Oh yeah. Dealer mechanics could never get a key somewhere else. How silly of me.

As for the rest, thanks for reinforcing my point. If the manufactures provided a secure system it wouldn't be an issue. How about spending your efforts doing something useful for all owners, lobbying the manufactures to fix their poorly designed systems, rather than trying to prevent owners and independents from fully servicing cars.

 

Well, being from Ma. and seeing this is going to directly affect me, I get to talk. I have to say this is not the first time that this bill has been submitted. This is however the first time that the public with get to vote on it. Despite what Rovin4life thinks it will probably get passage, but for the wrong reasons.

In my industry I need to buy proprietary tools based on the system a particular manufactory chooses to use. If I don’t want to invest in that equipment then I cannot work on that product. Tools are and have always been an investment in future earnings, that’s why they are tax deductible.

Computer/IT people put up with this stuff every day, everything in the computer world is proprietary. They or their company need to invest in the software needed to make repairs or they do not work on that operating system. There are hundreds of other trades that operate in a similar fashion.

If you want to charge me $80.00-$138.00 hours to repair my vehicle show me why I should pay that? How do you justify $80.00-$138.00 an hour? You justify it by showing what you have invested in your business and training of your staff. If you can’t invest $500 in a Hawkeye, then don’t service Land rovers.

As far as this adding a small cost to each vehicle sold in Ma. that is no argument , what’s the difference between that and California cars costing most because of the extra pollution controls that they have required for the last 40-years. The Californians voted for higher pollution standards and they realize that there is a cost associated with that, so they pay it. Shops have repaired californian vechiles for years and never charged extra.

The big problem I have with this bill is they want every to go backwards and use a 15-years old system that was designed for emissions testing. Just so that cheap bastards can you and $50.00 OBD2 scanner. All the manufactures have already gone far beyond the OBD2 systems, why go backwards?

Also not all manufactures have proprietary systems Toyota apparently has and open format and has for the last few years. At least that is what they are claiming in their ads.

If this Bill were to force manufactures to use one open type of format that would be a good this for everyone, but to tell them that they have to go backwards makes no sense.

Also as far as open format and full access to vehicle systems, I don’t want every Joe Blow to have that. I could seriously F-up a Land Rover with my Hawkeye I have access the things I simply should not; nor should most people.

In typical Ma. fashion they have the heart of a good bill, but they never seem to get them written in a way that truly help.

A quick example of another bill submitted at the same time is 3 strikes and you’re out, basically it says 3 violent convictions life without parole, sound good doesn’t it. Well if you have 2 strikes already, why would you leave a witness? If you have 2 strikes why not shoot the cop? You’re going to jail for life anyway.

They have good hearts, but they can write law for ****.

 

Not true. Much isn't proprietary at all.

Making things retroactive is a separate argument. Rovin's argument is that it should remain proprietary going forward.
Even so, your "must go backwards" claim is vague. All it says is that for vehicles made after 2002 manufactures have to allow non-dealers the option of buying the specialized tools and documentation. How does that not make sense?

How is that any different than, say, working on brakes? Yes, someone could totally screw up a computer, but I would bet that's a lot less dangerous than screwing up someone's brakes.

If you decide to do a repair on your Land Rover and screw it up, be it computer or brakes, that's your own fault, not the fault of the person who said you should be allowed the tools to do it with.

If you pay someone to repair your Land Rover and they screw it up, be it computer or brakes, then that's why you give your work to someone who warranties their repairs.

Where does it say they have to use OBD2?
ISO 22900 says, "The purpose of ISO 22900-2:2009 is to ensure that diagnostic and reprogramming applications from any vehicle or tool manufacturer can operate on a common software interface, and can easily exchange MVCI protocol module implementations."
As far as I know it doesn't say it must be OBD2. In fact the bill clearly says, "any successor to SAE J 2534 or ISO 22900" so that leaves open for other API's.
But even if they do have to use the OBD2 API, that doesn't mean it can't be expanded. And if they are required to use the US OBD2 hardware interface only 9 or the 16 pins are used today, so there's room for expansion there.