dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
14

EGeezer
Premium Member
join:2002-08-04
Midwest

1 recommendation

EGeezer to hgratt

Premium Member

to hgratt

Re: [Help] Infiniti Corporate Email and Physical Address

I believe you've made a reasonable case and are pursuing it appropriately by going to each level as the responses - or lack thereof - indicate.

Expecting a feature to work as advertised is not unreasonable. In this case, the feature was dis-functional to the point that a driver using it on the road would have created a safety and legal issue.

I've found that if you don't document and follow up regularly, things tend to come to a halt. Too often, someone will say "we'll get back to you ..." but you don't hear back. Then, If you wait too long and you try to re-activate the case, you have to start all over again.

As long as you keep communications civil and businesslike (a little schmoozing doesn't hurt either), I believe you will get your desired results by taking your present course.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

said by EGeezer:

Expecting a feature to work as advertised is not unreasonable. In this case, the feature was dis-functional to the point that a driver using it on the road would have created a safety and legal issue.

In what way has it created a safety or legal issue? Millions of cars are on the road that don't have call waiting blue tooth capabilities. If the car was advertised as having bluetooth call waiting support, and it didn't have that capability or it's implementation was broken, that's one issue if any type of redress is appropriate. It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure you answer your phone in a safe manner, and you ultimately have the choice of not answering the phone to begin with.

If you are relying on the manufacturer's implementation of a feature to keep you safe, you are going about things backwards. It's not the automaker's fault if you are following too closely behind someone too fast and your ABS can't stop you in time and the airbags don't prevent all injuries in the resulting collision.

Bluetooth call waiting on a 3rd party radio (presuming the radio is made by Clarion like the G35) is essentially a convenience feature on an add on system (bluetooth) to a non-critical component (radio). The fact that it's getting much of any attention somewhat surprises me. Buggy, shoddy, or incomplete implementations of advanced features that span many different devices is not all that uncommon.

EGeezer
Premium Member
join:2002-08-04
Midwest

1 edit

EGeezer

Premium Member

As insurance actuarial studies and the great body of evidence indicates, fiddling with a cellphone while driving is a safety issue. It's illegal in many areas, including the OP's, to use cell phones unless they're hands-free.

From a practical standpoint, using the advertised feature safely would require the user to pull off the road and park in a safe place prior to using it - something that would be impractical or even impossible to do in most driving situations.

Just because a feature is substantially misrepresented doesn't make it right if "everybody is doing it".

I still stand for the OP's right and justification to pursue the issue. It's a significant defect that, from a practical standpoint, makes the advertised feature unusable for a driver in a moving vehicle.
hgratt
join:2003-12-09
Plano, TX

1 recommendation

hgratt to EGeezer

Member

to EGeezer
said by EGeezer:

I believe you've made a reasonable case and are pursuing it appropriately by going to each level as the responses - or lack thereof - indicate.

Expecting a feature to work as advertised is not unreasonable. In this case, the feature was dis-functional to the point that a driver using it on the road would have created a safety and legal issue.

I've found that if you don't document and follow up regularly, things tend to come to a halt. Too often, someone will say "we'll get back to you ..." but you don't hear back. Then, If you wait too long and you try to re-activate the case, you have to start all over again.

As long as you keep communications civil and businesslike (a little schmoozing doesn't hurt either), I believe you will get your desired results by taking your present course.

As you indicated, I simply was taking a step by step approach to resolve this issue - I paid for a feature I felt was important and expected it to be as advertised. In fact, I have a good relationship with the dealer and especially the Infiniti Consumer Affair Department (CAD). The initial frustration was in getting a response from the factory - they seemed to be ignoring both me and their own CAD.

I have been in touch with the CAD weekly and as I previously indicated, they now are receiving numerous other complaints about the same issue. They do seem to be following thru in the manner one would hope. And yes, the conversations have been quite civil and constructive - the people I'm dealing with (CAD and Bluetooth specialist) have been quite helpful.

Thanks,
Harvey

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

jester121 to EGeezer

Premium Member

to EGeezer
said by EGeezer:

As insurance actuarial studies and the great body of evidence indicates, fiddling with a cellphone while driving is a safety issue. It's illegal in many areas, including the OP's, to use cell phones unless they're hands-free.

Hands-free, as in: not allowed to use your hand to hold the phone against your head while talking. Cell phone bans don't prohibit driving while touching the phone buttons with your hand for dialing or switching calls.

Otherwise, every vehicle bluetooth system that isn't 100% voice controlled would be illegal, since pressing a button the steering wheel to control the phone (or the touch screen on the nav screen) would violate the hands free clause.

EGeezer
Premium Member
join:2002-08-04
Midwest

EGeezer

Premium Member

I'll leave it to attorneys to comment on what constitutes "using" a handheld cell phone. Personally, unless someone is willing to pay my fines if I'm caught, I'll not be fiddling with a hand held cell phone while driving.

Handheld Cell Phones:
9 states, D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones while driving. Except for Maryland, all laws are primary enforcement—an officer may cite a driver for using a handheld cell phone without any other traffic offense taking place.

All Cell Phone Use: No state bans all cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit all cell phone use by certain drivers:

Novice Drivers: 30 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers.
School Bus Drivers: Bus drivers in 19 states and D.C. may not use a cell phone when passengers are present.

Text Messaging: 34 states, D.C. and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers. 31 states, D.C., and Guam have primary enforcement; the others, secondary.

Novice Drivers: An additional 7 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.
School Bus Drivers: 3 states restrict school bus drivers from texting while driving.

Some states such as Maine, N.H. and Utah treat cell phone use and texting as part of a larger distracted driving issue. In Utah, cellphone use is an offense only if a driver is also committing some other moving violation (other than speeding).

Crash Data Collection: Many states include a category for cell phone/electronic equipment distraction on police accident report forms. Recently proposed federal legislation would require states to collect this data in order to qualify for certain federal funding.

Preemption Laws: Many localities have passed their own distracted driving bans. However, some states – such as Fla., Ky., La., Miss., Nev., and Okla. – prohibit localities from enacting such laws.


»www.ghsa.org/html/statei ··· aws.html

As the referenced source mentioned, some local jurisdictions may have additional regulations. This is true in many states, where municipalities have their own bans.
said by news articles :

Darrell Petry, with the El Paso Police Department, says since the ordinance was passed last year officers there have been busy writing tickets.

“Since April 1st of 2010 through July 20th 2011 we’ve issued 10,941 cell phone citations,” said Petry.

Petry says the goal of the ordinance was to help drivers keep their mind on the road. “It takes the phone out of your hand from talking on the phone. It takes the phone or the device out of your hand from texting, Google searching, all that stuff that you can do on smartphones now.”

********

On Friday, Las Cruces police had an undercover traffic enforcement operation with officers posing as a city street work crew, officials said Monday. Police, wearing maintenance uniforms and standing by a utility truck, watched for traffic violations and radioed uniformed officers to make the stops down the road.

Police issued 122 citations, including 74 for people using a cell phone while driving. The cell phone fine in Las Cruces is $92.