Sponsored
Bronco Raptor seatbelt reminder removal ForScan instructions!!
It seems there has been a change lately.
On the hwy today, wife unbuckled to reach the cooler. Cleared the popup when she buckled back up.
I noticed that sometime in the last few weeks the popup changed, I can click it away as long as it isn't in gear, even a seconds after startup.
- First Name
- Mid
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2024
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 33
- Location
- California
- Vehicle(s)
- Bronco Raptor
- Your Bronco Model
- Raptor
I will get whatever a Forscan is just for this lol. I've obviously heard of it here but will dig deeper now.
How did we even get here?
"... every year, thousands of unrestrained motor vehicle occupants are killed in crashes, and tens of thousands of unrestrained occupants are injured (additional details on the target population are provided in the summary of benefits and costs later in this executive summary).
Many of these unbelted occupants are likely amenable to using a seat belt. Seat belt nonusers can be categorized as either “part-time” nonusers or so-called “hard-core” nonusers. Part-time nonusers generally express positive attitudes toward seat belts, but do not always buckle up, due to a range of reasons, such as short trips, forgetfulness, and being in a rush. Hard-core nonusers are those who generally do not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and are opposed to their use. Consumer research suggests that most nonusers are part-time nonusers, not hard-core nonusers. This is true even for front seat occupants, for which there is a relatively high rate of observed seat belt use. For instance, NHTSA's most recent survey of seat belt use found that approximately 83% of drivers who did not always use a seat belt reported using a seat belt most or some of the time, and only 17% were hard-core nonusers who used seat belts rarely or never. The same is true for rear seat passengers who do not always use a belt, of whom 70% used a belt most or some of the time, while only 30% used a belt rarely or never.
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the driver that a passenger is unbelted so that the driver can request the unbelted occupant to buckle up. The warnings provided by seat belt warning systems typically consist of visual and/or audible signals. Research by NHTSA and others shows that seat belt warning systems are effective at getting unbuckled occupants to fasten their seat belt.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” requires a short-duration audio-visual seat belt warning for the driver's seat belt on passenger cars, most trucks and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less. According to the FMVSS No. 208 standard, the visual component of the warning generally must be at least sixty seconds long, and the audible component must be at least four seconds long.
In general, voluntary adoption of warnings that go beyond this regulatory minimum, while considerable, has been mixed. Although the regulations do not require seat belt warnings for any seating position other than the driver's seat, almost all model year (MY) 2022 vehicles have a voluntarily-provided seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat. However, voluntary adoption for rear seats has been much slower, as only about 47% come equipped with a voluntarily-provided rear seat belt warning system (SBWS). Most vehicles already provide a seat belt warning for both front outboard seats that is much longer than the minimal required warning for the driver's seat belt, with the vast majority of vehicles including an alert that is at least 90 seconds. This suggests that the front seat belt warning minimum requirements in the FMVSS are outdated, as consumers seem clearly willing to accept audio-visual reminders that are far longer than the required four seconds."
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...t-crash-protection-seat-belt-reminder-systems
Regarding the bolded portion - BULLSHIT. How the NHTSA reached that conclusion is pure poppycock. Consumers are not "clearly willing." In fact, just the opposite. This is where Chevron deference should have ended this methodology such that a 3rd party can make an unbiased judgement on public opinion. Modern ASS systems should be held in check as well. What pisses people off here is they are wearing their seatbelts but they continue to be reprimanded via mandated warnings. That pushes the very people trying to comply, away.
But now we have to deal with an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208
"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 “Occupant Crash Protection,” which currently requires a seat belt warning for the driver’s seat but does not require a warning for other seating positions. The proposed rule would also update current driver seat belt warning system requirements.
NHTSA’s proposed rule would implement the following requirements for rear seats:
NHTSA’s proposed rule would also implement the following requirements for front seats:
Manufacturers would have the flexibility to adjust warning signal characteristics – such as frequency and volume – to make the warning both effective and acceptable to vehicle owners.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-proposes-seat-belt-warning-system-expansion
Love that last sentence. I am tired of the same BS, much like "common sense gun control." They know that once the law is in place that they can have what they wanted in the first place - complete control. You WILL comply, eventually anyway.
Hence, threads like this. Ford is going to have to increase complexity such that programs like FORScan cannot defeat the implementation of these changes or they'll be seen as being complicit. There has to be a better way than to torture drivers with audio/visual warnings such that attitudes will eventually change, or so our "beloved" government agencies believe.
"... every year, thousands of unrestrained motor vehicle occupants are killed in crashes, and tens of thousands of unrestrained occupants are injured (additional details on the target population are provided in the summary of benefits and costs later in this executive summary).
Many of these unbelted occupants are likely amenable to using a seat belt. Seat belt nonusers can be categorized as either “part-time” nonusers or so-called “hard-core” nonusers. Part-time nonusers generally express positive attitudes toward seat belts, but do not always buckle up, due to a range of reasons, such as short trips, forgetfulness, and being in a rush. Hard-core nonusers are those who generally do not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and are opposed to their use. Consumer research suggests that most nonusers are part-time nonusers, not hard-core nonusers. This is true even for front seat occupants, for which there is a relatively high rate of observed seat belt use. For instance, NHTSA's most recent survey of seat belt use found that approximately 83% of drivers who did not always use a seat belt reported using a seat belt most or some of the time, and only 17% were hard-core nonusers who used seat belts rarely or never. The same is true for rear seat passengers who do not always use a belt, of whom 70% used a belt most or some of the time, while only 30% used a belt rarely or never.
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the driver that a passenger is unbelted so that the driver can request the unbelted occupant to buckle up. The warnings provided by seat belt warning systems typically consist of visual and/or audible signals. Research by NHTSA and others shows that seat belt warning systems are effective at getting unbuckled occupants to fasten their seat belt.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” requires a short-duration audio-visual seat belt warning for the driver's seat belt on passenger cars, most trucks and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less. According to the FMVSS No. 208 standard, the visual component of the warning generally must be at least sixty seconds long, and the audible component must be at least four seconds long.
In general, voluntary adoption of warnings that go beyond this regulatory minimum, while considerable, has been mixed. Although the regulations do not require seat belt warnings for any seating position other than the driver's seat, almost all model year (MY) 2022 vehicles have a voluntarily-provided seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat. However, voluntary adoption for rear seats has been much slower, as only about 47% come equipped with a voluntarily-provided rear seat belt warning system (SBWS). Most vehicles already provide a seat belt warning for both front outboard seats that is much longer than the minimal required warning for the driver's seat belt, with the vast majority of vehicles including an alert that is at least 90 seconds. This suggests that the front seat belt warning minimum requirements in the FMVSS are outdated, as consumers seem clearly willing to accept audio-visual reminders that are far longer than the required four seconds."
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...t-crash-protection-seat-belt-reminder-systems
Regarding the bolded portion - BULLSHIT. How the NHTSA reached that conclusion is pure poppycock. Consumers are not "clearly willing." In fact, just the opposite. This is where Chevron deference should have ended this methodology such that a 3rd party can make an unbiased judgement on public opinion. Modern ASS systems should be held in check as well. What pisses people off here is they are wearing their seatbelts but they continue to be reprimanded via mandated warnings. That pushes the very people trying to comply, away.
But now we have to deal with an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208
"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 “Occupant Crash Protection,” which currently requires a seat belt warning for the driver’s seat but does not require a warning for other seating positions. The proposed rule would also update current driver seat belt warning system requirements.
NHTSA’s proposed rule would implement the following requirements for rear seats:
- A visual warning on vehicle startup lasting at least 60 seconds to notify the driver of the status of the rear seat belts.
- An audio-visual change-of-status warning lasting at least 30 seconds if a rear seat belt is unbuckled while the vehicle is in operation.
NHTSA’s proposed rule would also implement the following requirements for front seats:
- An audio-visual seat belt use warning for the right front passenger’s seat.
- An audio-visual seat belt use warning for the driver and right front passenger seat that remains active until both the driver and right front passenger seat occupants are belted.
- An audio-visual change-of-status warning for both the driver and right front passenger seats that remains active until the unfastened seat belt is refastened.
Manufacturers would have the flexibility to adjust warning signal characteristics – such as frequency and volume – to make the warning both effective and acceptable to vehicle owners.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-proposes-seat-belt-warning-system-expansion
Love that last sentence. I am tired of the same BS, much like "common sense gun control." They know that once the law is in place that they can have what they wanted in the first place - complete control. You WILL comply, eventually anyway.
Hence, threads like this. Ford is going to have to increase complexity such that programs like FORScan cannot defeat the implementation of these changes or they'll be seen as being complicit. There has to be a better way than to torture drivers with audio/visual warnings such that attitudes will eventually change, or so our "beloved" government agencies believe.
Last edited:
Sponsored
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- #36
I don't need any help putting on a device to keep me from going through a windshield. I wear mine religiously. But the government control is completely out of fugging control!How did we even get here?
"... every year, thousands of unrestrained motor vehicle occupants are killed in crashes, and tens of thousands of unrestrained occupants are injured (additional details on the target population are provided in the summary of benefits and costs later in this executive summary).
Many of these unbelted occupants are likely amenable to using a seat belt. Seat belt nonusers can be categorized as either “part-time” nonusers or so-called “hard-core” nonusers. Part-time nonusers generally express positive attitudes toward seat belts, but do not always buckle up, due to a range of reasons, such as short trips, forgetfulness, and being in a rush. Hard-core nonusers are those who generally do not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and are opposed to their use. Consumer research suggests that most nonusers are part-time nonusers, not hard-core nonusers. This is true even for front seat occupants, for which there is a relatively high rate of observed seat belt use. For instance, NHTSA's most recent survey of seat belt use found that approximately 83% of drivers who did not always use a seat belt reported using a seat belt most or some of the time, and only 17% were hard-core nonusers who used seat belts rarely or never. The same is true for rear seat passengers who do not always use a belt, of whom 70% used a belt most or some of the time, while only 30% used a belt rarely or never.
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the driver that a passenger is unbelted so that the driver can request the unbelted occupant to buckle up. The warnings provided by seat belt warning systems typically consist of visual and/or audible signals. Research by NHTSA and others shows that seat belt warning systems are effective at getting unbuckled occupants to fasten their seat belt.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” requires a short-duration audio-visual seat belt warning for the driver's seat belt on passenger cars, most trucks and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less. According to the FMVSS No. 208 standard, the visual component of the warning generally must be at least sixty seconds long, and the audible component must be at least four seconds long.
In general, voluntary adoption of warnings that go beyond this regulatory minimum, while considerable, has been mixed. Although the regulations do not require seat belt warnings for any seating position other than the driver's seat, almost all model year (MY) 2022 vehicles have a voluntarily-provided seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat. However, voluntary adoption for rear seats has been much slower, as only about 47% come equipped with a voluntarily-provided rear seat belt warning system (SBWS). Most vehicles already provide a seat belt warning for both front outboard seats that is much longer than the minimal required warning for the driver's seat belt, with the vast majority of vehicles including an alert that is at least 90 seconds. This suggests that the front seat belt warning minimum requirements in the FMVSS are outdated, as consumers seem clearly willing to accept audio-visual reminders that are far longer than the required four seconds."
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...t-crash-protection-seat-belt-reminder-systems
Regarding the bolded portion - BULLSHIT. How the NHTSA reached that conclusion is pure poppycock. Consumers are not "clearly willing." In fact, just the opposite. This is where Chevron deference should have ended this methodology such that a 3rd party can make an unbiased judgement on public opinion. Modern ASS systems should be held in check as well. What pisses people off here is they are wearing their seatbelts but they continue to be reprimanded via mandated warnings. That pushes the very people trying to comply, away.
But now we have to deal with an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208
"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 “Occupant Crash Protection,” which currently requires a seat belt warning for the driver’s seat but does not require a warning for other seating positions. The proposed rule would also update current driver seat belt warning system requirements.
NHTSA’s proposed rule would implement the following requirements for rear seats:
- A visual warning on vehicle startup lasting at least 60 seconds to notify the driver of the status of the rear seat belts.
- An audio-visual change-of-status warning lasting at least 30 seconds if a rear seat belt is unbuckled while the vehicle is in operation.
NHTSA’s proposed rule would also implement the following requirements for front seats:
- An audio-visual seat belt use warning for the right front passenger’s seat.
- An audio-visual seat belt use warning for the driver and right front passenger seat that remains active until both the driver and right front passenger seat occupants are belted.
- An audio-visual change-of-status warning for both the driver and right front passenger seats that remains active until the unfastened seat belt is refastened.
Manufacturers would have the flexibility to adjust warning signal characteristics – such as frequency and volume – to make the warning both effective and acceptable to vehicle owners.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-proposes-seat-belt-warning-system-expansion
Love that last sentence. I am tired of the same BS, much like "common sense gun control." They know that once the law is in place that they can have what they wanted in the first place - complete control. You WILL comply, eventually anyway.
Hence, threads like this. Ford is going to have to increase complexity such that programs like FORScan cannot defeat the implementation of these changes or they'll be seen as being complicit. There has to be a better way than to torture drivers with audio/visual warnings such that attitudes will eventually change, or so our "beloved" government agencies believe.
Last edited:
Its as bad as the TSB for the seatbelt clip addition which Ford did a stop delivery on because well if the seatbelt falls to far down, the lazy people wont use them.
Yeah, once you eat a windshield you stop complaining about seat belts and airbags.
Pieces of windshield glass came out of me for years, long after I thought it was all gone.
FYI since I wasn't paying attention, with these new changes the R symbol for the R button doesn't show, but it still puts in in R mode which I can live with.
Did this today and am hoping to see some data from those of you that have done this.
To begin with, I've used FORScan off and on for about 8 years now. My license expired so I drove over to a friend's house and used his along with his laptop. I made changes in his driveway. To start, ugh...
Linked up and with the program running and navigated to the IPC module and scrolled down to the 4 addresses I wanted to tweak. Here's how mine read at 720-13 and 720-14 before I made any changes (2024 Bronco Raptor).
I entered in all zero's at those two addresses, both 01 and 02 for each...
Clicked on write all and the checksum calcs results are below. Note the last block on each line.
I know they can differ depending on other variables between vehicles but does anyone elses data match this? So it worked, but seemed a bit wonky at first. After turning the "key" to off, then back on, I got this screen...
Never seen that screen before, vehicle was fully charged with 2,655 trouble free miles on it so far. That screen went away eventually and then two screens fought for control for a moment, then went away.
I did change and return the data to stock, then to all zero again just to verify that the belt warning screen was gone. It was indeed. All seems fine at this point. Other modes work just fine and I see the R in Baja Mode.
Can you guys that have done this look at the relevant addresses and see if your checksum results were the same?
To begin with, I've used FORScan off and on for about 8 years now. My license expired so I drove over to a friend's house and used his along with his laptop. I made changes in his driveway. To start, ugh...
Linked up and with the program running and navigated to the IPC module and scrolled down to the 4 addresses I wanted to tweak. Here's how mine read at 720-13 and 720-14 before I made any changes (2024 Bronco Raptor).
I entered in all zero's at those two addresses, both 01 and 02 for each...
Clicked on write all and the checksum calcs results are below. Note the last block on each line.
I know they can differ depending on other variables between vehicles but does anyone elses data match this? So it worked, but seemed a bit wonky at first. After turning the "key" to off, then back on, I got this screen...
Never seen that screen before, vehicle was fully charged with 2,655 trouble free miles on it so far. That screen went away eventually and then two screens fought for control for a moment, then went away.
I did change and return the data to stock, then to all zero again just to verify that the belt warning screen was gone. It was indeed. All seems fine at this point. Other modes work just fine and I see the R in Baja Mode.
Can you guys that have done this look at the relevant addresses and see if your checksum results were the same?
Last edited:
Sponsored
- First Name
- Jeff
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2022
- Threads
- 17
- Messages
- 506
- Reaction score
- 1,242
- Location
- Out of the country until late 2025
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Bronco Badlands
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
It still amazes me that programming can vary so much from vehicle to vehicle. My ‘23 F-150 Raptor has the same warning and same graphic, but you can disable it in the vehicle settings. No program change necessary. Seems like manufacturers could standardize stuff like this.Yes the raptor has a way more obnoxious reminder. And if for any reason someone unbuckles while driving and buckles right back up it will stay on the screen until you turn the vehicle off and back on. It's pretty ridiculous. It was not an issue on my 22 obx.
At this point, some of this is voluntary but lengthened chime/warning times will be mandated and implemented soon.
Remember when it used to be as easy as pulling the little tin buzzer out of the fuse panel?
- First Name
- Ron
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2021
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 3,875
- Location
- Mount Sinai, NY (Long Island)
- Vehicle(s)
- 2009 Dodge Challenger, 2007 FLHTC "Classic"
- Your Bronco Model
- Wildtrak
Fixed:
When used on a farm or ranch, or in a situation where you may have to get in and out often, this comes in handy. Not recommended for Road use.
When used on a farm or ranch, or in a situation where you may have to get in and out often, this comes in handy. Not recommended for Road use.
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- #44
Negative. Still get the seatbelt popup and I can't stand itFixed:
When used on a farm or ranch, or in a situation where you may have to get in and out often, this comes in handy. Not recommended for Road use.
Last edited:
For anyone experiencing loss of function of the R button, it's fairly common. Disconnecting your battery for 10 min will fix it. It can also spontaneously begin working again. There are threads here on this.
Sponsored
Similar threads
