RAV 4 Recall

[SYZ]

So much for Toyota's alleged invincibility...

Toyota Australia has announced the recall of roughly 98,000 RAV4 SUV cars due to potential damage to their seat belts in the event of a crash.

This has been triggered by the discovery of a "potential issue with both outboard seat belts of the second row seats" Toyota Australia said in a statement today 18 Feb. There is a possibility that—in the event of a high-speed frontal collision—the seat belt webbing could contact a portion of the metal seat cushion frame, become cut and separate".

This recall affects vehicles manufactured up the November 2012 model. The warning is part of a global recall of almost three million vehicles issued by Toyota Motor Corp today.

Toyota Australia said today that there have been "no accidents or injuries as a result of the seat belt issue". How can they realistically make this claim when there've been nearly a hundred thousand of these RAV4s sold in Australia? What about RAV4s involved in fatal accidents and/or totally written off? Were the seat belts ever tested forensically? I'd be guessing the answer to be negative, as all seat belts are nominally understood to satisfy ADRs. Will there now be any litigation against Toyota mounted by seriously injured rear-seat passengers of RAV4s?

And this raises the obvious question: How many other vehicles travelling our roads have substandard fittings or accessories that don't satisfy ADRs? And exactly how are vehicle fitments and safety devices checked for conformity to the ADRs (administered by the Australian Infrastructure and Regional Development department)? In this case, they've failed with a fairly easy, physically obvious check. I hate to think of all the other possibly hidden safety devices etc that are not being adequately tested, and are just as potentially dangerous.

[1TUFFUTE]

Well stuff me....that puts Toyota the unbreakable in the clear lead this year allready with two safety recalls. Wonder if they'll pass their record of 30ish from last year....
At least they're not covering it up like GM and their multi billion $$$ ongoing lawsuit!
Id be betting anyone who hears about this and was injured due to seat belts in a rav 4 will take action! Odds with 3million cars would be high I'd say....ouch!

[jimt3te50]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Well stuff me....that puts Toyota the unbreakable in the clear lead this year allready with two safety recalls. Wonder if they'll pass their record of 30ish from last year....
At least they're not covering it up like GM and their multi billion $$$ ongoing lawsuit!
Id be betting anyone who hears about this and was injured due to seat belts in a rav 4 will take action! Odds with 3million cars would be high I'd say....ouch!

You've seen Fight Club? Where he explains to the woman on the plane that he works for a major car manufacturer and its his job to work out if they have to do a recall and how they work it out?

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Well stuff me....that puts Toyota the unbreakable in the clear lead this year allready with two safety recalls. Wonder if they'll pass their record of 30ish from last year....
At least they're not covering it up like GM and their multi billion $$$ ongoing lawsuit!
Id be betting anyone who hears about this and was injured due to seat belts in a rav 4 will take action! Odds with 3million cars would be high I'd say....ouch!

ummm pinto and explorer.
all companies have them

[BENT_8]

Lol, Toyota are recalling for an issue that may arise in a serious frontal collision, not what has occurred.

Thats exactly why Toyota are considered the best, on the front foot to sort any issues.
Lets not forget, they probably source them from a supplier.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Lol, Toyota are recalling for an issue that may arise in a serious frontal collision, not what has occurred. [...]

"Toyota said it had received two reports in North America, in which rear seatbelts separated following crashes, including one involving a fatal accident in Canada."
—dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur, GmbH, 18 Feb.

[SYZ]

I've often thought our ADRs are a bit of a joke anyway, with their focus on some relatively inconsequential things.....

• Colour of reversing lights; amber permissible. So the same as turn indicators? Yeah, that makes sense [sic]. Shouldn't they be white?

• Windscreen wiper arms must be non-reflective. Despite the fact that they were all chrome-plated for 75 years prior, and were never cited as the cause of any accidents. Eighties VWs and Mercedes were chromed, and you can easily buy chromed after-market arms for most cars today.

• Location of rear-view mirrors. Seriously? I would've thought it's bleedin' obvious where they should go—and have for decades. And I'm sure all car manufactureers have got it worked out by now—even in Ecuador, Azerbaijan, or Belarus.

• Photometric performance (brightness, for you and me on planet Earth!) of instrument panel lighting. Good one; I can't recall the number of times I've had an accident when I've been blinded by my dash lights.

• Windscreen washers must operate for at least 10 wiper cycles. So if you're out of washer water, your car's technically unroadworthy? What next; on-the-spot fines by overenthusiastic traffic cops?

• Photometric performance of license plate lights. Apparently 5 watts is okay, but 8 watts is too bright? Maybe we could improve safety by making 'em 3 watts (using that logic)? Or even better, no lights.

[Ansimp]

Originally Posted by SYZ

I've often thought our ADRs are a bit of a joke anyway, with their focus on some relatively inconsequential things.....


• Photometric performance of license plate lights. Apparently 5 watts is okay, but 8 watts is too bright? Maybe we could improve safety by making 'em 3 watts (using that logic)? Or even better, no lights.

I am Still trying to figure out what purpose license plate lights serve!!!
Shouldn't the patrol car have their lights on so that they can see the plate clearly

[Jess1992]

Originally Posted by Ansimp

I am Still trying to figure out what purpose license plate lights serve!!!
Shouldn't the patrol car have their lights on so that they can see the plate clearly

I was told it's so cctv or cameras can pick up the license plate

[sprintman1]

Originally Posted by Ansimp

I am Still trying to figure out what purpose license plate lights serve!!!
Shouldn't the patrol car have their lights on so that they can see the plate clearly

You're taking the **** yes?

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by SYZ

So much for Toyota's alleged invincibility...

I hate to think of all the other possibly hidden safety devices etc that are not being adequately tested, and are just as potentially dangerous.

I don't know how you perceive this sort of recall to be a negative for Toyota.
nothing has actually failed/broken on the car yet, its a potential issue

Good on them for addressing potentially Dangerous situations when they find them, especially on cars that are not even current models. I'm not so sure other manufacturers would do the same.

I view this as a positive for Toyota.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

I don't know how you perceive this sort of recall to be a negative for Toyota.
Nothing has actually failed/broken on the car yet, its a potential issue [...]

You may not have seen my earlier post:

"Toyota said it had received two reports in North America, in which rear seatbelts separated following crashes, including one involving a fatal accident in Canada."
—dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur, GmbH, 18 Feb.

I'm also a little confused how you can describe the recall of 98,000 vehicles manufactured over a 7-year period a "positive" for a car company. You commend Toyota for fixing this life-threatening fault, but only after it's been undetected for an 11-year period!

Any/all recalls for any car company has to be a negative in my opinion. It's for a fault that should never have slipped through any competent QA in the first place. And even one death is one too many; you'd be thinking totally differently if that one person was your wife or daughter I'm sure.

[mik]

Originally Posted by SYZ

You may not have seen my earlier post:

"Toyota said it had received two reports in North America, in which rear seatbelts separated following crashes, including one involving a fatal accident in Canada."
—dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur, GmbH, 18 Feb.

I'm also a little confused how you can describe the recall of 98,000 vehicles manufactured over a 7-year period a "positive" for a car company. You commend Toyota for fixing this life-threatening fault, but only after it's been undetected for an 11-year period!

Any/all recalls for any car company has to be a negative in my opinion. It's for a fault that should never have slipped through any competent QA in the first place. And even one death is one too many; you'd be thinking totally differently if that one person was your wife or daughter I'm sure.

To be fair, in the post you've put up it does not specifically say the seat belt was the cause of the death, so , without having accurate details, it's probably best not to jump to conclusions, for all we know the whole car may have been run over by a b double, and the seat belt separated..

[1TUFFUTE]

I'm with the OP! I'm surprised no one checked by using the seatbelt, that when in use it rubs on the metal seat frame.....therefore possibly being blind Freddie dangerous in a front on accident. We're not just talking about 98k cars here either. It's 3million rav 4s!

At any rate...I agree....any safety recall is bad. It means a seriously dangerous and potentially brutal public nitemare for the company has just been FIXED!


Take away the badges for a second.....
Would you rather drive in cars A with Over 30 safety recalls the last year or so...
Or carsB with about 10 recalls?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

I'm surprised no one checked by using the seatbelt, that when in use it rubs on the metal seat frame....

I think the article said
"There is a possibility that—in the event of a high-speed frontal collision—the seat belt webbing could contact a portion of the metal seat cushion frame, become cut and separate".

Not constant rubbing, just maybe in a high speed crash.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by SYZ

You may not have seen my earlier post:

"Toyota said it had received two reports in North America, in which rear seatbelts separated following crashes, including one involving a fatal accident in Canada."
—dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur, GmbH, 18 Feb.

I'm also a little confused how you can describe the recall of 98,000 vehicles manufactured over a 7-year period a "positive" for a car company. You commend Toyota for fixing this life-threatening fault, but only after it's been undetected for an 11-year period!

Any/all recalls for any car company has to be a negative in my opinion. It's for a fault that should never have slipped through any competent QA in the first place. And even one death is one too many; you'd be thinking totally differently if that one person was your wife or daughter I'm sure.

Why do you think it took 11 years to be discovered?

Surely the example given isnt the only vehicle to be involved in a serious frontal collision in 11 years.

Do you think it might be that the particular example involved an accident so catastrophic that it couldnt foreseen or be tested for prior to releasing the vehicle.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by SYZ

You may not have seen my earlier post:

"Toyota said it had received two reports in North America, in which rear seatbelts separated following crashes, including one involving a fatal accident in Canada."
—dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur, GmbH, 18 Feb.

I'm also a little confused how you can describe the recall of 98,000 vehicles manufactured over a 7-year period a "positive" for a car company. You commend Toyota for fixing this life-threatening fault, but only after it's been undetected for an 11-year period!

Any/all recalls for any car company has to be a negative in my opinion. It's for a fault that should never have slipped through any competent QA in the first place. And even one death is one too many; you'd be thinking totally differently if that one person was your wife or daughter I'm sure.

Yes I read the whole article. not just the Headline

[Macht]

I'd be more concerned if they didn't recall it.
They have found a fault, so they are fixing it.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Macht

I'd be more concerned if they didn't recall it.
They have found a fault, so they are fixing it.

Of course, but you should be more concerned it needs to be fixed in the first place.

[Boosted8]

Potential
adjective

1. having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Boosted8

Potential

Thats 3 syllables man, way too deep...

[last fairlane]

So as Mik says the seat belt might have failed
because the car got ran over by a B double
they dont say what sort of accident it was
even if it was a 60 tonne B double that ran over the Rav4
if truck was only doing 99kph on the freeway every one would walk away
but if it was doing 101kph every one would be dead
as we know every K over is a killer
yeah right

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by last fairlane

So as Mik says the seat belt might have failed
because the car got ran over by a B double
they dont say what sort of accident it was
even if it was a 60 tonne B double that ran over the Rav4
if truck was only doing 99kph on the freeway every one would walk away
but if it was doing 101kph every one would be dead
as we know every K over is a killer
yeah right

The B double was swerving 10 potholes.....the Rav4 had a tail light out tho