Screen lock out while driving

Toyota's lawyers don't give a damn about customers and the engineers aren't strong enough to override the lawyers.

So, we get screwed for $2,500.

 

This statement should be made into a mantra for a NEW Religion!!!
Oh..... let's call it "The First Church of the Properly Operating Prius"
Repeat it 3 times and whack yourself on the Back with a Dipstick!!

But it is a Very VALID POINT!!!!!

I blame the damn Product Liability Lawyers

 

Liability is the bottom line....not customer appreciation/satisfaction.

Lawyers and Lawsuits....are at a all time high. Simply amazing...

Makes me easily recall the lawsuit for: HOT Coffee spilled causing burns..
Hot coffee is "HOT" isn't it????

 

I also have a 2005 Prius that has a work around to defeat the lockout. We just picked up our 2010 and would like to know if there is a work around to defeat the screen lockout?

 

2010,

I, too, find this to be frustrating. I'm just glad that the disclaimer screen will actually clear itself after a few beats.

With respect to the lockout override, there have been a few threads about this. The search function seems to be very good with this forum's software. I've also noticed that as soon as I start typing in a heading when beginning a new thread, the software automatically searches for any possible thread matches.

Having said that, I found a few threads about the screen lockout. There seems to be a potential with the SatNav's dead reckoning:

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...de-speed-sensor-bypass.html?highlight=LOCKOUT

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...ty-navi-hack-installed.html?highlight=LOCKOUT

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...while-moving-nav-phone.html?highlight=LOCKOUT

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...-display-while-driving.html?highlight=LOCKOUT

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...317-2010-hack-question.html?highlight=LOCKOUT

 

People are behind those lawyers too. The world would be a much better place without the lawyers who sue for peoples' basic stupidity and the courts that allow them to pick the pockets of companies to the point that companies make decision based on liability.

Stupid people should just buck up and say "duh, that was stupid and my fault" and stay away from these lawyers!

 

My audio screens work while the car is moving. Am I missing something with the Bass comment?

They are being sued and hounded by the government over floor mats. I can't imagine the troubles they'd have in the US if they allowed full access to the screen while driving.

As for the passenger using the system, how could they control that to lock out the driver? Have you push an agreement screen than you won't use it while driving? I agree though in the US there needs to be a legal way not to sue the manufacturer over peoples stupidity, but until there is I don't expect things to change

 

If there was a back door access (hidden menu) allowing to do it, Toyota would likely not be liable if the owner was taking steps to override the factory lock as it is an "illegal" hack. Everybody would be happy!

 

MY copy of the DVD nav worked until I tried to select a POI. It found the POI, bur couldn't calculate the destination. Bummer! So, there's no reason for me, at this point, to even try to dig around the software.

 

I had a 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee Hemi, that i traded in for my Prius, it had the lockout features for the NAV too, but I was able to buy a DVD on Ebay that had 2009 maps and it also disabled the in motion lockout. I wonder if someone knows if they sell such a thing for the '10 Prius?

 

and its not just toyota.. the aftermarket systems have lockout too. I just installed a Pioneer system and did the bypass I found on the internet.. don't have the toyota nav, so didn't check for one.



maybe there is a lockpic for the 2010
http://www.coastaletech.com/LOCKPICK_MAIN.htm

Sam

 

The nav lockout isn't a Toyota thing--it's an industry thing. All we as owners can do is complain. IMO the customer satisfaction survey is a good place to start. Besides the lockout it also doesn't display the posted speed limit. For what the manufacturers charge the unit should AT LEAST be as capable as a $200 stand alone unit.

Let's all remember that only "the other guy" files the "frivilous lawsuit". Now if only Firestone had won that first product liability lawsuit when their tire blew on a Model T.

 

and it ain't gonna change.. with the texting while driving being outlawed, they are not gonna let up on the fiddling with nav while driving, or the video playing up front either..

Sam

 

It's an urban legend that the MacDonald's hot coffee case was an example of a frivolous lawsuit. Their coffee was excessively hot beyond reason. The 81 year old woman in question was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, she lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

 

I don't think anyone questions the seriousness of the lady's injuries. What is questioned is culpability. All hot coffee will cause serious burns if poured over your body. The cup even had a warning label. Claims that the coffee was too hot have subsequently been disproved. Any coffee hot enough to brew properly will cause those sorts of burns.

As a similar example, if I buy a table saw, take it home, and saw off my hand by not using it properly, the injury is very real, very grave, but still my fault. That's the real issue in this case. The jury set responsibility at 80/20, but many other similar cases have subsequently been tossed.

Tom

 

Nope, they showed that MacDonald's coffee was about 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants in the area. MacDonald's showed a callous disregard for the safety of its customers.

 

Which has resulted in those people who LIKE their coffee hotter than those other restaurants make it are stuck with having coffee that is no hotter than a careless person might injure themselves with.

You can spin this any way you want, but all I know is that my wife used to LOVE the coffee that McDonalds used to serve, and now thinks it is tepid crud. Thanks for protecting us from ourselves, trial lawyers.

Isn't it rather routine to emphasize the serious injuries when the actual liability is tenuous? Seems so.

 

This is true, but evidence presented in subsequent trials clearly showed that the 20 degree difference was not significant with regard to the amount of injury. Even at 20 degrees cooler, spilled coffee would produce the same type and amount of injury. To avoid this sort of injury from similar spilling conditions, one needs to serve coffee at a much lower temperature than that needed for good flavor. In other words, to make coffee safe, you need to serve it so tepid that coffee drinkers won't buy it. Other similar lawsuits were dismissed.

Tom