Toyota turns off airbag cutoff switch in Tundra

[Flybrian]

Toyota to undertake costly airbag switch fix in Tundra

David Shepardson / The Detroit News

Link to original article @ DetNews

WASHINGTON — Toyota Motor Corp. will spend millions to deactivate front-seat passenger air bag cut-off switches in nearly 160,000 Tundra pickups to avoid having to install a costlier child safety seat anchoring system.

The Japanese automaker is taking the action after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last week on June 28 rejected Toyota's petition to waive a federal safety regulation that requires most vehicles built after September 2002 and equipped with the cut-off switch to also have a child seat anchor system known as LATCH — for lower anchorages and tethers for children.

The regulation was meant to ensure that child seats stay in place in a crash, especially in vehicles with smaller rear-seating, such as pickups.

At the time the regulation was adopted, 600 children under the age of 5 were killed every year in auto crashes and another 70,000 were injured.

Children are at high risk of death or injury from airbags that deploy. That's why child seats aren't allowed in front seats that don't have an airbag cut-off switch, which activates the airbag only if it senses an adult is in the passenger seat.

Deactivating the switch means the air bag will always deploy, making it unsafe to ever put a child in the front seat.

Toyota will voluntarily recall the pickups, beginning in mid-September, after completing engineering of the parts to deactivate the air bag cut-off switch, spokesman Bill Kwong said Friday.

"We always recommend that child seats are used in the rear as children are safest there," Kwong said. Owners will get notice of the recall in September, he said.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety said Toyota shouldn't be allowed to simply deactivate the switches. Toyota's failure to provide the latches "is not merely an incidental statistical artifact but a clear and present danger to the children who ride in child restraints in the front passenger seats of those vehicles," said Henry Jasny, general counsel for the Washington-based group.

Kwong said there may have been some engineering issues that make it impractical to add the latches rather than deactivate the airbag cut-off switch.

He said the exact cost of the recall isn't known — only that the fix is expected to require two hours of labor.

At more than $100 for labor, it could cost more than $16 million if all vehicles are serviced, he said. It isn't known what the parts will cost since they are still being designed, he said.

In its ruling, NHTSA took no position on whether Toyota could comply by simply deactivating the switches.

Kwong said beginning in the 2006 model year, Toyota deactivated its front passenger air bag cut-off switch to satisfy the regulations.

In June 2005, Toyota acknowledged that 156,555 Toyota Tundras from the 2003-05 model years didn't comply with the child seat anchor safety regulation.

The automaker asked NHTSA to waive the regulation and spent more than a year trying to convince the agency it wasn't required to install child-seat anchoring systems.

Toyota lost the debate last week, when NHTSA rejected the company's final appeal.

Toyota noted that it hadn't received any customer complaints and that there were no injuries reported as a result of the lack of the anchoring system in the front seats of the trucks. Tundras have compliant child safety latches in rear seats.

"However, the fact does not render the absence of the anchorages in the front seats inconsequential," NHTSA chief Nicole Nason said in a June 28 notice published June 28.

Small children's safety "depends on proper installation of the child-restraint systems in which they ride."

NHTSA also noted that parents with vehicles built before 2002 who mistakenly believed their vehicles complied with the regulation have "used seatbelt latch plates, drilled holes through the nylon webbing of the seatbelt" in an effort to use the front seat.

You can reach David Shepardson at (202) 662-8735 or [email protected].

[Guest YellowJacket894]

More of Toyota's bull$h!.

[76ChevyTrucker]

Lets see, the rules say "INSTALL THIS SAFETY RESTRAINT SYSTEM", Toyota says "WE'LL DEACTIVATE THIS SWITCH" Hmmm, those two things don't add up.

[balthazar]

Hear that 'S-sssss' sound? That's the tiny snowball at the top of the hill, rolling slowly but surely down the mountainside, growing slowly larger and larger and larger.....

[sciguy_0504]

I think I am missing something.

I know the trucks do not have the LATCH system and there is no excuse for it, they should. However, if there is an actual airbag cutoff switch and not just a sensor in the seat that automatically turns off/on the airbag, what's the difference between permanently disabling the switch and allowing the switch to be turned off normally when a small child is in the seat (which any parent with a brain could and would do)?

Also, is this disabling the airbag or just the switch? If the switch is disabled, the airbag is still going to go off in an accident. Something does not add up.

IMO, if you have a regular cab truck and drive around a small child you're an idiot, airbag deactivation and LATCH system in place or not.

[Croc]

No, they are disabling the airbag from shutting OFF ever. So it's just 100% unsafe to put a child in the front seat.

[scotthendersonfan]

Toyota has the LATCH system on the rear seats already where you should be keeping your kids in the first place.

[capriceman]

I think my silverado had the Latch system and in the dash had a switch to either turn airbag off or on.

So yeah what they are doing doesnt make sense.

[Guest Josh]

What Toyota is doing is disabling the passenger airbag on 130k Tundras.

The recall could amount to $16 million which Toyota thought was the easiest way out considering they make more than the entire "big three combined" as our American media likes to point out.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Josh

[nyscene911]

Toyota doesn't care about the children!

[zhawk]

What Toyota is doing is disabling the passenger airbag on 130k Tundras.

165235[/snapback]

No, they are deactivating the switch.

Toyota will voluntarily recall the pickups, beginning in mid-September, after completing engineering of the parts to deactivate the air bag cut-off switch

And this means that people with a standard cab Tundra won't be able to have their small children in the truck.

They are trying to save money. I think, if people wind up knowing about this will wind up costing them even more money in sales.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I konw the importance of having your kid in the back seat, but like it was mentioned, what if you have a regular cab truck (say a work truck) and you have to run your kid to day-care in the morning or pick him/her up in the afternoon and head home from there? Might as well load the kid in the bed and lash 'em down because from what I can read, in the Turdra it will be a hell of a lot safer than in the front seat with the airbag switch disabled and the airbag able to go off no matter what.

[mustang84]

Hmm...me thinks cracks are appearing in the Toyota armor. Another cost-cutting move by Toyota, even though they could probably buy out GM and Ford together. This reminds me of Honda's refusal to install a cheap plastic divider to catch spraying oil that would help prevent fires in the vehicles of its CR-V and Element owners. The two companies that are doing among the best in the US automotive market (and making big $$) are taking the cheap route out when it comes to owner safety. How's Toyota going to sidestep the press on this one? Give it some happy name like their "service campaigns"?

[the_yellow_dart]

Could this be the basis for another "Unsafe at any speed"?

[76ChevyTrucker]

It is possible dart.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Could this be the basis for another "Unsafe at any speed"?

165341[/snapback]

[Clownzilla]

Could this be the basis for another "Unsafe at any speed"?

165341[/snapback]

It very well could. I think that this move by Toyota will haunt them for years to come.

[MyerShift]

Personally, I feel excessive safety gear and pedestrian safety is ridiculous.

1) If an accident is bad enough, someone will die regardless.

2) Companies should have some sort of legal protection to protect them from the idiocy of stupid and/or inexperienced drivers that result in the injury/death of themselves or passengers. Enough is enough.

3) If you are hit by a car, you're going to break something, be maimed, or killed regardless of any "advanced" hood design or replaced "hard" mechanicals.

[Angry Dad]

No, they are deactivating the switch.

And this means that people with a standard cab Tundra won't be able to have their small children in the truck.

They are trying to save money. I think, if people wind up knowing about this will wind up costing them even more money in sales.

165269[/snapback]

Nope, nobody will pay any attention.

Watch what Toyota does next, or should I say the next media spin that will go in their favor. They are starting to play a race card. Any lousy good for nothing that doesn't support Toyota is just a racist that hates Asians. They have already planted the seed for this ploy in several media oulets.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I caught a blurb about the recall yesterday morning, but I didn't catch the news this morning, was there any form of follow-up?

[regfootball]

toyota-'we kill your loved ones'

[funkypunnk]

Maybe the blind loyalists will finally realize that Toyota and Honda, and all of the rest of the hallowed JapCrapMobiles, only care about money at the expense of customer safety and vehicle reliability.

I find it exceptionally ironic that the best years for Japanese cars was from the late 80s to the late 90s while the best years for American cars has been from the mid 90s to the present.

[pow]

Nope, nobody will pay any attention.

Watch what Toyota does next, or should I say the next media spin that will go in their favor. They are starting to play a race card. Any lousy good for nothing that doesn't support Toyota is just a racist that hates Asians. They have already planted the seed for this ploy in several media oulets.

165512[/snapback]

No.

[sciguy_0504]

IMO, this is not as bad as the Camry or Avalon recalls. Hell, it's not even as bad as the cost cutting measures on GM trucks (liftgate cables, ABS brakes). Hell, GM refuses to recall every GM truck with the ABS problem, just the trucks purchased in "snowy" climates.

Stupid decision? Definately. Worth killing yourself over? No.

BTW, what did people do before the LATCH system was created and mandated? I know my parents did not have a problem with securing my carseat properly in the rear seat.

[sciguy_0504]

Also...

Does any other vehicle have the LATCH system on the front seats?

[LTB51]

Maybe the blind loyalists will finally realize that Toyota and Honda, and all of the rest of the hallowed JapCrapMobiles, only care about money at the expense of customer safety and vehicle reliability.

Yes, this is definately indicative of the evil that Honda will be known for.

Seriously, which of GM/Ford/Chrysler etc. 2002-era trucks have latch in the front seat? It sounds like Toyota should have just borrowed a page from their books (I assume) and not offered the switch in the first place.

It seems like the regulations are messed up. I'd like the person who darfted them to explain what exactly they were trying to accomplish.

[toyoguy]

Also...

Does any other vehicle have the LATCH system on the front seats?

165580[/snapback]

it's required w/the airbag switch. Toyota error.

Any business will strive to minimize costs. Toyota has no reason to issue a recall in order to install the LATCH system, it's a complete waste of money.

This is basically nothing beside NHTSA red tape.

[sciguy_0504]

it's required w/the airbag switch.

165839[/snapback]

Didn't know. Thanks.

[Sixty8panther]

Toyota doesn't care about the children!

165267[/snapback]

Children breathe in oxygen and expel CO2 so they're

not environmentally friendly therefore not worthy of

the typical safety precautions. [/toyota-losophy]

[Clownzilla]

it's required w/the airbag switch.  Toyota error. 

Any business will strive to minimize costs. Toyota has no reason to issue a recall in order to install the LATCH system, it's a complete waste of money.

This is basically nothing beside NHTSA red tape.

165839[/snapback]

This case is a little different because they are making their car LESS safe than it was before. Add to this that they are making their trucks less safe in an area that does in fact kill kids. Kids do get their necks broken in even minor wrecks because of air bags. Maybe it does not happn often but it does happen. This is REGARDLESS to what the NHTSA red tape is.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Clownzilla

[evok]

This case is a little different because they are making their car LESS safe than it was before. Add to this that they are making their trucks less safe in an area that does in fact kill kids. Kids do get their necks broken in even minor wrecks because of air bags. Maybe it does not happn often but it does happen.

165932[/snapback]

Less safe? Tell me exactly how.

The vehicles being recalled have second row seats that do contain the Child Seat LATCH anchors. Put the child in the rear where it is most safe and the LATCHS are already there on the effected fleet. Not only that, it appears people have been doing just that because there have been no reports of injury because of the current set up in these non-complying vehicles.

The cut off switch was intended to be used on two door pickups. In that case the front passenger seat would have the LATCH and the cutoff switch.

If an owner of a two door pickup put a child safety seat in the vehicle they had the ability to turn off the airbag to prevent the chance of injury from the air bag in a crash.

So again, what is the safety problem? You sound like you know what you are talking about!

Edited July 14, 2006 by evok

[zhawk]

My question, and I haven't seen anything about it yet, is whether their regular cab Tundras have the LATCH system in the seats?

Since there is no back seat in these trucks they would be the ones that I would have a concern. My own children never rode in the front seats of our Silverado when they were younger. My 7 year old still doesn't.

With the Tundras that do have a back seat this is more of a perception problem for Toyota. People will think that the 'fix' they are getting is a step down in safety even if they never planned on putting their child in the front seat. One of the other reservists at McChord has a Tundra and when I asked if he had heard about this he was astonished. He doesn't even have children but he thought Toyota was moving in the wrong direction with this.

[evok]

My question, and I haven't seen anything about it yet, is whether their regular cab Tundras have the LATCH system in the seats?

167079[/snapback]

Yes - and the cut off switch in pre advanced air bag vehicles.

[FAPTurbo]

Children breathe in oxygen and expel CO2 so they're

not environmentally friendly therefore not worthy of

the typical safety precautions. [/toyota-losophy]

165849[/snapback]

If that's the case, I move we petition our governments to remove SUV-like fat kids off our sidewalks... Not only do they take up space and create massive blind spots in theatres, sports venues, McDonalds lineups, but they also expel emissions that are typically higher than a person of a more reasonable weight, in both solid and gasseous forms.

Maybe we also ought to reduce their fuel consumption, because I am getting sick of going to MickeyD's and watching fat kids eat 3 Big Macs, Super Sized Fries and Super Sized Cokes along with a Happy Meal just to get the toy and touching the napkin dispenser with their greasy, sweaty hands...

[evok]

If that's the case, I move we petition our governments to remove SUV-like fat kids off our sidewalks... Not only do they take up space and create massive blind spots in theatres, sports venues, McDonalds lineups, but they also expel emissions that are typically higher than a person of a more reasonable weight, in both solid and gasseous forms.

Maybe we also ought to reduce their fuel consumption, because I am getting sick of going to MickeyD's and watching fat kids eat 3 Big Macs, Super Sized Fries and Super Sized Cokes along with a Happy Meal just to get the toy and touching the napkin dispenser with their greasy, sweaty hands...

167163[/snapback]

LOL

[thegriffon]

Don't forget, fat kids also use more gasoline when riding in cars or taking the bus to school. Imagine how much fuel would be saved if every car hada weight sensing system that stopped the vehicle from starting if the occupants were too fat: "Seat load exceeded, you need to walk to work today."

[zhawk]

Yes - and the cut off switch in pre advanced air bag vehicles.

167158[/snapback]

thanks evok for the answer.

But that means that Toyota has the system in place to install seats with the LATCH system in place if they so desired, right?

[evok]

thanks evok for the answer.

But that means that Toyota has the system in place to install seats with the LATCH system in place if they so desired, right?

167188[/snapback]

I would think so.

[FAPTurbo]

Don't forget, fat kids also use more gasoline when riding in cars or taking the bus to school. Imagine how much fuel would be saved if every car hada  weight sensing system that stopped the vehicle from starting if the occupants were too fat: "Seat load exceeded, you need to walk to work today."

167167[/snapback]

I'm sure the National Association to Advance Fat Awareness would have something to say about that...

NAAFA

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Once again, NO MAJOR MEDIA EXPOSURE...

Toyota's flaws will be ignored and the media will structure PR around them...

To much is riding on it for things NOT to fall in place. (The ousting of GM, the, LOL, "reputation" LMAO, of the media and the Toyota is god complex)

[evok]

The broken record continues - conviently he claims there was no press on this issue.

So wrong again. There are two threads on this topic on CG alone.

Sorry but you are late and have missed all the fun.

[Chris_Doane]

Once again, NO MAJOR MEDIA EXPOSURE...

Toyota's flaws will be ignored and the media will structure PR around them...

To much is riding on it for things NOT to fall in place. (The ousting of GM, the, LOL, "reputation" LMAO, of the media and the Toyota is god complex)

169169[/snapback]

Geez do I have to do this everytime you spew your bull$h!?

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/bad_recall/

Detroit News:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/607090385

Car & Driver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsid...airbag-fix.html

TCC:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Shoppers/D...241.A10653.html

That's all the time I feel like giving this today. There are wire stories from Rueters and AP out there that most publications used.

[pow]

Geez do I have to do this everytime you spew your bull$h!?

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/07/11/bad_recall/

Detroit News:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/607090385

Car & Driver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsid...airbag-fix.html

TCC:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Shoppers/D...241.A10653.html

That's all the time I feel like giving this today. There are wire stories from Rueters and AP out there that most publications used.

169176[/snapback]

There should be like an automated response every time that happens.