PSA - Electronic Parking Brakes SUCK

If the brake button was located between the driver and passenger like many parking brake levers are that might make sense. But on my wife's Subaru and the VW Jetta of which I spake earlier the button is near the driver door. Reaching past the driver with the steering wheel in the way while your seatbelt may be restraining your movement to engage it is not a very viable solution to a crisis situation, assuming something isn't blocking your ability to see where the control is (which is likely the case). I just don't see where that would be a valid argument for the design decisions they made (or didn't make).

As a developer of medical software I (and the company I work for) am required to exercise due diligence in risk assessment for every change we make to our products no matter how trivial. We are required to provide documentary justification for any risk classification we assign to the modification and show that we have considered any consequences and their potential impact on safety.

I cannot help believing that manufacturers of automobiles are required to be at least as diligent in considering risk. Switching from the old-school "emergency brake lever" model that could be used in a controlled manner by either driver or passenger to an automatic system over which the operator has very limited control is a major change. It eliminates many potential ways in which the former implementation could be used to avert disaster. I don't see where it adds anything other than minor convenience at the expense of several already-noted benefits.

 

I AM vintage.

 

It had a ridiculous self-centering auto stick so you had to watch the gauges to know what gear it was in, the stick always snapped back to the same spot. He either shifted to something other than Park, or forgot to shift at all. Either way he had no shifter position to reference, missed whatever the display said, and it killed him.

 

So the young lady was driving with an unsecured animal ON HER LAP. WITHOUT WARNING the animal moved, interfering with vehicle controls, and this is somehow the fault of the vehicle manufacturer?????? What. The. Hell.

BTW, what sort of warning was the dog supposed to give? Verbal? Written?

 

I own a 2007 Passat and also a 2016 Passat.

The 2007 Passat has the god awful electric parking brake. The 2016 does not, they went back to the pull hand brake. It seems VW wised up.

I need to do the rear brakes on the 2007 and it is super annoying that you need to hook up a computer to pull the e-brake motor back just so you can put new brake shoes on.

On top of that, my parking brake warning light came on, so I need to diagnose that issue too the same you would with a check engine light. I haven't tried pushing the brake button since then because I'm afraid it'll actuate to ON and not be able to release!

 

In many states not having your pet secured in your vehicle will get you an animal cruelty charge. Harnessed and belted or in a carrier. Secure your pets, people. They become meat bag projectiles in an accident

 

EFI? By all means.
Transmission? make no mistake, manual.
Brakes - Hydraulic, no electronic shit.
Suspension - no electronic shit.
Electronic assists like lane departure warning systems - wake the fuck up or don't drive.

Best Supercars ever - Porsche Carrera GT and McLaren F1

That felt good.

 

EFI - agree
Trans - I'm over the manual for daily driver
Brakes & susp- agree
Electronic assists - like the blind spot warning (the light on the a pillar in my daughter's car is better than the mirror light), don't care for the lane departure, backup camera is useful, the overhead view offered in the mini-blonde's Nissan is very nice
Mini-vans rock.

 

think it depends on the trim level if you get ebrake or not in a VW. GTI's have hand brake, Golf R has e-brake.

Think same in the Jetta, regular jetta handbrake, jetta GLI has ebrake.

 

Okay, that makes two responses from people who've apparently never done anything stupid before. She learned an important lesson about that herself, but I'll be sure to pass along your wise counsel.

Earlier I mentioned risk assessment. Part of requisite risk assessment in manufacturing when dealing with human beings is exercising due diligence to design around dumb things people are inevitably going to do. Why is it you can't go to Wal-Mart and buy a fan that looks like this?



Observation of what people do led to safer design of the protective grill around the blades. Decades of observation would have similarly led automobile manufacturers to know that some people are going to have pets running around in their car unrestrained. Due diligence should entail considering what happens when those animals press buttons and how serious the effect of that can be.

As an example of exercising due diligence, consider the column-mounted ignition key with steering lock. If you're going to add a key-activated steering lock (which didn't always exist), due diligence mandates that you make it nearly impossible to lock the steering while the vehicle is in motion. A manufacturer can't get off the hook by putting a blurb in the owner's manual warning the driver not to turn the key to the off position before parking it. It must be as difficult to do that as the manufacturer can make it, otherwise due diligence has not been exercised.

A manufacturer can be held liable if injury or death occurs because they did not exercise due diligence. Just look at the $120 million settlement GM had to pay in 2014 because of the ignition switch fiasco, where they didn't consider that people put boatloads of keys on their keyrings and have them hanging from the ignition switch.

So yeah, I get it. Driving around with an unsecured pet in the car is a dumb idea. People do it. Every day you see dogs heads hanging out the windows. A manufacturer who doesn't consider what a dog can do by pressing an easily accessible button in a moving vehicle is just asking to be the next GM.

 

In retrospect I regret the snarkiness with which I started my previous post and tried to edit it out unsuccessfully because I had waited too long. My point was that while people do dumb things (and hopefully learn from their mistakes) that doesn't absolve manufacturers of liability for not taking the time to do proper risk analysis that considers things members of their target market are inevitably going to do.

 

The fact they changed it back says a lot too.
At least they didnt pull a Boeing and make the fix an option that you have you pay extra for.

 

That could have been decided for multiple feasons. Most noteably, parts availability and assembly difficulty

 

Not sure why you’re having regrets - roasted snark is my favorite meal

I get what you’re saying about manufacturer liability, but there has to be some measure of reason in there. A distracted/incompetent/foolish/intoxicated driver can defeat any safeguards or nanny aids, no matter how well-engineered they might be. The line between reasonable and intrusive/draconian is thin enough already. As the old cliche goes, „Make something idiotproof, and the world will produce a better idiot.“

As @joec pointed out, driving with an unsecured animal in the cabin is illegal in most (if not all) states. Here in Germany, where your son‘s girlfriend‘s car was designed, it is considered gross negligence, and the penalties are severe (thousands to tens of thousands of € in fines, prison time if the unsecured animal is the cause of a crash). So should we hold car manufacturers liable for events caused by drivers engaged in illegal acts? If so, we might as well just give up motor vehicles now.

That’s the thing though - car controls aren’t designed to be operated by a dog There is no sane reason to demand that auto manfacturers consider that dogs might attempt to utilize the controls.

 

Freakin irresponsible manufacturers...damn Subaru.

 

No seatbelts worn, except for the puppy. There oughta be a law!

 

Even he is facing the wrong way. That melon sized, water filled head will snap right off.

 

Apparently you've never been in a vehicle with a foot operated manual e-brake?