the early days for features like that,
that can, you know, actively monitor drivers
and determine when something's going wrong. I
was on a date like that once, I think. Yeah.
Yeah, she was convinced she learned me within
20 minutes. And I ejected. Anyway, related to
IIHS, this is the quoting from an article on
AOL. Yet in the latest round of crash worthiness
testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety. See, we just spelled out. I know what
its name is. Not one Detroit brand earned the
highest possible accolade. The top safety pick
plus award. This article is talking about how
the big three, big two and a half, I guess, automakers
are like, hey, drive our cars big. But they can't
get safety awards. I don't get it. I think they're
still building and selling cars to a fictitious
man from the 1950s. White guy. I think he wanted
to smoke Marlboro. and ride a horse, but instead
he's driving a truck to his accounting job. I
don't even know what that means, but... Neither
do I. Look, we're recording on a different day.
You know, the... I mean, it's... I think it makes
a good... You know, this point is just a good
argument that American manufacturers aren't keeping
up. with the changes that IHS is making. IHS
is making changes to their crash testing and
their evaluation of vehicle programs a whole
lot faster than NHTSA. So while you might see
some of the Detroit manufacturers you know, do
a little better in some of the crash tests that
NHTSA administers, IHS is changing them at a
rate that, you know, ultimately inspires the
kind of, you know, incentivized safety that we
want to see the NCAP over at NHTSA doing. You
know, I think at this point in the evolution
of both the IHS testing and the NCAP testing,
you know, we frequently recommend to consumers
that they Look to the IHS testing because it
does test vehicles and, you know, some of the
more modern technology better. NHTSA doesn't
even test a lot of these technologies that we're
talking about like IHS does at this point. You
know, I don't know if Detroit is focused too
much on passing the NCAP and not IHS or if they're
just not investing appropriately in the types
of safety measures that the Insurance Institute
is looking at. Maybe a combination of both. If
you work for a Detroit automaker, write in, contact
at autosafety .org and tell us what's more important
in your workplace. Is it something called a HEMI
or is it saving people's lives and making their
injuries less important? Or is it Donut Day Tuesdays?
They give out donuts on Tuesdays? I love a good
donut. It's available, I think. Okay. Hey, Anthony,
I have a question for you. Please, I'm awake.
Has the war in Iran affected delivery of coffee
to New York City? I'm just curious. Yeah, okay.
Moving on. The New York Times has an interesting
video we have a link to about, it's titled, Why
Are Women More Likely to Die in Crashes? And
this is a subject we've covered before. We've
covered it a number of times about how the crash
test dummy used is designed for, originally was
designed for a five foot nine, 170 pound male.
I think it's that standard changed a little bit
and how they don't test cars for smaller frames,
different frames. And as a result, women get
greater injuries in car crashes. They had more
injuries, more fatalities because. These systems
are not tested for people who are not the typical
average male. Fred and I both object to this
because he's the too tall male and I'm the perfect
size of a Roman soldier. But this video is pretty
good. It's fun. It's got some little entertainment
value to it. But at the same time, it's my gaslight
of the week. Yes, it is. It is. And I will tell
you why. OK, because it's good and it goes through
and explains the whole thing and about how important
it is and that there's new dummies out there,
the female dummy, and they should be tested and
whatnot. And it's the entire time the video is
talked about how cars need to be safer for women.
And then in the end, the filmmaker, a woman,
drives her way in a 1960 something Ford Mustang,
the least safe vehicle for any gender. come on
this is insane you're complaining about how cars
are not safe for women and then you get in that
death trap gaslight i mean wasn't that just for
show gaslight actually um anyway the i think
what there's a lot that's that that i mean it's
an easy video to watch i think it explains the
problem um very well and it also explains and
goes into some of the gas lighting that the currentness
is doing around this where they you know come
out and announce they've produced this female
dummy but in in actuality the you know as we've
talked about many times the process for instrumenting
and certifying these dummies takes a very very
long time um i don't know if it's feasible um
long -term for a dummy to be produced that represents,
you know, every different type of body and size.
And can we, can NHTSA afford to crash test, you
know, multiple vehicles from the same model in
order to put passengers of different sizes and
different positions in the car? All that stuff
gets really expensive. NHTSA's NCAP budget has
been slashed dramatically to the point where
I'm concerned they can't even afford enough cars
to test, much less, you know, have the programs
and facilities around to test them accurately.
So there are a lot of problems in the NCAP program.
There's a lot of problems in crash testing, and
there's a lot of problems in NHTSA regulations
that apply to how protective vehicles are of
different body types. So there is a lot to address
here. Ultimately, are dummies the solution? Maybe
they're part of it, but also I think there's,
you know. They're very limited crash circumstances
that are tested in NHTSA testing, even in IHS
testing. You can't test for every single type
of crash from every direction. There's almost
an infinite number of possibilities there. And
I think ultimately, long term, we really need
to dive into simulation to get a lot more understanding
of how the bodies work here versus building physical
crash dummies that represent every single body
type. Do you think that sounds right, Fred? I
think it sounds right. Well, part of the engineering
religion is that every simulation is doomed to
succeed. Right. That's a problem. And the amount
of computing power that is required to do a full
-scale simulation of a human being in a vehicle
that's being crashed against a wall is astounding.
I'm not sure that... If you could even load it
into one of these data farms, what are they called?
Data, big data things. If you could take one
of those over, you could probably start down
that road. But it's going to be a long time before
you've got a model that works in a computer that
is validated for different body types and different
vehicles. So it's an enormous computing problem.
And when those companies can sell bullshit instead
of selling facts, the bullshit's always going
to win because it's a lot more margin. So yes,
it's a great idea. It's going to take much longer
than just building the test devices, putting
them in cars, and trying them out. So that's
good news and bad news. Is anyone going down
that road, Michael, with that type of simulation?
Because one of the things that that is missing
in all of the crashes from NHTSA and IIHS is,
you know, they'll have a dummy in the front seat.
They'll have a dummy in the rear seat. Great.
But I'm rarely in a car where it's just people
that are loose. There's groceries that are loose.
There's random objects that are in there. And
that's, I think, more realistic and a much harder
problem to solve for. But I don't. I mean, if
you can get to a simulation that's even 80 %
accurate, that probably clears out a lot of issues.
I think virtually every manufacturer is using
some type of simulation in developing their vehicles.
Yeah, they do. So here's the technical side of
that, okay? Every simulation, every computer
simulation that uses a finite element technology
of one kind or another, Starts with what are
called boundary conditions, right? You've got
to have a technical description of what's happening
at the beginning of the simulation. And then
you run the simulation and you get some results.
There's an infinite array of boundary conditions.
You know, you've got an object in the back. Okay,
that's fine. How is that object oriented? Whatever
its degrees of freedom, where are they pointing?
So even to just look at that and say, I'm just
going to have a baseball glove in the back seat
to see where it goes. You're going to say, okay,
how are you going to put the baseball glove in
there? You're going to have it strapped. You're
going to have it in a container. Is it going
to be upside down, the right side up? It goes
on and on and on. So you're never going to have
resolution on every possible situation that can
happen in a car. What you need to do is to settle
on some critical criteria. put them into the
simulation, run a test, and then compare it with
an actual result. That's called validating the
results of the simulation. That is at least as
expensive as running the test alone in the first
place. And it requires enormous amounts of engineering
judgment and a lot of smart people to set it
up and make it happen. Don't think it's easy.
Don't think it's easy to say you're going to
do a simulation. Very expensive, very difficult,
and very limited. What I'm hearing is virtually
no matter which way you go, whether it's through
instrumenting dummies that represent a significant
part of the population or simulation, it's a
long, arduous task. Yeah, not simple. It just
makes me wonder if there's more that can be done
in the meantime to address, like, we know that
one of the, you know, the number one ways that
women are injured in crashes, you know, the biggest
gap between women and men injuries in crashes,
I think, is in the lower limb area. And, you
know, I wish we could look at that problem and
address it specifically versus. bringing this
whole other problem of having the right dummies
and simulation into play. You know, can we look
at that problem individually, figure out why
those lower limb injuries are happening so much
more frequently for women, and then do something
about that versus trying to fix the entire system
of crash testing, dummy, and, you know, do we
have to resolve all that to get some action that's
going to protect women? So the answer is no,
because you cannot resolve all that. But the
other answer is there's no single answer. Any
answer you put in there has got to look at a
distribution of proportions for the women, for
the men, or whoever is in it. And an astute analyst
would say, okay, what are the critical parts
of this? What are the critical parameters? So
the first stage would be to set up simulations
that identify the critical parameters. Okay.
And then the second stage would be to say, okay,
given that we now know what the critical parameters
are, let's find out where the corners of the
envelope are and test it at those points. And
when you do that, you assume everything in the
middle is going to be less critical than the
critical points on the extremes that you're looking
at. It's kind of like when people talk about
edge cases in AV simulations. They can simulate
stuff that happens in between. Anything that's
too hard, they throw up their hands and say,
well, that's an edge case. Of course, the problem
is edge cases happen hundreds or thousands of
times every day in the United States. So you
can't just catalog the edge cases and say, well,
we're going to run those because life's too short
and computing power is too unavailable. So it's
a huge problem. No easy answer, but clearly the
answer is not to reduce the budget. For the engineers
who are trying to study this. Right. I mean,
just as an example, I think NCAP's budget over
the last decade has gone from like $15 million
to around $6 million. I mean, $6 million does
not buy you a lot of modern cars for testing,
and it certainly doesn't allow you to buy those
cars and have the facilities and everything you
need to test them. That's what NCAP's budget
is. It's a disgrace. I mean, it should be significantly
more multiples of what it is now. Well, engineers
are not cheap either. The fully burdened rate
for engineers is probably a quarter million dollars
a year for engineer. So, you know, if your budget's
$10 million, maybe you can buy, you know, maybe
you can pay for 10 engineers and some equipment
for them to work on. But it's not a lot of money.
I think the takeaway is increase funding for
NCAP. Increase NHTSA's budget. That's right,
NHTSA. You've heard it here. We've said it a
few times. Increase. Get your budget increased.
Hey, Jonathan Morrison, why don't you take some
of those Apple stock options you got and just
fund it? Fund it yourself. Come on. What else
are you going to do with that money? Buy hats?
I don't know. Okay, this is a good one, but I
kind of like I'm leaning towards Michael. Hey,
I wonder if they could focus on the lower leg
extremities or even just redesigning lap belts
shoulder belts i don't know uh it's it's interesting
and i hope someone comes up with some incremental
solutions before the magic solution that we all
know elon's already figured out he's got it figured
out how to make everything perfect uh and with
that who's uh who wants to do their gas likes
i already did mine I'll enjoy it because I have
I have some quick ones. I probably got three
this week. I didn't really come down on. I got
a few, but I let just just the one. Yeah. I mean,
you know, one one quick one. The you know, we
saw another school, a school bus crash that killed
two girls and injured a dozen or more children
over the weekend. And in Tennessee, you look
at the crash and, you know, it was a head on
collision with. a dump truck i believe um and
it's absolutely 100 a situation where if those
children had seat belts on their buses many of
them would have been spared injury it's hard
to tell we don't have you know all the crash
information yet whether you know lives could
have been saved it's you know a dump truck is
school bus hitting each other is a whole lot
of energy combined in one area. So, you know,
I think we can safely say that a lot of those
students would could have remained uninjured.
But we're not sure about the fatalities. We just
don't have enough information yet. But I will
continue to award the gaslight to all of the
school systems and school bus manufacturers who
have over the years colluded on this solution
for school buses that doesn't include Seatbelts,
that is one gaslight. My other gaslight I'm skipping
over to IHS. I like IHS. However, they awarded
the Cybertruck their top safety pick. I wasn't
even going to mention that. You know, this is
a car that has some pretty significant weight
and design impacts on other road users. It's
got some serious issues with emergency grass
escaping the vehicle in a fire and other things.
We obviously have concerns about the partial
automation safeguards with autopilot and full
self -driving. And on top of all that, it's banned
in the European Union. So I'm giving a quick
gaslight to IHS for including the Cybertruck
in their top safety picks of the year. And, you
know, I think I'll leave it at that. You know,
I had another one. Oh, my other one was the Ophelia,
Sony's entry into the auto. Do you want that
one? No, no, no. Okay. The Afila is the latest
CES promotion nonsense that is, you know, two
years later being canceled after Sony and Honda
came out promising all these wonderful things
in this car. It's over. And they just showed
it in January. I feel another bullshit CES promotion
coming. This won't be the last one. Wow, that's
a good one. Okay, so related to the Cybertruck.
We've talked about how escaping from the back
seats and even the front seats because of their
electronic door locks is next to impossible.
You know, because they just poor engineering
choices on Tesla's part. Very bad decision. Somebody,
I think it might be in a related article, they
suggested if you put your kid or anyone in a
Cybertruck, probably any Tesla for that matter,
make sure there's a hammer in there. Because
in case they get a crash, they need that to try
and smash the windows to get out. You know, that
wasn't just anyone saying that. That was Gilbert
Arenas, former point guard for the Washington
Wizards. His son was almost killed and was trapped
and I believe briefly unconscious, was rescued
from the vehicle, was put into a coma. So, you
know, Gilbert says if you're a parent and your
teen has this car, you may want to put a hammer
in that joint, right? Yeah. Something that would
break the window, you know. I would say if you
are a parent and your teen has this car, you
have a clear case of MMTB. What's that, Anthony?
More money than brains. There we go. There we
go. IIHS. You were great as a point guard as,
you know, I question your decisions involving
your teenager's car. Well, it's a popular. Hey,
before I do my gaslight, I got a social question
for you guys. Anthony, you have friends, right?
Yes. Why? Who told you I didn't? Nobody, but
I'm just verifying that you are ahead of me because
you actually have friends. So here's what happened.
We met some new people, very nice people, and
came over to my house to deliver a sign in his
Tesla. Oh, no. Oh, no. So I said, well, that's
nice. And he was talking about it. He bought
it several years ago. So I said, you know, these
have some problems with escaping from the rear
and you really need to look for the emergency
release. And of course he had not, but he appreciated
that. And then I said, you know, people have
been trapped in these. And he showed me the escape
hammer that he had in the well on the passenger
side door with a little hardened steel point
on it to break the window, right? So I said,
you know, that's a great idea. But the problem
is, see, this is laminated glass. And so this
little device you've got here isn't going to
do the job. And you really need to carry a bigger
hammer if you're going to smash your way through
the glass. So he thanked me and drove to the
No Kings Rally. And I thought that was very good.
So here's my question. How do you know anything
about this cars and have a conversation with
people who don't think you're a dork? Well, it's
impossible. Yeah. Just you're going to be a dork.
Just accept it. So you have that tattooed on
my forehead or something. All right. No, hold
on. Was this the first time you'd met this person?
No, no. This is actually the third personal.
I mean, I'm in contact with this person. He's
an organized guy. I'm sure he's a lovely person.
I mean, but I mean, I don't know if the third
date, that might be a little too early to talk
about how his hammer is inadequate. Well, it's
been kind of a persistent problem for me for
the last, oh, I don't know, 73 years or so. So
I was hoping you'd give me some advice on that.
I think it's one of the first things everyone
should look at when they buy a new vehicle is
what type of glass they have in their side windows.
If it's tempered, one of those tools could work.
If it's laminated, you're going to need a lot
more than the little key chain tools than a lot
of the escape tools that are sold. And I think
the people who are selling the escape tools need
to be clear about that. And they're not in their
advertising. They sell these things as kind of
a one size fits all solution to getting out of
a vehicle. However, a lot of people who were
carrying that tool in their car are going to
discover to their chagrin that they don't have
tempered glass. They have laminated glass on
their windows and they're not going to be able
to use that to escape. Did you offer to try and
use his little tool to break the windows and
just show him? That would have been fun. I'm
not that much of a dork. No. Come on. Get a couple
of drinks in the guy. Come on. Let's go try to
bust your windows, buddy. Come on. Let's do it.
Woo. Well, my big drink these days is pomegranate
juice, so I'm not sure that's going to... Well,
that reinforces dorkiness, doesn't it? Never
mind. I'm going to move on to my gaslight here.
Okay, so my gaslight is, forgive the pronunciation,
by Omar Zubi, Z -O -U -B -I, who's the head of
a company called Taskus. And this is on a podcast
by the Driverless Digest, and that link will
be on our website. What his company, Taskus,
does... is they provide human -in -the -loop
services for robo -taxis. And so it's kind of
sort of the interesting aspects to this. They
do contractor staffing for the remote Michigan
call center that Waymo uses for its, you know,
human -in -the -loop responses, right? So it
reinforces the idea that... These autonomous
vehicles really are not fully autonomous. They're
partially autonomous. They all have a human in
the loop. And it's also interesting that Waymo
doesn't staff that itself, because by using this
subcontractor, it gives itself one more layer
of legal insulation from liability associated
with any error that causes death or injury. Doesn't
it, Michael? I mean, you know, maybe it's a layer.
It's all going to depend on what happens and
what the case looks like. But I mean, it's definitely
one more area to point the finger if something
goes wrong, right? Yeah. So anyway, quoting from
him, he says, this technology doesn't sleep.
It doesn't get distracted. It doesn't get drunk.
And it sees more than a human being can see.
I think safety is the one area that every one
of them, the robo -taxi companies, is very public
about sharing. What nonsense. OK, so I'll stop
quoting here. He didn't say no nonsense. But,
you know, that is an old, old saying that they're
using to distract people from the real safety
issues. And in fact, the robo taxi companies,
and it's only one as far as I know, are very
active about diverting people from the whole
idea that they are. In fact, putting safety as
the very highest priority. Clearly, safety is
a priority, but it's way down the list. And continued
operations is the highest priority. If you look
at Waymo's experience in Texas with school buses,
for example, clearly the safest approach would
be to not operate the damn Waymos when the school
buses are loading and unloading passengers. Yet
we know that for several months, Waymo has been
operating. And diverting attention from this,
they've actually tested it, their software on
school buses on the road, school buses in a parking
lot, school buses with the cooperation of the
Texas Independent School District, Austin Independent
School District, in a closed area, none of which
has solved the problem, all of which has involved
jeopardizing children's safety and taxpayers'
support for the Waymo introduction in Texas.
So, first of all, human -in -the -loop operation
means it's not truly autonomous. And if they
provide the remote human -in -the -loop guidance
that directs vehicle operation, they are driving
the cars no matter how much they want to obfuscate.
They say that they're just providing guidance
and, you know, they're really not driving the
cars, even though the cars then do what their
guidance suggests. So, I'm not sure how they're
going to square that. And then they say, second,
the technology doesn't blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah. But note that the lack of information is
not information. So by saying they don't do certain
things, they're not providing information of
what they do. They're just not providing information.
But some of the things that this automated technology
does do is they implement software errors. They
exhibit a wide range of failure modes common
to computers, networks, and sensors. They suffer
potentially lethal latency from remote human
-in -the -loop facilities. They experience electrical
and electronic faults. They freeze and otherwise
malfunction from communication failures, none
of which humans suffer. So if you do a cost and
benefit analysis, you really need to identify
the costs as well as the potential benefits.
Nobody's illustrated this better in my mind than...
Mr. Zuby, again, for the pronunciation if it's
wrong. So there is no independent study to date
that has shown the intrinsic safety benefits
of computer -driven cars. So to start with the
presumption that safety is inherent in a computer
operation is simply wrong. There's no evidence
to support that. There is a lot of evidence to
the contrary, including the frequent reports
from Texas and Atlanta, Georgia. of these vehicles
interfering with loading and unloading children
from school buses, as well as hitting children
in California who are doing nothing worse than
getting out of school. And the idea that safety
is the one area that every one of them is very
public about sharing is a cruel joke. Their safety
data is at best biased heavily towards the illusion
of safety, and at worst shows that experience
is many times more hazardous than human operation.
That experience is irrelevant to the software
stack currently used for operations because it's
all that experience is based upon rules -based
software that's completely different than what
they're using now with end -to -end AI. And I'll
remind you that when you call a Waymo, you're
giving up all your rights to sue Waymo as well
as to sue the company that gives you the information.
Protection by the Communications Act, Michael,
that insulates the Internet companies from liability
associated with the information it carries. The
DMCA. DMCA. So a little bit longer than I would
have liked, I guess. But that's my nominee is
Mr. Omar Zubi with company Taskus. Pretty good.
I mean, you were trying to trigger me there.
You kept saying the phrase human in the loop
over and over again. And I kept biting my tongue.
But the human in the loop, the story of the hula
hoop. I don't know. There's a thousand other
ones. That was the most safe one. Michael's disappointed
in me shaking his head. Well, the human in the
loop is a standard engineering term for development
of complex systems. Yes. You know, you start
with the simulation. Then you do computer in
the loop and see if it works. Then you do human
in the loop. All right. Since Michael got to
do multiple gaslights, I'm going to do one. Another
one. Time Magazine. Laura Avena has an article
titled or an opinion piece, I assume. First of
all, no idea. Time Magazine was still a thing.
But this is titled What Cities Need to Consider
Before Allowing Self -Driving Cars. And I'm going
to quote from it. The debate over these autonomous
vehicles often collapses into two camps. One
side treats any regulation whatsoever as an obstacle
to progress. The other argues we should pause
on innovation until every future risk is resolved.
This is cartoonish. This is, I mean, yes, we
know the Alliance for Automotive Innovation,
they're like, no regulations. I don't know if
it's that cartoonish. No, I mean, as safety advocates.
Really? We're saying don't do any progress? That's
the problem I had with it. Pause all innovation
until we figure everything out. No, I don't think
any of us have made that argument. I think we
have a checklist for that, don't we? We do have
a checklist instead. Further on, she's talking
about how she was the FDNY commissioner in 2022
and talking about how we know how to get things
safely out there, but then she magically forgets
what's an issue. She's talking about these e
-bikes and lithium -ion batteries, how we're
They were introduced in New York City and they
started causing all these fires. And so I'm going
to quote from continue. While these batteries
had been deemed safe in a lab setting, everything
about city living made them more dangerous, more
prone to fire from potholes, all covered streets,
the damage of protective casing, small apartments
where bikes are just blocking the exit, the growing
demand for fast delivery, blah, blah, blah. No,
these were not deemed safe in a lab. The ones
that were exploding into flames were were. bad
imitations that were never tested in a lab these
were ones that they identified strictly where
they came from that they had no safety behind
them at all these were bogus these were uh what's
uh knockoffs what's the what's the term counterfeit
thank you these were counterfeit i don't know
so there's a lot of confusing and and and frankly
dangerous and lazy things here uh continuing
it didn't have to be this way online real tellers
Could have been seen as partners in the rollout
of this new technology. And companies could have
worked in the city to build best practices and
outdoor infrastructure that will protect residents
from these fires these batteries are causing.
Or you could have not let counterfeit batteries
in to begin with. That's hard. But I mean, come
on. I mean, we're seeing it right now. We're
seeing millions of. Fake auto parts. And we're,
you know, NHTSA and other, you know, the Border
Patrol hasn't been able to stop all the counterfeit
airbags coming in that are causing some pretty
serious problems. I understand. But this is making
the assumption that all of this stuff was designed
safely. It just wasn't meant for an urban environment.
That is not true. This was explosive damage garbage
that was not designed to be used by humans ever.
Please. I'm going to nitpick a little bit. Nitpick
away. You will lose gasoline. You said that they're
not designed safely. These counterfeit batteries.
That can be completely wrong because the design
could have been completely safe, but the implementation,
the quality control and validation may have been
completely faulty. So there's a difference between
design and there's a difference between validation.
So again, I'm a dork, but dorkiness is important
in certain contexts, and that's one. So has the
guy with the Tesla, has he come over for a fourth
visit? Not yet. We'll see. And I wouldn't nitpick
this article too much to death because ultimately
what the point here is, is that the cities or
the local authorities and the technology companies
need to work more closely together and kind of
definitely here there's a push to say, hey, technology
companies, you need to have a little more respect.
for what the localities are requesting, you know,
where we've seen this problem, you know, we just
mentioned it in Austin with the school buses
in Waymo. There's a way where these things could
make, could, you know, a way where the vehicles
could avoid the problem that's being caused by
avoiding, you know, operation around school buses
during drop -off pickup hours, that kind of thing.
But Waymo is basically saying, no, we're going
to do our own thing. And so, you know, I think
that what this article really is, is a pitch
for cities to have a little more authority in
determining, you know, some of the and being
able to work out some of the safety issues caused
by advanced technology. And that's something
we're fully behind. Right. Yes, I agree. My objection
to this is the cartoonish portrayal of it's either
black or white. And whereas, as Fred's pointed
out, we've come out, hey, here's checklists to
help regulators. We're not asking any regular,
any innovation to stop. We want more AEB out
there. We're not saying don't do it until we
figure everything out. And then it just, it's,
it's a little shocking to have a former FDNY
commissioner being like, all of a sudden these
batteries are exploding. All of a sudden garbage
was exploding. Like it wasn't, these were not
ones from reputable companies. So anyway, that's
my, it's not a gas. It's my giant nitpick of
the week. You're an anti -darkite, aren't you?
A little bit. A little bit. Okay, so this late
gaslight winner is Fred, because he kept saying
human in a loop, and he was trying to trigger
me. Wow, that's never happened. It worked. This
is your third time you've won, and each time
you win, you say it's never happened. Well, who's
keeping track? Me. Okay. Sticking to the greater
New York City area, the New York Times has another
opinion piece, which I approve of. This one's
titled, Trump said this policy would make Manhattan
a ghost town. He was wrong. Quoting from it,
it's talking about how all these lawmakers are
objecting to congestion pricing in Manhattan.
And for those who don't know, if you enter the
congestion pricing below, which is in Manhattan
below 60th Street, you pay $9 or something like
that. I don't know, between the hours of X and
Y. I don't know. So quoting. It's going up, right?
It's $9 now. It's going up to $12 and then $15
in 2031. Government. So quoting, it's nothing
more than a scam, a cash grab, said Representative
Mike Lawler, Republican congressman from New
York City's northern suburbs. A disaster, said
New Jersey's governor at the time, Philip Murphy,
a Democrat. Businesses will be will fully warrant
Donald Trump and continuing over its first 14
months. The congestion pricing system has exceeded
even the high hopes of many supporters. It's
reduced traffic, improved quality of life and
even provided a boost for business. Talk of killing
it has faded. This month, a federal judge ruled
the Trump administration's attempt to end the
program was illegal. So three cheers for congestion
pricing. Yeah, I'm having, you know, we've seen
multiple articles come out now that are really
showing a lot of successes here, and I'm having
a hard time figuring out where the negatives
are here. It's the is the negative, literally
the people who are having to pay to come into
the city these hours whining about nine dollars.
Or is is there another negative here that I'm
missing? So there's this there's always this
fantasy theory that, oh, there's the secret cabal.
They get together and they're going to try and
rule the world. Oh, the secret cabal is just
a moment. People don't want to pay taxes. And
that's this is part of it. This is another tax
and they don't want to pay taxes. Don't take
money out of my pocket. I'm. I'm busy taking
taxpayer money to dump stuff in the ocean. Yeah,
it's I think that's really just what it comes
down to. And even the representative from the
northern New York City suburbs, as we pointed
out a couple of weeks ago, traffic around their
suburbs have improved greatly because congestion
has dropped off because you have less people
trying to people coming through. I mean, same
amount of people coming through, but not all
of them in an individual car now. Now they're
taking mass transit and, you know. People are
meeting new friends. Marriages are starting.
Marriages are ending. It's a rom -com to be made.
What about freedom and these damn liberals trying
to run every aspect of your life? Well, I'd like
to meet them one day. Which? All of those liberals?
Yeah, I want to meet these liberals running my
life. Less decisions for me. Good point. Thank
you. With a good point, would you like to tell
us? No, I'm going to let that one go. Okay. No
Tao this week. Tao is a noun. Oh, the Tao. I'm
sorry. I misunderstood. All right. I'm going
to spend just a few minutes talking about 48
-volt versus 12 -volt electrical systems in cars.
Because I do have questions. Another fascinating
subject. So for those who've been paying attention,
you've seen that some cars are moving from a
12 -volt electrical system to a 48 -volt. This
is the first major shift in about, oh, I don't
know, 50 years when cars moved from a 6 -volt
system to a 12 -volt system. So why is this happening
and why should anybody care? Well, there's a
couple of standards. We'll put them on the website
for why this is happening. But I'm going to compare
12 -volt and 48 -volt. So 12 -volt system has
fewer cells in its battery. Of course, there
are more cells in a 48 -volt battery, four times
as many. There's a minimal shock hazard from
either one. So all of these spy movies you've
seen where they tie somebody to a battery and
shock them to give up the secrets, those are
all nonsense. It doesn't work. Wait, I can't
take jumper cables to a 12 -volt battery and
then put the terminals on you and get the truth?
Nothing's going to get the truth from me. Well,
okay. Including not that, yeah. But that's really?
Because like I've taken the ends and you always
bang them together and get sparks. Yeah. So here's
the thing. AC is constantly changing the voltage
when you attach somebody to DC. It's just the
resistance of the human body and the amount of
current that's going through initially, which
turns out to be very small. So you feel it when
it starts, but it doesn't hurt you. It doesn't
really kill you. Still don't advise licking your
fingers with salt or putting salt water in the
fingers and attaching them to a battery. So what
we're talking about here is incidental contact.
Okay. But yeah, you're safe. But that's why I've
shocked myself with 110 volt line. Is this less
so the 12 volt battery is less painful? Because
that was a big difference between 110 volt AC
and 110 volt DC. 110 volt DC. It's considered
safe. Good to avoid it. You can get a momentary
shock from it, but it's not going to zap you
the way that a 110 -volt AC will. That's what
it wants. And whatever's coming out of your socket
in your house is alternating current or AC. So
stay away from that. Yeah, it wasn't fun. Yeah,
this is the Thomas Edison Tesla debate. Elephant
debate. Okay. Yeah. So your car is direct current.
Your car is direct current. Yes, sir. So the
12 -volt, you're going to need a bigger motor
than the 48 -volt just because you can get more
power, higher power density with a 48 -volt system.
So there'd be some weight savings there with
a 48 -volt. Contrasting again, there's less potential
for a destructive electrical arc during a short
circuit in a 12 -volt system. And 48 -volt, there's
significant potential, but it's unlikely to happen
every day. It might happen in certain circumstances
like a loose contact or a collision to break
some wires, but still not a huge jeopardy. The
12 -volt system in general is heavier, and the
48 -volt system is lighter, so that's good. There's
more current in the 12 -volt system, less current
in the 48 -volt system for constant power. And
so there's less bad workmanship or loose contact
hazard in the 12 -volt system than in the 48
-volt system. So you need to be more careful
about the workmanship in the 48 -volt system
to make sure you're not going to have any loose
wires floating around than in the 12 -volt system.
So why does anybody care? I mean, if you have
the choice between the 12 -volt system and the
48 -volt system, Or you just don't want to buy
a new car because of the 48 -volt system. What
are the basis for making that kind of decision?
Well, on the pro side for 48 -volt, it has a
lower current at a given power and smaller wires
at constant load. Generally speaking, you need
smaller motors and generators and potentially
smaller electrical contacts and batteries. Sorry,
by motors in this case, are you referring to
the alternator or the car's engine itself? Starter
motor. Okay. The alternator. The motor that's
running your fan and your defroster. All those.
There's a bunch of electric motors. But not like
my V8 Hemi. Not the engine. Not the engine. Not
the prime mover. Essentially smaller contacts.
Maybe some smaller batteries. I don't know. Because
there's a couple of considerations. And finally,
you could have lighter weight jumper cables because
the wires could be smaller. I'm not sure this
is an issue for anybody, but it's a potential.
On the con side for the 48 volt system, you have
a higher voltage at a given power and the higher
voltage implies more hazard associated with arcs
and short circuits and things like that. You're
encouraging actually the developers. to put higher
loads into the motors that they've got because
they're able to carry more electricity through
a given wire. So that might encourage them to
just opt the ante for how many motors they want
to put in the car and what they're doing and
maybe increase the speed of the motors that are
moving the seat and who knows what. So not sure
that that's a great thing. The motors themselves
are going to have larger internal electrical
loads. You have to tie the wires together and
bundles and do all those kind of things when
you're building an electric motor so it doesn't
fly apart naturally due to the electrical loads.
And those are higher for the higher voltage.
I'm not sure that's an issue that affects the
cost, but it's possible. You do need to have
increased electrical contact quality. You've
got to make sure somehow they're not going to
come apart, that they're not going to vibrate
loose, that they're not going to cause... In
intermittent contact, that could in turn generate
sparks, short circuit, high temperature electrical
arc, because those can be very destructive. Batteries
are going to be more expensive because you've
got twice as many cells. And the number of cells
will basically have a lot to say about how much
the battery costs to manufacture. That's not
to say the purchase price will necessarily go
up. but the cost to manufacture them probably
will go up. And getting back to the lighter weight
jumper cables, if that is an issue for you, you're
going to need better clamps on the 48 -volt system
than a 12 -volt system so that you don't get
all that sparking when you put them on. And also,
if you're in the middle of Manitoba somewhere
in the winter, there might not be another 48
-volt battery around that can give you a jump.
So something to think about, I guess. But that's
a very brief introduction to 48 -volt systems.
And a lot of the companies are migrating in that
direction. So you may be seeing this coming up
in your next car. So we see it with Tesla and
a few other manufacturers where their electrical
system is running off of 48 volts, but they still
have a 12 -volt battery system, I guess, for
a starter. Some do. Yeah, why wouldn't you? I
don't think that's quite right. I don't think
Tesla has one. I think, you know, you're talking
about mostly mild hybrids that have kind of a
12 -volt battery and a 48. I think the Tesla
Cybertruck has got a 48 -volt system. Yeah, but
I think the Model 3 has a 12 -volt system. So
that's instead of the 12 -volt system. Yeah,
yeah. I don't know of any car that has both.
So you've got high -voltage systems that run
the wheels for electric cars. Right. Right. And
then you've got a lower voltage system to run
the accessories to, you know, all of the little
motors like windshield wipers and fans and stuff
like that. So the lower voltage system in the
Cybertruck and a couple of European brands is
now 48 volt instead of the 12 volt. So I don't
see any. I don't see any. Systems that have both
48 -volt and 12 -volt systems. They're alternatives.
Okay. And now can this... Sorry, go ahead. You'll
see a lot of vehicles that have the 12 -volt
lead -acid battery and the 48 -volt mild hybrid
together, I think. Oh, my God. I don't think
so. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. This episode
is brought to you by lead -acid -basin. I haven't
said this the entire show, but if you big supporters
of lead acid acid, go to autosafety .org and
click on donate. Sorry. Again, about that coffee,
Anthony, you're okay with that? Just repeating
what Michael said. Okay. And with 48, my last
dorky quite see, I can play the dork game too.
48 volt system. Cause now you can move to digital
switching. Is that I, maybe you can do a 12 volt
systems too. So you can have less wire runs.
I mean, you don't have to do point -to -point.
I think that's a red herring. I think the digital
switching is about the same for either one on
the digital side. Digital systems generally run
out these days at 1 .2 volts. So you've got components
that act the way relays used to act that take
the digital signal and allow the passage of the
higher voltage current. But on the digital side,
it's still very low voltage. All right. Well,
that's a very informative update to the world
of 48 -volt batteries. So don't be afraid of
48 volts. I'm just going to hold off until we
move to 96 volts. You'll be waiting a long time.
You don't know me. Good for you. Yeah. Speaking
of people who looks like they're going to be
waiting for a long time is Nissan Leaf owners.
Guardian has an article titled, Shockingly Bad.
Nissan Leaf Drivers Voice Anger Over App Shutdowns.
Quoting. Owners of some Nissan LEAF electric
vehicles are angry after the carmaker announced
it would shut down an app that lets them remotely
control battery charging and other functions.
And this brings up a whole issue of what happens
as a car becomes more software than hardware.
And we've seen it with Fisker, their Ocean. Like,
you can't use any of the software really with
their stuff anymore because the company doesn't
exist. We've all experienced this with by subscribing
to some silly music video system where all of
a sudden, hey, I thought I had all this music
movie video system stuff, but that service no
longer exists. And now it's happening to your
car when everything becomes amplified. So like
if I, you know, because me, I said, hey, BMW,
I want to pay for heated seats in my car. I want
to subscribe to this. And they said, sir, you
want a Toyota? And I was like, give me a hat,
something. But what happens when they just turn
that service off? Are consumers just going to
have to be up in arms and hope they turn things
back on? Well, software changes all the time,
right? This goes back to the discussion about
the Waymo claiming safety based upon software
that they're no longer using. So it's a big issue,
a big opportunity for companies to throw sand
or... Throw dust in your eyes? Is that what it
is? Not throw sand in your eyes, but it's kind
of inside baseball, but this is a huge issue
throughout the industry. Yeah, I mean, ultimately
here, it's just the question of, you know, it's
something that's hard for consumers to determine
at the time they're purchasing a new vehicle
is whether the technology in that vehicle will
still be able to be used within the lifespan
of the car. Here you've got... Nissan LEAF owners
who have, you know, vehicles that are seven years
old, in some cases about four years old, and
they're completely losing their ability to do
things like, I think it's remote start and heated
seat and some other features that they assumed
they had when they bought the vehicle. And Nissan
is now saying, well, if you want these features,
you're going to have to pay a subscription. Unfortunately,
I think this is the future for a lot of hopefully
non -safety related features in the car. We still
haven't seen any manufacturers who have made
any safety features available via subscription.
Although, if there's ever any evidence that some
of the automated features that are being charged
for a monthly subscription do provide a safety
benefit, hopefully that'll get... We'll get there
one day. Then there's an argument there that
safety features should not be a subscription.
They should be provided for everyone. But at
any rate, I completely identify with the frustrations
of all the Nissan LEAF owners here who bought
a vehicle and are finding that it is obsolete
within four to seven years after purchase. I
have a feature on my car that's never worked.
You click on the map button and it's like, you
don't have this service. I don't even know how
to get that service. I just plug in my phone.
Yeah, it's, you know, a lot of manufacturers,
you know, and Toyota, I guess you have, is one
of them that I've experienced where they require
you to update your maps and your vehicle every
few years and they charge you a premium for that.
which drives most people to use their smartphone
instead and use Google Maps or Waze or whatever
they decide. They drive them to do it. That's
exactly the situation with my four -year -old
Subaru. They want me to update several services
and pay subscription fees. And, you know, interestingly,
I find life goes on without subscribing. Yeah.
I mean, the amounts are absurd. I mean, essentially,
I mean, back in the day, at least this was probably
10 years ago when I was involved in it, you had
to go to the dealer and they basically popped
the DVD into your car, uploaded the software
and it was done and you're out 600 bucks just
for that. So the prices were outrageous and it's
kind of a money grab on the part of dealers and
manufacturers. Crazy. Speaking of dealers and
manufacturers, let's do some recalls. Starting
off with Hyundai, 46 ,787 vehicles, the 2026
Palisade, Palisade Hybrid. On -fastened seatbelts
could increase the risk. What? Okay. The internal
wiring within the third row left -hand driver's
side seatbelt buckles may become damaged due
to excessive tension applied when the buckle
is pulled. Damage to the buckle wiring can prevent
detection of the seatbelt latch status for the
third row driver's side seating position. This
is a really big car. It's got a third row. So
it seems. These are the same vehicles, I believe,
that were involved in that fatality of the child
who was crushed in the seat a few weeks back.
The kind of the fancy models of the Hyundai Palisade.
Oh, boy. Get that fixed. But when is that? They
were. It looks like, you know, owners. Essentially,
what's going on here is the vehicle is not able
to detect if the. buckle is properly latched
um and so if someone is unbuckled the warning
will not go off um And also, if you're plugged
in and the warning's not going off, you think
your buckle's latched, but it's not. You have
a crash. You're not secured in the vehicle by
your seatbelt. So big problem. It looks like
owners will be waiting a couple months till mid
-May before they hear about a fix. And I think
the fix is going to be fixing the wiring that's
damaged, the wiring harness. Yeah, it says that
the fix is the internal wiring harness using
the remedy of the seatbelt assembly is 110 millimeters,
longer to reduce tension during handling. They're
just putting a bigger there. And come on, Fred,
math quiz, 110 millimeters. What's that in fathoms?
Fathoms? Next recall. Six light years. Perfect.
What is that? That's a quarter. That's a third
of a fathom. There you go. Now it's like .00
something, I bet. Toyota. 8 ,230 vehicles. The
2024 to 2026 Toyota Tundra Hybrid. The 2024 to
2025 Tundra. The Tacoma Hybrid. The regular Tacoma.
The Sequoia Hybrid. RAV4. Land Cruiser. Highlander
Hybrid. Grand Highlander. By the time I get to
the end of this, if it is a rear view camera
recall, I'm going to be... It is not. Yeah, okay,
good. Due to a system error, the total weight
of the accessories installed in the subject vehicles
was miscalculated. Whoa. This resulted in a load
carrying capacity modification label with an
understated reduction in load carrying capacity
greater than 1 % of the actual added weight.
Oh, OK. So this is it's got to put a new sticker.
Pretty much. This is one of those recalls where
there's there's no nothing, no physical defect
in the car. However, the car is does not. match
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In
this case, it's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 110, which is mainly concerned with
gross vehicle weight labeling. Not something
we talk about a lot here, but I threw this one
in just because. It's interesting to note that
what this is going to require essentially is
that you're going to go to your dealer and they're
going to replace the label on your vehicle. And
owners will have that available in about two
months. And this isn't something they could just
mail the new label to people and have them do
it themselves? You know, I have I have I am assuming
that they could do that as well, but I'm not
sure exactly where this label is. Maybe it's,
you know, in a spot where they they really feel
like they need to be the ones that do it to ensure
it's there. I don't know. Well, we got to check
your we have to rotate the air in your tires,
too. Last recall, Chrysler 117 ,902 vehicles,
the 2024 -2025 Jeep Wrangler 4XE, the Cherokee
4XE. They may have been built with an engine
which may be contaminated with sand from the
casting process. Oh, man. Sand from the casting
process can contaminate internal engine components,
leading to a catastrophic engine failure. which
can result in a vehicle fire unexpected and unrecoverable
loss of propulsion. So they're sandcasting, which
is fine. It's been going on for how long has
sandcasting been going on, Fred? Centuries? A
couple thousand years, maybe? Yeah. And, hey,
you know, they couldn't get it right. This thing's
going to happen. Yeah. And, you know, this is
a recall from last year, right? This was an update
that Jeep just put into the recall file because
they have, you know, essentially been trying
to figure this one out for a while. And they've
determined that, you know, some folks, they're
basically going to inspect your vehicle. using
software and they're going to try to determine
if you have engine bearing failure. If you have
it, I think they're going to replace the long
block in your engine. If you don't have detected
engine bearing failure, they're going to give
you a software. So, you know, I think owners
have been waiting quite some time for this one
around seven, six, seven months before they'll
be able to get the remedy. But expect that in
a little over a month. Unlike the last recall,
this is one absolutely 100 % positively get there.
The day one, this recall is available. The fix
is available 100%. And with that, that's our
show. We'll be back next week. Thank you for
listening. Bye -bye. For more information, visit
www .autosafety .org.