Magellan

In many ways I agree with you. If all drivers checked their pressures regularly, perhaps TPMS could be an option. If all drivers always wore seats belts then air bags would not be necessary. If all drivers were properly vigilant to oncoming traffic DRL may not be necessary, and so on.

But that’s not the world we live in. For we happen to have an abundance of inattentive, inferior and careless drivers on the road every day, and they often get into accidents. And who pays? We do-- us tax payers who support the paramedics, public hospitals, disability programs, social security to family survivors, and other public entities. We even suffer increases in our auto insurance rates even though we never have an accident. And it doesn’t stop there, because then the law suits come into play. This is where Toyota gets sued and passes on their losses to us in the form of adding a factor to the price of next year’s car.

The feds really have no choice but to make the manufactures add these safety devices in an attempt to cut down on the above public outlays. Yes, it’s unfair to good drivers like you, but that’s where we are.

And paradoxally, as I stated here before, when those who disconnect or hack these devices, and instruct or encourage others to do so, not really knowing if they can handle it, they may be adding to the very problem they're trying to solve.

Gernby

iTrader: (1)

I wouldn't base my opinion of airbags on their performance in '94. That would be like deciding that seat belts were crap just because the lap belt (only) belts in the '60s were crap. I think these dual stage airbags have got to be LOTS better than the old single stage canons that would decapitate people.

Julez

If a feature isn't required on all cars, why should we be forced to use to. This includes

• Nav hacking (for which you’re a proud contributor)
• Turning off the seat belt buzzer
• Disconnecting DRL

Other companies have no such restrictions, a lot of cars do not have seat belt buzzers, as well as a lot of cars not having DRL. We can't make our car equal to the other manufacturers?

Not all states have the same tint requirements, so what is considered illegal in Colorado is legal in Nevada, nothing Illegal about that.

Some Corvette's come with a black rear taillights as an option, so even though it's on a Corvette its ok but we do it to our Lexus, we are going to kill someone?

Again, some stock cars that are currently on the road have no TPMS.

Technique

It's Toyota/Lexus imposing their will upon us... There are those who choose to accept it, and drive a crippled car... And then there are those of us who choose to fight it, and figure out ways to bypass so we can enjoy what we paid for...

I for one, choose to resist their attempts to impose their wills and beliefs upon me, and disable everything I can that I don't want... I want to fully enjoy my vehicle, and I now have it exactly the way I want, with no annoying safety lockouts that I don't need! And the car is 1000X better that way!!!

TLe2006

dwade, can you remove TMPS warning lights?

Magellan

If a device is not a legal requirement then you shouldn’t be forced to use it. Be my guest; disconnect or hack them. You’re also free to buy a car that does not have the devices you dislike.

But if it’s mandated by law in your State then, as a responsible citizen, you should comply. But it’s my sense that anyone would be a fool to do so for certain devices. Certainly turning off the seat belt buzzer because you do not use seat belts while driving or installing 5% tint on your windshield is, to put it crudely, stupid.

And as I stated in a previous post, many of these things we do to our cars affect others in terms of us taxpayers footing the bill for accidents and their aftermaths.

Technique

Has someone on this forum really installed 5% tint on their windshield?

Magellan

No, not to my knowledge, but there was a post where one person advocated it. I referenced it in a previous thread. Of course, it's my view that 5% on side and rear windows also compromises safety.

homer4598

I'll give you the 5% tint (or any tint) on the windshield argument. But the seat belt buzzer? Really?! The light stays on to alert me that a belt is unfastened. The other cars that I've owned didn't have a constant buzzer going off; it went off briefly, then the noise stopped. Oh, and I do in fact use a seat belt, but I don't want to hear the buzzer when I'm pulling the car in/out of the garage or something.

My point is if all of those things that you mentioned are such big safety options, then ALL cars that DO NOT have those features should be outlawed. Right? Because it's unsafe to drive a vehicle without them. Until that happens, then it really doesn't matter if I defeat the annoyances that are imposed upon me by Toyota.

Magellan

IMO Toyota keeps the buzzer going off constantly because they don’t want you to drive at all without a seat belt. The annoyance is on purpose. I agree it’s a bit overbearing and smacks of big-brotherism, but that’s where we are.

As far as outlawing vehicles that do not have these Lexus safety features, perhaps in a few years the feds in fact will actually do that. As long as we’re killing ourselves on the national highways at the current rate don’t expect the NHTSA to stay idle. In the meantime, you have to decide for yourself if the current devices are helpful to your desire to drive safely.

homer4598

If the federal government truly wants to do something to reduce the number of fatalities on the highways then they should create and enforce tougher standards for obtaining drivers licenses (and force EVERYONE to go back and qualify under the new standard). Make people actually learn to drive instead of requiring (or in the this case, scaring) auto manufacturers to add "safety features" that protect the stupid.

Magellan

Perhaps a good idea, but not very workable. First of all, issuing drivers’ licenses is a State function, and I, for one, do not want to create any more federal bureaucracies than necessary.

But the real dilemma here is that you will have many people pass a tougher standard but still kill themselves on the highway anyway. I’m thinking mostly of young drivers, typically teens, who have the skill but lack the proper attitude as they drag race down public streets. You can’t really create a test for that. And then you’ll have the older drivers who can pass any test you throw at them and then go out and drive drunk. How do you stop that?

And frankly, and I may hold a minority opinion here on CL, those who are quick to trash current safety devices also need to improve their attitude regarding safe driving.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

The buzzer goes off because unbelted drivers are far more likely to be killed by airbags than belted drivers. They don't want to be sued for your death. Even if they win, they have to waste all that money defending themselves. It amazes me how frequently car manufacturers are sued for failing to engineer one leg of the safety triangle sufficiently safe to negate any ill effects of the other two legs (driver behaviour and road conditions are the other two legs).

duckduck

I've always wondered, if safety was such a big concern, why doesn't the federal law impose a 25 mph speed limit on all vehicles? Well, maybe not that extreme, but if highway speed limit is at 65mph (higher or lower depending on where you live), then why isn't our speed limited to to like 70mph? I can just see Toyota seriously thinking about this ultimate "safety" feature. Can't use nav while driving, can't have a car without tpms, constant ringing of the chimes when you're not wearing a seatbelt...and not being able to drive over 70mph.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Some trucking companies do. Schneider's big orange trucks were infamous in the 80's and 90's for having 55 mph governors on their trucks.

I have often wondered the same thing. Of course they do have a top speed limiter on the car, it's just not so low that no one will buy the car.