Driving the Prius without the Smart Key?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(John in LB @ Jun 12 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]460194[/snapback]</div>

I can see that, but it's not the same issue. The computer would not, for example, have any indication of a door being opened or a sensor telling it the fob had moved from inside to outside in that particular case. It IS possible for the system to tell the difference between a battery failing in the fob and a fob removed from the car, and deal with the two circumstances differently. Though personally I would not think it worth engineering a solution for it since I would prefer to have the onus placed on the driver to be in control of the vehicle and their own actions than become reliant on a car to do their thinking for them.

 

If Toyota wants to keep it simple (and not pander to the myriad of human foibles), the behavior should be: You can't get out of PARK if the fob is not in the car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 12 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]460172[/snapback]</div>

As Galaxee suggested earlier, it would obivously not be practical or safe to 'immobilize' a car because the key is undetected.

Similarly, to issue a beep of some sort whenever communication is lost would likely be more of an irritation than anything, as the SKS signal is not terribly strong and is prone to interference from other devices (cell phones, PDA's, signal broadcasts, etc...). Would you like to be driving down the road and suddenly your car starts beeping at you for seemingly no reason - because it crossed a signal with something else? IMHO, explaining THAT to customers would be much more of a headache (and PR nightmare) for Toyota, than dealing the occasional person who forgets their key!

If this is such an issue, the solution is simple - insert the fob in the slot, like a regular key. You can't remove it until the car is shut off.

Of course, I find it tremendously ironic that for the number of threads about "how do I disable the reverse beep and/or seatbelt beep?", I guess this is the balance; people who want MORE idiot lights/reminders.

Just my $0.02.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 12 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]460180[/snapback]</div>

I'd argue that unbuckling one's seatbelt is more likely a deliberate action done on purpose, therefore should require less "warning" since the system can assume that the user may have a reason for doing so (e.g. to reach for their wallet, to reach out to the ATM machine, etc. etc. etc.)

On the other hand, driving off without a key is more often than not a result of forgetfulness, therefore it would be more reasonable to raise the level of alert - at least to the same level as the unbuckled seatbelt situation, if not more.

Good designs don't have to focus on preventing users from doing silly things or limiting their freedom. But good designs should implement warnings that are appropriate for the situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 12 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]460219[/snapback]</div>

Exactly.

I just feel that there isn't adequate enough warning. From the posts here, it seems that people experience different things when someone gets out with the key while the engine is still running. Some people are reporting a loud beep. I only heard three soft beeps from the outside of the car. I would have missed them completely if I had just walked away. My bf, in the drivers seat, insisted he only heard one beep.

If you don't fasten your seatbelt, it nags at you quite loudly and insistently -- it's hard to ignore. I'm not sure whether it should prevent you from driving without the fob (obviously, I wouldn't want it to actually stop the car if you are already driving, although I can't quite see a situation someone would get out of the car with the key while you are still moving), but at least it should warn you as loudly as when you don't buckle your seatbelt.

I can foresee a tricky situation with valet parking. What if you forget to give the valet the key and he assumes it's "in the ignition" like other cars? He could drive off and park the car somewhere before realizing he doesn't have a key to lock it or restart it. What if it's parked in one of the spaces where it has to be moved to let someone else out?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 12 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]460219[/snapback]</div>

My point is that I believe the designers of this system implemented what they saw as the most appropriate level(s) of warning and functionality appropriate and engineered the result accordingly. That it doesn't meet with approval in every detail for every owner is not surprising, but whilst there are perfectly valid propositions as to how certain features might be improved, they can hardly engineer solutions that meet the needs, expectations and wishes of all.

In my case, for example, I would be greatly infuriated if my car beeped constantly if the fob was removed while the vehicle was running. That would prevent me from doing something quite intentional, safe and reasonable without suffering a great clamor of noise I don't want. Driving off with a seat belt undone, on the other hand, is not only unlawful (in my state certainly and much of the rest of the world) but is also inherently unsafe. I would expect there to be a nagging warning for that, in line with the severity of the circumstance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 12 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]460263[/snapback]</div>

Under what circumstances would you intentionally need to drive without the fob?

 

That's why instead of those stupid beeps there should be a constant sound AND a message on the MFD like there is when you open the driver's door with the car on and not in P. But it's not a perfect car...

I never pay attention to beeps. The four beeps at the start w/o a seatbelt are getting on my nerves. Again I would much prefer a message at the MFD than an annoying beep. I doubt anyone will not look at the MFD while driving the PriusII

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 12 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]460263[/snapback]</div>

Each morning when I come to the parking garage at work, I take my badge out of the little compartment under the radio, roll down the window and unbuckle my seatbelt as a slowly drive up to the badge reader. As I reach the reader I must stretch outward and upward far enough so that the badge could be read. Once the gate opens, I enter the garage and slowly drive to my favorite parking spot away from everybody.

Before I figured out how to disable the seatbelt beeps, I had to put my seatbelt back on to keep myself from going insane during this daily routine. Now, thanks to tips I've learned here, I don't have to be so distracted by those annoying beeps anymore.

Is it illegal to not wear your seatbelt? Yes.
Is it inherently and severely unsafe in this scenario? No, not really.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Jun 12 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]460276[/snapback]</div>

Not quite what I said. I said the seat belt type warning would prevent me from doing something intentionally without all the noise (ie, IF there were a reason I wished to do so, not that there are specific circumstances where I do). I don't have any wish for my car to do my thinking for me over such a thing.

The point being that Toyota can't please me in this regard while also pleasing those who want a clear and unequivocal warning when they're doing something silly by mistake. They have to opt for one thing or another - and they clearly did.

It seems to me that if anything, the neat solution would be to give the owner a set of options to configure such warnings for themselves. It can't be hard, given the computer controlled nature of the car, to allow the user to set their own preferences - after all, there's even a display panel to do it on!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Jun 12 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]460061[/snapback]</div>

Oh please, I am hardly "together", in fact I'm a mess. Of course everybody looses their keys, I've lost my keys, I've locked my keys in the trunk and had to come be rescued. It happens to everybody. I didn't blame Lexus for letting me lock the keys in the trunk though, that would be absurd.

The thing is, you can't expect Toyota to "fix stupid". People do stupid things, they can't plan for every potential bone-head thing owners will do with their keys and design a way for the car to try and keep them from being able to do it. You've got a system that has great benefits over standard keys, are there drawbacks? Sure. Can they engineer every drawback out? No. You wouldn't want them to spend the R&D dollars anyways, the car would cost $90k. They give you the option not to use the system, and I know people who do just because they can't wrap their heads around it which is fine.

I think it comes down to the fact that you've got to treat the SKS fob like a key. If you leave the house, take your keys. If you're going to drive the Prius, take the key. If you're going to valet the car, leave the key, going to the carwash? leave the key. Be aware for new warning lights when you're driving, the key warning is plainly visible. No excuse for not noticing a big yellow key warning light and thinking its odd. Familiarize yourself with your car. if you can't use the system, turn it off and it will operate like a normal car and you'll have to insert the fob in the slot. I can't stand whining...

 

Looking at this issue from a technical and usability perspective, I've come to the conclusion that it is more likely an oversight than a deliberate design on the part of Toyota's product engineers. My reasoning is based on the following observations:

1. the system is capable of tracking when the car is moving

2a. when the seatbelt is unbuckled but the car is NOT moving: icon flashes, system does not beep
2b. when car starts moving and seatbelt is still not engaged: system starts beeping continuously for about a minute then stops.

3a. when car is ON, fob is outside and door closes: icon flashes, system beeps three times then stops
3b. when car starts moving and fob is still outside car: nothing new happens

Because Toyota have a tendency to over-engineer even minor details, it is very difficult for me to deduce that they deliberately chose to "do nothing" in case 3b. Hence my above conclusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 13 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]460896[/snapback]</div>

If you are right, that they tend to over-engineer even minor details, then surely the rational conclusion from your observations is that rather than oversight, it would have had to be a deliberate choice not to include a warning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 13 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]460919[/snapback]</div>

I don't know if I'm right or not. But based on my own professional experience, it is not unusual for some requirements or use cases to be omitted inadvertently and get added in as the product evolves or matures, based on user feedback and other input from the field.

If Toyota did think of this case and decided that it did not warrant a sterner warning, then I think their view regarding safety needs to be re-examined.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 13 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]461060[/snapback]</div>

My point was that since your view is that Toyota are overtly detail-oriented, it would be illogical to conclude that they overlooked this issue, leading to the more probable conclusion that the lack of a continuous warning of the sort that has been suggested here was a deliberate choice.

And if THAT were the case, I'd agree with them. This is not a safety need where the vehicle has to think because the user doesn't. We don't need a nanny car.

 

The same moment a foolproof system is created, along comes an even greater fool able to bust said system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 13 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]461076[/snapback]</div>

The car being driven off without a key inside is NOT a safety risk?
Wow...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Jun 13 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]461111[/snapback]</div>

Oh come on! In what way is the safety of the occupant or vehicle impacted by allowing the car to be driven without the key inside. The car runs, drives and behaves exactly the same as when the key was present - except that once powered off, it cannot then be restarted. That's not a safety issue, it's a common-sense matter. Placing the onus on Toyota to prevent users from doing something unwise and then asserting it to be a safety matter is doing nothing but abdicating personal responsibility.

What on earth is wrong with the notion that the driver of the vehicle should reasonably be expected to have the key for the vehicle in their possession - particularly if it truly were a safety issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 13 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]461117[/snapback]</div>

If one stops somewhere and gets stranded, it definitely could be a safety issue! What if you're driving at night and stop to get gas -- or even worse, pull over to the side of the road to get a short nap. Then find you can't start the car again -- and the person who has the keys does not have the means to reach you?

I'm not sure why you are so adamant about "punishing" people who happen to make a stupid mistake. Clearly, the car is not meant to be driven without the fob being in the car. Making the warning more obvious -- at least as obvious as not buckling the seatbelt -- is a simple fix. It shouldn't be an unnecessary annoyance because there shouldn't any circumstances where you NEED to be driving without the fob!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZA_Andy @ Jun 13 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]461117[/snapback]</div>

Andy, I assume you're a man.

Why don't you ask a female friend/companion/spouse etc. whether they think this could be a real safety risk...