I wasn't going to post any more to this thread, but seeing as it's you.. :)

> Rob, I get the feeling you are not very happy about this.

Actually I think it's a common sense approach.

Consider Mr Twatt of New York NY. He crashes his car because visuals on his empeg were distracting in the corner of his eye. If he should decide to go to court, how much stronger is our case if we can demonstrate that he had chosen to switch on that visual for that specific journey? Choosing to switch something on is often a stronger indication of responsibility than not choosing to switch something off. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Not giving people rope to hang themselves is generally a sensible commercial move, but I certainly don't think we take it to extremes. In this case we have changed a default action that can be over-ridden with one button on the remote (less convenient for those people who don't carry a remote, but the same is true for the entire UI in that instance).

We may be able to work something out with emplode to switch off the safety feature, but it depends on whether the disclaimers at that point are considered acceptable by our advisors. There's no point hassling us over this, though, we won't release anything before it's been checked out.

Rob