Toyota's totally bizarre recall

[jbartley]

Toyota's totally bizarre recall

this is similar to some already posted topics, but the quotes in here were priceless....

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

example:

(1) "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. "

WHY is toyota still having the "switch" mechanism, just put in an sensor like GM does? Can they be that stupid?

(2) "Toyota has no other choice, Chris Tinto, Toyota's vice president for regulatory affairs, told CNNMoney.com. Placing the LATCH system in the trucks' front seats would have been far too expensive."

IS THERE a price on customer safety? If so, Toyota must think it's pretty cheap!

(3) "What's more, to comply with the rule, Toyota is currently building new Tundra trucks without the switches, Tinto said."

hilarious!

Edited July 12, 2006 by jbartley

[Igor2]

Finally CNN (or some other major paper) NOTICED .... I m so happy .. toyota and Bizarre in the same sentence.. but they could have gne further to criticize toyota in the published text it leaves the reader free to turn this around on NHTSA ...

oh well.. babysteps.

Igor

[Cremazie]

Yeah, bizarre indeed. Toyota is going to follow into GM's footsteps of old if they don't watch themselves. They should get that latch system installed if it is the regulation.

Toyota should just pull a Britney and tell parents to carry their infants in their laps while driving.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Cremazie

[evok]

Ah - my new GM vehicle only has the LATCH in the rear and not up front and the vehicle is not equipped with advanced air bags. How is that any different than these Toyota pickups once the cutoff switch is removed?

Toyota should be faulted for not following the rules but not for lack of concern for safety on this issue.

[Mr.Krinkle]

toyota probably thought they had enough juice to get the laws changed.

[thegriffon]

Call this a result of well-intentioned rule-making. LATCH connections should only be in the rear, but for vehicles without a rear seat they are not only allowed but mandated if you have a cut-off switch. If Toyota's PR was doing their job they would argue that child-seats should not be installed in the front seat, and that out of concern for safety they are removing the cut-off rather than installing LATCH connections which would allow people to do so anyway.

Edited July 15, 2006 by thegriffon

[samuel]

I think you are all missing the point. The article seems to me to be sympathetic to Toyota but critical of NHTSA.

[evok]

I think you are all missing the point. The article seems to me to be sympathetic to Toyota but critical of NHTSA.

167880[/snapback]

Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer does not know what he is talking about. He probably used to report on the Feminine Hygiene industry before being demoted to automotive.

He did zero follow up research.

Edited July 17, 2006 by evok

[Ravenfreak13]

Haha my artical is coming true!!! slowly....but true