For as far back as I can remember, pedestrians have had the right of way when it comes to crossing the street. Cars weigh thousands of pounds and can kill people (or multiple people) in a minute or less if the driver is distracted or intoxicated. Yes, it is bad for people’s health to walk into oncoming traffic. That’s like playing the video game Frogger. You lose more times than you win. But who decides whether people win, or cars win? In almost every state, people have the right of way and cars must yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and lights. What if that were to change?

Let’s go back in time a little. According to Jalopnik, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) thought it would be a great idea to celebrate “National Pedestrian Safety Month’ by telling people not to get hit by cars. Duh, right? I’m sure our tax dollars were well spent with that promotion. Fast forward to today and Ford is patenting an augmented reality app that pedestrians can use to see if an autonomous vehicle will stop at the intersection… or not… so that they won’t be hit. Seriously? The article goes on to share the writer’s sentiments on a couple of things that I absolutely agree with. First, it's not particularly safe for people to be walking around staring at their phones, and second, the app only works to alert the pedestrian, not the driver -- the car can tell pedestrians whether it plans to run through that intersection but does not give a pedestrian the ability to tell the car to stop. “Hey, I’m walking here!”

Vehicle safety is always at the top of my mind. An extension of that is the safety of pedestrians. To confess, I’ve never hit any pedestrians with my car, but I can only conclude it’s not a pleasant experience for the driver either. But what if there is no driver? Those autonomous vehicles will likely have passengers in them. If the vehicle fails to stop, one could easily see all sorts of chaos happening including collisions with other cars, bicycles, or pedestrians. Doesn’t sound like a good mix to me. In the article, Ford’s response was simply, “Ford is a leading automotive innovator and submits patents on new inventions as a normal course of business…” Interesting take on a technology that doesn’t involve a vehicle.

To add another important viewpoint to this issue, Motor Trend magazine reports that consumer advocate Ralph Nader begged the NHTSA to pull Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" software. He feels technology is growing faster than it should. In the article, he stated, "No one is above the laws of manslaughter." He released a full statement in which he further stated, "Americans must not be test dummies..."

There are many challenges our roads and highways will present as the percentage of autonomous cars increases. This is just another one that, at least, one manufacturer is thinking about despite how crazy an idea it may seem. I’m sure that there will be more coming of which we haven't even thought about.

Then, of course, there are technological and mechanical concerns. If you are riding (notice I didn’t say driving) in an autonomous vehicle reading the paper or distracted and the wheel pops off going seventy on the freeway, how do you intervene and move to safety? Or do you leave that up to the car as well?

With bipartisan support in the House of Representatives looking to boost self-driving vehicle technology and production according to Automotive News, autonomous vehicles are coming. And they’re coming as fast as legislation can be passed and manufacturers can make them.

They’re on their way and maybe there’s nothing we can do to stop it. I’m not sure we should stop it as much as I think we need to have a controlled burn here. What’s the rush to push autonomous vehicles before the technology has been fully vetted? Perhaps the real question is what’s at stake? Should we be human training wheels for the advancement of technologies that have limited benefits for the majority of Americans? Now is the best time to look both ways before crossing this street.

As vehicles become increasingly advanced, many OEMs are integrating technology that includes the ability to upload software updates by over-the-air (OTA) methods. Tesla has been doing this since its inception. But there are only so many repairs that can be solved from afar. While it is great that some of these recalls can be accomplished without the customer going into a dealership, what happens when they can't – or won't? And, even when the vehicle owner wants to comply with the recall notice, does a factory-direct model accommodate service at a local level as a dealer does? 

It is well known that there is a huge issue with recall compliance -- whether that is because the owner trashes the notice, doesn’t have time, doesn’t care, can’t be reached– or whatever the reason may be. How about second or third-generation owners that may never get notified?

Consider what happens when the vehicle dies from lack of electricity - it’s not like an OEM beam the car some more? What about when EV owners need to replace their tires? According to Automotive News, this is a big concern as dealerships and tire manufacturers don’t have inventory for OEM or aftermarket tires. Can new tires be solved OTA? No. What about the front trunk flying off while being driven? Can Tesla replace the front trunk OTA? No. I’m all in favor of whatever is convenient for the consumer and which promotes safety – that includes over-the-air updates and mobile repair in the consumer’s driveway. Even with EVs and the volume of software/electronics recalls associated with this next generation of vehicles, we’ll still service centers for more complex repairs or those that require a lift. 

While EVs present a potential solution to environmental concerns, they are more expensive than combustion engine vehicles. In and of itself, this presents a challenge. The lack of EV-trained technicians or nearby Tesla service facilities for most consumers presents challenges. It’s hard enough to get consumers to drive 5 miles to their local dealership. How can we expect them to drive a potential 100 miles to get a “physical” recall fixed that cannot be done OTA?

Not to pick on Tesla, but these issues are going to increase as OEMs start relying on OTA fixes. We need to address them now, well before other factories subscribe to a model that does not protect vehicle owners from dangerous recalls or promote consumer interests. Pre-owned Teslas are showing up at dealerships. When those vehicles sell, the buyer becomes second-generation. And, you know what? According to a recent article on Fox News, pre-owned Teslas (both Model 3 and Model Y) are TWO of the five most desired vehicles as of May 2022. They are showing up for sale at dealerships that do not have technicians or equipment to recondition them.

On the consumer side, electric vehicles (EVs) cost 2.3 times more to service than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, according to Automotive News. Simply installing charging stations is upwards of $220,000, which some OEMs are mandating. 

I am certainly not saying that EVs are bad, only that they add a new layer of challenge to recall repairs from every angle and that, without local dealerships who can thoroughly assist consumers, we need to reset our processes. Some dealers can’t afford to retrofit their dealerships to OEM standards which, assuming everyone ends up with an EV, will force them out of business.

Then we have the challenge of servicing those vehicles that cannot be repaired via an OTA because the recall is physical and not software related. Then there is the challenge of getting first-generation owners to come in and get their EV recall repair completed -- which has been a challenge for years with ICE vehicles. And now we are seeing used EVs being sold which creates more generations of owners. And these second and third-generation owners are that much harder to reach.

It's kind of like that butterfly that flaps its wings and creates a tornado on the other side of the world. We don't know where this phenomenon of circumstances will end up or how OEMs will solve it. But people are indeed dying because technology has failed in their vehicles and, no matter how many that number is, one is too many. Much less three.

During the winter of 1846-1847, the Donner Party found themselves stranded in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Of course, they didn’t have the advanced technology we have these days, so things went from bad to worse rather quickly. If you’re familiar with the story, you’ll know the ending. It wasn’t the zombie apocalypse, but it was close. What does this story of tragedy and bad decision-making have to do with the automotive industry? More than you know.

Fast forward to modern days. I’ve seen power grids in California go down because of excessive use of air conditioners during times of extreme heat. There have also been, though more rarely, situations where the heat was cut off. That’s life on the west coast. It’s probably no different from ice storms in the East that pull power lines down to the ground. However, we're on the brink of massive migration to electric vehicles. What would the driver of an electric vehicle do if the power grid went down in California or on the East Coast and they found themselves stranded?

Living on the West Coast, I am familiar with power outages and how they affect people. But what I haven’t thought about is the possible consequences of extremely cold weather. It’s just a weather pattern I’m not particularly familiar with. That’s exactly how stories like the Donner Party make their journey from generation to generation – tales of such historic misfortune amidst conditions that appear so preventable by modern-day conditions. We've learned, haven't we? Maybe not. 

Consider the recent event on I-95 in Virginia. According to an article by the Washington Post, a 48-mile traffic jam happened in 19-degree cold weather. The vehicles stranded were a mixture of big rig trucks, ICE (Internal Combustible Engine) vehicles, Hybrids, and Electric vehicles. Many of these drivers were unprepared for these conditions (or this traffic jam) and relied on the heat from their vehicles to stay warm.

With a gas-powered vehicle, you can simply take a container and get some gas. Even if that means walking to the nearest gas station. On the other side of the spectrum, electric vehicles require charging stations. If those charging stations aren’t immediately available, it’s only a matter of time before your source of heat perishes. If the battery dies (which happens much faster in cold weather), the driver has no simple way to recharge the vehicle and it then blocks the way for other vehicles to proceed. There is no easy solution, as you cannot simply drive into a 48-mile traffic jam to recharge your EV. If you could, there wouldn’t be a traffic jam!

This brings me to the meat and potatoes of this blog.

The Federal government is creating legislation mandating that auto manufacturers phase out ICE vehicles altogether, leaving US consumers the choice to purchase only EVs. What would happen if every single one of the vehicles in the 48-mile traffic jam in 19-degree temperatures was electric?

Is this something that the NHTSA should get involved in? Again, if a vehicle fails to safeguard consumers, it’s considered a candidate for a recall. In this case, there’s no malfunction, as would be the case if an ICE vehicle ran out of gas. 

Still, are we failing to heed the warning issued on I-95? What can we learn from this event? The tragedy was averted thanks to the goodwill of fellow drivers, but what happens when we're all driving EVs? There's nowhere to run. 

Should a continued push on this legislation also be accompanied by a comprehensive plan for charging stations along every highway or road? If so, who does that? The state or Federal government?

There's a crack in the EV infrastructure that could be deadly. We're all just unsuspecting travelers on a journey toward grave circumstances – a modern-day Donner Party if you will. 

Something has to change to prevent this type of cold-weather situation that includes EVs getting stuck due to a lack of charging stations. The mid-1800 conditions which seemed so avoidable have come back around to haunt us in the form of an infrastructure that is clearly not in place. We can’t pretend Virginia didn’t happen. The only question that remains is whether we intend to do something about it.

For decades, dealerships have followed a specific formula when dealing with car shoppers. Why? Because, for the most part, it worked and led to a sale. Not only did it lead to a sale but, by following the steps, typically it meant that the transaction would ultimately result in higher profit. It didn't matter what the customer "wanted" as long the result favored the dealership. The salespeople were trained to interact with customers in a specific way and, in some cases, if their manager found out that a step was missed (such as a test drive, for instance), they would call in another salesperson to take over the interaction with the customer. This took away half of any commission the original salesperson would have made.

With the rise of digital retailing and market changes due to COVID, dealerships can no longer force a customer into a rigid set of steps. Depending on the dealership, some will tailor the steps in various ways in the name of convenience to the customer, like delivering the car to the consumer for a test drive. No longer does, “Just get them in!” work.

An article in Automotive News illustrates this phenomenon perfectly and what one dealership has done to change the old rules… by treating customers as humans. Sounds logical, right? Who DOESN'T want to be treated like a human? Germain Toyota threw the “old way” out with the trash. They stopped using a rigid process and allowed salespeople to talk to customers in an organic and unscripted way. While some store traditionalists may have been skeptical, the staff decided to embrace this new conversational service-focused style. And it has paid off. Customers are happier. Employees are happier. Company culture is better. And profits have increased to the tune of $600 per car on the front-end. In the F&I department, Germain Toyota promoted two salespeople who embraced this new approach and they quickly became the dealership’s top F&I employees averaging between $2,400 and $2,800 per vehicle. Seeing this quick success, “old-school” F&I managers soon became interested in learning how to follow suit.

Consumers have become more tech-savvy, used to doing things how they want them done, and are much more comfortable with online transactions. I don’t believe that a dealership will ultimately have the option of going back to “business as usual,” simply because consumers won’t let them. There are too many alternative options that better suit how consumers prefer to buy. The consumers will decide to do business with a dealership that WILL accommodate them in the way that they wish to proceed.

Consumers aren’t dollar signs. They are human. Dealerships who recognize this (finally) and don’t restrict their salespeople from following a certain road to the sale, but rather follow the customer’s lead and let the conversation (and transaction) develop organically, may just experience the same results as Germain Toyota. Is it time to ditch the road to the sale and let customers tell you what they want? As the General Manager of Germain Toyota stated, “We just roll with them.” What do you think?

During the pandemic, we’ve seen a dramatic decrease in the number of cars on the road as working from home has become commonplace. In fact, according to several sources, working from home may be here to stay. It decreases company expenses and, some researchers say, employees are actually more productive.

However, while driving dramatically decreased in 2020, there is a rather interesting anomaly in this situation. The NHTSA recently published a report detailing statistics on how vehicle crash fatalities fared in 2020. One would think that if there were less cars on the road that crash fatalities – or any other vehicle related issues – would decrease. According to the NHTSA, that would be wrong.

According to the published findings, 38,680 people died in vehicle crashes during 2020, an increase over 2019 despite a 13.2 % decrease in mileage driven.  Even with a decrease in driving due to the pandemic, vehicle related incidents and fatalities have increased.

Safety is everything. Sometimes it’s not just one thing that contributes to a fatality or accident, but rather a multitude of things. Perhaps with COVID, consumers are driving distracted or are not taking the time to maintain their vehicles.

I sincerely hope that this trend alters course and trends downwards. As consumers work from home, their vehicles may not be as top of mind as they should be. This is the perfect time for dealers to connect with these consumers and gain that service revenue while, perhaps, gaining a customer. Eventually, things will get back to normal and more vehicles will be on the road once again. And that could increase the dangers even more.

Today's vehicles have more technology than ever before. With OEMs on a mission to make more EVs; Apple entering the retail automotive space; Tesla continuing its brand popularity; and vehicles more operated by computer than by motor, problems are sure to arise!.

Technicians are already in short supply. Dealers are doing everything that they can to recruit new techs and train them on the job while they rely on their Master Technicians to do the heavy lifting on complex repair orders. The problem is two-fold in this arena. First, Master Technicians are not necessarily trained to handle the intricacies of complex computer language. And second, for those technicians hired for entry-level positions, typically for quick service, it takes quite some time training to get to the level of a Master Technician, in addition to learning the technology side.

To speed up the process, many service departments now search for employees who have service potential along with good computer skills. When you combine an increased demand for consumer service with a lack of technicians available to complete the repair, dealerships may find themselves so backlogged in their service departments that consumers go elsewhere or forego necessary software updates and recall repairs.

New vehicle models will continue to be more reliant on computers and software. The competitiveness of manufacturers, combined with tight deadlines to accomplish environmental goals, may force some of these vehicles to be introduced to the market prematurely. At that point, issues they are not even aware of tend to arise. These issues will invariably translate into recalls. And what is even worse, it is one thing to experience glitches on your home computer or cell phone and quite another to have a vehicle perform unsafely due to faulty software or electronics.

Our industry could easily end up with many vehicles owners cannot drive at all. Or they drive them anyway, knowing they are unsafe and are putting themselves, their passengers, and other drivers at risk. It is already a challenge to get a consumer into the dealership to complete recall repairs. It will be even tougher if we compound the problem with fewer dealerships to get these recalled vehicles repaired due to a lack of shop capacity or technicians trained to handle these technologically advanced repairs.

As a result, this recall crisis is just getting started.  There’s a tsunami of software and electronics recalls that will inundate our industry over the next decade, and likely further into the future as well. While EVs and advanced technology in vehicles may present an advantage to the environment, or increase consumer comfort, we must always remember that no vehicle is perfect, and many have had some sort of recall in their lifespan. By adding software technology and electronic components made of plastic, many dealerships are not yet equipped to keep up with repairs, increasing the danger and threatening the safety of all who share the road.

As the nation attempts to further reduce emissions, many states have begun initiatives to phase our gas-powered vehicles. At the moment, multiple problems exist if someone were to snap their fingers and make every vehicle electric. On the vehicle and infrastructure side, there is a lack of charging stations and range is limited. While these are increasing (and will certainly continue to do so), many current electric vehicle owners are forced to plan their routes based on charging station locations. On the dealership side, EVs account for a small percentage of their overall inventory and an insignificant stream of revenue on the service side. Dealers need to stay in business and, to do that, have to sell and service cars. Also, many dealers are not equipped to service EVs at a decent capacity due to a lack of trained technicians.

So, some pretty significant challenges exist for both consumers and dealers.

However, according to an article on EnGadget, the Cadillac brand is pretty much forcing its dealers to invest heavily in selling and servicing electric vehicles in the near future. That GM mandate, of course, comes with a significant dealership investment (roughly $200,000) to upgrade facilities. Cadillac is so committed that it has offered buyouts to dealerships that would rather not commit to necessary upgrades. According to the Wall Street Journal, 150 Cadillac dealers have already accepted buyouts, effectively reducing the number of Cadillac dealerships by 17%. It was not that long ago that some dealerships gave up their Cadillac franchises as low volume stores were forced to ONLY sell new Cadillacs when inventory was low and hard to acquire.

Dealers are being forced to either invest in Cadillac’s vision of the brand’s future via a large investment, or bail on the brand. And can you blame them for exiting the brand? They have money on the table right now from Cadillac (anywhere from $300,000 to $1 million) to exit the brand as a dealership. But who knows how long that offer will be on the table?

According to Automotive News, GMC stated that it has no plans to offer buyouts to its non-EV dealers. One could make an argument that this is an A/B test on a large scale, with GM pushing its lower volume dealers to comply with this new mandate, while telling its higher-volume brands that there will be no buyouts. Many GM dealers are watching this scenario unfold and wondering whether the manufacturer could force their hand without compensation. And, thus far, policies like this have been limited to GM and the Cadillac brand. What, if anything, are other manufacturers considering? Perhaps they are waiting to see how this scenario plays out.

One thing we do know is that California has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035. That might seem like a long way off, but it is not. And perhaps more importantly, how does it affect consumers? Every dealer that closes its doors forces its service customers to find a new dealership for their maintenance and recall work. Those dealerships could be at locations inconvenient to the consumer, which could easily result in a decrease in safety recall and other major repairs.

We have already been fighting alongside NHTSA to increase safety recall compliance. By making it even harder for consumers to get those repairs achieved due to further inconvenience and lack of technician training, we could sadly see the progress that has been made go backward.

Recall repair completions have long been an uphill battle. Now we have to add to that equation less authorized service centers for consumers to get them done, a longer wait time, and a lack of trained technicians, as well as future recalls added. All I can anticipate is the recall completion rate going backward instead of the continued progress we have been enjoying. Only time will tell.