• IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 个月前

    But they are NOT different things. In every one of these examples:

    1. A safety issue is identified
    2. NHTSA opens an investigation
    3. The cause of the issue is identified by the manufacturer and reported back to NHTSA
    4. NHSTA approves the proposed remedy
    5. The manufacturer sends the recall notice along with instructions on the remedy to all known vehicle owners, as required by NHTSA

    The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied. Every single step other than that is identical.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 个月前

      The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied.

      And that’s the thing that matters to the person who owns the car. Currently when a user sees that word they don’t know what they need to do to fix it. You can have some other name encompassing both (like ‘critical fix’), but if you keep recall for when that fix isn’t user applicable, (and furthermore have specific names for the fixes themselves if they’re user applicable) people would immediately understand

      Lots of people here are disagreeing with me but I’m yet to see an argument about why that shouldn’t be the case other than that it currently isn’t. But even that’s an argument for why changing the term would be difficult, not for why calling every fix ‘recall’ makes sense.