Vehicle proximity notification system

Sorry to disagree, but I like the system. It's not very noisy, helps blind people avoid me, and sounds cool.

 

No issues here in crowded San Francisco.

 

Been too cold so windows are up.

Bob Wilson

 

You know who likes the vehicle proximity notification system?

That's right.
Lawyers.

Disconnecting the speaker is pretty straight forward, but you'll want to make sure that you can reattach the connectors QUICKLY and quietly (pun almost unintended) in case you squish somebody's kid in a parking lot.
Contrary to very widely held belief, lawyers aren't dumb.
When they get clients who just had to bury a disabled loved one because somebody disconnected a vital safety system in their car, that evokes a very strong reaction from them!!
- it sounds a lot like somebody winning the lottery.

Good Luck!

 

hmm - i havent noticed. someone have link to the sound ?

 

It's that spaceship humm/electric sound

 

sounds cool.

 

someone tried disconnecting it, but got an error message on the screen. looks like they're getting serious. they had to put a resistor in line to simulate the draw.
check the options, you might have a volume control.

 

I am a personal injury lawyer.

I think it goes towards punitive damage and it is only compensable by regular car insurance in less than 30 states. In California that's a big no-no. Beyond your own car insurance, you need to pay out of your own pocket. A lien on your house is on the horizon. It is more serious than texting while driving as the driver can't really hear that sound. Disabling the sound equals DUI IMHO. However, usually there is not a lot of money out of an individual defendant unless he owns some business. I heard about wage garnishment but never did it before.

It is easier than suing Toyota for product liability for example, the sound not readily audible by pedestrians, etc., b/c that's expensive. Tough on plaintiff lawyers on contingency basis. Besides the product has been modified by the final user. A product case may not stick.

Another way to get a big number out of this kind of case is to hope the insurance company won't accept the policy limit demand. In California we call it CCP998. In that situation, the case could transform into insurance bad faith which is very lucrative. You are talking about multiplying numbers together.

 

i don't think it's required until 2018.

 

Yes. But if you disable it yourself, THEN something happened. That's a different story.

Scenario 1: if Toyota has an option to disable such sound in the menu that an ordinary driver can get access to: it is a product liability case. Most probably you are off the hook because Toyota has deeper pocket than you. Usually the plaintiff lawyer will settle with your insurance company, get the money to fund rest of the lawsuit against Toyota. You are basically off the hook.

Scenario 2: if somehow the driver disabled it by hacking the system: Toyota won't be on the hook. You are the only bad guy in the case to face the jury and judge.

 

Here's a link to the NHTSA final rule for EV warning sounds from 11/2016:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/quietcar_finalrule_11142016.pdf

I can't help but think that eventually there will be penalties specified for disabling the system, much as there are penalties for disabling or tampering with pollution control systems on internal combustion vehicles.

I found this on the National Federation of the Blind web site; check item no. 10:
Courtesy Rules | National Federation of the Blind

 

dealer can definitely help you out.

 

I oppose disabling any safety feature built into a car. Rather I think it makes more sense to ask the NHTSA to conduct a study of the effect of the noise makers on safety. Having our bleepin' cars on the road generates a population that previously did not exist. We have the metrics from before the noise makers. As the population increases AND only one set of vehicles has them (i.e., not the ICE), we can do a proper study that compares cars with and without the noise makers and independently those with and without pedestrian and accident avoidance.

The original statistical analysis were badly flawed although they did reveal a problem with "A" pillars. But there was no way to effectively challenge we lacked a population of bleepin' cars. So let's run the experiment and let empirical data test the hypothesis.

Bob Wilson

 

At my bank, the drive through ATM is against the side of the bank. At the end of the wall is a sidewalk that then crosses the drive through lane to a parking lot. Twice in my Gen2 I almost struck a pedestrian because I could not see them coming and they could not hear me coming. I am more than happy to have a signal so they hear me coming.

 

does using your stereo loud work in some situations?

 

definitely, if you have the top down.

 

that's what I thought as well...