The way I understand it, this car was taken in by a garage for 'seat installation'. I presume this means after market seats.
The car disabled itself during installation. The OP assumed due to an anti-temper device, but it could have been any failure mode. Most modern cars with airbags will have sensors in the seats to disable some of the airbags if there is no passenger sitting there. So it is no surprise that any type of work on the seats puts this system in an error state. Especially on high-performance cars it is not unusual that the car immobilises itself when the safety systems are in error state.
A certified dealership will have the computer interface and software to reset the fault mode. For those that do not have this software, Ferrari can remote into the car and reset it for you. This requires connectivity though. This is actually quite a common thing on luxury cars.
This has nothing to do with 'smart' modes, remote hacking capability or disabling a car while in motion. The fact that the manufacturer can remote into their cars, does not automatically mean that the car is vulnerable to remote hacking. This is, in fact, a safety system that kicked in.
The solution here was probably simple: bring the car outside, and let Ferrari do it's thing. Or trailer it to a certified dealership to have it reset there.
It was even more basic than that. They were installing a child's carseat for the owner, and I believe it was an anti-theft system that was triggered.
The story reminded me a lot of the rental car that bricked itself because it lost cellular service - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/02/driver-stranded-after-c...
I thought Ferraris were show-off cars for the rich, and if you were rich enough to have one, and had a child, then you would (sensibly) own a separate, functional car when you actually intended to drive that child around (or employ some car/chauffeur service or whatever).
Edit: I googled Ferraris with back seats, and got this article which opens by acknowledging that people don't expect them to exist or for Ferraris to be kid friendly, so I think I (and the heavily downvoted GP) can be forgiven for harboring this misconception.
>>Adam Merlin, President at Merlin Auto Group, confidently answers, “Every time I speak about Ferraris being kid friendly, people think I’m nuts. And for the most part, I am. After all, even Ferraris that do have back seats often require the rear passenger to sacrifice leg room, so you can imagine peoples’ reactions when I allude to fitting car seats back there. However, after trying a plethora of Ferrari models, I can confidently say there are models you can choose from, if you have a family and still want to spoil yourself by driving a Ferrari.”
I also think there are different definitions of "kid friendly".
Using a Ferrari to take your 3-month-old toddler to a doctors appointment? That seems like a waste.
Taking your 7 year old kid on a drive in the "fun car"? If I had a Ferrari, and a kid, this would 100% be happening.
I don't have the knowledge to get into any specifics about this. The point is just that there are plenty of valid use cases for having a child seat in a Ferrari.
But second, that doesn't matter. Most places do not have laws that prohibit children in the front seat of cars, only that they use appropriate child seats. Further, child seats are typically required for _children_, not just infants. IIRC, for example, in Texas, child seats are required for any child under the age of 8, unless they are taller than 4'9". It is totally reasonable for a 7 year old to want to go for a ride in their parents "fancy" car. It's actually very responsible of this person to get a child seat properly installed in order to support that.
The three point harness is a good compromise between the uselessness of a lap belt and the incovinience of a 5 point harness. But its certainly not as good as a 5. Point harness.
3-point belts are made to be as quick and fool proof as possible so that people actually use them, and use them correctly. Importantly, they auto-retract so that they are worn in the proper position.
When you put on 5-point belts, you have to 4 times as many latches to operate, and you have to adjust all 5 belts -- and in the proper order. If you tighten the belts in the wrong order, they won't protect you properly. It is not intuitive -- I have a car with 5-points and the passengers who manage to figure out how to latch them almost universally tighten the belts wrong.
Edit to answer my own question: apparently they use spotters that radio in to them whether or not it's clear, and (at least in NASCAR) the cars don't have side mirrors but have an extra long rear view mirror.
When I was a kid on the farm, all the transmissions in the grain trucks were modified so you could only go forward. Too many accidents driving backwards with bad sight lines. Its a strange thing at first but you get used to always parking with a forward exit.
Consider for instance the $34 million verdict in Texas against Dorel, which failed to warn against placing children under the age of two in forward-facing seats. The kid Cayden was properly restrained in the back seat, but the weight of his head alone was enough to result in spinal injuries that have left him partially paralyzed for life.
We used to laugh at my kid when kid tried to reach for things on the floor and then fell on their head due to the weight of the head relative to the rest of the body -- but that's why rear-facing and five-point is important for children under 2,3 years old.
Go look at crash tests of "child car seats" that are nothing more than a box ticking exercise which uses the adult seat, versus a properly engineering seat and you'll see what you are completely wrong.
Actual accident data doesn't back you up...
But what difference does that make? Why couldn't you put a car seat in the front passenger seat of a two-seater?
But if you want to get real sad, IIRC many airbag systems are not designed with an occupant outside the parameters of a typical adult male in mind. Some modern systems are getting better about this, but if you're too short, too tall, a woman, or other-wise-outside-of-the-norm, good luck.
Equally when travelling as best I can tell all European cars have a method to do this and you can install in the front seat.
So this probably varies by country, but I am not sure which countries have what or where the USA is.
Without specifically checking I imagine that the Australian Design Rules basically wouldn't allow them to add the option even if they wanted to - if I had to guess because you're not allowed to have such a disable button (which you could argue could also be dangerous in some cases if pressed or used when it shouldn't be).
Also if you take it as exactly 5'9" then airbags aren't suitable for men either. What you need to do is examine the range it's designed for. It's not the average height that matters, it's what percent of men/women fall inside that range. There might be a significant difference in that percent, or there might not be.
According to FMVSS 208, they're tested using an unbelted 50th percentile size male dummy. That's the reason they deploy with more force and are triggered at lower impact speed had they been designed with belted occupants of varying sizes in mind.
If you unplug the cable at the bottom of a BMW seat (so it doesn't know the seat occupancy and belts) it will disable the airbag and show an airbag light.
> Buckle all children aged 12 and under in the back seat.
> - Airbags can kill young children riding in the front seat. Never place a rear-facing car seat in front of an airbag.
And, for some cars, the front seat is safer for everyone, including children, thanks to the focus on improving the safety ratings for front seat passengers (which are often advertised) . For example, my car last car had side curtain airbags only in the front.
On average, especially with older cars, I assume the CDC is probably right. Their recommendations necessarily have to be the most useful for the average/masses.
We're changing the child seat to front facing right now - our baby is 10 months old. It can be done little bit earlier but not too much.
> In 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new recommendations for car seat safety. As part of these recommendations, they removed their previous age-based recommendation that children remain rear facing in car seats until the age of 2.
> The AAP now suggests that children remain rear facing until they reach their rear-facing car seat’s weight/height limits which, for most children, will leave them rear-facing beyond the previous age recommendation.
Their 2011 rear facing recommendation is based on a retracted article and their 2016 rec is based on the same article's data except using a smaller dataset which they acknowledge is not statistically significant. The only other data cited looks at rear facing Swedish children compared to _unbelted_ Swedish children.
I went back and reread it to make sure I was remembering right. I'm dumbfounded that this was allowed not only to stand as a rec, but was increased (deepened? made stronger?) when they had even less data than they did before. I get that it feels like it should be safer, but that's not science and I would have expected a group making medical and safety recs to maintain a higher standard.
If your car can connect to the internet it's vulnerable to hacking via the internet. My car, which is incapable of connecting to the internet suffers no such potential for abuse.
In real life is that what actually happens? Sadly, no. Car companies seem to make a lot of bone-headed systems engineering design decisions (such as having a computer network path connecting infotainment to critical safety systems)
Since an over the air update is supposed to improve your 0 to 60 times, pretty much all systems must allow to be updated and thus hardly can be airgapped.
We are just lucky we live in a world where even 'hackers' don't go that low. I hope future regulation will mandate remote access airgaps. I don't think it's a big price to pay for non-entertainment / GPS software updates to require a physical connection
Unfortunately they do go that low. There have been multiple murders committed by ransomware gangs attacking European and US hospitals in recent months. Example:
The attackers knew it was a hospital network and clearly didn’t care that people would die.
Sure someone could make a dedicated secure unlock wire or something, but they don't.
Ferrari actually flew a technician in to visit this car, who then said "yep, nothing I can do here." Then they had to push it out and tow it.
The solution was not simple.
If the user cannot restore it to normal operation using tools that the average user has available, that is definitely a brick though, and I'd argue that it meets even the definition of a "hard brick".
If you flash bad firmware on a device and overwrite the bootloader used for flashing, many would consider this a bricked device since they don't know how to use an SPI flasher to restore a working firmware. For others simply having a device that isnt fixable via a factory reset is bricked because they don't know how to flash via usb.
A car that has become software locked without a way to restore it is bricked imo.
Yeah, the definition is "turn it into a brick"/paperweight, hence the name. A "brick" in unrecoverable, as the name implies.
If a DRM system triggers on a car and I can't disable it its now bricked if the dealer won't come and fix it.
Because if that, I think it’s natural that the concept gets broadened.
Besides, the car might still be bricked, as far as we know? Perhaps the onboard computer is screwed and needs a replacement?
Yeah, but in this instance I feel like the language is evolving solely because it makes for better clickbait titles. "Bricked" sure sounds scarier than "temporarily unavailable".
It's just difficult and uneconomical, so isnt offered as a service
This is about as far from bricked as you can get.
They did. Because the car did not have connectivity at the time it detected the issue, it went into full lockdown (judging by the comments, it kept trying for a while, couldn't connect, assumed the worst).
The car performed exactly the way it was programmed to perform. Tampering was detected. No connectivity was found. Lockdown. It will now have to be serviced by Ferrari, a local tech is not enough.
It is difficult to imagine a system that's just as secure but less inconvenient. If you open the door for local 'patches', then you open avenues of attack. Better to do a `rm -rf *` and blow up a firmware chip or two for good measure. Threat vectors are potentially more sophisticated for these cars, if there's a way to locally bypass the lockdown, it will be found.
The target demographic for these cars will not be inconvenienced much. As per the post, the owner went and got his Maserati.
So the takeaway for any Ferrari owners is: make sure there's connectivity if you are trying to perform any changes to the vehicle.
In your example, why not have a push-button override to allow the car to reset after seat installation?
Soft-everything. I miss my hardware switches.
- signed getting grumpy, getting old man
I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what it means. What happens when someone steals the manufacturer's authentication keys, or gets on to the manufacturer's VPN?
Being able to reset a car that was immobilised due to a failure in the safety system does not mean that you can steal it, nor does it mean that you could create a dangerous situation. Resetting the system does not mean overriding. If the problem persists, the car will automatically immobilise again are the reset.
This is a very Apple-like line of thinking. It's not a valid excuse.
I don’t see how that follows? The fact that someone can remote into your car is exactly what makes it vulnerable to remote hacking.
Except the self-same failure mode means you can't bring it outside either except via an expensive process.
More generally, I don't know how any of your points should reassure anyone. Put yourself in this driver's place and tell me how dismissive you'd be at such an event.
It's only not surprising if you already know a ton about cars, which is a terrible definition of "surprising" to use here.
> The fact that the manufacturer can remote into their cars, does not automatically mean that the car is vulnerable to remote hacking.
I mean, it pretty much does.
Uh, that should be the other way around: "The fact that the manufacturer cannot remote into their cars automatically means that the car is not vulnerable to [that form of] remote hacking."
This sounds like it invokes the "right to repair" issue though. Is this "Right to repair, but only if the car's online"?
You have the right to repair. But you do need the correct tools to do it. If you don't have those tools, Ferrari may help you remotely, but you'll need connectivity for that obviously.
I want one.
Update 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/j9ji...
Update 2: https://old.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/j9qn...
There was also a story a few years back that is kinda similar in issue. A rental car was taken into a rural area but they couldn't restart the car as there was no cellular signal for the app to re-enable the car. https://twitter.com/kari_paul/status/1229214223227478016
Edit: Oops, that's probably the tech in the bricked Ferrari, not in his company car.
This is still fixable if you knew how to access the flash chip directly and had a backup of its content.
Never have I seen bricked strictly mean that hardware has blown up.
By my reading the car has an anti-theft device that was triggered by the installation of seats. There is a remote system to override the anti-theft device, but that doesn't work because it requires mobile reception.
It's kind of funny, but this doesn't really tell you anything about the dangers of "smart cars" or anything.
The situation in here is more like "haha, ok, we just need to tow this thing out of the garage and try again" - no big deal.
No big deal when the reason you can't get a signal is that you're in a parking garage. Rather more of a life-threatening defect when the reason you can't get a signal is that you're driving through an unpopulated desert where there are no cell towers or other people.
Besides, I think there's a certain fundamental misunderstanding here - the car disabled itself because it "thought" it was being stolen. It's no different than triggering a car alarm in any car made in the last 30 years - most systems will kill the ignition until you reset the alarm.
The difference here is that Ferrari can unblock the car remotely for you - but I'm certain it's also possible in-person with some kind of key/button input or some diagnostic device.
It's no different than what 1990s volkswagens used to do, if you removed the battery the radio would be locked until you entered a special pin code, but of course the dealership wouldn't give you the pincode, you had to take it to them and pay them some money. The only difference here is that Ferrari can now do this remotely(if you have signal).
Seems like you're giving Ferrari too much credit, as the engineer they sent out wasn't able to get it working (eg in-person).
The car needed to be towed (back to Ferrari I guess).
A desert should be considered for a Toyota Landcruiser, for a Ferrari it would be a low probability cell of the matrix. Stuck in a tunnel underground? More likely to happen.
In a concrete building with people tampering the car? Even more likely.
These kind of cars can and do fail for many other reasons, basically parts reliability is not a top priority.
Being in a desert with no possible assistance is just a situation you'll want to avoid, anti-theft system or not.
And before you say that's insane... You'll find plenty of video evidence on Youtube and places like it that this happens. In fact, McLaren sent a car themselves.
And yes, the Nullarbor can be very dangerous if you break down, and there are vast swathes of it with no phone signal, because maintaining anything out there is a losing battle.
Well, by the very definition, there can't be that many people there - so unfortunately they will have to buy something else, or discuss it with their dealership before they purchase the car. When I got my current car(2020 Volvo XC60) the dealership did warn me that if I don't have signal many features in the vehicle won't be available(no idea if it would "brick" itself if I tried repairing it in the middle of a desert, but I'm not interested in finding out).
Which wouldn't happen. This is an anti-theft system. So are you saying that the anti-theft system would engage while the car is being driven for a while by the correct owner ? If that were the case, that would be an egregious defect that should be corrected.
The car is not disabling itself just because there's no signal, that would be terrible. It disabled itself because it thought it was being tampered with. The fact that not even a Ferrari tech was able to get it going is actually a major endorsement for the system.
If it can happen during a car seat installation then it can happen six hours after a car seat installation when the plug comes loose, or makes proper contact for the first time since the seat was installed, or when you hear something rattle and pull over to try to fix it.
And even if it won't shut down while the vehicle is already in motion, if it does it the first time you stop to stretch your legs, you're still stranded.
What happens if your car breaks down for run-of-the-mill mechanical reasons when you're driving through an unpopulated desert with no cell towers or people?
How likely is this failure mode, compared to mechanical failures?
E.g, it's not perfect but it is secure.
Hehe I wouldn't normally pick up on typos but this a great one - "tow" your car outside, unless maybe you're planning to kick it out there :-)
Only a little while later did it occur to me that what I did was probably illegal in at least 3 different ways.
In my defense, I did ask the gas station attendant if he thought it was her car...
Additionally, even average cars these days tend to have removable towing eyes with easily damaged plastic blanking plugs. The chance of damaging an expensive car doing this seems very high. Especially trying to drag it out of an underground car park. If I owned a towing company I'd take a hard pass on that job.
Perhaps due to poor risk analysis or value.
Statistically the Honda Civic and Toyota Camry are much more likely to be stolen; stealing an expensive vehicle is problematic in 1) Security Features 2) Conspicuous to drive 3) Conspicuous to fence 4) Insurance spends more money to find it 5) (in some cases) difficulty to drive.
> The fact it had no signal at the time of the tamper safeguard being triggered meant that remote recovery wasn't an option, even when we moved it into the open. Idk, an extra layer of theft protection I suppose.
Is replacing the seats in your car basic?
Having some kind of backup would probably be easier than breaking whatever encryption they're using, and something like this would be a "weakest link" scenario, so anything you put would probably decrease in security.
Besides that, don't really want something a technician can just bring to you, because anything like that can be stolen or sold, so you were probably gonna have to tow it anyways.
I have no clue if that's anywhere close to the actual decisions, but it's not super hard to come up with a thought process that leads to the conclusion that the possible inconvenience of being even more stuck than usual when your car is stolen in a place where you don't have cell service is better than the security reduction of having a backup anti-anti-theft mechanism
e.g you could override the security system with a signal jammer.
Edit: My point is - We shouldn't be making smart cars and TVs because there are always going to be bugs that are not forceable and can cause your device to brick. I wouldn't want a smart microwave or coffee maker.
I’ve been following the thread on Reddit and there’s an added piece you’re missing. The mechanic triggered the anti-theft device so the car went into an initial lock down, that can be disabled remotely by Ferrari. The mechanic contacts Ferrari who can’t override the anti-theft because the car is without signal. At this stage the anti-theft mechanism is also attempting to contact Ferrari, probably with location data to help recover the car, still thinking it has been stolen. But due to the fact that it can’t get a signal out, it assumes the worst and enters full lock down mode that requires some sort of fix that can only be performed by Ferrari themselves.
Reality - if they had just pulled it outside they could have had it fixed in no time.
No, the car will be disabled due to the anti-theft system. The anti theft system doesn't need connectivity to work.
It does need connectivity to be disabled remotely by Ferrari. However, that is never needed during normal operation. The owner of the Ferrari modified the car (after market seats, apparently), causing the anti-theft function to immobilize the car as a safety measure.
Also, Ferrari's are useless in the apocalypse. I mean one benefit of the apocalypse is that maybe you could drive a Ferrari. Nope, they disable themselves when the grid goes down.
The worst part is that car companies don’t understand software and digital security.
According to the reddit thread , the anti-theft tamper safeguard (no network required) was triggered. Since it was triggered when there was no network connectivity, network connectivity could not be used re-enable the car.
So, no network connectivity was used to disable or enable the car.
The remote control wasn't used here but it normally works and they tried to use it. So it does show that these cars could be hacked remotely.
> The bricking shows that all these “smart” cars with remote software control are liable to hacking
No remote control or wireless communication was used here, so this can't provide evidence that it is liable to hacking.
And since it's remote control, it can be hacked (or Ferrari themselves can be hacked).
Therefore we can conclude that the bricking shows how badly the car can be affected by remote hacking.
It doesn't matter that wireless remote communication didn't happen here. The wireless remote control system was demonstrated. And the comment is making claims about the wireless remote control system. The only way the difference would matter is if you think they're lying about the ability to send signals to the system.
But, it appears your perspective is that if remote control operation exists, so it can be hacked. This is proof that remote control operation exists, so it can be hacked. Framed in that perspective, sure I guess.
Wait, by "enabled" do you mean making the car stop working, or making the car work again?
Either way, that's wrong.
For making the car work remotely, the fact that they tried and say it would have worked if it had a cell signal is strong evidence that they can in fact do it. Why would they lie about it? It's evidence they can, not evidence they cannot.
For making the car stop working remotely, this situation doesn't give any direct evidence either way. It's not evidence they can, but it's also not evidence they cannot.
And considering how these devices are usually designed, if they can flip the car one way they can probably flip the car the other way. So it very likely can remotely make the car stop working.
> But, it appears your perspective is that if remote control operation exists, so it can be hacked.
Is that wrong? Even if the system itself is magically perfect, surely Ferrari itself can be hacked. I can't imagine someone credibly claiming otherwise. So I take it as a fact that a hacker can send commands to your car. Whether those commands can shut it down... I'll just say that if it even resembles competitor systems then it's a strong yes.
'we did it in a safe way'
They had no control over the cars behind, anything could have happened.
Their attack could have been demonstrated on a parking lot or private road.
Their information did need urgently sharing, and while I understand the common need for a bit for drama, this was utterly unsafe & for the good of everyone I hope they've pulled their heads out of their asses since making that video!
I don't know any vehicle with connectivity (other than Jeep and maybe Ford?), which does not have safety critical CAN/FlexRay buses segregated from driver facing 'infotainment' systems.
What that means is that the network bus in which your 'compromised' infotainment system is able to operate is completely separate from Engine, ABS, AEB, ESP, Airbags etc.
The solutions vary but there is usually a physical gateway that prevents a passthrough MITM attacks, so you cannot simple send a message frame from your infotainment pretending to be an AEB module requesting emergency braking to your ABS system.
No, it does not.
The way I read the article, the photo is taken at the installation facility where (presumably aftermarket) seats were being installed. The car disabled itself during installation. It was not driving. It was also not "hacked" remotely. I assume the installer also had the key at hand.
A certified dealership will have the computer interface and software to reset the anti-theft mode. For those that do not have this software, Ferrari can remote into the car and reset it for you. This requires connectivity though.
The only difference between this bricked Ferrari and a phone bricked by a bad firmware update is that the Ferrari is worth enough that it's worth while for the manufacturer to fix it.
If you want bricking, check out Samsung's work around the Note7. "prevent all U.S. Galaxy Note 7 devices from charging and will eliminate their ability to work as mobile devices" - that turns these devices into actual bricks with no future utility.
Most stuff (even stuff that looks analog like the speed gauge) now runs thru buses and OBD allows you to tap into almost every controllable aspect of the car if you know the 'right api' for the device.
won't stop someone physically breaking in and connecting something to the bus but the alarm should sound in that case.
OBD port is +12, GND, TX and RX pin if you just want to connect to 1 bus. Shouldn't be too hard MITM that if you have physical access.
2. ODB port requires physical access which means either alarm or 1... under pressure since owner may see you and call cops.
Now you can do something else on cheap asshole car manufacturers like Jeep and bluetooth/wifi hack media center then get on ODB via that because cheap idiots said its a good idea to have common bus.
But moreso to steal them in the middle of the night and have in a sea container within 24h.
Then again, if it was being done to install a MITM OBD device... it’s a lot less obvious than waking up to your car gone.
Unplug the antenna?
And someone that's going to MITM your OBD could also MITM your ignition wire on an analog car.
Answer: the market is captured, and controlled via government regulation, by corporations that do not see individual owners wrenching on their cars as advantageous.
Follow-up: how do we restore capitalism to our (nominally) free market?
As somebody who drives an ancient car, I'm keenly aware of its lack of safety features. The "american steel" argument falls flat; my car was made before the concept of crumple zones, much less airbags -- driving this boat, I'd be seriously injured or die in a head-on collison with a Yaris, where the other driver and passengers would probably walk away. Unless my gas tank explodes and engulfs us all, that is.
If everybody was driving pre-1984 vehicles, the emissions would result in horrible smog, bringing most cities on par with Beijing.
The world must bring carbon emissions down to prevent severe climate change. Maybe lax safety standards could contribute to that; but environmental regulations must not go.
Follow up: the "free" market that you propose is not actually free, but ignorant of externalities that the modern market has limited facilities to account for.
Maybe you're rebutting my parent? Because I've never heard of a regulation towards drive-by-wire, so I suspect this particular aspect of automotive design is a result of a free market.
No pinion shaft required. No pinion shaft cutout through the firewall means the body can be made with less steel.
Belt-driven pumps are moving to electric-drive for efficiency, but when you're switching from hydraulic assist to motor-assist, making the whole thing 'by-wire' and motor driven reduces complexity.
Having hit a pothole recently, I've been driving with a bit of a lean... this could be extremely easy to fix in software, and I suspect that automatic recalibration would be pretty simple to implement. As it stands, I'm waiting for nice weather on a weekend in the Fall, and I'll probably end up at the mechanic.
And economy of scale doesn't just apply to LHD/RHD, but the parts necessary to implement drive-by-wire can be shared between makes and models -- a Fiat won't need as much torque to steer as a Peterbilt, but in theory a huge amount of that system could be shared. That can significantly reduce engineering costs as well.
But with drive-by-wire, we could simulate all kinds of scenarios in software and switch between them.
Because the folks that ask this type of question are few and far between, and rarely serious. Otherwise, at least one manufacturer would have brown diesel wagons with manual transmissions. ;-)
Maybe 1 in 1000 people wrench on their own car. Manufacturers don't cater to that. They design cars to be appealing to the other 999, and they design the mechanical bits to be as cheap as possible to assemble in a factory.
But not if the fixed regulatory overhead is equal to the margin on twenty thousand cars.
"Individuals have built cars out of parts in their own garage" doesn't really prove that the costs for producing a car isn't high. They're most certainly enthusiasts, and they could have plowed tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of parts/labor into it.
On the face of it I'm with you, but then when it came down to it I'd be thinking well hang on this actually doesn't seem as safe (or at least not as thoroughly tested to determine if it is) as these other mass-produced things, and wouldn't end up buying it.
If it was easy to make something as safe as a $modern_run_of_the_mill_family_car and that looked 'normal' (i.e. curvy, I suppose, not weird slabs of barely bent sheet metal) I think there'd be loads of Kickstarter campaigns 'basic'/'maintainable'/.. cars.
It's possible and even likely that we have rules which are unnecessary or not worth the cost for small production runs, but which apply to them anyway, because companies doing small production runs don't have lobbying clout and companies doing large production runs are amortizing the cost over hundreds of thousands of cars and don't want things to be easier for smaller competitors.
The product you want already exists, though - it is commonly referred to as the 70 series Land Cruiser. :)
Or maybe this is a market opportunity, and you should set up a manufacturing line for stripped down jeep-like vehicles.
Probably won’t be road legal, though, because they’re horrifically unsafe in a collision compared to modern cars.
Fixing broken cars became a cultural thing because cars really sucked and you had to waste a fair portion of your life fixing them. Things like emission regulation brought metrics and standards to the industry and resulted in better cars. The typical lifespan of a car is 2x what is was in the 80s (200k miles or 12 years).
This kind of hyperbole is exactly why we have the president we do.
It’s not hyperbole. Clean air is something we have because of regulatory action.
The 70 Series Land Cruiser was mentioned above.