I suggest the link below is something that all tractor owners should read. This forum should be promoting lawn mower safety at all times instead of counselling people on how to make their equipment less safe than the manufacturers designed it to be and the lawmakers insist it should be.

Here is a link that might be useful: CPSC

It isn't a matter of whether I like my safety switches or not. What is at issue here is what can happen to both children and adults whenever lawn cutting equipment is in use. The statistics are out there if you wish to Google for them and the number of injuries per year is staggering.

What is also out there are these guys. See link below.

Read that site carefully. Try and understand the mentality of the person who wrote that. If you wonder WHY seat switches, PTO switches, RIO's and so forth exist, that site is one of the reasons. There are lawfirms all across the country that share their position and they are poised to file multi-million dollar lawsuits the first chance they get.

And you are quite correct when you say that this forum is all about sharing information. In case it escaped you, I was doing just that.... sharing information about what can happen in a split second while mowing your lawn along with what will assuredly follow afterward.

Now, if it makes your day to discuss bypassing these devices, go ahead. No sweat off my acorns. As for me, I wouldn't want to be party to such advice that might well lead to the injury or death of any person or animal,let alone the financial ruin of those involved.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bottom feeders

Kompressor--you are certainly correct in what you say! I do not tell folks how to disable their safety switches, for the million-dollar reason you have described! I'm not well to do, nor even slightly that, so i keep my ideas in my head. Let some fools disconnect the switches, but i don't!
Rusty Jones

thomis, are you willing to take personal responsibility and gladly pay up if you were involved in a similar situation? You would be creamed in court if the fact you disabled safety features were disclosed. The jury, all parents of young children, went after MTD because the company has deeper pockets than the Reedy's who ARE the responsible party. It was their negligence that largely contributed to the tragedy.
My buddy drives his late grandfather's 58 Edsel. If he gets into a wreck, should Ford be held liable for not retro fitting the car with air bags and seat belts? I think not (not that the tank needs them).
I sincerely hope MTD successfully appeals this one and the fault is placed squarely where it belongs.

You are right safety features have to be great because they protect us from ourselves. Here are few more they should add:
A loud beeper like trucks have when in reverse.
A proximity sensor that won't allow the mower to turn on if anyone or anything is within range of flying objects (~100 yards).
Engine automatically shuts off if mower exceeds slope recommendations in manual.
Hood lock that can't be unlocked if engine is running or any temperature above 70F.
ROPS and seatbelts on all tractors (never know when someone might use it past its capabilities).
Sensors that automatically stop the blades if they contact flesh (they already make these for table saws).
The list can go on and on, and while I am being a bit silly with most of these, there are people out there that think each one is a terrific idea. In the end these safety mechanisms are added by lawyers, not engineers trying to keep us safer. Some are good, some are ridiculous, it is differentiating between the two that is the issue. If you really want to be safe, hire someone to mow your lawn for you and go hide in the basement.

Most of these safety devices are worthwhile like the seat switch. I don't want my tractor to grind me up should I happen to fall off.

I also agree with all the recommendations of the CPSC.

However the RIO is what pushes this over the top. There should be a baseline expectation that the operator look where they're going. If that's not a valid expectation then all this stuff should be outlawed and we should go back to the stone ages.

To dumb down every product in our society to accomodate the lowest member of the Darwin awards should not be the design criteria.

In reading that judgment, it sounds like the only alternative is to go back to reel mower "technology." As silly as it may sound, back in the late '50's and early '60's when I was a little tyke and early teen, my parents always bought powered reel mowers instead of the "newer" available rotary types because they thought those were inherently unsafe. I do thank them now for their concern for my safety. Here's a pic of the future of ride-on mowing equipment as I see it. Almost fully enclosed, plus it gives that coveted striping effect to your lawn. Just imagine yourself in that commanding, anatomically contoured seat with load cell safety "presence" shut-off switch, and the looks of envy from your neighbours:

{{gwi:318048}}

i will tell someone how to defeat a RIO, but NEVER a seat switch or the PTO safety that prevents cranking is the PTO is engaged.

think about this, many machines have a key position that turns off the safety so that you can easily reverse while mowing. crank your machine, then turn teh key back 1 position. if that is deemed perfectly safe, then what is teh difference in bypassing one that you have to mash each and every time? i am willing to bet tha tthe vast majority of people whose machine has the key setting keep them in this position when cutting just to get rid of teh aggravation.

teh only way a manufacturer can make a machine safe is if they send a safety director out to stand guard over each and every person each and every time they operate one. the SD would have a remote control to kill teh machien instantly in teh even the person driving has his head as far up his ass as you do.

Maybe they should add a switch you have to pull to go forward as well but, of course, place the switch behind the seat ; )

"However the RIO is what pushes this over the top. There should be a baseline expectation that the operator look where they're going." Baseline expectations or not, The RIO safety switches are there to protect (mainly) inquisitive children who are curious by the very nature of being a child. The real "baseline expectation" in the argument "to RIO or not to RIO" is.........you can EXPECT children to be attracted to anything that looks like it might be a "fun toy to ride" or just because they want to "see what's going on". It's is a bit disparate that with all the statistics of injuries (and the nature of those injuries) from hospital emergency rooms annually.......that anybody would try to justify "their reason" for wanting to defeat a safety device or interlock system. Are you people unaware of the facts or do you just refuse to believe them? This diatribe of safety features by ignorant disbelievers only perpetuates the likelihood of injuries to occur in the future. So long as somebody is willing to publicly state or print their intent to defeat these safety devices/systems, there will be others willing to do the same. They will simply "adopt as their own", the reasons why it is OK to rid their own machine of "these useless inconveniences".

I hope someone keeps us posted on what happens with the appeal. The appeal mechanism is there for cases like this. I am behind MTD on this one.

I do think that many safety features make sense. I added a PTO brake to my 1969 Wheel Horse. I have also replaced a missing belt guard on that one as well as my 1964 Horse.

It is a tricky question. Ron Paul wants to abolish such laws, including seat belts. And indeed at one time there was a great deal deal of protest about mandatory seat belt laws.

ah well...

MTD did file a notice of appeal but decided to see if a settlement could be negotiated. I totally agree that the judgment should have been quashed at the appellate level because the jury certainly erred in coming to the conclusions they did.

There is no question in my mind that the party driving the LT that day was 100 percent at fault. He and his wife were running a day care centre. Why he would even think that it would be OK to cut any part of the lawn while children were under their care and control is beyond comprehension. Obviously, he and his wife don't have the proverbial pot to urinate in and the window needed is probably mortgaged to the max.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's dropped the suit against a stone that they couldn't get blood out of and proceeded solely against MTD and their deep corporate pockets. If the jury had a lick of common sense, they would have found in favour of MTD and put an end to the matter. Yes, the loss of a child is tragic but the wrong party got punished.

Whether anyone here likes it or not, jury awards like this one are far too common. Most of us know about the one against McDonald's over the hot coffee that some driver spilled on themselves.

Whether some tractors are equipped with a key switch that allows the operator to disable the RIO won't matter much should you end up in court. In fact, that information may not even make it to the jury's ears. Courts stick solely to the facts that surround the issue that led up to the injury or death. If you own a tractor and either disable a safety feature or fail to keep that safety feature in proper working order, then that's what the jury will hear.

In the eyes of the law, that's called negligence and proof of negligence is what jury's are asked to decide on. Some people on this forum don't take this issue very seriously because they don't take the use of lawn cutting equipment very seriously either. The sad part is that it's little kids that end up paying the price because some adult thinks that only drama queens concern themselves with such issues.

After reading the comments on this thread, I again watched my neighbor mowing his lawn with a JD tractor. I watched him immediately backing up many times to get around objects. Not once did he look back before quickly going into reverse. It does not take long to learn how to hit the RIO switch every time you back up. The switch did nothing to prevent accidents while backing up. Why is not not necessary to have an RIO switch in cars? Because we are taught to look back before going into reverse. It works all the time. Charles Ranheim

Charles,
There's several reasons why people, who would normally look back when reversing their motor vehicle, fail to do so when operating a LT/YT/GT.

First off, there's an assumption that there is nothing behind the tractor because we just traversed the path that we are now backing up in. We can't take such a chance with a car.

Secondly, if we do happen to go off track and bump into something, it's quite unlikely that we'll do any damage. Do that in a car and the damage often begins at a $1000.00 and goes upward quickly from there.

Thirdly, we also assume that because we are on our own property, we're the only object out there that is moving around. But when we are off of our property, the situation is totally different. We know that we're not alone and that we have to be on guard all the time.

I don't disagree with the notion that most RIO's are rather ineffective. What I am trying to make people understand is that by defeating any safety device on your tractor, you are leaving yourself very vulnerable should any sort of mishap occur while operating the machine.

I dont always like safety features but I wouldnt disable them. There is a reason they are there and I dont believe in tampering with a factory designed deeal. Both my John Deere 165 and Craftsman LT1000(2007) have all safetym systems accounted for and working properly. You just never know when something comes up that you may need it.

I wonder if all the people who disable RIO or seat switches repair them when they sell the equipment?

The tractor I just bought has the seat switch bypassed and I got no warning of it. If I want to climb out of the seat with the tractor running and the blades spinning, the tractor won't stop me....

If an accident happened who should I sue? Myself for my own incompetence, the manufacturer for making it possible to defeat the safety feature or the previous owner (which one?) for bypassing it? I think I'll just fix the "operator presence sensor" :)

As an aside regarding the infamous McDonalds case that was mentioned earlier.... The woman in question suffered 3rd degree burns, was hospitalized for 8 days where she recieved several skin grafts. She is permanently scarred. After the incident she contacted McDonalds requesting reimbursement for her injuries and expenses. She asked for $20,000, McDonalds offered $800. She sued. The Jury determined $200,000 was a suitable compensation but that she was partially at fault so it was reduced to $160,000. The jury also determined that McDonalds' conduct was reckless, callous and willful so they awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.... roughly equivalent to 2 days worth of coffee sales.

See the link below for the explanation of how this decision was reached.

I still don't get how flipping a switch on the dash in front of you makes a person have to look behind them? How idiotic. RIO's are not there for your safety, they are there so the manufacturers can be safe(r) from sue happy idiots. My tractor never had an RIO, does that mean I should stop using it immediately and never be able to sell it? To listen to some of you, that is your opinion.

No, but defeating a RIO makes you the target of the litigation pretty instantly.

Safer operation maybe, maybe not. Safer from potentially millions of dollars of litigation should the unthinkable happen, absolutely.

My tractor doesn't have an RIO either and I don't plan on adding one. However I do intend on fixing the seat switch as it is just plain dangerous to operate without. Pretty easy to forget the PTO is running after a while, climb off the tractor, and with a big 60" deck it takes a big step to keep toes out of range.

I prefer all my digits attached thank you, I will be fixing the seat switch ASAP.

and if you have a machine with all safeties working and you still manage to injure someone you will be just as liable as if you had disabled the safeties. the safeties are there so that the MANUFACTURER can say we did our part, it was the idiot driving who was at fault.

i have yet to see a single report of a RIO saving someone, yet even with working safeties people get injured every day.

I don't understand how you can say that the RIO is so the manufacturers can cover their backside, but in the same breath you can say that removing them does not put you any more in the line of fire.

Just as liable? Like the people who got off the hook in the above linked article?

You guys have got to see this. Real smart....

If you don't have a "wash port" on your deck, that's what you have to do to clean it. Just check your manual. The whole procedure is outlined right there including instructions on how to build your own wash pond and how to operate a crane.

hahah!

I was wondering what reason there was to revive this thread, but that was pretty cool.

Less effective than a brush cutter!