No offence, Neil and Getut, but the safety devices that most manufacturers find it prudent to put on their machines nowadays weren't mandated by lawyers.
They are a response to liability imposed by JURIES (composed of folks just as sensible as you and me), who concluded, in instances where the technology to prevent a serious or possibly fatal injury was easily and economically available, that such devices SHOULD have been furnished.
Would you really prefer machines to be manufactured the way they were 100 years ago, when punch presses, for example, were made without any device that cut the power if the operator removed his hands from the controls, with the result that countless operators' hands were crushed to pulp by the press....
...Pretty manipulative of the lawyers who tried those cases, to have asked their fellow citizens to consider whether the manufacturers shouldn't be required to do a little better...or to compensate for the injuries that their machines caused needlessly.
In contrast, the seat interlock on the Kubota is pretty unobtrusive. You can operate anything you want from the rear PTO without being in the seat as long as you flip the seat forward at the time you get off.
It takes a bit of getting used to so that you do not forget to do it and kill the engine, but I think it is a pretty good idea. All it really makes you do is think for a moment "do I really want the PTO running after I get off?"
If you do, fine. I don't think that making you flip the seat up pre-empts the operator's decision in any onerous way; it just helps to make sure that it's deliberate rather than inadvertant.
After all, from the various post hole digger threads that I've been reading lately, in anticipation of the delivery of one this week, you probably shouldn't have your PTO running when you get off the tractor if you've got a PHD hooked up. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
