The federal government has decided that automakers may not install one safety option (a front passenger seat airbag turnoff switch, intended to protect kids) unless they also install a second (a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH). Toyota had offered the first but not the second on certain Tundra models, so they did a recall whose point was to eliminate customers’ access to the first option, thus worsening safety for kids riding in front seats. (Peter Valdes-Dapena, “Toyota’s totally bizarre recall”, CNN/Money, Jul. 12). DealBreaker comments: “How badly does the government hate your kids? Bad enough to kill them.” (Jul. 13).
Great moments in auto regulation
The federal government has decided that automakers may not install one safety option (a front passenger seat airbag turnoff switch, intended to protect kids) unless they also install a second (a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH). Toyota had offered the first but not the second on certain Tundra models, so they did a recall […]
4 Comments
I saw this one last week, I actually agree with the NTHSA on this one. If it really were inconsequential to Safety why would LATCH be put in as a standard? Anyway what seems like it could be interesting is the potential forthcoming class action suit from customers that bought the cars knowing there was a turn-off switch. With Toyota subtracting value from the car they should have some grounds for a suit.
LATCH was created to standardize carseat installations, and is no safer than a properly installed carseat using a seatbelt. There is no legal requirement for a parent to use a LATCH system instead of standard seatbelt installation, even if their car has LATCH.
The government does lots of things that don’t necessarily relate to improving safety, and this is one of them.
http://www.car-safety.org/latchfaq.html
Toyota basically double-dog-dared the NTHSA to back down on this one but they underestimated the ability of government agencies to act stupidly while blindly following rules or perhaps less likely, call Toyota’s bluff.
So now Toyota is stuck removing a safety feature. The cost should be nil because most customers will choose to ignore the recall. The only harm would come if Toyota’s dealers removed the switch unbeknownst to the customer when the car was in the shop for some other reason.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it (well, sort of).
Toyota can add the safety feature it wants, then issu a “recall”, which everyone ignores.
The only good thing about bureacracies being inefficint and stupid is that they are inefficient and stupid when if comes to getting BAD things done as well as good.