Toyota, that bastion of forward thinking

JST · 07-11-2006, 10:31 AM

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607100330/1148

Puzzle through this story with me.

Toyota builds pickup trucks that have an airbag deactivation switch in the front seat, but that do not have LATCH mounts for car seats in the front seat.

This apparently violates a NHTSA rule.

Toyota seeks waiver of that rule, all the while building trucks that clearly do not comply. That waiver is denied.

Toyota now plans to recall the trucks, not to install LATCH mounts, but to DEACTIVATE the airbag deactivation switch, so that the airbag will always deploy in the front seat. It is not clear whether this will make the trucks compliant with the NHTSA rule, but it is clear it will take 2 hours in labor for each truck and cost the company $16 million.

What?

Toyota's position is that it is safer to put kids in the back seat anyway (which apparently does have a LATCH system, at least on the trucks in question), so (and I am paraphrasing here) why not make the front seat much more dangerous to avoid tempting parents to put the kids in front in the first place?

Hm, you say, now thoroughly confused. Maybe that does make sense. After all, Toyota can do no wrong. But if that's the right position, why did Toyota feel the need to put a switch in the front seat in the first place?

Perhaps this is a good thing, since (like the Prius recall) it is another opportunity for Toyota to have a positive interface with its customers.

John V · 07-11-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JST

Toyota now plans to recall the trucks, not to install LATCH mounts, but to DEACTIVATE the airbag deactivation switch, so that the airbag will always deploy in the front seat. It is not clear whether this will make the trucks compliant with the NHTSA rule, but it is clear it will take 2 hours in labor for each truck and cost the company $16 million.

It sounds like an asinine regulation. If parents are going to risk the lives of their own children by not securing them properly in a seat that has the LATCH system (i.e., the rear seats) then let them.

It sounds like installing a compliant LATCH system in the front passenger's seat was not an option. As in, it would require a significant redesign of the seat.

Clearly Toyota dropped the ball so it's their issue to deal with, but the regulation sounds stupid to me.

ff · 07-11-2006, 11:06 AM

Does any carmaker install latch anchors in the front seat (airbag cut-off, or not)? I can't think of any vehicles with a cutoff switch in the front seat that meets that NHTSA requirement.

bren · 07-11-2006, 11:09 AM

Sounds to me like NHTSA and who whoever it is that enforces this asinine "rule" are to blame for this one....

iateyourcheese · 07-11-2006, 11:25 AM

Not having any kids, I have a question.

You deactivate the airbag when small children are present, right? Are there any ages where the kids will not be in a child seat, but still be better off without the airbag?

Isn't it also advisable for very small people to forego the airbag?

lemming · 07-12-2006, 09:23 PM

increasingly growing disgruntled with Toyota.

grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

ff · 07-12-2006, 10:02 PM

Better be digruntled with all the automakers then, because they're all guilty of the same, exact thing.

Would the better solution have been to retrofit LATCH anchors into the passenger seat, encouraging people to install baby seats up front?

lemming · 07-12-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff

Better be digruntled with all the automakers then, because they're all guilty of the same, exact thing.

Would the better solution have been to retrofit LATCH anchors into the passenger seat, encouraging people to install baby seats up front?

it's that GM would get a lot more flak for showing this sort of calculated callousness.

and it continues the theme that although it's much more devious, stupid liberals are still blinded by the shine of pukey hybrids and don't see the more obvious and egregious things that toyota does.

iateyourcheese · 07-12-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

it's that GM would get a lot more flak for showing this sort of calculated callousness.

and it continues the theme that although it's much more devious, stupid liberals are still blinded by the shine of pukey hybrids and don't see the more obvious and egregious things that toyota does.

How did this turn into a Poly Sci thread?

lemming · 07-12-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iateyourcheese

How did this turn into a Poly Sci thread?

i was just making a point about how much easier it is to impugn GM for such 'retrofitting' to pinch pennies than it is to apply that same blade to Toyota.

07-11-2006, 10:31 AM	#1
JST 195 Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 24,609	Toyota, that bastion of forward thinking http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607100330/1148 Puzzle through this story with me. Toyota builds pickup trucks that have an airbag deactivation switch in the front seat, but that do not have LATCH mounts for car seats in the front seat. This apparently violates a NHTSA rule. Toyota seeks waiver of that rule, all the while building trucks that clearly do not comply. That waiver is denied. Toyota now plans to recall the trucks, not to install LATCH mounts, but to DEACTIVATE the airbag deactivation switch, so that the airbag will always deploy in the front seat. It is not clear whether this will make the trucks compliant with the NHTSA rule, but it is clear it will take 2 hours in labor for each truck and cost the company $16 million. What? Toyota's position is that it is safer to put kids in the back seat anyway (which apparently does have a LATCH system, at least on the trucks in question), so (and I am paraphrasing here) why not make the front seat much more dangerous to avoid tempting parents to put the kids in front in the first place? Hm, you say, now thoroughly confused. Maybe that does make sense. After all, Toyota can do no wrong. But if that's the right position, why did Toyota feel the need to put a switch in the front seat in the first place? Perhaps this is a good thing, since (like the Prius recall) it is another opportunity for Toyota to have a positive interface with its customers.

07-12-2006, 09:23 PM	#6
lemming Western Anomaly Join Date: Oct 2003 Carmudgeonly Ride: White Orca Posts: 16,608	increasingly growing disgruntled with Toyota. grrrrrrrrrrrrr. __________________

07-11-2006, 11:06 AM	#3
ff . Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 13,514	Does any carmaker install latch anchors in the front seat (airbag cut-off, or not)? I can't think of any vehicles with a cutoff switch in the front seat that meets that NHTSA requirement.

07-11-2006, 11:09 AM	#4
bren lawn boy Join Date: Oct 2003 Carmudgeonly Ride: e46m3, f25x3,C5 Z06, C4 Vette, 06 CTD Ram, and a trailer Location: Maryland Posts: 14,029	Sounds to me like NHTSA and who whoever it is that enforces this asinine "rule" are to blame for this one....

07-11-2006, 11:25 AM	#5
iateyourcheese Nerd Join Date: Jan 2006 Carmudgeonly Ride: '87 M3, Subie FXT, Mazda CX-9 Location: Missouri loves company Posts: 884	Not having any kids, I have a question. You deactivate the airbag when small children are present, right? Are there any ages where the kids will not be in a child seat, but still be better off without the airbag? Isn't it also advisable for very small people to forego the airbag?

07-12-2006, 10:02 PM	#7
ff . Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 13,514	Better be digruntled with all the automakers then, because they're all guilty of the same, exact thing. Would the better solution have been to retrofit LATCH anchors into the passenger seat, encouraging people to install baby seats up front?