Maine Voters Once Again Show ‘Right To Repair’ Reforms Are Overwhelmingly Popular
from the fix-your-own-shit dept
Maine residents have made it very clear: the overwhelming majority of Americans want to be able to easily and affordably repair the stuff they own. 83 percent of Maine voters last week responded yes to “Question 4,” asking whether automakers should be required to provide car owners (and independent repair shops) access to on-board diagnostic systems:
“Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?”
The new law sets up a system of procedures to facilitate access to those systems, including the creation of a new portal that car owners and independent mechanics can use to reset car security systems. Automakers must also create a “motor vehicle telematics system notice” system informing new car owners how access to these systems will work.
Maine is the fourth state behind Colorado, New York, and Minnesota to pass right to repair protections in the last year, much to the chagrin of the auto industry. While lobbyists did manage to weaken many of the laws (particularly in New York), several of the new laws (notably Minnesota) offer significant improvements to state law, making it cheaper and easier to repair consumer technology.
Carmakers spent upwards of $30 million dollars to try and scuttle a similar proposal in Massachusetts, using a long list of misleading arguments (like the claim the reforms would be a boon to sexual predators) to try and undermine the proposal. While that law remains stuck in limbo due to an industry lawsuit, lobbyists have generally been unable to stem the tide of public support.
Tommy Hickey, director of the Maine Automotive Right to Repair Coalition, told 404 Media that automakers didn’t try as hard in Maine after their defeat at the ballot box in Massachusetts:
“Maine residents have won the right to control their destiny when it comes to car repairs. There’s a new technology in cars, they’ve become computers on wheels, and with this law owners in Maine will be the gatekeepers of that information.”
Corporations have gotten the message from voters, so they’ve tried other tactics to try and undermine the laws, including getting legislatures to carve out the most problematic industries (like medical hardware, agricultural gear, or even game consoles).
Companies like John Deere are also striking non-binding, meaningless agreements with trade groups promising them they’ll behave on right to repair if said trade groups don’t support state or federal legislation. Those efforts clearly aren’t having the intended effect.
While U.S. consumer protection is generally a feckless mess, right to repair reform has been a notable exception. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have realized this is a fight on the state level that they probably can’t win, and have been adjusting their opposition accordingly.
I suspect many of those companies, including Apple and Microsoft, have pivoted away from fighting state level right to repair laws, and toward using their political influence to co-write a weaker federal law that pre-empts tougher state restrictions.
Filed Under: auto mechanics, consumer protection, independent repair, maine, reform, right to repair, state law
Comments on “Maine Voters Once Again Show ‘Right To Repair’ Reforms Are Overwhelmingly Popular”
And this, gentlebeings, is why companies should NOT be allowed to write laws. Or lobby at all. They’re entities, not citizens, and therefore should have minimal rights (I’d say they shouldn’t have any, but things like the first amendment right make sense for corporations, not just people).
Re:
When you ban “corporate lobbying”, you run face first into an individual right to speak to legislators.
In CA, Motorcycles are legally allowed to split lanes. Why? There is no effective enforcement mechanism. Lane splitters are typically avoiding slowdowns that would affect cop cars just as readliy. By preventing lane splitting on the books, you only make roads less safe and undermine respect for the law. Better make it explicitly legal, and put divers on notice to be aware of it.
Similarly, Banning corporate lobbying only results in the fictions that Comcast engages in with its chief lobbiest. Or simply individual action. Are we talking banning individuals from petitioning for change in the industry they work in? That seems to fly against clear 1A protected activity.
And of course, a major donor can always just proselytize in opinion columns and 24 hour news. Or a politician could seek consultation from industry stakeholders (i.e. theguys who lobby) before passing laws on that industry. Banning talking to an industry before legislating about htat industry seems the exact opposite of what we would want.
I don’t see a line courts would be willing to draw that could be effectively proven and enforced in a criminal court of law. There is no clear enforcement mechanism without restricting the individual right of petition granted by 1A.
Do you have a solution that isn’t just “law harder”?
Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence that this was the actual reason? Cameras and motorcycle cops would be two obvious enforcement mechanisms. It doesn’t even seem to have been an intentional decision; just something they never banned (Wikipedia says the first law mentioning it was passed in 2016 and made “no mention of whether, or under what circumstances, it is allowed”).
Re: Re: Re:
A) I can only provide the evidence of my memory living in CA.
B) You need to take in the whole paragraph for some context.
Prior to 2016 it was never explicitly banned. The doesn’t mean it wasn’t debated. Repeated arguments about banning the practice, as many other states had, took place. The arguements in favor or against the ban are at best footnotes in the historical record, since the eventual fight was over explicitly legalizing the practice. I only know some of the arguments because I lived in CA most of my life and some of them have took up residence in a corner of may brain.
And to that end, I can’t properly tell you why alternative weren’t used by I can speculate:
No one is paying for the cameras, or the enforcement costs. CA doesn’t have the money, even if tech that could identify lane splitting accurately existed, nor the political will. And bans elsewhere have not had measurable effects on reducing lane splitting, but have reduced overall road safety. Motorcycle cops for any benefit they can provide seem unable to make the law a serious deterrent, and therefore don’t seem to represent effective enforcement.
Thats why I continued to cite the negatives of such a ban. Its not that we can’t enforce it, its that unless enforcement can produce a large enough reduction in lane splitting the harms to safety and respect for the law of non-compliance outweigh the benefits of the ban itself. Safety was cited as the reason to legalize it when discussed in the media, and respect for the law as the reason not to ban it.
Re: Re: Re:2 lane sharing
It’s common in Europe and other parts of the world. If you ride safely and sanely, it reduces congestion at traffic lights and lowers the risk of inattentive drivers running into a stopped motorcycle from behind. Most of the lane sharing accidents are at high speeds or due to riders not paying attention. Here’s one study that’s not too old.
Re: Re:
How about limiting all political donations, including donations to PACs and lobbying organizations to individual donations. It’s not as though the 10% who have a massive say in such things don’t have the personal wealth to support organization that improve their lot.
Re: Re: Re:
Thats a nice simple solution. It does nothing actually prevent corporate lobbying, nor the problems banning corporate lobbying is supposed to solve. But its simple, so its 100% the type of solution I’d expect the US to try.
Re: Re:
Do you have a solution that isn’t just “law harder”?
Follow the money
Re: Re: Re:
OpenSecrets.org
Hasnt stopped corporate lobbying.
Maybe you mean Track down the money on an individual doing “corporate lobbying”? Follow the money on a CEO who donates to a campaign and reccomends laws that make his business more profitable? What is there to follow? Thats 1A protected activity.
Not even sure what your solution is here.
Re: Re: not there yet
I do not think I have a clear statement of the problem. Until I have that, I probably cannot have a workable solution.
In the long term, this simply will not come to pass, as in the capitalist dictatorship known as the US, something that is immensely popular but opposed by the ultra-wealthy elites will never see the light of day.
Re:
The ultra wealthy are often not a unified front. Apple for example thinks its better to control the repair process (and make it a pain in the ass).
Other firms have forced the situation because farmers are worth 10 votes in the senate vs most city people who get much more diluted voting. Guess whos mad? Farmers with all that extra voting power.
So small people do get the power, sometimes. But its only because an issue can only be pushed so far by money when your also fucking over a large block of people.
Re:
Back in the 70’s I thought the same thing about legal weed, and look now.
I live in Maine, and saw almost no campaigning either way for Question 4. No ads, no signs. The only thing I saw was a poster at VIP supporting right to repair generally, but that’s been there for a while and I don’t think mentioned Question 4 specifically