Quote:
Originally Posted by yaymitch
GM and many other manufacturers have figured out how to remotely start a vehicle without having the parking brake engaged. BMW should be able to do the same thing. Show me where remote start has caused an accident when the parking brake has not been engaged. According to your logic no car should be able to start without the parking brake being on whether remotely or by an actual driver. Since when has starting an engine caused a car to move that otherwise was at rest before. Remote start has nothing to do with the parking brake being on or not. If the car wasn't moving before then it's not gonna start moving just because you turn the engine on. Lol. The safety feature is that remote start won't function if the car is in gear.
|
I'm sure BMW has also "figured out" how to remote start without the parking brake engaged. It's not a fancy piece of technology nor is it ground-breaking rocket science. It can even be done on a manual transmission car and the aftermarket has provided this technology for many years before the OEMs. All the technology is there, but they [BMW] chose not to implement it without the safeguards and for the reasons I've
already enumerated, and I stand with BMW on this one.
Read my post again if you do not truly understand the purpose of the parking brake because your argument about starting the engine of a non-moving vehicle having no affect on safety is moot. Many modern automatic transmission cars require depression of the brake pedal before allowing an engine to start as a safety feature. The parking brake prerequisite is no more "annoying" than having to depress the brake pedal to start the engine from the driver's seat and the two features are analogous to each other.
As mentioned before, just because some uninformed drivers find setting the parking brake "annoying" or redundant doesn't eliminate the fact that it is designed to be the primary mechanism keeping a vehicle in position while parked, and not the transmission, regardless of AT or MT.
Most, if not all, driving schools, instructors, and handbooks concur with this position.
In fact, in Texas and California, where you and I live, it is actually required that the parking brake be set while a vehicle is parked, at all times.
Of course, these are quite obscure laws that nobody cares to enforce, just like how changing out your US-spec OEM amber reflectors for painted ones/Euro Bumper probably won't land you a ticket or a fine. But these laws were written not for ticket revenue but for safety. And unlike the anti-idling legislation, these safety laws have nothing to do with emissions either. Safety is the sole reason and doesn't need any other justification, regardless of the low risks.
So it is unsurprising nor should it be shunned upon, that an OEM manufacturer of automobiles (i.e., BMW) puts safety in high regard.
The fact that GM is more lax with its safety shouldn't be something to be proud of.
I am quite appalled that on a BMW enthusiast forum, where most members self-identify as car enthusiasts, so much misinformation and false assumptions about basic parking procedures can be so widespread.
TL;DR: The key point is that the parking brake is designed to serve as the primary mechanism that holds a vehicle stationary while parked and is stronger than having the secondary/backup mechanism, that is the transmission components, hold the weight of the car.
It is standard protocol in basic driving handbooks/classes and required in some jurisdictions that the parking brake be set while a vehicle is parked.
It comes as no surprise, then, that BMW requires the parking brake to be set for its remote start feature to activate. The fact that there are manufacturers like GM that do not take this into consideration is not objective validation that setting the parking brake is redundant or unnecessary.