seatbealt ding
05-09-2007, 11:33 AM
#6
Nordschleife Master
have you tried putting the belt on? 
in all seriousness though, have you tried the VW dealer? Maybe their receiver is the same? What about a salvage yard? Maybe there is a universal type insert that works.
in all seriousness though, have you tried the VW dealer? Maybe their receiver is the same? What about a salvage yard? Maybe there is a universal type insert that works.
05-09-2007, 12:00 PM
#7
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
putting the belt on?! what an absurd idea!
i called the dealer....$110 for a new belt system (cant buy clip seperately). I think I may just try and machine one to match or try junk yard.
i called the dealer....$110 for a new belt system (cant buy clip seperately). I think I may just try and machine one to match or try junk yard.
Trending Topics
05-09-2007, 12:51 PM
#9
It can be disabled through the PIWIS system. This requires a trip to the dealer and signing a waiver............. If they will do it!
Most won't due to liability issues.
BTW, the PIWIS system has a screen that verifies the customer has agreed to having the chime disabled so PAG thought about the requirement.
An alternate way is to find the wires that plug into the seat belt receiver and jumper them.
Most won't due to liability issues.
BTW, the PIWIS system has a screen that verifies the customer has agreed to having the chime disabled so PAG thought about the requirement.
An alternate way is to find the wires that plug into the seat belt receiver and jumper them.
05-09-2007, 01:00 PM
#10
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i managed to find the plug under the seat to disable the ding, but i believe it also controls the airbag.
i called 3 dealers so far and none will disable it due to liability.
i called 3 dealers so far and none will disable it due to liability.
05-09-2007, 08:18 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by kaizashozay
i managed to find the plug under the seat to disable the ding, but i believe it also controls the airbag.
i called 3 dealers so far and none will disable it due to liability.
i called 3 dealers so far and none will disable it due to liability.
Or maybe you are like my my aging parents, who think that the airbag is actually a direct substitute for a seatbelt, thus making a seatbelt redundant?
05-10-2007, 10:37 AM
#12
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being fundamentally a libertarian, I should fully support anyone's decision to endanger his/her own life by not wearing a seatbelt, and just consider you folks to be good sources of donor organs for the rest of us. Perhaps I should just make a plea for you to deactivate the airbags while you're at it, but then the steering wheel is going to do a number on your liver that I may well need someday.
However, I confess to (small) pangs of resentment toward folks who don't want to wear seat belts. Since a vehicular crash is often a series of events, the likelihood of one being tossed out of a position in which one might have any hopes of controlling the vehicle during one of the earlier events increases the likelihood of worse things happening later in the evolution of the crash. This includes worse things potentially happening to those of us who are innocent bystanders (bydrivers?).
All this means is that, as much as I detest trial lawyers, if I'm ever hit by someone who has defeated a safety feature of his/her vehicle and there's the slightest hint that my outcome was worse because of that intentional act, I'll certainly be hiring my own detestable trial lawyer to try to bleed that driver as much as possible (if he had any blood left). Just for the record, after my medical bills were paid, I'd donate the rest to a worthwhile organization, - maybe an "anti-lawsuit-abuse" campaign.
Feel free to point out the hypocrisy of my NOT objecting to all of us driving around in ridiculously fast, 5500# missiles.
However, I confess to (small) pangs of resentment toward folks who don't want to wear seat belts. Since a vehicular crash is often a series of events, the likelihood of one being tossed out of a position in which one might have any hopes of controlling the vehicle during one of the earlier events increases the likelihood of worse things happening later in the evolution of the crash. This includes worse things potentially happening to those of us who are innocent bystanders (bydrivers?).
All this means is that, as much as I detest trial lawyers, if I'm ever hit by someone who has defeated a safety feature of his/her vehicle and there's the slightest hint that my outcome was worse because of that intentional act, I'll certainly be hiring my own detestable trial lawyer to try to bleed that driver as much as possible (if he had any blood left). Just for the record, after my medical bills were paid, I'd donate the rest to a worthwhile organization, - maybe an "anti-lawsuit-abuse" campaign.
Feel free to point out the hypocrisy of my NOT objecting to all of us driving around in ridiculously fast, 5500# missiles.
05-10-2007, 11:18 AM
#13
Rennlist Member
Like Sigs, I also have a real libertarian bent, but I do like the costs of "liberty" to be internalized as much as practical. To the degree that seatbelts increase the chance of loss of control and thus the chances that you'll damage ME, it's a slam dunk - I want nothing to do with you if you don't buckle up. I mean, come on - how does having a seatbelt on change your driving experience?
But I do have to admit that this is a slippery slope. There is a cost to society when anyone is injured and thus cannot be productive or need to have assistance with medical bills. Plus the insurance rates for all of us go up. That is obviously another problem with non-seatbelt usage. So let's internalize those costs, but if you take this concept to its logical conclusion, we would barely be able to get out of bed. I ride a motorcycle and when the moron hits me, the external costs would be higher than if I were in the Cayenne, so motorcycles should be outlawed. But I wouldn't want to drive the Cayenne, either, because engines over 150hp would already been outlawed based on their increased potential for societal damage.
Sure makes for an interesting debate.
But I do have to admit that this is a slippery slope. There is a cost to society when anyone is injured and thus cannot be productive or need to have assistance with medical bills. Plus the insurance rates for all of us go up. That is obviously another problem with non-seatbelt usage. So let's internalize those costs, but if you take this concept to its logical conclusion, we would barely be able to get out of bed. I ride a motorcycle and when the moron hits me, the external costs would be higher than if I were in the Cayenne, so motorcycles should be outlawed. But I wouldn't want to drive the Cayenne, either, because engines over 150hp would already been outlawed based on their increased potential for societal damage.
Sure makes for an interesting debate.
05-10-2007, 01:17 PM
#15
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sigs
Being fundamentally a libertarian, I should fully support anyone's decision to endanger his/her own life by not wearing a seatbelt, and just consider you folks to be good sources of donor organs for the rest of us. Perhaps I should just make a plea for you to deactivate the airbags while you're at it, but then the steering wheel is going to do a number on your liver that I may well need someday.
However, I confess to (small) pangs of resentment toward folks who don't want to wear seat belts. Since a vehicular crash is often a series of events, the likelihood of one being tossed out of a position in which one might have any hopes of controlling the vehicle during one of the earlier events increases the likelihood of worse things happening later in the evolution of the crash. This includes worse things potentially happening to those of us who are innocent bystanders (bydrivers?).
All this means is that, as much as I detest trial lawyers, if I'm ever hit by someone who has defeated a safety feature of his/her vehicle and there's the slightest hint that my outcome was worse because of that intentional act, I'll certainly be hiring my own detestable trial lawyer to try to bleed that driver as much as possible (if he had any blood left). Just for the record, after my medical bills were paid, I'd donate the rest to a worthwhile organization, - maybe an "anti-lawsuit-abuse" campaign.
Feel free to point out the hypocrisy of my NOT objecting to all of us driving around in ridiculously fast, 5500# missiles.
However, I confess to (small) pangs of resentment toward folks who don't want to wear seat belts. Since a vehicular crash is often a series of events, the likelihood of one being tossed out of a position in which one might have any hopes of controlling the vehicle during one of the earlier events increases the likelihood of worse things happening later in the evolution of the crash. This includes worse things potentially happening to those of us who are innocent bystanders (bydrivers?).
All this means is that, as much as I detest trial lawyers, if I'm ever hit by someone who has defeated a safety feature of his/her vehicle and there's the slightest hint that my outcome was worse because of that intentional act, I'll certainly be hiring my own detestable trial lawyer to try to bleed that driver as much as possible (if he had any blood left). Just for the record, after my medical bills were paid, I'd donate the rest to a worthwhile organization, - maybe an "anti-lawsuit-abuse" campaign.
Feel free to point out the hypocrisy of my NOT objecting to all of us driving around in ridiculously fast, 5500# missiles.