If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/...all/index.html Toyota's totally bizarre recall Why would Toyota issue a recall designed to make vehicles less safe? <...> The recall, announced Monday, is meant to make Tundras comply with a set of safety regulations. The rules say that vehicles built after 2002 must have a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH in the front seat if they also have a front-seat airbag shut-off switch. The Tundras in question were built with an airbag shut-off switch but not the LATCH system. The solution? Spend lots of money and inconvenience customers...to remove the airbag shut-off switch. The move not only doesn't enhance the safety of these vehicles, it actually makes the vehicles unsafe for small children riding in the front seat. Those shut-off switches exist because airbags can injure and even kill small children even in otherwise minor crashes. Meanwhile, even without a LATCH system (which stands for lower anchorages and tethers for children), parents can still install safety seats using seatbelts. Toyota originally discovered the compliance issue and, in a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in July 2005, the company asked regulators to let them to ignore it as "inconsequential to safety." NHTSA denied that petition. So Toyota asked NHTSA to reconsider, arguing that the solution would be worse than the problem. <...> In its final decision. published on June 28, 2006, NHTSA pointed out that the method a manufacturer might choose to remedy a compliance issue is not a determining factor when deciding that it must be fixed, so Toyota's warning made no difference. <...> ---------------------------------------------------- Yet another example of federal buracrat logic to protect people from themselves. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
"Brent P" > wrote in message news > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/...all/index.html > > Toyota's totally bizarre recall > Why would Toyota issue a recall designed to make vehicles less safe? > > <...> What's next? I suppose the NHTSA will force a recall to remove seatbelts on vehicles with airbags as the airbags are designed to protect UNbelted vehicle occupants? This was a Toyota screw-up to begin with. Latch systems are simple and cheap to implement, if done so in the design phase. But when Toyota found the screw-up, the NHTSA made it MUCH worse. -Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
Mike T. wrote: > "Brent P" > wrote in message > news > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/...all/index.html > > > > Toyota's totally bizarre recall > > Why would Toyota issue a recall designed to make vehicles less safe? > > > > <...> > > What's next? I suppose the NHTSA will force a recall to remove seatbelts on > vehicles with airbags as the airbags are designed to protect UNbelted > vehicle occupants? > > This was a Toyota screw-up to begin with. Latch systems are simple and > cheap to implement, if done so in the design phase. But when Toyota found > the screw-up, the NHTSA made it MUCH worse. -Dave TOYOTA stands for "Throw Out Your Old Trash Again." Proven by this recall. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
> Mike T. said in rec.autos.driving:
> This was a Toyota screw-up to begin with. Latch systems are simple and > cheap to implement, if done so in the design phase. But when Toyota found > the screw-up, the NHTSA made it MUCH worse. Yep. That's our tax dollar at work for you. These trucks are perfectly fine, yet the all powerful nanny-government run by Laura Bush murdered her boyriend types has to force and unnecessary repair that, IMO, will make the truck more dangerous, not less. -- "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." --George Carlin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
>>
>> What's next? I suppose the NHTSA will force a recall to remove seatbelts >> on vehicles with airbags as the airbags are designed to protect UNbelted >> vehicle occupants? >> >> This was a Toyota screw-up to begin with. Latch systems are simple and >> cheap to implement, if done so in the design phase. But when Toyota >> found the screw-up, the NHTSA made it MUCH worse. -Dave > > Yup. They should just have kept quiet. > >> >> > Ulf I don't know about that. Seems to me that Toyota is doing everything right. OK, so they goofed in the design phase (forgot the LATCH). But they fessed up, and were trying hard to work with the NHTSA to make it right. In contrast, they could have just tried to push it under the rug, but then the NHTSA would have found out eventually. Imagine all Toyota trucks being crushed because they have no LATCH on them. -Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/...all/index.html > > Toyota's totally bizarre recall > Why would Toyota issue a recall designed to make vehicles less safe? The article spells out in terms almost impossibe to confuse why the recall was issued. Short answer: They had to. > <...> > > The recall, announced Monday, is meant to make Tundras comply with a set > of safety regulations. The rules say that vehicles built after 2002 must > have a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH in the front seat if they > also have a front-seat airbag shut-off switch. > > The Tundras in question were built with an airbag shut-off switch but not > the LATCH system. > > Those shut-off switches exist because airbags can injure and even kill > small children even in otherwise minor crashes. So who cares? So don't put small children in the front seat... or don't submit your vehicle to recall. > Yet another example of federal buracrat logic to protect people from > themselves. No, but I understand you might find it a foreign concept that everybody play by the same rules. That's kinda the way federal regulations work; it may be a stupid regulation, but the stupidity applies to all. But this is a non-issue. The Feds ain't gonna force owners to submit their vehicle to be altered. All Toyota has to do is send out 160,000 notices... just as any other manufacturer would have to do. End of story. ----- - gpsman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
Mike T. wrote:
> I don't know about that. Seems to me that Toyota is doing everything right. > OK, so they goofed in the design phase (forgot the LATCH). But they fessed > up, and were trying hard to work with the NHTSA to make it right. In > contrast, they could have just tried to push it under the rug, but then the > NHTSA would have found out eventually. Imagine all Toyota trucks being > crushed because they have no LATCH on them. Toyota has done stuff like this before. A year ago, they tried to file a petition for inconsequential noncompliance because the DRLs were mounted too high on one of their SUV models. Fortunately, the NHTSA rejected their petition, so they ended up disabling the DRLs. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message ... > Mike T. wrote: > >> I don't know about that. Seems to me that Toyota is doing everything >> right. OK, so they goofed in the design phase (forgot the LATCH). But >> they fessed up, and were trying hard to work with the NHTSA to make it >> right. In contrast, they could have just tried to push it under the rug, >> but then the NHTSA would have found out eventually. Imagine all Toyota >> trucks being crushed because they have no LATCH on them. > > Toyota has done stuff like this before. A year ago, they tried to file a > petition for inconsequential noncompliance because the DRLs were mounted > too high on one of their SUV models. Fortunately, the NHTSA rejected > their petition, so they ended up disabling the DRLs. Ummmm, you think that's a GOOD thing, I take it? Damn, the way I read it, that's yet another example of how the NHTSA is spending our money to degrade safety. If DRLs are so good, why do we want them disabled? -Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:
> Ummmm, you think that's a GOOD thing, I take it? Damn, the way I read it, > that's yet another example of how the NHTSA is spending our money to degrade > safety. If DRLs are so good, why do we want them disabled? -Dave DRLs are not good. The drawbacks outweigh any benefit and once one gets into the real data there is nothing to show any benefit what so ever. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The NHTSA strikes again!
In article >, Brent P wrote:
> In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote: > >> Ummmm, you think that's a GOOD thing, I take it? Damn, the way I read it, >> that's yet another example of how the NHTSA is spending our money to degrade >> safety. If DRLs are so good, why do we want them disabled? -Dave > > DRLs are not good. The drawbacks outweigh any benefit and once one gets > into the real data there is nothing to show any benefit what so ever. Outside of nations that have significant portions of the their population so far north as to have limited or no daylight 6 months out of the year... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Squeaking brake disk shield strikes again (second generation LH cars) | Greg Houston | Chrysler | 0 | July 1st 06 05:42 PM |
THE EVIL OILY BUSINESS STRIKES AGAIN | J. S. Smith | Driving | 0 | May 16th 06 01:02 AM |
3 strikes your............OUT | TimY | Simulators | 13 | September 8th 05 02:40 AM |
NHTSA scumbag after high powered cars | RichA | Ford Mustang | 1 | July 16th 05 06:27 AM |
Consumer Reports Strikes again, Dodge GC | Tao | Chrysler | 20 | April 9th 05 12:34 AM |