Tom Atkins
Dr. Brandon
ENG112-08PR
2 February
2012
Why The Check Engine Light Must Die
Opinions are
everywhere. Some opinions are based purely on how the person feels,
occasionally having basis in actual fact, but often times not. Some opinions
are based largely upon experience. Unfortunately, some opinions are held simply
because it is or isn’t popular to hold them, and worst yet, some opinions are
formed strictly from hearsay, basing the opinion completely on second-hand
information, (or the illusion thereof) or in some cases, disinformation.
Unfortunately it is a rare day when one finds an opinion based upon a feeling
which has basis in fact, but today, I believe I have found just that. Jason
Torchinsky wrote an article for the internet automotive news website Jalopnik, titled Yes, The Check Engine Light Still Needs To Die, and upon review of
the article, his opinion does have merit, and while I won’t go as far as to say
it is based upon facts, it does present some counter-counterarguments that are
fairly hard to find fault with.
Torchinsky’s
entire article centers around garnering support for the government-mandated
elimination of the Check Engine Light, (CEL) replacing it with a display of
what fault code was produced, or a brief description of the problem that would
cause a check engine light on a currently produced car, this time responding to
some detractors of his opinion or providing further clarification of points he
previously made.
The author’s
first argument is something he refers to as “The AutoZone Fallacy.” He opens
this argument by defending the fact that if one’s CEL comes on, big-box auto
parts stores such as AutoZone, Advance Auto Parts, NAPA, and others, will hook
up an OBD-II (second-generation, standardized worldwide On-Board Diagnostic system) scan tool to one’s
car, read, either reset or, more often, report what caused the CEL and offer a
recommended course of action for the motorist to take. However, Torchinsky
points out that often times, a big-box auto parts store is not nearby (read:
within walking distance) when the CEL in one’s car lights up.
Following
this, the author proposes that the CEL be eliminated in favor of a small
readout (or even temporarily repurposing an existing readout in the gauge
cluster or on the dashboard) that would either display the Diagnostic Trouble
Code (DTC) that would cause a CEL, or display a short description of the
problem, along with perhaps an assessment of severity. In the case of the
latter, he points out, such readout would provide the driver with enough
information to make a judgment call and either ignore the warning, proceed at a
reduced rate of speed, or stop as soon as it is safe and call for assistance. A
readout displaying only the DTC that could cause a CEL would still provide the
end user with the necessary information to make an informed decision, they
would merely have to search the internet for that particular code for that
particular make and model of car. Torchinsky also cites that eliminating the
CEL in favor of a readout would not, as he so eloquently phrased it, create a
car that “holds a blade to the driver’s neck until he or she gives a shit,” as
it would be just as easy to ignore as the CEL is today.
He goes on to compare the current CEL
system to the odometer, proposing that, by in large, people do not check their
odometer every day, but that nobody would accept being forced to go through a third
party, much less a retailer within the automotive industry, to check the
mileage of their car, even if the service was provided free of charge. He cites
that “OBD codes are even more important, as they can directly affect your or
your car’s safety,” and asks “why should you have to go anywhere to find out
what the issue is,” (Torchinsky).
All of these
arguments, except the last, work on logos appeals, and are, in my opinion, very
well crafted, as they address nearly every counter-argument, before it has a
chance to be brought up. The last argument relies more upon pathos appeals,
proposing parallels between two similar and very loosely related systems and
outlining the lack of acceptance that converting other systems to operate like
the CEL would cause.
After that,
Torchinsky delves into a series of smaller arguments and counterarguments,
first among which he titles “OBD-II Scanner Snobbery.” He addresses the
apparent elitism among motorists who have purchased (or been given) their own
scan tool, citing that “not owning one in no way suggests that you somehow
haven’t earned the right to be knowledgeable about the car you own,” (Torchinsky).
I have not encountered (or seen evidence of) this attitude, more due to lack of
potential for exposure to it than anything else, so I can’t speak to the
validity of this counterargument. This argument primarily uses a pathos appeal,
highlighting [and subsequently calling for the removal of] a hierarchy of which
groups of motorists can access information.
Following
the order of arguments as they were laid out in the article, the author’s next
argument is apathy, which he already partially addressed under “The AutoZone
Fallacy.” I already partially addressed this argument, but in the name of
equal-opportunity argument debunking, I will delve further into this point,
self-explanatory as it may be. Simply put, Torchinsky points out that those
motorists who want to know what is wrong with their car as soon as a problem
arises will revel at the new display, but that those motorists who chose to
ignore the CEL now will continue to ignore any system put forth to tell them
more about their car. The new system would not force an otherwise apathetic
driver to care about the problem; it would merely provide more information to
those who do care. His next argument is so closely intertwined with the apathy
argument that it can be adequately addressed in conjunction with it.
Some
opponents of the proposed changes argue that not only do people not care; they
do not want to be informed. Many of the same counterarguments above apply to
this, but Torchinsky counters with the fact that some automotive technical
jargon has made its way into popular catchphrases used in car and truck
advertisements, such as the fact that the term “Hemi” is synonymous with
Chrysler Group auto manufacturers Dodge and Chrysler, purely due to their
insistence on identifying their high performance V8 engines purely by the shape
of the combustion chambers. This, he proposes, indicates that people don’t wish
to be as blissfully ignorant of the details of their car as some people
believe.
Those two
arguments rely primarily upon logos appeals, but it could be argued that there
are pathos appeals being made as well, as both issues bring to light the perceived
feelings of the general public and the counterarguments respond in kind.
Torchinsky’s
next argument addresses the perception that systems like this perpetuate the
so-called “nanny state,” an often-derogatory term used to describe a nation
that legislates an inordinate number of systems and outlaws an equally
inordinate number of once-harmless things in the name of the safety of that
nation’s citizens. The author defends his stance, arguing that, in calling for
the refinement of the system, he was advocating for increasing the rights,
abilities, and knowledge base available to the end user, not to remove rights
or abilities from the end user. He also addresses the sub-argument that
mandating a system like this would force smaller, lower budget,
enthusiast-centric automotive brands (such as Morgan or Lotus) to pull out of
the United States market due to a lack of resources to comply with regulations.
Torchinsky counters that argument with the fact that any four (or more) wheeled
vehicle currently sold for public use, on public roads, is already equipped
with a fully functional OBD-II system and theoretically has the capability to
be minutely reprogrammed to comply with the proposed regulations.
The author’s
final counterargument is that “People won’t know what to do with the codes.” He
postulates that this concern shows a definite underestimation of both auto
makers and the customers who buy their product. Expanding upon that
postulation, he notes that the proposed system did not have to only display the
DTC; that it could display a description of the problem and either an
assessment of severity, or a recommended short-term course of action for the motorist
to take. He further counters the argument by stating that problems present
today, such as misdiagnosis of a problem, won’t be magnified by the additional
information that the proposed system would provide, and that the new system
would not give people the mistaken belief that they were capable of fixing
problems they previously lacked the confidence, skills, and equipment to
address. Torchinsky also proposes that a system like this could provide
valuable information to used car buyers, as the general health of the engine
would be monitored by the OBD-II system and that information could be made
available to the end user quite easily through this display, even when there
was not an active DTC.
In
conclusion, Jason Torchinsky has managed to create a very well written, as well
as skillfully argued, defense of his case for the elimination of the Check
Engine Light. He responded to detractors of his previous article on the topic,
addressing counterarguments made to his first article as well as addressing counterarguments
before they had been presented.
For anyone interested, here's a link to the article
For anyone interested, here's a link to the article
