2018 Tacoma’s Are “No Touch” Vehicles?

That type of system has been shown to reduce forward collisions by something in the range of 40-60%. There are a million such accidents in the USA every year, some fraction of which can be considered "critical events" in terms of injury or loss of life.

You should keep the system on if you have it. You paid about $1000 for it. And you should wear your seat belt too. (I am told a lot of Americans don't, because "freedom.")

 

I have a 16 and I actually pay attention when I drive and in the 25 years I have been driving, I have never had an accident and therefore don't need a computer to assist me. It's just something that will eventually malfunction.

 

What wheels and tires with specs.

 

If Toyota continues making PRO models then what difference will it make the TSS system will have to be adjustable if one size fits all. I'm sure someone will come up with a work around.

 

This is what I'm running:

Wheels/Tires:
ICON Alloys REBOUND 17"x8.5" Zero Offset
TOYO OPEN COUNTRY M/T 285/75R17

I've got all of my mods and future mods listed here if you want to take a look:
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/hellppys-2018-cement-trd-off-road-dclb-4x4-build-and-bs.530797/

 

A workaround for what?

 

There was some concern about the new 2018's that have the Anti Collision system and owners wouldn't be able to lift trucks, however some on here have done so already. I haven't read about issue as of yet but time will tell with warranty issues etc.

 

Yeah. Trade it off. My new V won't shut off when I open the door nor will it rev high and drop a gear driving into a head wind.

 

Toyota is hedging against litigation.

Plain and simple.

 

If you have been driving for 25 years, you know that stuff happens, and it goes down really really fast. Consider that the 2018 truck can react faster than you can when the small boy runs into your path from between the two parked cars. Stuff can happen in front of you while your head is turned back to do a shoulder check. The vehicle can react to all this, automatically, and potentially save your yass or at least save you a lot of hassle dealing with police and insurance companies.

You may have a son or daughter who is learning to drive, or a parent who is getting on in years who borrows your truck sometimes.

Something approaching 100% of the million folks who will be at fault in a rear end collision this year in the USA, will tell you they are super drivers.

At the end of the day, it is a safety-related system like your seatbelts or your windshield wipers. You need to think carefully about whether it is worth tampering with it, to install an eBay grille made of Chinesium.

 

Again, computers fail a lot. Nothing is better than good old fashioned situational awareness.

 

Sorry, but that's just arrogance beyond belief. Kudos to you for having such a great driving record, but to conclude that past driving performance is a 100% indicator of future driving performance just doesn't work.

I too have never caused an accident, and I've been driving for 35 years. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the value of some of the newer technologies on cars. I don't rely on them, but am glad they are there. It's not like an automatic vs manual, or drl vs stalk switch.... it's a system to potentially keep someone from colliding with the car in front of them.

I agree we're headed towards the 'nanny state', but some of the stuff is unobtrusive and just makes sense.

 

It’s not arrogance. It’s called skill. Aside from driving for 25 years, I have also amassed over 20,000 flight hours without accident or incident. It’s called paying attention to the task at hand, being ahead of the game, being aware of others around me, managing distractions accordingly. That’s not arrogance.

If we have systems that we “have to” depend on to keep us safe, how are we suppose manage a situation when that system fails? Like I said, paying attention is safer than any A.I. System available.

 

My experience in the driverless vehicle industry is the opposite. We have had vehicles in service that carry millions of passengers per hour per direction daily, for decades now. They have a near-perfect safety record that is far better than vehicles driven by meat drivers. That is because the computer does not get tired, and never shows up to work drunk. The safety-related controls are designed to have fewer than 10^-9 failures per hour.

If you look at any high performance aircraft designed since the 1970s, the flight controls are all computerized because the aircraft is inherently unstable. If the computer fails (and they never fail because of in-depth redundancy,) the pilot simply ejects because he has no chance of controlling the aircraft; i.e. the computer does the job better than he can.

Again, the best data available today are that front-facing radar systems reduce frontal collisions by 40-60% depending on the study you look at. You can easily google a report by an association of British collision repair shops, which looked at VW Golfs of the same model with and without the front radars. The cars equipped with the radars had 65% fewer forward collision repairs. So you can start to think about a future where these collisions do not ever occur, and there are a lot fewer collision repair shops.

In Florida, you do not get snow. But where I am, you can experience conditions of very low visibility, and in particular visibility that can drop to a few feet very suddenly in blizzard conditions. People die every year on the highway because of this. My truck has a forward facing radar that can see through the snow, and I am much less likely to rear end anyone as a result because the truck will brake itself.

 

Just because I don’t live in snow doesn’t mean I haven’t or don’t drive in those conditions. I’ve lived all over the country and flown all over the world. I don’t trust a computer to do my job. Computers fail! I experience it daily with my job as a pilot. Are you familiar with auto land? It allows a flight crew to land an aircraft in 0 visibility conditions. I have had that system fail not less than 20 times on 5 different types of aircraft that are equipped with it. Do you know how many A.I. Drones the US military loses each year because of system failures? Computers cannot effectively do a job that requires rational thought from a human. Computers cannot feel and cannot judge a scenario or think outside of the box. Human response is ALWAYS the best response in a critical situation.

Of course you cannot force the idiots on the road driving to pay attention, but you can pay attention and avoid situations very easily.

 

No touch.
That's good.
Anything made can be unmade.

 

I wonder how altering or turning it off will affect your car insurance?

 

I beg to differ. The number of accidents that could have been avoided, but happened because the driver simply 'locked up' and hit the brakes, is probably much larger than we think. Yes, rational thought and decision making can often avoid accidents. But many times the driver doesn't have the experience to do that quickly, and simply hits the brakes and fails to swerve, or fails to let off the brakes and slides into a collision because they have no steering.

I'm not discounting your skill, I'm simply suggesting that believing you're better than a computer in all situations is misguided. I consider myself a good driver, but I know I'm succesptible to lapses in attention.

I recall when computerized safety checks were implemented in my field. Even highly experienced staff ultimately admitted that the system had prevented them from making mistakes. Now we worry about the other end of the spectrum; staff being too reliant on the systems and not being as intimately engaged in the delivery of care as they were previously. It's a double edged sword and you have to take care on both sides.

 

Very good question. Actuarials will ultimately bear out the accident frequency. It may take a while, but rates should ultimately reflect the true risk.

 

Seat belts cost more lives than they save. Google it, you can get all drownded and stuff.

Years ago before seatbelt chimes I had a 350lb colleague as a passenger in my 1-ton GMC work van, told him to put his seat belt on, he said he didn't want to. I told him "Well, I don't want your 350lb ass bouncing around the cab crushing me if we get in a wreck". He thought about it for a couple seconds, said, "That's a good point", and put the belt on.