Once You Start Down the Regulatory Path, Forever Will It Dominate Your Destiny

|

Via Scott Stein, CNN reports:

This fall, Toyota will voluntarily recall nearly 160,000 Toyota Tundra pickups so that they can be made less safe for children riding in the front seat.

The recall, announced Monday, is meant to make Tundras comply with a set of safety regulations.

To comply with said safety regulations, cars with a front-seat airbag shut-off switch must also have a child-seat anchor system. This is hard to understand, given that the switches exist only to protect small children who might be sitting up front; why discourage the addition of a safety feature? Toyota has built 160,000 trucks with the switches, but lacking the anchors, and The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has denied a petition to let it slide. All will now have to be recalled. But installing the anchor systems, say Toyota execs, is way too expensive; instead, the company will take back the cars, remove the switches, and send them back.

All of which is just an excuse to link to this classic Toyota story:

A former Hooters waitress has sued the restaurant where she worked, saying she was promised a new Toyota for winning a beer sales contest.

Instead she won a new toy Yoda—the little green Jedi master from Star Wars.

Advertisement

NEXT: Jail for Smoking With Children in the Car

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In case you’re wondering, according to Snopes:

    “In 2002 the suit was settled for an undisclosed amount of money, which one of the attorneys involved in the case said would enable her to go to the local car dealership and “pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants.” “

  2. “A former Hooters waitress has sued the restaurant where she worked, saying she was promised a new Toyota for winning a beer sales contest.”

    “Instead she won a new toy Yoda — the little green Jedi master from Star Wars. “

    That’s nothing. I once went to Hooters and ordered a sandwich, and instead they gave me a plate of shit.

  3. I’ll buy here toy yoda for a “100 Grand”.

  4. Just wondrin’: are there any women out there who refer to their breasts as “the Ewoks?”

  5. Anyone want a Hurtz’ Donut?

  6. My Uncle Carl refers to his breasts as “the Ewoks.”

  7. Just wondrin’: are there any women out there who refer to their breasts as “the Ewoks?”

    Heavy users of Nair?

  8. Fair warning for when you get home, Jeff: Patton and Eisenhower are feeling perky and demand attention.

  9. That’s good ‘cuz L’il Tucker’s feelin’ antsy.

    I sincerely apologize to anyone unnerved by this exchange.

  10. Just to clarify: the “Patton and Eisenhower” bit was a joke.

    Their rreal names are Scylla and Charybdis.

  11. Their rreal names are Scylla and Charybdis.

    So L’il Tucker’s real name is Odysseus?

  12. Actually, AC, it’s “Penelope.” Ours is a strange relationship, I confess.

  13. OK, you two — there’s a time and a place for everything.

  14. there’s a time and a place for everything.

    Yes, and the time and place for turning what might be a discussion of foibles in the political system into a list of comical pet names for body parts is clearly “right now and on this website.”

  15. Other possibilities:

    Frick and Frack
    Amos and Andy
    Lincoln and Douglas
    Hitler and Stalin (that one’s for any hetero male misogynists reading this)
    Bogie and Bacall
    Bouncy and Bouncier
    Fission and Fusion

  16. Jeff ‘n’ Jennifer:

    There’s lots more potential in that vein: Cyclops, the Wine-Dark Sea, Rosy-Fingered Dawn, etc. etc.

    But I ain’t touching it.

  17. Yes, and the time and place for turning what might be a discussion of foibles in the political system into a list of comical pet names for body parts is clearly “right now and on this website.”

    It’s not the names I mind; it’s the Regis & Kelly banter. Not a big fan of the banter. No sir. But you can talk dirty all you want.

  18. It’s not the names I mind; it’s the Regis & Kelly banter.

    I guess you could call them “Regis and Kelly” also.

  19. Other suggestions:

    Abbott and Costello
    Laurel and Hardy
    Cagny and Lacy
    Starsky and Hutch
    Agnew and Nixon
    Welfare and Warfare
    Hit and Run

  20. Awesome header dude!

  21. how about

    Freddie & Flossie (The Bobbsey Twins)
    Ethel & Lucy
    Jack & Bobby
    Kate & Alley
    Mulder & Scully
    Gable & Lombard
    Death & Taxes
    Peas & Carrots (Jeff could use that one too, I suppose)
    Martin & Lewis
    Holmes & Watson
    Statler & Waldorf

  22. Given all the interest, mayby Jennifer should consider auctioning off the naming rights.

  23. War & Peace
    Crime & Punishment
    Loss & Redemption
    Fear & Loathing
    Time & Money

  24. Lucas & Spielberg
    Han & Chewey
    Luke & Leia
    Kirk & Spock
    Bernard & Bianca (The Rescuers)
    Castor & Pollux
    Kanga & Roo
    John & Paul
    Seals & Crofts
    Simon & Garfunkel
    Sam & Dave
    Hall & Oates
    The Thompson Twins

  25. The idea of the air-bag shut-off switch is that it be for children. If you have no child seat anchor, then you have no excuse for having the switch, because they want adults to be subjected to the air bags, like it or not.

  26. As a science geek, I go with
    Space & Time
    Matter & Energy
    Quark & Charm
    Causation & Entropy
    Albert and Stephen

    This year’s Naming of the Naughtybits has been brought to you by Victoria’s Secret, for all your breast needs (except feeding); and by Allstate. You’re in good hands will Allstate.

  27. For my honey baby: Juper & Saturn!

    Okay, Back on topic:

    I doubt every Tundra owner who needs their pickup for hauling something or for transportation to work is going to inconvenience themselves with a recall about a stupid airbag switch. If the front wheel hubs could come off without warning, things might be different (this was a recall on my Bronco II back when). I wonder how many will actually show up. I also wonder if any of the work will be performed without the owner’s permission when they take their truck in for service.

    How is The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not letting this slide equivalent to “voluntary recall”? The “if you don’t do it voluntarilty, we’ll force you to do it” chide is a farce.

    I guess they’ll write off the loss for 160,000 trucks even though the estimate is clearly bogus for reasons stated above.

  28. “The idea of the air-bag shut-off switch is that it be for children. If you have no child seat anchor, then you have no excuse for having the switch, because they want adults to be subjected to the air bags, like it or not.”

    As far as I know, there is no requirement to use the latch with child car seats — most older cars don’t have latches (my 2000 doesn’t). Plenty of parents use seatbelts for the car seats. My wife’s car has latches, but only for the back seats next to the doors. The middle back seat, which is the safest place for a child to be in the case of side impact, does not have a latch, so even in her car we use the seat belt for our son (yes, we’re a couple of those overprotective safety parents you hear about, but no, we don’t make the kid wear a helmet when he goes to bed). The point is, the presence or lack of a latch is not much of an indication of whether parents will actually be placing their children in that location of the car.

    Aside from children, there is the issue of the danger posed to shorter drivers (who must sit closer to the steering wheel to reach the pedals) by the airbag. There is more than one legitimate reason to have the airbag cut-off switch, even without latches in the car. But why give people options? One size always fits all.

    Not that I mean to imply that Robert was taking the position I quote above. It seems to me that maybe he was explaining their logic.

    Sorry to interrupt all the fun. Okay, back to Jennifer…

  29. The grand tetons

  30. Harold & Maude

  31. Wallace & Gromet
    Dumb & Dumber
    Batman & Robin
    Coffee & Cigarettes
    Scotch & Soda
    George & Gracie

  32. The fellow who founded Toyota was named Toyoda.

    Alternate names for “the twins.”

    Lapus and Loreli

    Ann and Abby

    Audrey and Judy

    Eva and Zsa Zsa

    Barbara and Jenna

    I was going to suggest Mary-Kate and Ashley, but we are talking about breasts, right?

    Kevin

  33. Would the phrase “the horniest couple in Connecticut” qualify as a backhanded compliment?

    Anyway, here’s my entry:

    Guns & Butter

  34. Hardly, Joe. I think our upstairs neighbors clench that title.

  35. Serious, non-breast-related question: is there a succinct word or phrase (similar to the names we give forms of logical fallacies) for a situation wherein there are so many laws and regulations that they cancel each other out, or defy the original purpose? I’m thinking not only this case of the Toyota recall, but also things like “the drug war is to protect public health but we need to outlaw the sale of cold medicine which might make people sicker, in the name of public health.”

  36. Jennifer,

    I think it’s called an oxymoron.

    From Webster’s

    Main Entry: ox?y?mo?ron
    Pronunciation: “?sE-‘mor-“?Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural ox?y?mo?ra /-‘mor-&/
    Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
    : a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

  37. Grammatical correction: missing commas in my last post make it sound like it’s the cold medicine, not the banning thereof, which will make people sicker.

  38. Coolrobc–

    Somehow I don’t think “oxymoron” is exactly what I’m gunning for. Close, but it doesn’t imply deliberateness. Or something–I’m a bit tired this morning and my thoughts aren’t as clear as they could be.

  39. Jennifer,

    Oh, I’m sorry, you must be refering to US Public Policy. My bad.

  40. is there a succinct word or phrase (similar to the names we give forms of logical fallacies) for a situation wherein there are so many laws and regulations that they cancel each other out, or defy the original purpose?

    Druggie/IMDB version…Formula 51, a movie with Samuel L. Jackson as a kilt-wearing recreational drug maker who makes a drug where all of the effects cancel each other out and the drug doesn’t do anything…which after thinking about it for 3 minutes or so is a patently stupid idea for a movie…

    Anyway, I looked up “Unintended Consequences” on wikipedia and was treated to a fascinating article.

    I think the phrase you’re looking for is “perverse incentive”.

  41. I believe everyone has seen the fate? but it is a powerful role, not everyone can see, this article introduces the fate.

  42. for child’s safety,it’s totally necessary. isn’t it?

    Toyota,why don’t default……

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.