: TPMS Rant........Government at it Again!



Greg00coupe
04-22-11, 08:44 AM
After procrastinating a few months I decided to get a TPMS sensor replaced as the battery had died. I decided to go to my local NTB shop who said Oh we do these all the time. I did not realize why they do these all the time........

TPMS are now mandatory for all cars sold. Another gift from our government. Apparently the result of the Explorer deal. First people can't buckle seat belts so we get airbags mandated, then they cannot check their air pressure so we get TPMS.

Shop told me they sell these from $50 to $250 and some (mostly foreign) are sometimes had to sync. They told me in this economy a lot of folks are having regular valve stems installed. Thus another government reg coming.

Midnight
04-22-11, 11:10 AM
Mixed feelings. I'm generally against a nanny state. But you know there are tons of people who never look at their tires, and drive when they're dangerously low, endangering not only themselves (which is their own damn fault really), but others.

But then again, will TPMS requirements solve this problem? Maybe a little - the guy or gal who doesn't really understand anything about cars, the TPMS will bitch at them and those types are sometimes more apt to take it in than a lot of gear heads might be. You'll still have a lot of people driving on bald tires though... and maybe a false sense of security to a point.

I think they ought to make them with replaceable batteries though :)

Lucky for us, tire rack sells compatible ones for under $50 each and setting them up is pretty easy. Still gotta break down the tire though.

Also, air bags are to compliment seat belts, not to make up for not wearing them. But I agree with your general point. IMO, let the market decide how much safety bells & whistles is mandatory, mostly.

ddalder
04-22-11, 11:44 AM
So here's my take (at least for countries like Canada with public healthcare)... Every citizen is guaranteed access to medical care here. These devices (especially ones like airbags and seatbelts) have been proven to at least reduce the severity of injuries in most cases, or in some cases, prevent injury altogether. Now if Joe Q. Driver decides not to wear a seatbelt and is injured severly but not killed, guess who's paying his extremely expensive ICU bill? I am, along with all the others here who pay taxes. Now if Joe Q. Driver can go out and secure private insurance to cover any costs associated with this type of incident, great, don't wear your seatbelt, disable the airbags. When technologies such as these are available, I don't feel one individual has the right to "impose" monetary penalties on others because of their actions and unwillingness to use these proven devices. After all, driving in Canada and pretty much all other countries is a priveledge, not a right, and therefore if you're going to drive you should be willing to follow the rules imposed in the community. I used to be opposed to being forced to wear a seatbelt (although I did always feel it was a good idea), but when I look at the bigger picture I understand and agree.

EChas3
04-22-11, 07:30 PM
You're absolutely right. The source of the problem is in the idea that government's mandate is to 'right' life's 'wrongs'; be a nanny to its citizens. The people gradually give up their independence for safety & security and to soon lose their freedom.

The social democracies in Europe are now attempting to reverse their errors while the US continues the blunder. Who pays for government services when the country is broke?

turnne
04-23-11, 07:32 AM
You're absolutely right. The source of the problem is in the idea that government's mandate is to 'right' life's 'wrongs'; be a nanny to its citizens. The people gradually give up their independence for safety & security and to soon lose their freedom.

The social democracies in Europe are now attempting to reverse their errors while the US continues the blunder. Who pays for government services when the country is broke?

IMO they are trying to "right" those people that would be negligent and cause harm to others

I can't imagine that if you had been in accident and airbag saved your life you would feel the same...or if someone had hit you because they chose not to fill their tires to the proper inflation.
In Ohio , where I live now, they do not have rules for road worthiness of rusty cars...as they do in neighboring PA. I have to tell you I see cars that you can "see through"...and I make sure I get as far away from them on the road as I can. Many of these laws are to protect others even more so than the person who chooses not to perform proper maintenance and checks

In regard to the opening post

I find it peculiar that they waited a "few months" to have something as minor as a TPMS taken care of....
I don't think a Cadillac, or any luxury vehicle, is the right car for someone who is going to drive around for months with warning lights on the dash illuminated
Even at the dealer...this is a "cheap date". For the record I had issues all day long with NTB not being able to get my tires right on a Mercedes I had years ago
..and Discount tire could not seem to get the TPMS warning to go off after they changed my tires on the 02 STS...after 5 tries I went to the Cadillac dealer who repaired it the first time

and on a bottom line note

The government literally propped GM "up" financially very recently...are you really against gov't intervention?

I get if you are...but you can't pick and choose


Warren

EChas3
04-23-11, 01:26 PM
GM shouldn't have been bailed out and the bond holders' claims should have been honored.

People should be allowed to choose the cars they want to buy. If you get wronged by someone else's decisions, you have recourse. It's not government's role to protect you from life's challenges.

ddalder
04-23-11, 01:50 PM
GM shouldn't have been bailed out and the bond holders' claims should have been honored.

People should be allowed to choose the cars they want to buy. If you get wronged by someone else's decisions, you have recourse. It's not government's role to protect you from life's challenges.
I completely disagree. This isn't that simple. Bailing out companies such as GM is a very slippery slope to walk, but what do you suppose would have happened if the Government didn't? I can guarantee there would have been payouts for countless new welfare and social assistance cases, not to mention a substantial decrease in quality of life for all those who lost a job. This doesn't even begin to speak to the number of years, likely decades, to rebuild the already horribly broken system. Some of these newly unemployed may never have been able to regain meaningful employment. So would you rather pay for social programs to support these people, or support a loan to keep these people employed and earning the money they take home? Either way you're going to pay so you pick.

As for part two of your response... what recourse? Do you honestly believe people have an endless supply of money or assets you'll be offered up should they wrong you? Insurance only goes so far. If there wasn't safety devices in place to prevent or reduce these injuries, insurance premiums to support all the claims would be so high, nobody could afford to drive. Things are bad enough as it is. Turn on your television sometime. On virtually every US station I routinely see another law firm encouraging people to head off to court for yet another lawsuit. You honestly don't believe government has a role in this? Government imposing some rules and regulations has undoubtedly had a positive impact here.

EChas3
04-23-11, 02:32 PM
Opinions vary.

ddalder
04-23-11, 02:43 PM
Opinions vary.
You're right. I'm also open to other views in the event I missed something or don't fully understand the whole situation (for example, why I didn't think seatbelts should be mandotory but now do). What can you offer that would suggest I need to reconsider my position on this?

EChas3
04-23-11, 03:49 PM
If people wore the seatbelts provided, there would be little need for airbags. There are cases of airbags causing injury. Other countries get along fine without all the US federal regulations like this one. Let the consumer decide. It's their life.

ddalder
04-23-11, 04:06 PM
I submit to you that this is incorrect. Airbags are not intended to be a compensatory mechanism for failing to wear a seatbelt. These systems are designed to work together, not as standalone systems. As only one of many examples, seatbelts provide some but not complete protection to occupants in a lateral collision. Side curtain/side impact airbags are of enormous benefit here. I have personally seen hundreds of cases where these safety devices have offered remarkable protection to occupants in what would otherwise have been non-survivable collisions. Yes, on occasion they will cause or increase severity of an injury. This number is very small in comparison to what the reality would be in absence of these devices.

Absolutely let the consumer decide... it is their life... and as I mentioned before, as long as they can secure financial coverage so their actions have zero monetary impact on others in society.

turnne
04-23-11, 05:14 PM
If people wore the seatbelts provided, there would be little need for airbags. There are cases of airbags causing injury. Other countries get along fine without all the US federal regulations like this one. Let the consumer decide. It's their life.

seriously?..you are kidding right?

Many safety systems are designed to provide protection for the person in the collision that is not at fault as well

Other countries get along without airbags?...well other countries get along without much regulation on corporate manufacturing waste dumped into public consumption systems...China being a perfect example



I assume you would be fine with that situation here in the US?

As for the govt bailing GM out...
I am on the fence on that one. Clearly I have benefited from the public perception of them by buying one of these STS's that are so inexpensive..relatively speaking, as a used car

I have listened to both sides of that argument....one side adamant about the govt should have let them go down and good money was being thrown after bad

On the other side..I have heard it would have devastated the economies of MI, OH and IN. I might add that this second argument oftentimes comes from residents of one of those three states

Of course..the no bailout folks say people just would have bought another brand or gone to work for one of the other existing companies

I do think that was the case...however I think there would have been a nasty correction period in several states and people moved and got their lives together in other places

IMO...you won't see them churning out unprofitable products anytime soon..like I am sure the STS was for them...or making low volume specialty cars like the STS Type V or XLR...of frankly even a full size V8 powered Cadillac anywhere in the near future
They can't afford to

Warren

Greg00coupe
04-23-11, 07:23 PM
I find it peculiar that they waited a "few months" to have something as minor as a TPMS taken care of....

turnme.......... sorry I got a job that takes up a lot of my time...... And I had a hip replaced which took me out of action about 2 months. Must be nice to be able to make conclusions from afar. If I had your insight I'd play the lottery.

The tire place also told me many folks with limited finances are having the TPMS pulled and replaced with regular valve stems. I guess we need another law prohibiting this like the new one no allowing anyone but the dealers to reset check engine lights......