This thread is beyond dead, but I think the reason that we go to the extreme when making a point is not so much to argue the status quo but rather to pose the question 'where does it end?'. Sure, Lexus is just trying to make the roads a bit safer and more secure, but some think it irritating that, seemingly, the only solution they have come up with to this end is to take away some freedoms we might enjoy as drivers.

I, for one, would much prefer solutions to the driver error problems by using engineering skill and/or inventive reasoning instead of removing the driver from the equation.

'The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.'
Benjamin Franklin

 

To a large extent we have long removed the driver from the equation. We have dumbed down the requirements to get a license so that any moron, no matter how unqualified to operate a vehicle, can get one. We have compensated for the very poor road craft skill exhibited by most drivers by making cars safer (and bigger) and by better designed roads. None of these things are bad and should be done to a large extent anyway, but if we took vehicle operation seriously we would all be better off. But we don't have the political will to do this so we still knock off 40,000+ citizens every year with nary a yawn from the public. The car industry rules in the USA.

Even though people know it is stupid to drive while under the influence they still do it (40% of fatalities are DUI's). And seat belt usage is still not universal by drivers despite it being an almost universal law. People will do stupid things if allowed, sad but true. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us". And we feign surprise when car manufacturers do things like locking out Nav units, or DVD players while moving? They are doing it for self preservation for if they don't discourage unsafe behavior in their product and do something about it the Government will, and that medicine is always more expensive and bitter.

 

Ahh, if we could only drive like the Germans......

People will do stupid things even if explicitly prohibited, also sad but true

 

We all believe that we're better drivers than we really are. Really now, how many of you think you're crappy drivers? I would bet the answer is "zero", but we all believe that nearly everyone else on the road is clueless.

Think of it this way: you might not want the nannies, but don't you want them there for the idiot in front of you that is already "multitasking" enough?

 

Nope, I would rather rely on my own driving abilities and take my chances knowing that someone else might not be paying as much attention as me. I am weird, I want that control.

The fact is that the Lexus built-in nannies are obnoxious. If I didn't want to be involved with every aspect of driving, I would take the bus. There are more than a few 'point A to point B' drivers out there, and that's fine, good for them....but it's not me.

If, some day, I am driving a car that doesn't tie my hands up in bubble wrap and I get in an accident because I was playing with my dvd player, A/C, radio or whatever, than that will be very sad for me. However, it will be my fault, not the car's. I can take responsibility for my own actions, and I like to think that because of this, I make the right decisions most of the time.

The reason that I feel this way is because most of the serious accidents that I see are caused by the 'point and click' type cars with tons of nannies, zero driver involvement vehicles driven by people who don't want to pay attention to what they are doing.

Granted, the Lexus has far more pros than cons, but given the choice....I will always choose the option that gives me the most control.

 

Frankly, you taking responsibility for your actions won't make me feel any better if I'm the guy you hit. That's why I'm ok with the nannies. I'm not stupid enough to be entering NAV destinations while driving, or trying to watch a movie. I'm perfectly fine with Lexus trying to idiot proof the system to keep the "I'm-a-great-driver-and-can-handle-it" crowd from proving themselves wrong. I'm not saying you're not good driver, 509, but I think I drive well and still make mistakes that could be avoided from time to time.

Interestingly, perceived driving ability seems to increase on this forum as age decreases. I think that speaks for itself.

 

But you can't "idiot proof" against distracted driving. The nannies still won't prevent drivers from putting on makeup, shaving, or juggling a hot cup of coffee and breakfast sandwich from behind the wheel.

We all know the dangers of high speed driving; would you be in favor of Lexus implementing an 85 MPH speed limiter on the car?

I'm all in favor of better driver education and tougher licensing requirements. But once those requirements have been met, it's the responsibility of the driver to operate the vehicle safely.

 

Yeah, I must be a teenager because I have confidence in my abilities and my driving record confirms it.

So, back to the original question if you are 'for the nannies', WHERE DOES IT END and who makes that decision?

 

509 - I'm with you. I always get accused of using extreme examples to make my point, but my point isn't deciding what should or shouldn't be allowed, but how far they will go. They meaning the government, insurances companies, and auto manufacturers or some combination of them. In the next model year they will be making further "safety improvments" by locking out the ability to change the radio station or climate controls once the car is out of park. To those that think we need the electronic nannies how are you going to feel when they do this?

To those that are "afraid" of me entering a navigation destination, I'm afraid of you roaring down the highway at 70 mph or faster while I putter along at 40-65 (the legal speed limits on interstates in CT). No one's a perfect driver all the time, and even if you were accidents can still occur - that's why they are called accidents. Maybe driving in snow or rain shouldn't be allowed either because those cause plenty of accidents. In fact no more driving in the northern states from November until May - it's just too dangerous on all that snow and ice. I especially don't trust Southerners who don't have a lot of experience driving in those conditions, so they probably shouldn't be allowed to drive any further north than say D.C. during the winter, for our safety of course.

We can go around and around like this all day long. The point is and will remain for the foreseeable future that the driver has to have some level of competance and responsibility. If you really want the car to be safe, put an electronic speed limiter of 75 MPH (is there really a legal reason a car needs to go faster?) and don't let it accelerate as much, maybe 0-60 in 10 seconds instead of 5 (I mean are people driving luxury cars on a racing track or something?). Oh wait you mean you paid for a more performance minded car? OK fine I paid for a car that let's me use its navigation/audio system to its fullest abilities, and not just while it's in park with the parking brake on which only seems to happen when I'm leaving the car.

 

I wasn't implying that you are a teenager. I was making a generalization based on my own observations.

Where it ends depends on Lexus, their corporate lawyers, and its customers in the US (e.g. how much we sue). Every time someone gets a traffic ticket in this forum, at least two people tell them to get a lawyer, and actually taking responsibility is looked down upon as if it's a weakness. And we wonder why Lexus is risk averse. I think we should stop blaming Lexus for mitigating for typical American behavior patterns.

 

Responsibility.....? What's that?

I don't think anyone here fails to understand why Lexus incorporates the nannies and feature disablers. I guess my point is that we tend to blame the equipment, environment, circumstances, alignment of Jupiter's moons or any number of other absurd possibilities before ourselves when the root cause of arguably all of the accidents we are talking about can be found by looking in the mirror.

You may call it arrogance that some people feel they can fend for themselves and that nannies are not required. I call it arrogance that most people tend to place blame on the lack or nannies or any number of other possibilities instead of taking a deep long look to the top of that pedestal to find the real problem.

 

[QUOTE=FiveOhNine;2852427]Yeah, I must be a teenager because I have confidence in my abilities and my driving record confirms it.

This statement proves nothing but arrogance on your part. Never met a teenager yet who didn't think he was a better (safer) driver than his Mom or Dad. It's OK though because science now knows a teenage brain is 'not' fully developed. So relax and you'll be wiser sooner than you think.

The more I read here the happier I am that Lexus and other car makers put the controls in place to stop the 'I'm perfectly safe to input addresses while driving' crowd. Lexus.......keep up the good work. Now if they could only find a way to stop the same crowd from putting on makeup or text messaging while driving it would be perfect.

 

OK let's drop the teenager discrimination. Age has nothing to do with this argument. It's not a matter of who is a better driver. I am way beyond the age of being considered young, and I still would like that $4000 piece of my $40k car to not be crippled while driving. I am not trying to argue multitasking while driving. It's a matter of principle that I should be able to fully use what I paid for as long as it is within the allowances of the law.

 

except you fully paid for a NAV that does't work while moving. That's the product that was marketed to you.

Should they take off the rev limiters for the car too because if you want to blow up your engine, that's your right? You paid for the engine too.

Anyway, this back and forth doesn't seem like its getting anywhere. It's like a gun control debate... some of you are making a similar argument as saying, "gun control isn't necessary because more people die each year from smoking than guns anyway. so we should ban smoking before imposing gun control."

 

WOW - It sounds like you are just having some bad days. ALl those issues are easily explained but it mostly just sounds like USER ERROR to me. If you really want your "wife" to watch a movie on your three hour trip, do a search on this site for NAV mod and then do the mod. No car manufacturer will allow you (the driver) to watch a movie while driving. It is against the law for a driver to be able to view a screen while driving. You can only have it with aftermarket installations or modding your factory one.

Good Luck with whatever you do.