Disabling PWS Pedestrian Warning Sound?

[Widget]

I was wondering if anyone who has taken delivery has tried to disable the annoying PWS (pedestrian warning sound). I’m having a hard time deciphering the schematics I’ve seen. I can’t tell if it is still a separate speaker or if it is part of the “Super horn”.

 

[Cybertruck26]

I watched them replace mine, they just removed the front passenger side tire, took off the under panel (looks like a speaker grill), and the speaker is right there.

Just curious, why do you want to remove it?

 

[Outdoors]

Many don't like the sound. Both of our older cars don't have it. New one does. We don't live in an area where it helps people. We do like the silent for watching and seeing wildlife. A real silent car at 7 mph on cruise.

Try not to hit a pedestrian if one does disconnect. Knowing one took the time to remove might be problematic from a legal perspective. Who knows if it would create an in cabin alert.

 

[cgladue]

i will be removing my speaker as well. thankfully i have a model S and Model 3 before they were required.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I was wondering if anyone who has taken delivery has tried to disable the annoying PWS (pedestrian warning sound). I’m having a hard time deciphering the schematics I’ve seen. I can’t tell if it is still a separate speaker or if it is part of the “Super horn”.

Why would you want to disable a federally-mandated feature intended to save lives? Surely you could be more creative than sneaking up on and running down pedestrians

 

[Crissa]

Knowing one took the time to remove might be problematic from a legal perspective. Who knows if it would create an in cabin alert.

Not really, unless your argument was 'they stepped in front of me.'

Why would you want to disable a federally-mandated feature intended to save lives? Surely you could be more creative than sneaking up on and running down pedestrians

There's no evidence it saves lives. The motors and tires make noise.

-Crissa

 

[stevegshi]

So is it part of the ‘super horn’ or a separate speaker on CT?

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Not really, unless your argument was 'they stepped in front of me.'


There's no evidence it saves lives. The motors and tires make noise.

-Crissa

Intended @Crissa. I have to tell you, though, that I was caught by surprise twice in the last month as a pedestrian by BEVs at low speed that I neither saw nor heard. I would take it as an act of aggression someone disabling the warning would.

 

[baumer81]

Government mandated noise pollution.

 

[Flavio]

Seatbelts are annoying too, in my opinion.

My Teslas are also from before the requirement and I love how quiet they are exiting the garage etc… but.. especially for cybertruck I think pedestrian safety is an important concern. Very hard and pointy steel looks like can do some severe damage at any speed.

 

[Flavio]

Seatbelts are annoying too, in my opinion.

My Teslas are also from before the requirement and I love how quiet they are exiting the garage etc… but.. especially for cybertruck I think pedestrian safety is an important concern. Very hard and pointy steel looks like can do some severe damage at any speed.

I mean, I can see how a Model 3 has lower risk of injury vs a
Cybertruck in the event of a pedestrian collision

 

[Outdoors]

Not really, unless your argument was 'they stepped in front of me.'
-Crissa

Not exactly sure how to respond to that one. If I was the plaintiff. So I will look at it from that view even though I would be blind in this situation.

I think we would have to go beyond contributory negligence if one disabled the system and it resulted in a injury let say death.

There doesn't need to be a crime or a statute broken for negligence to exist. If one hits a blind person in a parking lot and killed or seriously injured them. Car would be towed away. Someone would find that a safety system had been disabled. The blind person couldn't hear as they walked from behind the car. Sure not all cars have them now.

Then we would be either at negligence per se or gross negligence. Maybe not reckless behaviour.

All I would have to do is prove the person violated an applicable safety law or regulation which would trigger automatic negligence in many states. Then did it cause injury.

If one is going to do it. At least install a switch. So one could turn it back on. You could say you forgot to turn it on. So then it would be contributory and not as bad.

That being said. I plan on a switch for my backwoods adventures. Everywhere else I can see why it exists. I just yesterday in my 3 creeped along behind a couple jibber jabbering away while walking dogs down the middle of road. Didn't want to honk. Had to roll down the window and say move it.

Whether it works or stats back it up is not material. What is would be one's maximum policy limits and how big of a check one feels like writing.

 

[massenbg75]

My daughter got a hybrid Honda CR-V and the PWS is way annoying. Much louder than any typical ICE exhaust. I would be very interested in having a switch. Maybe select-a-sound? E-Type Jaguar or random farts?

 

[cgladue]

the solution for pedestrian safety is pedestrians to stop looking down at their phones and pay attention, problem solved.

 

[firsttruck]

Not exactly sure how to respond to that one. If I was the plaintiff. So I will look at it from that view even though I would be blind in this situation.

I think we would have to go beyond contributory negligence if one disabled the system and it resulted in a injury let say death.

There doesn't need to be a crime or a statute broken for negligence to exist. If one hits a blind person in a parking lot and killed or seriously injured them. Car would be towed away. Someone would find that a safety system had been disabled. The blind person couldn't hear as they walked from behind the car. Sure not all cars have them now.

Then we would be either at negligence per se or gross negligence. Maybe not reckless behaviour.

All I would have to do is prove the person violated an applicable safety law or regulation which would trigger automatic negligence in many states. Then did it cause injury.

If one is going to do it. At least install a switch. So one could turn it back on. You could say you forgot to turn it on. So then it would be contributory and not as bad.

That being said. I plan on a switch for my backwoods adventures. Everywhere else I can see why it exists. I just yesterday in my 3 creeped along behind a couple jibber jabbering away while walking dogs down the middle of road. Didn't want to honk. Had to roll down the window and say move it.

Whether it works or stats back it up is not material. What is would be one's maximum policy limits and how big of a check one feels like writing.

I think you have very good points but I think you might have missed the one with broader impact.

It could be very well that insurance company deny coverage if you had disabled a government mandated warning system. Whoever disables these better get a good lawyer to read the fine print of your policy but even then I would expect profit driven insurance companies to still figure out how NOT to pay.