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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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." "
"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.
I'll buy here toy yoda for a "100 Grand".
Just wondrin': are there any women out there who refer to their breasts as "the Ewoks?"
Anyone want a Hurtz' Donut?
My Uncle Carl refers to his breasts as "the Ewoks."
Just wondrin': are there any women out there who refer to their breasts as "the Ewoks?"
Heavy users of Nair?
Fair warning for when you get home, Jeff: Patton and Eisenhower are feeling perky and demand attention.
That's good 'cuz L'il Tucker's feelin' antsy.
I sincerely apologize to anyone unnerved by this exchange.
Just to clarify: the "Patton and Eisenhower" bit was a joke.
Their rreal names are Scylla and Charybdis.
Their rreal names are Scylla and Charybdis.
So L'il Tucker's real name is Odysseus?
Actually, AC, it's "Penelope." Ours is a strange relationship, I confess.
OK, you two -- there's a time and a place for everything.
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."
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
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.
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.
It's not the names I mind; it's the Regis & Kelly banter.
I guess you could call them "Regis and Kelly" also.
Other suggestions:
Abbott and Costello
Laurel and Hardy
Cagny and Lacy
Starsky and Hutch
Agnew and Nixon
Welfare and Warfare
Hit and Run
Awesome header dude!
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
Given all the interest, mayby Jennifer should consider auctioning off the naming rights.
War & Peace
Crime & Punishment
Loss & Redemption
Fear & Loathing
Time & Money
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
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 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.
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.
"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...
The grand tetons
Harold & Maude
Wallace & Gromet
Dumb & Dumber
Batman & Robin
Coffee & Cigarettes
Scotch & Soda
George & Gracie
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
Would the phrase "the horniest couple in Connecticut" qualify as a backhanded compliment?
Anyway, here's my entry:
Guns & Butter
Hardly, Joe. I think our upstairs neighbors clench that title.
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."
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
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.
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.
Jennifer,
Oh, I'm sorry, you must be refering to US Public Policy. My bad.
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".
I believe everyone has seen the fate? but it is a powerful role, not everyone can see, this article introduces the fate.
for child's safety,it's totally necessary. isn't it?
Toyota,why don't default......