Toyota client relations

Car companies, and other manufacturers of items used by consumers, are increasingly cautious regarding opening themselves up to law suits over basically crystal clear issues that should not even be in the pervue of the law.

I'm sure you have heard about the guy who purchased an RV, turned on cruise control and left the drivers seat to go do something in the kitchen or whatever and ran off the road. He sued and WON! Stupid jury for giving him a win and for giving any kind of reward. Stupid judge for even letting the case proceed. It had no legal merit, but it was allowed to proceed and the jury thought that an award was due because it wasn't made clear that cruise control isn't auto pilot. What bothers me is that we all know that no vehicle today has an auto pilot system, nor do I expect it to happen any time in the near future. People need to be responsible for their stupid actions.

Anyway, vehicle companies are excesively careful to include pages of boilerplate warnings about the vehicle, disclosures about driver responisbilities etc. There is enough yellow pigment in the Prius manual to paint a frat boy's Focus, if that isn't proof about how paranoid they are about suits, I'm not sure what is.

The lockout of the nav system while driving is a huge annoyance and a major detraction to that system for many owners. However, Toyota is not going to change that situation for your or anyone else so long as there is an idiot out there that can potentially sue them for allowing the unit to be used while they are driving causing them to not pay attention to the road. I don't agree with it, but that is the reality of how the civil courts operate in our land right now. If you want corporate paranoia to end then you have to fix the civil court system first.

Toyota should have supervisors there to answer issues that need to be escalated. I don't agree with teh 48 hour response time or having to start from scratch if you miss the call. I suppose that is another issue that could be brought up when you get the supervisor.

I did not purchase a Prius with onboard NAV for many reasons. I felt that a better nav system could be purchased for less money from Garmin or another good GPS maker. I wanted flexibility to use the system in many different vehicles and I wanted more comprehensive maps than the Toyota system currently offers.

 

Yes I agree with everything you said 360, but unfortunately jeromep is correct. The law suit industry is never going to allow manufacturers to treat us like adults again. They are making to much money from gullible juries handing down ridiculous awards.

Does seem like Toyota could do a lot better with their customer service, or is that customer no-service.

 

The tort industry is just a reflection of our culture.
We are simply not a people willing to take responsibility for our own actions.

 

I understand everyone's frustration, but am surprised by the following:

In my wife's Acura MDX, you touch the "I agree" screen before use of the Nav, agreeing to use it safely and obey rules of the road, yada yada yada.

In my '06 Prius, I touch the "I agree" screen as well, although it is less verbose about what I'm agreeing to.

If other major manufacturers are confident enough to leave the legality's up to an electronic agreement, I wonder why Toyota is not.

 

Many have successfully sued in spite of similar such agreements.

 

Just trying to be my own "Mythbuster"!

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

 

I suspected urban legend when I read this.

 

Yes, that particular one is an urban legend...but consider this. We, here in America, take a lot of this with a grain of salt and know that a lot of it is just "hype". I would suspect people in other cultures, like Japan, think most of this stuff is absolutely true. And enough of it IS true to result in these "rules". I found the bypass in my '05....is the bypass disabled in the '06?

Not taking personal responsibility is endemic in America. What's even worse is that for EVERY action, there must be SOMEONE at fault. Sometimes Sh*t just happens.

 

I'm hitting the "I Agree" button that Toyota has gone too far with the Nav lockout.
Unfortunately, it is probably futile to fight it through Toyota and the only recourse will be aftermarket workarounds.
I just can't imagine Toyota deciding to undo something that was put in place as a safety feature, no matter how lame it may seem to car buyers.
Only if sales started to drop and that drop could be pinpointed to this issue.
Or maybe, if like automatic seatbelts, somehow it was determined that the Nav lockout was actually LESS safe than without it.
That's it! Let's start getting into accidents and filing reports blaming it on the f$%#!ing Nav lockout.

 

I think the legend sprung up from the frustration with our legal system. I mean, it's not that far fetched.

 

I've read some positive statements on the merits of having portable aftermarket NAV systems over the integrated NAV.

Maybe sales of the Prius with integrated NAV WILL drop if people find they don't like its behavior.

 

My brother is trying to decide between getting a BMW 330 or the Lexus IS350. One of the things that may sway him to the BMW is this very issue with Toyota/Lexus stranglehold on the Nav/DVD/Bluetooth features. Toyota are you listening? <_<

 

iDrive vs Touch Screen. I'll take the Toyota/Lexus NAV any day vs non-touch screen models.

 

So it is an urban legend. I think it perfectly illustrates how well Americans take responsibility for their own ignorance or actions. At least the McDonald's coffee suit and its outcome are real.

 

Toyota should cover themselves by making it the way it is.. but allowing a hacker to crack the thing.

This makes you either be smart enough to crack it yourself, or find your cracks on the internet.

Once a crack is installed, the code change is noted in the internals of the toyota system so if you crash and sue, they can plug your demolished computer into their system and present evidence of their system having been hacked and overridden... not their code, not their fault.

Then, paint the interior and exterior of the car with bright orange and yellow banners saying... hacking the system voids any and all warranties and is completely unsafe and unadvised.

This allows you to do it.. which makes you happy... and it should be enough to get them off the hook.

If you hack the tire system and put on 58 inch mudders, is that toyota's fault when you flip it? If you hack the window glass and put on jet black tint and that causes a crash, is that toyota's fault?

I'm saying that if you hack any of their systems, it's not their fault if it results in an accident... They just need to leave the door open a crack for ya..

 

I don't disagree that Toyota may have made this (stupid) decision out of fear of the tort system, but this "event" is a well-documented and debunked "urban legend".

(removed duplicate snopes.com link)

Three60Guy -- I'm with you. Let's escalate this and get someone's attention at Toyota.

 

I'm afraid the "reasonable person" test would apply here as well.
If you make a system and don't make what a "reasonable person" would consider adequate security, you very well could find yourself liable.
If you go out of your way to make a system hackable, you're almost certainly going to fail this test.

 

I've read about the McDonald's coffee suit. Sometime ago I read that.

1) The damages were reduced significantly from the millions of dollars it had been, as is the case in many multi-million dollar jury awards.

2) There had been some previous injuries at that McDonalds caused by beverages that were too hot.

I'm not saying I agree with her decision to sue. But in today's press and internet, people only hear, "Woman puts coffee between legs, it spills, she wins millions of dollars." I try to follow up on some of these cases and many times the awards get seriously reduced, but that doesn't make for good headlines.

As you can see by my profession, I hate law suits, but I think that the "crisis" issue is a bit overblown.

Getting back on topic...I read a review in Consumer Reports, I think it was the Subaru Tribeca, and they didn't like the fact you can't access the Navigation system while the car is moving. CR is a very concerned with safety, almost to a fault, and they found that feature annoying.