Ah yes, Bruce Willis's best movie!

 

No waiver is going to help unless everyone that drives or sits in vehicle OR even ppl that are also around the vehicle sign such a waiver. If a driver signed a waiver and someone else was injured from this act, that injured person had never signed the waiver allowing such individual to take on this responsibility of allowing this vehicle to do such act and cause injury(nobody ever watch Suits? ). Nonetheless, beyond the whole idea of someone getting injured or becoming dead..wtv the case..etc, it's not the main reason of our refusal to perform this type of request, there's more involved and missed entirely on simple function..

If a so called file was created by me or another tuning company, and flashed to your vehicle; How would you ever be able to turn the ignition ON but not the engine from that day forward?? (..who cares right!?)

FYI: To flash any modules through OBD, clear fault codes through OBD, reset service reminder, reset engine oil level, diagnose electronic systems..the engine needs to be OFF with modules powered up; ignition ON. Now you would be forced into finding a way on your own to prevent the engine from starting and not trigger a fault code. You would never be able to clear all fault codes that come up down the road and if you ever had an issue and needed to update/flash a module (even something other than engine ecu), you would be royally screwed because of that file in the engine ecu forcing engine to start up regardless of brake pedal pressed.

Some safety "nannies" I agree we can live without, but honestly yes most are in place to keep us alive. However, "nannies" are not in place just to keep the driver alive, they're in place to keep ppl around a vehicle on the road from getting killed from another drivers incompetent decisions. We still have the choice to live free or die hard but the ppl around us still have the choice to live free if they desire..

Prime example of incompetent client and tuner:
Client: I turbocharged my car and speed limiter's in the way. Can you remove my Speed Limiter, I hate this ecu limiting me to 115mph. (speed limiter is his only worry)
Tuner: Sure, attached is file to flash. (no questions asked)
Client: *Reach's speeds of 190mph, tire deforms and explodes, barrel rolls on road way during return home after work. Walks away with injuries..
Local News: Tuned vehicle driving excess of 180mph, tires on vehicle only capable of 118mph (T speed rating), causes accident taking life of innocent family during evening commute home. Driver of tuned vehicle alive..
Forensic: Vehicle dynamics/suspension all oem/stock and not constructed for speeds above 120mph, stock ecu limited to max speed of 115mph, spec tires approved for T rating of 118mph. Ecu tampered to allow forced induction to reach speed above 120mph, ecu tampered to allow max speeds above 120mph.
I wonder how safety "nannies" in place could have pretended the above scenario..

 

I agree that some nannies exist to keep OTHERS safe from the driver's stupidity. As a libertarian I don't agree with this, but I do accept that's how society is. I get it. And I think @Racer X and I were mostly just saying nannies in general kinda suck and shouldn't even exist for us to ask you to fix with a tune. So we're mad at the manufacturers, not you, per se. As far as your anecdote goes, yeah, every tune I've ever heard of removes speed limiter. I'll reference my Bama tune again. Mustangs have a top speed of 155 electronically limited. The Bama tune took that right out and Bama is a pretty large company, so if they're not worried about it, I don't think you should be either (though, again, not asking you to do anything that you've already said no to. that's your prerogative). I believe in instances where a tune removed a nanny and then a 3rd party (aka driver) did something that the nanny should have prevented, the driver is now at fault as the driver cannot claim ignorance to the tune and is now the responsible party to whatever catastrophe was caused by said driver. If a driver had the clutch switch removed so they could start the car without depressing the clutch, and then did so with the car in gear and it ended up running over a child, the tuner or shop that removed the clutch switch isn't going to be responsible for that, the driver that GOT the work done is. I digress. Point is nannies suck and we're just pointing it out. Not expecting you to do anything about it. I originally was just wondering if you could/would. You said no, so no need to reiterate your stance. We're just whining

 

Correct. I would add that the safety industry has morphed into a major profit center, but they only want whats best for us.

 

Haha. Yep. I would also like to add that I just drove my gf's Mazda 3 to get groceries. It's an auto with push button start. Has 8 BILLION safety nannies including a distance keeping thing that scared the **** out of me when I got to close to the car in front of me. Having said that, I was able to go from N to D not only without having to depress the brake, but didn't even have to push the button/trigger on the shift lever. Soooooooo Mazda, the safety nanny of the world, doesn't think that's a needed nanny, but Jag does... Just sayin

 

Interestingly, that's one I agree with. Not that it matters to me and my 6MT but as a case in point, a car was recently knocked into gear by a dog and it went across lanes of traffic before crashing. I'm not saying the driver wasn't a dumbass for trying to refuel with the engine running and her dog in the car. She was. The counterpoint is that in the Old Days one could bump the starter in gear with a dead car to get it to move. With the starter locked out unless the clutch is depressed, if you stall on the railroad tracks you need to abandon ship.

 

They still say that in the Granite State. As for movies, if you mean "Live Free or Die Hard" I'm not sure I agree.

 

I agree needing both the trigger and brake to go into D while on the move is more dangerous than it is safe. Especially since I put the car in neutral every time I downshift by habit while in D, which I rarely am.

A lot of the nanny's dumb ideas have yet to stand the test of time, but the nanny state seems too arrogant to care. E.g. any kind of "safety feature" that rips the wheel out of my hands is a fail. I drove an E-Pace that tried to steer me into the concrete barrier when a car approached from behind too close from the opposite side. Auto-pilot of any kind, including lane assist that fights you for the wheel at each exit ramp, is acutely hazardous IMO. I wonder how many accidents these "features" have already caused. Then I wonder if carnage is more profitable than perfect. Then I wonder if I'm too cynical. And then I don't.

 

I'm gonna have to say pics or shens on that one. 1) NO ONE gets gas in neutral without the parking brake set. Even on flat ground there's always the chance of rolling. 2) you can't "bump" a shifter in gear, even 2nd (which is historically the easiest gear to get into) when idling. It would grind the **** out of it and not do anything 3) if it DID manage to get it in gear, especially 2nd, it's going to just immediately stall. Either that's an urban legend, or the "story" is real and the driver is a total liar and trying to cover up for something illegal, like letting their 13 year old kid drive, or something like that.

 

Total joke. Definitely not even the best Die Hard. I was just playing stupid as if I thought term "live free or die" had no meaning to me other than a misunderstood movie title. But now that you made me explain it, it ain't funny. Not that it was all that funny to start with

 

Every mono-stable shifter in the automotive industry requires a trigger press to shift gears because the gear shifter position is the same regardless of which gear you are in. Its not just Jaguar.

 

I find the opposite situation to be just as dangerous.
You can nudge the lever in the Jag from D to N no worries, takes just a very gentle tap, no button press or brake pedal press required,
Some 25 years ago I was cruising on the highway with the ex-wife in the back seat and the drop kick step-son in the front passenger seat.
He stuffed about as usual and next thing I know I have a box full of neutrals and the engine is revving it's **** off, and it took me a couple of seconds to figure out that he had knocked the shift lever into neutral. Lucky I wasn't in the middle of an overtake.

 

I've seen quite a few reports from i-Pace owners who've had the same experience with their Lane Keep Assist "feature". And apparently it can't be switched off permanently - it always re-enables on startup.

 

I think the key thing here is I'm talking about NEUTRAL, not PARK. I have 0 problem with having to press the trigger/button when coming out of PARK. I have very little problem with having to press the brake for this action as well (not to be confused with starting the car, which i still have a LOT of issue with). Explain to me a valid situation where you went to NEUTRAL and it wouldn't be ok to go right into drive, whether on purpose or accident, or where a required brake press made it "safer".

 

You can't turn off "auto crash" even while driving AFAIK. Its not lane assist, its some sort of evasive action feature that was extremely dangerous IMO.

If there was a way to turn off all steering takeovers that would be a great safety advance.

 

My guess is the Neutral-to-Drive brake requirement an accidental artifact from the Park-to-Drive requirement. This is one of the many problems with nannies, they can spawn evil accidental mutant nannies.

 

Albeit, this is anecdotal and low likelihood (relatively no impact to the consumer). A brake fill was not completed, vehicle rides the assembly line without corresponding documentation, driver at end of line puts in gear from neutral and drives off after gas filled, and someone was pinned when no brake test completed. They lost their legs.

This is a real story. There is general pressure to increase these "nannies" rather than decrease them, whether we like them or not. Usually the products we like are designed to the lowest common denominator, though some things are arguable in the hands of the dummies that don't pay attention.

 

As I've heard Brits say, you can make a machine fool proof but you can never make it bloody fool proof.

 

The problem with trying to make things foolproof is that fools are so darn clever.

 

Yeah, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.