# Toyota Recalls - Observations?



## HarryN (Feb 16, 2010)

Hi, I was surprised that given the high profile, I didn't see a thread on this topic. I am not wanting to bash anybody, just get some info / reality check here.

About 15 or so years ago, BMW introduced an electronic gas pedal into their 7 series, which included some very significant redundant features to reduce the risk of electronic and other faults causing "runaway" situations. I assume that some car makers did not include these features?

There are some aspects of the gas pedal "fix" that just don't make sense to me, such as it being caused by "excess wear", but still seems shows up in some cars quite early. Why?


----------



## Radiophile (Feb 16, 2010)

My 2000 Golf has a sensor for throttle rather than a cable, and I haven't as yet heard of issues about this from VW.

As I understand it, there is no electronic failure, it's actually a mechanical problem with the linkage between the pedal and the sensor. The fix is actually adding another part to the mix. Sounds like an engineering flaw to me.

Now the feds are getting in on it too. That's never good.


----------



## StarHalo (Feb 17, 2010)

We had a lengthy thread regarding the initial fatal crash, in which the majority of us came to the conclusion that the driver either had no idea what he was doing, or there was more to the story that we just weren't aware of. 

Since then, Car & Driver has done some real world testing of their own using a new Toyota Camry, in which the car was subjected to full-throttle braking distance tests, from a wide range of speeds. In each instance, the car was brought up to the initial starting speed, then both the throttle and brake were depressed fully - and in every instance the car only required a few more feet than normal to come to a complete stop. Regardless of the starting speed or engine RPMs, the brakes always engaged with authority and were not at all challenged by the engine. Only in the final test, specifically designed to overwhelm the brakes by attempting to panic stop at full throttle from 120 mph, did the brakes finally succumb to overheating and couldn't slow the car anymore - at 10 mph.

As for the recall issue, I think it only serves to show just how committed Toyota is to their customers; you might recall all the deaths and injuries from various American cars in the 70's and 80's due to widely known and reported causes, and how many manufacturers would simply forego issuing a recall as settlements with families were cheaper.. It says a lot about a car manufacturer that after only one incident, the CEO of the company immediately stops sales before the cause is even known, then apologizes publicly with a promise to fix everything. The quality of both the cars and the companies has come a long way..


----------



## Radiophile (Feb 17, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> As for the recall issue, I think it only serves to show just how committed Toyota is to their customers...It says a lot about a car manufacturer that after only one incident, the CEO of the company immediately stops sales before the cause is even known, then apologizes publicly with a promise to fix everything.



Hogwash. With all the press coverage they HAD to do something to stop the stories. It's simple CYA in action.


----------



## oronocova (Feb 17, 2010)

Over on ToyotaNation forums they have been discussing it quite a bit. My Camry is supposed to be involved in the recall though I have received no letter yet and statistically I'm not too worried about it yet. There are pictures and videos of the pedal assemblies taken apart and compared. Also pictures of the fix being installed. It's not to convincing to me when you see it. Also I remember reading some reports of the car accelerating and the pedal being able to move up and down and the car still accelerating. Toyota is supposed to reflash the firmware on the vehicles which adds a safety. With the new firmware when you apply the brake and the gas (or the car senses the brake and gas) at the same time under certain conditions the engine is cut back to an idle.

For me, it's one of those things that the more you read the worse you feel, so I stopped reading about it


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 17, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Since then, Car & Driver has done some real world testing of their own using a new Toyota Camry, in which the car was subjected to full-throttle braking distance tests, from a wide range of speeds. In each instance, the car was brought up to the initial starting speed, then both the throttle and brake were depressed fully - and in every instance the car only required a few more feet than normal to come to a complete stop. Regardless of the starting speed or engine RPMs, the brakes always engaged with authority and were not at all challenged by the engine. Only in the final test, specifically designed to overwhelm the brakes by attempting to panic stop at full throttle from 120 mph, did the brakes finally succumb to overheating and couldn't slow the car anymore - at 10 mph.


I didn't know Car & Driver did a recent test. In the other thread, I had mentioned that they did a similar test back in the 1980s which basically had the same results. I was told that these results wouldn't necessarily be applicable as today's cars have more power than in the 1980s. Turns out I was right after all. It seems so long as you're traveling at any legal ( or even illegal but reasonable ) speed the brakes will be sufficient to overpower the engine. Interesting that they _almost_ were able to stop even from 120 mph. At least a 10 mph collision is about 2 orders of magnitude less damaging than one at 120 mph.


----------



## Popsiclestix (Feb 17, 2010)

oronocova said:


> With the new firmware when you apply the brake and the gas (or the car senses the brake and gas) at the same time under certain conditions the engine is cut back to an idle.



What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe? 

What I don't understand is why that woman didn't put her car into neutral if the brakes weren't working, or even turn off the engine.

(Yes, you'll lose power steering and brake assist, but it's not that uncontrollable)


----------



## thebeans (Feb 17, 2010)

Popsiclestix said:


> What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe?
> 
> What I don't understand is why that woman didn't put her car into neutral if the brakes weren't working, or even turn off the engine.
> 
> (Yes, you'll lose power steering and brake assist, but it's not that uncontrollable)



This is just like the "Unintended Acceleration" "Problem" Audi had back in the 80's. I remember 60 minutes doing a big story on it. Oh the horror, the car was like it was possessed, I was pushing on the brake as hard as I could but it just kept going right through the back of the garage, etc. After some research it came out that it was just people pushing the accelerator instead of the brake when they were putting it in gear. That is why most or all automatics now have the shifter interlock that prevents it from being put in gear unless the brake is depressed. Someone stated back then, and it is true now, "In a fight between the engine and the brakes, the brakes ALWAYS win." This stuff about a car accelerating like mad while the driver is pushing hard on the brakes is just hogwash. Not gonna happen.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 17, 2010)

I know this won't be particularly PC, but I wonder what the average age is of people involved with "unintended acceleration"? After all aren't Toyotas the new Buicks? 

Geoff


----------



## gswitter (Feb 17, 2010)

Popsiclestix said:


> What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe?


You probably don't drive a recent Toyota. 



> What I don't understand is why that woman didn't put her car into neutral if the brakes weren't working, or even turn off the engine.


Because the only requirement to get a drivers license in the US is a pulse.

Every time this topic has come up in conversation recently, someone has a similar story of someone they know getting into some sort of tense situation while driving and not being able to avoid (or causing) an accident because they don't understand their vehicle or know how to operate it.


----------



## John_Galt (Feb 17, 2010)

Popsiclestix said:


> What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe?
> 
> *What I don't understand is why that woman didn't put her car into neutral if the brakes weren't working, or even turn off the engine.
> *
> (Yes, you'll lose power steering and brake assist, but it's not that uncontrollable)


Emphasis added.

That was my first thought, and, Gswitter you are dead on about the driving tests. I took my permit test, and missed 0 questions, after not even opening the manual... It should all be common sense stuff that you pick up over time...


----------



## Sector7 (Feb 17, 2010)

I was listening to a radio talk show of which I don't remember which one, they mentioned a caller had stated he did put his Toyota into neutral when it was sudden racing the engine and the brakes didn't do much and it caused the engine to redline resulting in burnout. His complaint was that he tried to get warrenty service by the Dealer and they told him he shouldn't have burnt out the engine like that...I don't know how much of his story was true but I don't think Toyota owners are feeling alot of love right about now.


----------



## vtunderground (Feb 17, 2010)

Sector7 said:


> I was listening to a radio talk show of which I don't remember which one, they mentioned a caller had stated he did put his Toyota into neutral when it was sudden racing the engine and the brakes didn't do much and it caused the engine to redline resulting in burnout. His complaint was that he tried to get warrenty service by the Dealer and they told him he shouldn't have burnt out the engine like that...I don't know how much of his story was true but I don't think Toyota owners are feeling alot of love right about now.



When your engine rpms reach redline, the rev limiter in the computer briefly shuts off fuel to the motor. This causes the rpms to drop below below redline, at which point fuel delivery is restored. This results in a rapid jerk-jerk-jerk-jerk sensation, but keeps the motor from revving above redline & potentially getting damaged. 

As long as the driver shifts into neutral, slows down, pulls the car off the road, and shuts the motor off promptly, no engine damage should result.


----------



## oronocova (Feb 17, 2010)

^ Some vehicle's rev limiters kick in at a lower RPM while in Neutral. (Which really makes sense to me.) I'm not sure if this is the case with our Camry or not, but is with my pickup which limits to about 2500 in N and around 5700 in gear. Such programming would make it much safer on the engine if you had to perform this emergency maneuver, then again I would be less worried about the engine until after I got stopped. I agree though that the quicker you stop after shifting to N the less chances there are in damaging the engine.


----------



## Sector7 (Feb 17, 2010)

vtunderground said:


> When your engine rpms reach redline, the rev limiter in the computer briefly shuts off fuel to the motor. This causes the rpms to drop below below redline, at which point fuel delivery is restored. This results in a rapid jerk-jerk-jerk-jerk sensation, but keeps the motor from revving above redline & potentially getting damaged.


 
You are right about that in normal circumstances....cars nowadays are fly by wire and I suspect alot of Toyota's problems have to due with firmware so perhaps the bug is interaction with the braking sequence and rev limiter not triggering in the software. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak suggested in media interviews that Toyota's troubles with a defective accelerator pedal may have to do with software, after his Prius sped up while in cruise-control.


----------



## PCC (Feb 18, 2010)

Radiophile said:


> My 2000 Golf has a sensor for throttle rather than a cable, and I haven't as yet heard of issues about this from VW.
> 
> Now the feds are getting in on it too. That's never good.


VW and Audi's (and, presumably Porsche, though I don't actually know for sure) have a triple-redundant system in their drive-by-wire throttle position sensors: there are three pots in the throttle assembly. If one sensor shows a different value than the others then that one signal is ignored. Maybe the ECU remembers this and throws a code if a second sensor shows a different value from the last sensor? I know that VW and Audi gas pedals, which incorporate the three throttle position sensors, is relatively cheap to replace, somewhere in the $80 range.

The Feds should have been involved years ago if this has been happening since 2001 or 2002 like have been reported. I read a news article on MSN, I think, about Toyota playing it off saying that it was driver error or something like that. They then blamed the floor mats, which seemed rediculous to me as a mat would usually prevent you from applying full throttle or just sit on top of the gas pedal, not press it enough to increase the revs, let alone go full throttle. Maybe they thought the mats were getting between the gas pedal and the floor in a way that it was preventing the brake pedal from being depressed and at the same time pressing on the gas pedal? I seriously doubt it. The Feds finally said, "Enough!" and are mounting a full-scale investigation due to people getting killed due to this problem. Apparently, Toyota has known about this problem for years but never approached the NHTSA about it like they were supposed to back in 2003 or 2004 and that is what is getting them into hot water now.



Radiophile said:


> Hogwash. With all the press coverage they HAD to do something to stop the stories. It's simple CYA in action.


No, it's the NHTSA stepping in and making them do something other than to point the finger at the owners.



Popsiclestix said:


> What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe?


My VW GLI has DBW and I can heel-and-toe despite the system defaulting to idle if the throttle is depressed first then brake pedal is pressed even if the throttle is to the floor. The logic of the VW system allows me to press on the gas pedal and increase the revs if I'm on the brake first then step on the gas, though. It also acts as a safety system, allowing the driver to brake and the engine dropping to idle in case there is a triple failure of the throttle position sensors or if something were to jam the gas pedal to the floor while driving.



Flying Turtle said:


> I know this won't be particularly PC, but I wonder what the average age is of people involved with "unintended acceleration"? After all aren't Toyotas the new Buicks?
> 
> Geoff


One of the accidents involved an off-duty Highway Patrol officer and both him and his entire family perished. Are you saying that he was not fit to drive his family Toyota?


----------



## 3000k (Feb 18, 2010)

My truck has had the throttle stuck twice (mechanical linkage), and with only drum brakes on the rear axle, the engine easily overpowers the brakes. I just shut it off, you lose power sterring but vacuum pressure remains in the brake booster a while after the car is shut off. I really do not trust the drive by wire systems because when the sensor starts to wear out it becomes "noisy" and can input random throttle positions, plus throttle response is worse.


----------



## RA40 (Feb 18, 2010)

Simply, bring back manual trannies. 

Many variables to this and unless it happens at a personal level it becomes speculative. With drive-by-wire there is more electronic interaction than operator action. Programming, sensors, parts wear or defects, any combination can be a disaster. We have floor mats in this mix too. Whatever the situation, out in the wild, there will be scenarios not planned for. Whether it is the manufacturer's doing or operator's. 

I don't know anyone who has had a stuck gas pedal or non-functioning brake pedal. Any of you?


----------



## TedTheLed (Feb 18, 2010)

Radiophile, just google "Pinto fires" -- there was plenty of press coverage
of all the people trapped and incinerated in their Pintos, and with no action from Ford for years!

"In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center's petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977..."

want the truth? you can google the truth:

http://www.autosafety.org/ford-pinto-fuel-fed-fires


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 18, 2010)

PCC said:


> One of the accidents involved an off-duty Highway Patrol officer and both him and his entire family perished. Are you saying that he was not fit to drive his family Toyota?



No, I was mostly just making a not so funny joke relating to old people sometimes having problems driving, and the fact that Toyotas are likely bought by many instead of their stereotypical Buicks. Was I being too subtle?

Also, I can remember a bit about Audi's troubles thirty years ago. Wasn't it shown that in most cases it was driver error? Let's just say I don't think Toyota problems are nearly as widespread in reality. They must do the massive recalls or perish.

Geoff


----------



## vtunderground (Feb 19, 2010)

Toyota owes me a new gas pedal and new floormats for my truck. I'm not sold on the floormats being a problem, because there's physically no way that my floormat can accidently get on top of the gas pedal. And even if it could, the floormat doesn't have enough mass to hold the gas pedal down. 

But honestly, I'm not worried about the gas pedal. If my truck accelerates unexpectedly, well, that's what the clutch pedal is for.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 19, 2010)

vtunderground said:


> But honestly, I'm not worried about the gas pedal. If my truck accelerates unexpectedly, well, that's what the clutch pedal is for.



I'd temporarily forgotten (dumbheimers) an experience I had forty years ago with a '63 Volvo 122S. The throttle spring slipped off causing the engine to rev like crazy. Luckily it also had a clutch. I think I was in a parking lot, but luckily no problems resulted and I was able to fix it easily.

Geoff


----------



## KD5XB (Feb 19, 2010)

I had the same thing happen to me on a 1965 Ford Galaxie 500 -- the throttle spring came off and the accelerator could be pushed down, but no way was it coming back up! I simply turned the key off and coasted to a stop. No worries.
The "unintended acceleration" idea has been around for years, the first I remember is with Audi. My memory is that it was caused by people pressing the wrong pedal -- but the current Toyota situation? Who knows?

Remember -- with electronic controls anything can happen -- remember the Airbus crash where the engines couldn't be throttled up?


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 19, 2010)

I drive a 2002 Prius. I've driven it 100,543 miles. My wife has had Camry's for the last 17 years.

I have experienced a stuck accelerator several times. First was a frayed cable on a 350 Honda motorcycle. The engine stuck at 3,000 RPM. The second was on a 1959 Rambler American 2 door sedan. The throttle linkage fell apart and jammed the throttle wide open. The third was a 1992 F150 Ford pickup. The floor mat had a bad habit of being pushed into the pedal linkages and blocking both gas and brake. Had nightmares about that one.

But my Toyotas? No problems at all. The hybrid Toyotas have interesting programing. For instance, when in park or neutral, my Prius will not increase engine speed in response to pressing the gas pedal. They have electric assist braking and steering, so even when the engine dies you still have full control.

I wish the big media frenzy had started before we bought my wife's car this year. We might have been able to negotiate a better price. 

I suspect that the problem Wozniak has is similar to one that Ford Taurus had with their cruise control. In certain conditions, the cruise control computer would sense that the button was pressed even when it was not. Hold down the "accel" button and the car will continue to accelerate. The problem in teh Ford was traced to the commutator ring that passed the signals from the steering wheel to the wiring harness. 

Daniel


----------



## copperfox (Feb 19, 2010)

I was at the Parts department at a local Toyota dealership a couple days ago. On the counter in a row were about a dozen sets of hard white styrofoam and little pieces of rubber that were all lined up and ready to be installed into customer cars to fix the floor mat problem. The man I spoke to said that the real problem was usually either people loading up 3 or more mats on top of each other or not properly hooking the floor mat to the little hooks on the floor. The procedure to fix this "problem" was to remove the door sill, pull back the carpet, cut away part of the stock foam beneath the accelerator pedal and replace it with the low profile white foam. The small piece of rubber (about 2" x 2" x 1/4" tal) was, IIRC, to sit beneath the pedal somewhere to limit its travel. In my opinion this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Feb 19, 2010)

This is a computer problem (drive by wire) and is not going to be resolved by a shim and shortening of the gas pedal. IMO Toyota doesn't know the true cause, but they had to come up with something to save company/sales. 

Flavio


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 19, 2010)

While there is a possibility that Flavio is correct, there is no reason to think that it is one over the other.

I've spent many decades working with computers. I've done software and hardware. Several of those decades involved computer controlled hardware.

So it's with a great deal of experience that I can say that there is no way for an outsider to determine where the problem really exists. I can also say that the posibility that two parts are sticking under rare circumstances is a posibility.

In reality, software flaws are easier to prevent than mechanical flaws. There are testing programs that will test every single line of code, and even analize your logic for you. Every single copy is identical and can be verified trivially. Evry part of the program can be scrutinized by many people, and usually are.

Mechanical parts, on the other hand, are built "within tolerances" and may or may not fall within the design parameters. The materials vary from batch to batch, and they may contain unspecified "fillers" that behave differently under extremes of temperature or pressure.

The fact that there are so few cases when Toyota has sold millions of cars points to a design that works predictably and properly almost all the time. The design is probably more reliable than most things in our lives. I know the average person's heartbeat is not as regular as the TV shows would have you think. Every once in a while it just misfires.  Think about THAT! 

In essence, I find it just as likely to be a mechanical defect as anything else.

Daniel


----------



## PCC (Feb 19, 2010)

Flying Turtle said:


> No, I was mostly just making a not so funny joke relating to old people sometimes having problems driving, and the fact that Toyotas are likely bought by many instead of their stereotypical Buicks. Was I being too subtle?
> 
> Also, I can remember a bit about Audi's troubles thirty years ago. Wasn't it shown that in most cases it was driver error? Let's just say I don't think Toyota problems are nearly as widespread in reality. They must do the massive recalls or perish.
> 
> Geoff


Yeah, sometimes I can be real dense and not note subtle humor. My apologies.

I recall Audi's problems back then. Almost took them out of the US completely but they stuck it out and look at them now.

WRT to the current problems with Toyotas, one of the victims had removed her mats three days before her throttle stuck and she died in the resulting crash. No mats in her car on the driver's side at all.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 19, 2010)

There were three separate problems; the pedal catching on carpet was the first (and the fix is as I described); the second is an issue with the mechanics in the pedal assembly getting worn and binding a little bit, preventing return of the pedal. The third was a braking pedal feedback problem in the 2010 Prius which was solved with a firmware update to the ECU so that the regenerative braking wasn't so "greedy."


----------



## paulr (Feb 20, 2010)

Oh my, looks like insurance companies figured out in 2004 that Toyotas were having too many accidents, and told the NHTSA and nothing happened. 


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61D2TS20100220


----------



## oldzed (Feb 20, 2010)

Just a little observation.
If you have a petol manual car then try this.
Drive along a quiet road with light revs held on
Press the brake pedal lightly a few times to exhaust the servo.
now try braking hard and see if you can stop.
Now release the revs to tickover and you will stop normally.

Or pump the brake pedal a few times without the engine running . The pedal will go hard and your brakes will be terrible

Most petrol cars have a servo connected to the inlet manifold.
at tickover the inlet manifold has low pressure and this gives you assisted braking effect.
When the engine is revving , you have no low pressure and when you "use up" the vacuum thats in the servo you will stuggle to stop the car.

there is a problem with these cars , i have felt it . However it is a particular set of circumstances where it becomes dangerous.


----------



## LUPARA (Feb 20, 2010)

I don't drive a Toyota, but I do admire the engineering and their commitment to producing a quality vehicle. What really makes me puke...repeat power puke is that Congressional committee's overseeing the Trabsportation Department haul a Toyota CEO up for hearings!!! That's bullshit...pure bullshit. Any CEO of ANY company knows that this is a no win situation...Damned if you do; damned if you don't. 

Congress is meddling with something that they have no business meddling with...This is like fascist Germany before WW2...But hey!!! Who gives a rats ***?????????!!!!!!!! 

Rant over....but Congress needs to reminded of their **** poor track record X 100 the arrogant *******s. Attacking the private sector seems to be the IN THING these daze.......WTF!!!!


----------



## paulr (Feb 20, 2010)

Congress didn't haul up Toyota's CEO. He is from Japan and the US Congress has no jurisdiction to haul him in from there. He is appearing voluntarily. CEO's are spin artists (like politicians, that is their job) and as often as not, they love appearing in televised hearings so they can feed their version of stuff directly to the public. Whether or not that applies to this specific situation, remains to be seen.

As a programmer interested in high-assurance (HA) software I can say that it really is a difficult subject; no amount of debugging or testing is ever considered to be "enough". It's just not feasible to write a program the usual way, then certify it to HA standards through some post-facto testing and debugging process. HA (in the sense of static verification) has to be an integral part of the process as the code is being written. The US aerospace industry uses really serious (and expensive) engineering processes to accomplish software assurance (this is why the Ada language was invented, for example). I have the impression that the car guys are using much cruder (though less expensive) methods that are better suited for programming stuff like DVD players, which can cause some user frustration if there's a software bug, but probably won't kill anyone. Until recently the cheaper approach has mostly been good enough because car software (like antilock brakes) has historically been much simpler than (say) space shuttle avionics. But as cars implement more complex critical stuff in software, they really are going to have to start bringing in NASA-like programming methods.

http://dwheeler.com/essays/high-assurance-floss.html is a good place to read a bit about high-assurance programming (including where to download free tools for it) if that sort of thing interests you.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 20, 2010)

paulr said:


> The US aerospace industry uses really serious (and expensive) engineering processes to accomplish software assurance (this is why the Ada language was invented, for example). I have the impression that the car guys are using much cruder (though less expensive) methods that are better suited for programming stuff like DVD players, which can cause some user frustration if there's a software bug, but probably won't kill anyone.



I can't quite see what brings one to that conclusion. If NASA makes a software error, a planetary probe may terra-brake instead of aero-brake. If a car manufacturer uses DVD quality programming procedures and it goes bad, then there accidents and deaths, There are millions of dollars in losses as they do recalls and lose customer confidence. 

Proper engineering processes are not that expensive. It does not add millions of dollars in cost to do the relatively simple real time control as used in an ECU.

The smaller the number of inputs, outputs and variables a program has to handle, the simpler it is to make it 100% foolproof.

Daniel


----------



## paulr (Feb 20, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> I can't quite see what brings one to that conclusion. If NASA makes a software error, a planetary probe may terra-brake instead of aero-brake. If a car manufacturer uses DVD quality programming procedures and it goes bad, then there accidents and deaths, There are millions of dollars in losses as they do recalls and lose customer confidence.


 Yes, this is what we're seeing happening to Toyota right now. 



> Proper engineering processes are not that expensive. It does not add millions of dollars in cost to do the relatively simple real time control as used in an ECU.
> 
> The smaller the number of inputs, outputs and variables a program has to handle, the simpler it is to make it 100% foolproof.
> 
> Daniel



The problem is that the number of inputs, outputs, and variables is getting much higher--a computerized hybrid vehicle with regenerative braking, electronic differential and so forth starts getting closer in complexity to an aircraft than an ECU. At a certain point they need automated processes to manage what an engineer can keep in his head in a simpler program. That's where the fancy methods and tools come in. They don't have to add millions in cost, but there is a learning curve and and using them is time consuming. I'm not any kind of expert and haven't used that stuff for anything serious, but I've been trying to learn about it recreationally, and it's really a different world than what I'm used to as a wimpy internet programmer.


----------



## jkilo (Feb 21, 2010)

You know, I'm a GM guy. (General Motors, not the new Government Motors.)

Toyota's having some issues, whether real or imagined, and this is playing right into the hands of companies like GM. First, we had the whole "cash for clunkers" thing, whiched proved to be hugely unpopular with folks, and now conveniently, the Toyota issue (the only company that has finally achieved the unthinkable, BTW: outselling GM) pops onto the public stage, and is getting all kinds of media attention...

I don't like Toyota's vehicles, but something smells fishy here. Toyota, a Japanese company, is bringing new business here to the United States, employing American workers (while GM is outsourcing to China) and remaining profitable by doing it. I think there is some resentment towards a corporation that can do that. (old money _hates_ new money.) And now that GM has a bit of "assistance" in the form of government intervention, maybe it's time to play dirty. 

Everyone remembers Preston Tucker and John DeLorean, right? That kind of crap is still going on, they've simply gotten better at it. Not that Toyota hasn't possibly made a mistake, but this is certainly convenient.


----------



## Popsiclestix (Feb 21, 2010)

oronocova said:


> ^ Some vehicle's rev limiters kick in at a lower RPM while in Neutral. (Which really makes sense to me.) I'm not sure if this is the case with our Camry or not.



This is not the case in a 2001 Camry with the 1MZ-FE (V6) as far as I know. I can rev all day long in neutral right where my needle hits redline, which I have done so on several occasions on bored afternoons. The ECU won't let me rev it past redline though. I'm not even sure why there is a redline at all because shifting down into 2nd gear on the automatic won't happen even if you select 2 unless you're below the redline RPM for that gear.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 21, 2010)

Just for fun, I shifted my Prius to neutral while accelerating yesterday. The engine RPMs dropped despite the foot on the gas pedal. 

Daniel


----------



## Mike Painter (Feb 21, 2010)

Flying Turtle said:


> I know this won't be particularly PC, but I wonder what the average age is of people involved with "unintended acceleration"? After all aren't Toyotas the new Buicks?
> 
> Geoff


The average age was 25.4 years...


The fact that I am 69 and made that number up has nothing to do with it. (you think you can  )

The most impressive case I've ever seen had to do with a drunk. He got in his car and drove about ten feet into the back of a dump truck and then floored it.
Police, then the fire department, then me in ambulance. Smoke was pouring off the rear tires but it was at least twenty minutes before something broke and the car, um, the cars engine stopped.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 22, 2010)

Toyota's legendary reputation took a major hit that it's not going to recover from overnight.

My best friend's wife found out her Camry was on the huge recall list. All those models . . . 

She wasn't taking any chances. Traded in her Camry for a slightly used Saturn Aura. I can't blame her. She's like the little sister I never had. Really hits home when a major safety issue involves a loved one.

Can't believe some of the dealers were actually saying it was the fault of the customers who used 2 or 3 extra floor mats. Yeah, it's a floor mat issue. Nothing to do with Toyota enginners folking up with an unsafe design feature that ended up in several popular models.


----------



## chmsam (Feb 22, 2010)

The reaction to this in the media and in the opinions I have seen and heard proves that one of several things you can count on in the US is that there is usually little or no middle ground. 

So here's my rant, it seems there have been a series of faults with some of the models and some of those faults might be model specific. Heck, it could be even due to some jerk who only worked one day a week. Who cares? There's a problem that needs fixin' right now.

I'll try not assuming that any company would ever put profit margin above public safety and/or that a government would ever put industry before the public safety either 'cause there are enough topics for the underground.

As for what happened in the specific accidents, to me that is a matter of and for forensics.

As to some of the suggestions made here or actions taken on different cars in the past, please consider the following for any uncontrolled acceleration problems if you will:

- shutting off the car by turning the key (if you could do it) would probably lock the steering column. Do not try this at home boys and girls.

- putting the car into neutral could in theory over rev the engine. Lemme see -- blow a casket or even drop a rod vs. an out of control vehicle? Hmmm... 

- brakes always overpowering the engine is a theory I would not want to test in an emergency. Might work great in a 96 bhp car with a good set of four wheel disk brakes. Maybe not so good in a 250+ bhp car with a leaky master cylinder.

There were a few others but basically if I were in that situation going for neutral and also working the brakes would be Plan A. Emergency braking is not something to learn on the job though.

However, there are a lot of people who are so oblivious when they drive (or as I refer to it DWHUHA -- driving with his/her head up his/her... You may feel free to quote me) that a sudden problem let alone a real emergency shifts them either further into "Huh? Wha..?" mode and/or into a full panic. Sometimes both at the same time which is fun to watch from a distance. As a passenger in the car at the time, not so much. Multi-tasking makes this worse.

Most folks are clueless as to how to do more than pump gas and that's assuming they don't just aim for the full service pumps. They have no idea what shape their car is in at all and do not know what the car will do in an emergency. Worse yet they have no idea of what they should do.

Now, add in the fact that drivers of any age cannot even be bothered to read the owners manual (and how many people here have read it? Be honest) and you have some interesting possibilities. Knowing how to pass a road test and knowing how to drive are very different things but we do not teach or even encourage that.

Yeah, even if there are only a handful of cars on the road that actually do have this problem we don't need any more reasons for people to be (more) dangerous on the road. The government and Toyota both need to just do whatever it takes to really fix this and to cut the BS.

It's off topic but my other rant is that we all also need to develop an attitude that says yes, it really is important to know what's going on when we are driving and with the vehicles we drive and to stop treating it like a god given right that comes with an autopilot switch and a foul attitude.


----------



## Solscud007 (Feb 22, 2010)

oldzed said:


> Just a little observation.
> If you have a petol manual car then try this.
> Drive along a quiet road with light revs held on
> Press the brake pedal lightly a few times to exhaust the servo.
> ...





Actually what you observe is not really a problem. I have driven a few kit cars and a Lotus Caterham Super 7. Most drivers are spoiled by "assisted" devices. Vacuum boost helps with braking. Servos and other items help with power steering. 

With you drive a "race car" you learn that you can control a car without those conveniences. However you need to have experience with them. the Layman does not. So it is "foriegn" to them and they think something is wrong.


----------



## tygger (Feb 22, 2010)

A few observations. There have been massive US auto recalls and IIRC there were no congressional hearings. The government is the largest shareholder of Toyota's main competitor, General Motors. Toyota is not unionized. Is the government really impartial enough to take legal action against Toyota as it is likely to do? I'm not saying Toyota products are perfect, only that there are many powerful interests at play here. And I heard on the radio today people are preparing to file "emotional distress" lawsuits against Toyota for stress they may feel about thier cars' reliability and safety. :shakehead


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 23, 2010)

tygger said:


> And I heard on the radio today people are preparing to file "emotional distress" lawsuits against Toyota for stress they may feel about thier cars' reliability and safety. :shakehead


 
Just some low-life [email protected]$$e$ trying to make a fast buck. They won't have a difficult time trying to find low-life lawyers to represent them. :thumbsdow


----------



## paulr (Feb 23, 2010)

I saw somewhere (will see if I can find the url again) someone saying the Toyota computer was flaking out due to external electromagnetic interference. I can see how that might be an intermittent thing. Maybe radar speed traps set it off or something. If this is the issue, I guess it's reassuring that it's not software after all.

The level of lobbying Toyota did about past recalls (i.e. hiring ex-NHTSA people) doesn't seem to have been matched by other companies, so that's egg on the face.

I read this article about the space shuttle software a while back, and just managed to find it again, if anyone likes to read such things. It's pretty accessible and interesting: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 23, 2010)

Now we've got the claim of the Tenn. woman that her Lexus sped up to 100 mph on the interstate, and nothing she did slowed it until it miraculously slowed on its own. Anyone else skeptical?

Geoff

Edit: I keep forgetting to add that I have never owned a Toyota product.


----------



## KD5XB (Feb 23, 2010)

chmsam said:


> - shutting off the car by turning the key (if you could do it) would probably lock the steering column. Do not try this at home boys and girls.



Don't think so. The shifter interlock prevents the key from turning far enough to lock the steering wheel -- try it in your driveway with the engine off and the shifter in Drive and see.


----------



## Brigadier (Feb 23, 2010)

Here is my take on the whole issue:

Toyota is Government Motors' nemesis. GM couldn't make it in the market place. The Feds - and by default, you and I - bought a controlling interset in GM[and we weren't asked] when we bailed them out.

GM is now majority owned by the Feds and the UAW.

Look at the window stickers of new cars. It, by law, must tell you where the car is made, and what % of the PARTS of the car were made in the USA. By LAW, any car made in Canada or Mexico can be claimed as made in the USA[NAFTA]. A majority of the parts in the "American made" cars are made in...................China. Now, who owns the majority of our debt? Hmmmmmm.... [One model of GM car has 87% of its parts made in China.]

A lot of Toyotas are made in the USA[real USA], by NON-UNION workers, with parts that are made in the USA. And they are beating GM on a daily basis. Look at how 'Cash for Clunkers' bit GM in the ***........

So, here you have a Federal government, who has controlling interest in GM, and is beholding to the UAW, using its powers to go after a NON-UNION competitor that is kicking their asses. 

That is called Fascism. :thumbsdow

I used to be a GM guy. My family[Dad, brother] was a GM family. Not any more. 

If I were going to buy a car or truck today, it would be a Toyota. YMMV.

Who's next - Nissan? Subaru? Mazda? Ford[didn't take gov't $$$]?

BTW, I am not saying that Toyota vehicles don't have issues. They may, they may not. But since the MSM is in the Feds' pocket, who do you believe? :thinking:


----------



## copperfox (Feb 23, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Now, who owns the majority of our debt? Hmmmmmm.... [One model of GM car has 87% of its parts made in China.]



*Nitpick mode ON*

No _one_ country owns the majority of our debt. Even the country with the most US Treasury securities only owns about 21% of all of them, and that is Japan, not China. Hong Kong is a separate economic entity from mainland China, so the numbers are not totaled together. However, if you consider HK and China as one big happy family, then it is indeed the largest holder of US Treasury securities at about 25% of the total. Even then it's still less than half, and therefore it cannot be said that it owns the majority.

Source

*Nitpick mode OFF*

I think this Toyota thing has been blown out of proportion. It's still very very unlikely for an owner of a Toyota model affected by the recall to experience a problem.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 23, 2010)

Flying Turtle said:


> Now we've got the claim of the Tenn. woman that her Lexus sped up to 100 mph on the interstate, and nothing she did slowed it until it miraculously slowed on its own. Anyone else skeptical?
> 
> Geoff


 
That's what the E-brake is for. I'm not skeptical at all. . . She's full of it.


----------



## somename (Feb 23, 2010)

This video was on the news last night.

*Toyota Criminal Investigation by U.S. Federal Grand Jury - Feb. 23 2010*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW2zdyvXGuM

Seems like the professor found a way to prove Toyota's electronics do not have the backups necessary to make the cars completely safe.

Lets see Toyota explain this and sweep it under the rug. After seeing this I'm glad my wife and I are both driving Dodge products.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 23, 2010)

Interesting video. I guess we'll eventually know if this constitutes proof. I dare say the professor could make the same thing happen to any modern car and imagine a scenario where it might occur. 

Thanks for pointing this story out. 

Geoff


----------



## kitelights (Feb 25, 2010)

I'll put my butt on the line before all the facts are in - I think this is an unfair lynching of Toyota. Why? I don't know, but as others have hinted, I wouldn't be at all surprised if our President's relationship to the new GM didn't have some influence on it. 

I've heard questions about *possible* EMI. The question was "is it possible?" The answer is yes, it's possible, but there's no knowledge of it. It wasn't even considered as an issue, except by the lynch mob. Toyota's CEO did damage control making apologies and statements that they grew too fast and should have had better quality controls. I think it was a political/PR move so they can move on. They were guilty by the government and the media before they ever appeared, so it was a pretty smart move to diffuse the tension and start to rebuild public trust that was unfairly taken from them. 

Why do I think this? Because Toyota has had the most amazing history of standing behind its products that I'm still in awe of them. I've had major AC repairs done to Toyotas that were 7-10 years old at no cost to me. I bought a 12 year Tercel as my daughter's first car and at almost 14 years old the rear axle rusted out and was replaced at no charge. Just a few years back the Tacomas had a rust problem with some of the frames and Toyota bought them back (allowed credit) from customers for 1.5 times their Blue Book value. And they destroyed those that they bought back.

In contrast, I had a GM car that had a known steering failure problem that GM extended their original warranty to 5 years. Of course, mine failed at 5.25 years and I had to pay for it.

Toyota has a history of taking care of their customers and standing behind their products like no other manufacturer and this crap is a lynching, pure and simple. Even if it turns out to be a failure on their part, it's still a lynching. Their record has earned them the opportunity to correct a mistake without the assumption that they're behaving like American manufacturers.

I've not heard one word in the media that this is completely out of character for Toyota with examples like I've mentioned. Instead, it's been an opportunity to make the public think that they behave just like a GM.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## KD5XB (Feb 25, 2010)

Of course it's a lynching -- that's about all the media knows in the United States. Responsible journalism is a thing of the past in the incredible effort to sell more newspapers/more air time/more commercials. 

Years and years of huge settlements in frivolous lawsuits helps push this whole situation.


----------



## StarHalo (Feb 25, 2010)

This thread sums up the same general consensus I'm getting from any other source - that most people are still aware of Toyota's faultless reliability record, and that these fraction-of-a-fraction number of incidents that are so rare that no one's yet entirely sure what caused them haven't changed any minds. Toyota has gone completely out of their way to right the issue from all angles, yet the media seems insistent on creating a massive "controversy" where none exists. One good example:



somename said:


> This video was on the news last night.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW2zdyvXGuM
> 
> Seems like the professor found a way to prove Toyota's electronics do not have the backups necessary to make the cars completely safe.



I'm not sure what the point of all this was; using a car full of electronic equipment, someone was able to hack the electronics of the car to move the throttle to 100% without generating an error code.. No mention is made of whether or not this is possible in any other car, and they show the car braking to a stop without issue (the voice-over states the brakes were over-powered, but never shows an instance of the car failing to stop.) Yet the presenters of the story seem to be putting a lot of effort into showing that the car somehow failed or was an imminent danger. If the recall issue were that prevalent or imminent, why would all the electronic equipment be necessary? Couldn't they have reproduced the failure state without any sort of assistance, or used a copy of a car that had failed?



somename said:


> After seeing this I'm glad my wife and I are both driving Dodge products.



Ten percent of all car accidents are caused by mechanical failure. A quick glance at the reliability reports of these manufacturers will show plainly that Toyota is among the least likely to have such an incident.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Feb 25, 2010)

I smell something fishy. 

Hmm, so perhaps we should make a news story on how you can rev the engine on a GM car without pushing down the accelerator; 
by simply pulling on this wire, your car may crash you into a wall!!!

By having a university professor hack into your car to try to make it rev out of control, your car may rev out of control! 

Too much B.S.. Just the government trying to cheat more hard workers. 

I have this strange urge to go to cpfunderground and try to start a revolution... it's been a while...

Edit: Oh, and another thing: I think it's a great idea to have our lawmakers control things they don't even know about. Those people who spend their lives learning, building, and improving cars, they don't know anything about cars; not like lawmakers do! [/sarcasm]


----------



## flashlightpower (Feb 25, 2010)

Ive got mixed feelings about this. We have a 2005 Avalon that my fiancee purchased new. I met her about three years ago.

When we would ride in her car I would always sense a surge in the car, almost like it was lurching forward due to acceleration and then slowing down, it was very slight and barely noticeable. At first it almost seemed like it might have been a transmission problem with the converter slipping.

After a period of time it did get worse and then she began to notice the same thing I had. I was also paying closer attention and did see the rpms increase/decrease with no position change in the pedal.

We took it to the dealer and explained the problem and were told it was a known issue and they had a fix for it. We picked up the car later that same day and it was 100 times worse. We turned around and went back to the service manager and told him the car was worse than before. They were apologetic till the lead mechanic came out. He was fine at first until I challenged him.

He explained that the ECU/PCM/ECM (whatever you want to call the brains of the car) was relearning everything and it would drive like crap for the first 10 miles or so. I asked why they didnt do this for us, because the car was actually quite frightening to drive. They said they didnt like to put miles on customers cars. I then told them, well you should reconsider that when it may be something that could catch someone off guard. Literally felt like you could lose control at anytime.

My fiancee is about 20-30 years younger than the average Avalon buyer (my mom has one too, and hers does the same but not as noticeable as my fiancee's) and she was completely caught off-guard, imagin an older driver.

I asked why the ECU had to relearn shift patterns (still thinking it was tranny related). He said that it wasnt the tranny and what they had done was replace the O2 sensors and clear the current programming so the car could learn new fuel tables/etc... 

If youre like me and have a modern peformance car with a lot of work done to it, you know the importance of the "tune" with modern cars that are "drive by wire".

Now I argued with him a little longer because I was upset that they would turn over a car to us in this condition, and still thinking along the lines of transmission issues, I wasnt buying his ECU theory. Again, I was leaning towards something more mechanical versus electronic. So we went back and forth on transient fuel tables, timing, and fuel pressure and how none of that would affect programmed shift patterns.

NOW, however, it all makes sense. They were most likely aware of this problem for some time and could've acted on it. The pedal fix IMO is nothing more than a band-aid, or cover-up to fix the real problem which lies in the brain of the car.

Toyotas have a great history of reliability, but any company that blatantly hides quality issues,expecially those which can endanger the lives of their customers should be held accountable. Not everyone is going to think clearly to put the car in neutral, and turning it off would be a very bad idea for an older driver as they would/could potentially have a very difficult time steering the car clear. And if its like my fiancees car (push button start), it wont turn off if the car is in gear.

I'm actually thinking of looking into the Lemon Law regarding her car. Can any vehicle have issues...absolutely...but just as the American car companies were guilty in the 70's and 80's of hiding known safety issues, Toyota is guilty now.

The car still has the issue, although less noticeable unless you use cruise control. This is when the car has a very unsafe acceleration back to the "set" speed when you resume, or go up a hill that causes the car to fall below the cruise setting.

Again, not Toyota bashing, I just want them to do the right thing, and IMO that is buy the car back or admit the real problem and prove they have a fix.

When we took the car in for the recall repair, we were called the next day by the dealership and asked if we wanted to sell the car to them. Not even for a new car, just sell the car to them because it was so "clean". Thats just a little too suspicious to me...sorry if that smells of conspiracy theory but thats how I felt.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 25, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Ten percent of all car accidents are caused by mechanical failure.


I'm pretty sure it's well under 1% ( and the majority of that <1% are blowouts ).


----------



## StarHalo (Feb 25, 2010)

flashlightpower said:


> I asked why the ECU had to relearn shift patterns (still thinking it was tranny related).



My mother owned a Camry, and said she could always tell when someone else drove it, as the shift patterns would be different. It's just a feature of the car.



flashlightpower said:


> The car still has the issue, although less noticeable unless you use cruise control. This is when the car has a very unsafe acceleration back to the "set" speed when you resume, or go up a hill that causes the car to fall below the cruise setting..



All cars I've ever driven will always cruise-resume at full throttle from a lower speed; it's just so you return to your set speed as quickly as possible (the cruise will still cut off if you touch the brake). And if you encounter a big enough hill while on cruise, it will downshift and hold the lower gear longer than usual to overcome the grade, but not use any more throttle than is necessary to hold the set speed (this is why the manual says not to use cruise in hilly areas).


----------



## InTheDark (Feb 25, 2010)

I do think the motives behind all of these attacks are more than just passenger safety. 

http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/02/nhtsa-on-the-hot-seat-what-is-standard-operating-procedure.html


----------



## Random Guy (Feb 25, 2010)

flashlightpower said:


> ... I was also paying closer attention and did see the rpms increase/decrease with no position change in the pedal...
> 
> ...He explained that the ECU/PCM/ECM (whatever you want to call the brains of the car) was relearning everything and it would drive like crap for the first 10 miles or so. I asked why they didnt do this for us, because the car was actually quite frightening to drive. They said they didnt like to put miles on customers cars. I then told them, well you should reconsider that when it may be something that could catch someone off guard. Literally felt like you could lose control at anytime.
> 
> ...


The PCM having to relearn setpoints after being reset is very common. Due to the fact that there are normal variations from engine to engine, and variations from sensor to sensor for all of the sensors on the car, the PCM adapts it's programming to best suit the engine and sensors installed in the car. When it is reset, it must relearn these setpoints. Till it does that, the car will run weird. This is so common amongst cars that it is a general recommendation if you reset the computer before getting your emissions tested, that you drive 15-20 miles so the computer can relearn things.


StarHalo said:


> My mother owned a Camry, and said she could always tell when someone else drove it, as the shift patterns would be different. It's just a feature of the car.
> 
> Also, modern cars with electronic spark timing (just about everything these days, my '86 S10 has it), variable valve timing, electronic fuel injection, and drive by wire, the "tune" is completely controlled by the computer. And, it may change depending on how you drive the car. (I.E. if you are doing lots of full throttle work, the computer decides you want performance and optimizes the tune for that. You do lots of gentle acceleration, the computer decides you want economy and optimized the tune for that.)
> 
> ...


That seems normal. Think about it. If the cruse control computer was programmed _not_ to be able to use full throttle, people would get mad because the car would lose speed going up hills or be slow to recover speed/accelerate back up to speed because it was programmed not to be able to floor it.


----------



## flashlightpower (Feb 25, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> My mother owned a Camry, and said she could always tell when someone else drove it, as the shift patterns would be different. It's just a feature of the car.
> 
> Thats true it is a feature of the car to "learn" the driver, but her car behaved this way when only she drove the car long before I ever drove the car. And regardless of what you may think, the car doesnt change that drastically from driver to driver.
> 
> ...


 
I have four cars and not one of them behaves the way her car does on resume. All gradually resume to speed, and I have been in other Toyotas that resume normally. Of course there are times when any car is going to apply more throttle to get back to speed, the difference is her car rarely holds the speed accurately for long, and will often go beyond the set speed and then fall back to the cruise speed and it will do this on as level as road as you will get. (east Arkansas I-40 for example).



Random Guy said:


> The PCM having to relearn setpoints after being reset is very common. Due to the fact that there are normal variations from engine to engine, and variations from sensor to sensor for all of the sensors on the car, the PCM adapts it's programming to best suit the engine and sensors installed in the car. When it is reset, it must relearn these setpoints. Till it does that, the car will run weird. This is so common amongst cars that it is a general recommendation if you reset the computer before getting your emissions tested, that you drive 15-20 miles so the computer can relearn things.


 
Obviously a car will need to learn again when a PCM is reflashed. However, the behaviors her car did were unacceptable. I have been in plenty of cars with reflashed PCMs, I have two hand-held programmers of my own for two of my vehicles and I have never experienced what her car did that day any of the times when I've loaded new tunes. When a car is relearning its parameters its adjusting everything from fuel to shift patterns, and most other things that it does during that time are completely transparent to the driver. Her car drove as though the engine was about to fall out followed closely behind by the tranny.

Look Toyotas are great cars overall. 
 
My whole point in posting this is that clearly there are cars with issues and the more this is investigated, the more it appears related to the electronics. If thats the case and Toyota had some idea that this was happening (over 8 months ago when we had this service done by the dealer) then they did not act in good faith and could've possibly prevented some of the significant accidents that occured over the years. 
 
Again this is speculative and I'm not bashing Toyota, just relating an experience to everyone to draw their own conclusion. If you guys want to continue to defend Toyota have at it, but don't dismiss what has happened with our Avalon as "normal" behavior because I can guarantee you it was not.


----------



## Brigadier (Feb 25, 2010)

Um, if your accelerator is stuck, USE THE BRAKES!!!

No car is too powerful for its brakes. Watch an NHRA top fuel eliminator smoke its tires while not moving. It's front brakes are holding it in place. Even 5000 HP can't overpower their brakes.

Road racers heel-toe their cars - they apply the brakes with their heel while keeping the engine revved up in the power band, so that when they RELEASE the brakes, THEN they accelerate.


----------



## flashlightpower (Feb 25, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Um, if your accelerator is stuck, USE THE BRAKES!!!
> 
> No car is too powerful for its brakes. Watch an NHRA top fuel eliminator smoke its tires while not moving. It's front brakes are holding it in place. Even 5000 HP can't overpower their brakes.
> 
> Road racers heel-toe their cars - they apply the brakes with their heel while keeping the engine revved up in the power band, so that when they RELEASE the brakes, THEN they accelerate.


 
+1000000000000 

Unfortunately people stop thinking when they get in a car. Just listen to the audio of the call in the Lexus, tragic as it was, even more tragic was no one slamming on the brakes.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 25, 2010)

If the car is already moving a decent speed, the engine will quickly overpower the brakes because once the brakes heat up, they no longer work.

I know the woman in the Lexus was discussed, but I haven't seen anyone discuss the family of three in another Lexus. In that case, the driver tried the brakes, and they could not slow the car once they heated up. The ignition could not be turned off because of a lock feature, and the Lexus shifter will not disengage drive unless a minimum speed is reached. The bottom line is that trying to make cars smarter than people by over-riding their actions is fatal. If you need a car turned off, you should not be restricted from doing so. If you need the gear disengaged, you should not be restricted from doing so. You can't take operational control away from the driver and expect that to be safer. It's ridiculous. The driver of this Lexus should NOT have been restricted from turning the car off or disengaging the gear. He was an off-duty police officer, so he knew what he was doing, he just wasn't allowed by the car..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03m7fmnhO0I


----------



## flashlightpower (Feb 25, 2010)

get-lit said:


> If the car is already moving a decent speed, the engine will quickly overpower the brakes because once the brakes heat up, they no longer work. The driver of the Lexus tried the bakes, and they could not slow the car once they heated up.


 
Most people only use about 40-50% of their cars braking ability, I dont know what all happened in that car but if they were just riding the brakes softly or pumping them (a no-no for modern cars) then I could see the brake fluid getting hot and diminishing braking ability, so then _shift to neutral _

It was a sad sad event but I really think it could've been avoided but you never know unless your put in the same situation. 

May they rest in peace.


----------



## flashlightpower (Feb 25, 2010)

get-lit said:


> The ignition could not be turned off because of a lock feature, and the Lexus shifter will not disengage drive unless a minimum speed is reached.


 
We have two Avalons in our family and I know they will shift to neutral, if thats true about the Lexus then they should be held accountable to the highest punishment. That would be incredibly stupid and against the law, if it isnt already.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 25, 2010)

If you are driving 65 mph and the gas is pegged with a decent engine, the brakes will not stop it, because by the time you slow to 40, the brakes are over heated and the engine will trump the brakes.



flashlightpower said:


> ..if thats true about the Lexus then they should be held accountable to the highest punishment. That would be incredibly stupid and against the law, if it isnt already.


 
That's exactly how I feel. I looked into this some weeks ago and found that Lexus did lock the gear in drive above a certain speed. You also had to depress an ignition button for a set number of seconds before it would respond while moving. Emergencies don't wait, and few people would ever know they had to wait. They would try it and realize it doesn't work. What's next, do we have to enter our social security number on a keypad and answer a quick math question to turn it off?

Above all, I wonder how it came to be that the operation of the vehicle by the driver should be over-ridden. Somewhere, somehow, at some point, some person thought that would be a good idea. I'd like to meet that person, and ask him, just what was he thinking?

The family will always be in my thoughts.


----------



## blasterman (Feb 25, 2010)

I have a Mazda 3 that has the same problem as the Toyotas. Pretty sure it's related to something with the floor mats because a friend of mine has the same problem and that's how he fixed it.

When your beefy four-popper surges at mach 1 on a snowy expressway at rush hour you'd better hope you have an extra pair of pants because it's scary as hell.

Also, putting the care in neutral is a good way to do serious engine damage. Hitting the breaks doesn't help either because the combination of ABS and moving at 70mph makes slamming on the brake pedal nearly useless.

I shut my engine off and coasted. Surprisingly I didn't lose power steering or control.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 26, 2010)

I have a 2009 Mazda6 V6 model. When I barely touch the brakes while coasting at slower speeds, my baby surges forward just a tiny bit; and then begins to slow. Bit weird. When I give the brake-pedal a firm push, she doesn't do that; ever! I chalk it up to a personality quirk. (Yes, I realize I'm talking about a car.)

As far as electronics and gizmos go, I went for the sSport trim. The least expensive trim level that comes with the sweet V6. Why? I just hate having a ton of electronic do-dads that prevent me from driving the way I want to drive. I'm intelligent and experienced when it comes to driving. I don't want a car that overrides my driving decisions, and then does what it thinks is best for me. Call me crazy, I doubt that there are a ton of drivers out there who are truly mentally handicapped. Why build cars for such individuals?


----------



## paulr (Feb 26, 2010)

Audi had some uncontrolled acceleration incidents related to engine computers in the early 1990's. Since then they put in an automatic cutout in the brake system, so stepping on the brake always closes the throttle, overriding the computer. That just seems sensible to me and apparently Toyota recently started doing it too, on models that have had these problems. But it just sounds like sensible engineering to me, and every car should do it.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 26, 2010)

blasterman said:


> When your beefy four-popper surges at mach 1 on a snowy expressway at rush hour you'd better hope you have an extra pair of pants because it's scary as hell.


 
+1. There's a lot of of people here who have never had to operate an out of control car and make it seem easier than it may really be. If it is in fact a computer problem and the engine just keeps revving at full force, I can only hope and pray someone in that situation has the right instincts to take control of the situation immediately.


----------



## jsmitty1967 (Feb 26, 2010)

I just had something kind of funny to add. My friend is a fire safety engineer at the Toyota factory in Georgetown KY. They got a visit from Mr. Toyoda Yesterday. He came into the plant in a convey of 8 vehicles. All were Toyota... except the Chevy Suburban he got out of.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 26, 2010)

jsmitty1967 said:


> I just had something kind of funny to add. My friend is a fire safety engineer at the Toyota factory in Georgetown KY. They got a visit from Mr. Toyoda Yesterday. He came into the plant in a convey of 8 vehicles. All were Toyota... except the Chevy Suburban he got out of.


 
Most likely, the Suburban was an armored vehicle that was borrowed from a Protection company. They're more common than an armoured Toyota.

Still, good thing there weren't any reporters on hand trying to get a comment from him. One snap-shot of him climbing out of that Chevy would have been the biggest P.R. nightmare since . . . this current one.


----------



## Random Guy (Feb 26, 2010)

blasterman said:


> ...Also, putting the care in neutral is a good way to do serious engine damage. Hitting the breaks doesn't help either because the combination of ABS and moving at 70mph makes slamming on the brake pedal nearly useless.
> 
> I shut my engine off and coasted. Surprisingly I didn't lose power steering or control.


Modern cars will not let you rev the engine fast enough to damage it. My mom's 2005 Mazda Tribute with the V6 will not rev over about 4500 RPM in neutral (fuel or ignition cut), even with the pedal to the floor.

If you left the car in gear after you killed the engine, it would have continued to turn, driving the PS pump and giving you manifold vacuum for the power brakes.

paulr, if you are thinking of the same fiasco I am, the sudden acceleration problem Audi had was related to people flooring the gas instead of the brake, and the recall was to install interlocks that would not let you take the car out of park unless your foot was on the brake.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 26, 2010)

Let me just say this.. once the car becomes a death trap, who really cares about the engine? Seriously.

If all else failed, you'd see me trying to pour sugar down the gas tank at 120 mph. What does the engine matter once you're dead.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 26, 2010)

Random Guy said:


> If you left the car in gear after you killed the engine, it would have continued to turn, driving the PS pump and giving you manifold vacuum for the power brakes.



You know, I never thought of that. Makes good common sense [slap forehead]. I think my immediate reaction to uncontrolled revving would be to pop it in Neutral, then kill the engine.

Thanks Random.

Geoff


----------



## derangboy (Feb 26, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Um, if your accelerator is stuck, USE THE BRAKES!!!
> 
> No car is too powerful for its brakes. Watch an NHRA top fuel eliminator smoke its tires while not moving. It's front brakes are holding it in place. Even 5000 HP can't overpower their brakes.
> 
> Road racers heel-toe their cars - they apply the brakes with their heel while keeping the engine revved up in the power band, so that when they RELEASE the brakes, THEN they accelerate.



Warming up drag slicks is a whole different ball game. Traction is deliberately broken to spin the tires. I think you have heal/toe method of shifting confused with something else.

First, my car is a 1976 280 SEL Benz. It has 4 wheel disc brakes and the curb weight is just over 4000 lbs. The throttle linkage is comprised entirely of rods and cranks, including a link to the transmission for kick down. 
One fine winter morning I was on my way to work doing about 90 km/h. The traffic ahead stopped and I put a foot on the brake, then another. I was able to slow the car to just about 80 but I was going to hit someone if I didn't think of something fast. 
1) shift to neutral
2) pull over and shut down the engine
Just before I took my hand off the wheel, I pulled up on the accelerator with my toe. That did the trick. I completed my commute with a dog lead attached to the pedal 
My car claims to put out 140 hp on a good day and all the good days are long gone. I was still unable to overpower the engine to slow the car significantly. If you keep the appropriate following distance, you should have a chance to remedy the problem before you hit someone. The stickyness was a result of ice and dirt building up in the pivots. I now clean and grease the whole shebang twice a year. 

No manufacturer should be putting out a product that puts its users or others at unreasonable risk. It is also the responsibility of the operator to be aware of the condition of the equipment. It's unfortunate that we seem to be engineering all the thinking out of driving a car.

I have the greatest respect for Toyota as a company and any compromise that may have transgressed is possibly no worse than any other auto company. Firestone comes to mind.


----------



## paulr (Feb 26, 2010)

This is pretty horrendous, to hear all these stories of accelerator pedals sticking or getting caught in floor mats. Are pedals and floor mats really that badly designed? I have been wondering whether floor mat-related recalls really are "the dog ate my homework", i.e. covering up a more complex problem. Why are floor mats (loose mats on the floorboard) even allowed to exist? Maybe they should all be required to be glued or sewn down so they can't slide into the gas pedal.

As a computer guy my suspicion is still a bit fixated on the software. The amount of computer code in cars is just inhuman. According to this IEEE Spectrum article, the F-22 Raptor fighter has about 1.7 million lines of code, the F-35 will have about 5.7 million, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner will have about 6.5 million, but a modern car of today has around 100 million and the amount will probably double or triple in the near future. How much of that code has safety implications, I don't know. It scares me. I have a 1998 Honda with manual tranny, hand cranked windows, and non-powered brakes, and I think I want to keep driving it til it falls apart, rather than buy a computerized car.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 26, 2010)

The floor mats on my Mazda6 are held down by a couple of flat plastic hooks that are very thick. They fit into corresponding holes that are chrome reinforced. In case you spill something on your floor mat, or need to take it out to shake out the dirt; gluing or sewing them in place would be a headache. Also, it seems mainly to be the dealers who are saying Toyota owners are to blame; and coming up with this floor mat excuse.


----------



## foxtrot824 (Feb 26, 2010)

RA40 said:


> Simply, bring back manual trannies.


 
+1

having come from a history of vehicles with clutches I found it very annoying to drive the company Prius. While it gets great mileage even with me behind the wheel (I drive like the throttle is wide open anyway) I do find the lack mechanical disconnect from the transmission to be a little unsettling. I've also had the gas pedal stick in a non Toyota car (moment of panic) but then moved the shifter into neutral and resolved the situation with my foot. I can not imagine what that would be like in a Prius when you move that stupid little lever into the "N" position and nothing happens.
On the bright side it's a great time to buy Toyota 

PS- RPM is an acronym for "revolutions per minute" so there is no need to put an "s" after "RPM" as one would not say "revolutions per minutes".


----------



## leeholaaho (Feb 26, 2010)

Popsiclestix said:


> What about the rest of us that drive a manual and use heel-toe?
> 
> What I don't understand is why that woman didn't put her car into neutral if the brakes weren't working, or even turn off the engine.
> 
> (Yes, you'll lose power steering and brake assist, but it's not that uncontrollable)




She did try to turn it off and kick it of gear and she checked the floormat

Toyota could care less about this - 34 deaths - it has been going on for years


----------



## paulr (Feb 26, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> The floor mats on my Mazda6 are held down by a couple of flat plastic hooks that are very thick. They fit into corresponding holes that are chrome reinforced. In case you spill something on your floor mat, or need to take it out to shake out the dirt; gluing or sewing them in place would be a headache. Also, it seems mainly to be the dealers who are saying Toyota owners are to blame; and coming up with this floor mat excuse.



Well, there have been many car recalls (not just Toyota) because of floor mats. I guess that plastic hook system sounds reasonable--why doesn't everyone use it? My car just has loose mats and I'm thinking of bolting them down or something. I was also imagining something like fastex straps on the mats that would loop through fixed eyelets mounted on the floorboard.


----------



## oronocova (Feb 26, 2010)

I found this an interesting read a few weeks ago from C&D. Even from 120mph and with the throttle wide open the Camry's brakes were able to reel in the vehicle. Only the 540hp Roush Mustang, which they tested, IMO failed (903 feet from 100mph.)

What I gather is that if your braking system is in good working order you could probably actually stop the car even if you didn't shift to N. You would need to stand on the brakes completely though, engaging the ABS and not letting up until the car stopped. Shifting to N would be the obvious best choice I think. In the heat of the moment however, I think most people could fail to do either.


----------



## paulr (Feb 26, 2010)

Toyota has released a firmware patch to make the brake pedal override the gas. There is a Slashdot thread about it with an interesting comment section:

http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/02/26/1447213/Should-I-Take-Toyotas-Software-Update


----------



## copperfox (Feb 26, 2010)

paulr, yes you do have power assisted brakes.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 27, 2010)

paulr said:


> T
> 
> As a computer guy my suspicion is still a bit fixated on the software. The amount of computer code in cars is just inhuman. According to this IEEE Spectrum article, the F-22 Raptor fighter has about 1.7 million lines of code, the F-35 will have about 5.7 million, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner will have about 6.5 million, but a modern car of today has around 100 million and the amount will probably double or triple in the near future.





From the article said:


> These are impressive amounts of software, yet if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, ”it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code,” says Manfred Broy, a professor of informatics at Technical University, Munich, and a leading expert on software in cars. All that software executes on 70 to 100 microprocessor-based electronic control units (ECUs) networked throughout the body of your car.



I would not call that a reliable source. I'd call it an off-hand remark. When an expert starts a sentence with the disclaimer "probably" they are shooting from the him.

I have a VERY technically advanced car, and can count the networked devices by looking through the shop manual. It's no where near 100. 

You can really inflate the "lines of code" if you include the things like clocks, radios, GPS, DVD players etc, but they are not part of the command and control infrastructure of the car. 

I'd be surprised if the number of instructions in the engine control unit exceed 500K.

Daniel


----------



## KD5XB (Feb 27, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> No car is too powerful for its brakes. Watch an NHRA top fuel eliminator smoke its tires while not moving. It's front brakes are holding it in place. Even 5000 HP can't overpower their brakes.



Top Fuel racers don't have front brakes.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Feb 28, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> No car is too powerful for its brakes. Watch an NHRA top fuel eliminator smoke its tires while not moving. It's front brakes are holding it in place. Even 5000 HP can't overpower their brakes.


I must be pretty befuddled then cos from what I've seen, a top fuel car's brakes can't even stop the vehicle at the end of the track without the massive assistance of a parachute. And that's with the engine cut off............


----------



## paulr (Feb 28, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> I would not call that a reliable source. I'd call it an off-hand remark. When an expert starts a sentence with the disclaimer "probably" they are shooting from the him. Daniel



Broy seems to know what he's talking about. I got hold of his IEEE Proceedings paper cited in the article and he also wrote a book on automotive software that I might try to get from the library. He also cited a slide show by the chair of the SAE embedded software standards committee, stating in 2005 that there was about 100MB of code in a car already back then: www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/pretscha/events/seas05/bruce_emaus_keynote_050521.pdf But, neither is terribly specific about what all those controllers are doing.


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Mar 1, 2010)

100MB of code
500K of instructions
100 Million Lines of code

I am having really hard time believing that an average car has more software in it than F23 fighter jet.

But what do I know? I only write software 

- Vikas


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 1, 2010)

Vikas Sontakke said:


> 100MB of code
> 500K of instructions
> 100 Million Lines of code
> 
> ...


I can't say for sure whether or not that's the case, but I think if you count all the code for every gadget in a modern car then _perhaps_. However, probably 99% of this code has nothing to do with actually running the car. GPSes for example are very sophisticated pieces of equipment requiring tons of code. And some cars have voice recognition which is also tons of code.

As for the code which actually controls the engine, brakes, and transmission I'll hazard a guess that you're dealing with at most a few MB of code. After all, you have a fairly limited set of inputs and outputs, and also a fairly limited set of conditions. That being said, sometimes an unforeseen set of conditions will fail to be anticipated, with results like we've seen.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 1, 2010)

*GM recalls about 1.3 million compact cars.*

Just heard it reported on CBS new.

If you have a Chevy Cobalt (2005 - 2010) or a Pontiac G5 (2007 - 2010), your vehicle could have a serious power-steering issue. Get that checked out.

Can't say I'm surprised. Despite being GM's top seller across all brands, the Chevy Cavalier is a terrible model; especially in terms of safety. But the low price-tag is what made it so popular. The Cobalt is nothing more than a re-design of the Cavalier, with a new name.

Let's see if this recall generates as much buzz or Government investigation as Toyota's.

(Actually, both brands folked up. Let's see if one gets treated better than the other. Damn I'm glad I bought a Mazda.)


----------



## tygger (Mar 2, 2010)

get-lit said:


> The ignition could not be turned off because of a lock feature, and the Lexus shifter will not disengage drive unless a minimum speed is reached.



Could you please provide a link for this information. Because IIRC, in direct reference to this crash, they were advising people to shift the car into neutral.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 5, 2010)

Toyota just lost any support they previously had gotten from me:

Article titled Toyota is Secretive on 'black box' data


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 5, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Toyota just lost any support they previously had gotten from me:
> 
> Article titled Toyota is Secretive on 'black box' data


 
Yeah. That was definitely a stupid move on Toyota's part. If you have nothing to hide........


----------



## Jay T (Mar 5, 2010)

*Re: GM recalls about 1.3 million compact cars.*



Monocrom said:


> --------- snip ------------
> 
> Let's see if this recall generates as much buzz or Government investigation as Toyota's.
> 
> (Actually, both brands folked up. Let's see if one gets treated better than the other. Damn I'm glad I bought a Mazda.)



Why should it?

The GM recall involved 14 crashes resulting in one (1) injury.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/autos/GM_recall/index.htm?hpt=T2

The Toyota recall involved 34 deaths.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/15/business/la-fi-toyota-deaths16-2010feb16


----------



## dano (Mar 5, 2010)

The Govt has/is holding hearings about the Toyota witch hunt. However, the Govt essentially owns a car company: GM. Is there a conflict of interest created when the Govt holds these hearings, as it is a direct competitor to Toyota?


----------



## paulr (Mar 5, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Toyota just lost any support they previously had gotten from me:
> 
> Article titled Toyota is Secretive on 'black box' data



There was a slashdot thread about this. US cars allow more or less open access to the EDR data (e.g. if you take your car for an oil change, or if the cops tow your car for improper parking, the mechanic can download data saying how fast you've been driving) while Toyota's official position is access is restricted without a court order. From a privacy perspective the Toyota approach is superior: the EDR is a recording device installed in the car without regard to the owner's wishes, so if it's going to be there at all, its contents should not be accessible to third parties without a compelling reason like an accident investigation. If Toyota has been obstructing investigations on purpose, that's bad, but some people are making it sound like they should instead just make the data available to every schmoe with a USB cable, which is also bad. The linked SLT article gives the impression that the Toyota EDR simply hasn't been used very much, and as such, there hasn't been much deployment of the equipment that reads it. It sounds like they're fixing that.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 6, 2010)

*Re: GM recalls about 1.3 million compact cars.*



Jay T said:


> Why should it?
> 
> The GM recall involved 14 crashes resulting in one (1) injury.
> http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/autos/GM_recall/index.htm?hpt=T2
> ...


 
It's a deeper issue than just the Cobalt and its G5 twin.

GM did little more than use a different name when the Cavalier went through its last re-design. Despite being GM's top-seller across all of their various brands, it is far from the safest vehicle on the road; to put it mildly.


----------



## GLOCK18 (Mar 6, 2010)

I own 2 car a 2005 Toyota Tacoma and a 2007 Mercedes S550, as for repairs zero issues with my Tacoma, on the other hand the S550 had the transmission replaced the front brakes replaced twice the HID system replace once. Go to show even the best car have issues.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 6, 2010)

GLOCK18 said:


> I own 2 car a 2005 Toyota Tacoma and a 2007 Mercedes S550, as for repairs zero issues with my Tacoma, on the other hand the S550 had the transmission replaced the front brakes replaced twice the HID system replace once. Go to show even the best car have issues.


 
Definitely not the first time I've heard of a recent model Mercedes that needed major repairs after just a couple of years.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 6, 2010)

Mercedes has had a lot of reliability problems over the last several years; they've done a fantastic job of releasing dozens of new models, but somewhere in the shuffle the quality control got lost.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 8, 2010)

paulr said:


> There was a slashdot thread about this. US cars allow more or less open access to the EDR data (e.g. if you take your car for an oil change, or if the cops tow your car for improper parking, the mechanic can download data saying how fast you've been driving) while Toyota's official position is access is restricted without a court order. From a privacy perspective the Toyota approach is superior: the EDR is a recording device installed in the car without regard to the owner's wishes, so if it's going to be there at all, its contents should not be accessible to third parties without a compelling reason like an accident investigation. If Toyota has been obstructing investigations on purpose, that's bad, but some people are making it sound like they should instead just make the data available to every schmoe with a USB cable, which is also bad. The linked SLT article gives the impression that the Toyota EDR simply hasn't been used very much, and as such, there hasn't been much deployment of the equipment that reads it. It sounds like they're fixing that.


 
If you had read the article you would have seen that Toyota:

1. Gave inconsistent statements on what data was actually recorded by the EDR.

2. Called it an "experimental device", despite having been used in (edit: I believe approximately 19 million) vehicles since 2001.

3. Called it a prototype, unreliable for accident reconstruction, despite having been used in vehicles since 2001.

4. According to documents filed in court MAY have "deliberately stopped allowing its EDRs to collect critical information so it would not be forced to reveal it in court cases."

Edit: My tone always seems to come across as very harsh - apologies. What I was trying to say is it appeared that your entire response was based on the article's title and an assumption of it's content, when there were many critical points in the article that were not discussed in your comments. Also added a figure I found in Wikipedia of vehicles sold since 2001).


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 8, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> What I was trying to say is it appeared that your entire response was based on the article's title and an assumption of it's content, when there were many critical points in the article that were not discussed in your comments.



I won't try to address all the points one by one either. 

There were inconsistencies in the information that was gathered for the article, but not much different than the disparities that you would get if you call any non-technical person and ask them technical questions. Try calling your local phone company 10 times and ask why you can not use your phone number in a different city. Only 1% of the people who work there would know why. You would not be talking to that person. I suspect that the Toyota spokespeople were as knowledgeable of details as the average phone company PR flack.

I agree that Toyota's stance on the black box info is a bit more to my liking than the "anyone can read it" idea. Privacy about my driving is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'll hold off final judgment till all the facts are available. The suppositions and allegations are not quite the same.

Daniel


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 9, 2010)

There's a whole lot of inconsistencies at this point; now there's a story from here in SoCal where a man is claiming the throttle stuck on his Prius - for half an hour. Long enough to have police escort him and communicate a plan through both their PAs and cell phones to have a cruiser pull in front of the Prius and rear-end it to a stop. The driver reported that putting the car in neutral "did nothing", and that he was afraid to turn the car off because it might be dangerous (?!). He also stated that he tried to brake for some time, long enough that he could smell the brakes burning.

I can't count how many problems there are with any one particular part of this story, but here's some easy ones: 

- The Car & Driver braking tests I noted earlier (where there was virtually no difference in the braking distance regardless of what the engine was doing) used a 268hp V6 Camry; the Prius has 134hp (less if it's not a new model). The Prius also has a regenerative braking system which increases brake strength. 

- A Prius can not only be put into neutral at any speed, but if you put the shifter into any non-forward gear (park, reverse) while the car is moving, it automatically defaults to neutral. 

- A Prius can be turned off at any time by holding down the starter button for three seconds; as an added bonus, the power brake assist will still work since it can draw from the battery.

Et cetera. This is getting ridiculous now. How long before there's a multi-state pursuit of someone claiming their throttle is stuck?


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 9, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> There's a whole lot of inconsistencies at this point; now there's a story from here in SoCal where a man is claiming the throttle stuck on his Prius - for half an hour. Long enough to have police escort him and communicate a plan through both their PAs and cell phones to have a cruiser pull in front of the Prius and rear-end it to a stop. The driver reported that putting the car in neutral "did nothing", and that he was afraid to turn the car off because it might be dangerous (?!). He also stated that he tried to brake for some time, long enough that he could smell the brakes burning.
> 
> I can't count how many problems there are with any one particular part of this story, but here's some easy ones:
> 
> ...


 

And the trial lawyers are just licking their chop$.......


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 9, 2010)

Just heard a news report on the radio. Engineers and newspeople are heading to California after hearing of a '08 Prius happily accelerating. I think it's just the ghost of Edsel Ford having fun.

Geoff


----------



## RA40 (Mar 10, 2010)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/09/AR2010030903757.html?hpid=moreheadlines



> On the same day that the automaker launched a counterattack against the assertion that electronics may be at the heart of its runaway-acceleration problem, a Toyota Prius with an apparently stuck gas pedal took its driver on a 30-mile wild ride on an interstate not far from Toyota's U.S. headquarters in Southern California.
> 
> Outside of San Diego on Monday, James Sikes found himself behind the wheel of his blue Toyota 2008 Prius hybrid with what he said later was a stuck accelerator. In an interview with ABC News after the incident, from which he emerged safely, Sikes said his Prius sped up to 94 mph on its own.



I bet there will be some good deals on used Toyota's now.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 10, 2010)

I'd put more credence in these stories if it were not for rememberences of my teen age years. Once I experienced a stuck throttle. No biggie, I turned it off and pulled over. 

BUT! Being a smart young man I proceeded to rehearse how I would lie about it being stuck the next time I was caught speeding. "Honest Officer. It was stuck and I was trying to get it unstuck!"

I developed a better sense of morals as I matured, and would not think of doing that now, but I suspect that others would. I once witnessed a hit and run where the guy got out his car, climbed back in and fled, slowing at 5 traffic signals (I was following him) before he blew through them. In court ( I was a witness) he claimed that his brakes had failed. Yeah. Right.

Of course, I'd like to hear from the police if the prius ever changed speed at all. The Prius is extremely good at maintaining a very steady speed. You can't drive 30 miles on southern california freeways at 94 MPH without slowing down. And there is not always a shoulder or breakdown lane.

Boy am I going to feel silly if we find out that all the toyotas have been running out of control at the rate of 1 or two per day for the last 14 years. If you believe all the news reports, that's how often it's happening now.

Daniel


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 10, 2010)

Flying Turtle said:


> Just heard a news report on the radio. Engineers and newspeople are heading to California after hearing of a '08 Prius happily accelerating. I think it's just the ghost of Edsel Ford having fun.
> 
> Geoff


 
CNN interviewed him. He admitted not putting the car into neutral because it never even occured to him to do that.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 11, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> CNN interviewed him. He admitted not putting the car into neutral because it never even occured to him to do that.


I saw him in an interview (don't remember which network) and his comment was 'that he was afraid to put it in neutral for fear that the car might flip or something.'

After hearing about the incident, like Tom, I was concerned that I might be eating my words about my confidence in Toyota. After hearing his statement, I could only think 'here's an idiot that has no business with a driver's license.'

I read the full article referenced on the black box 'information withholding' and I didn't draw the same conclusions that was.lost did.

I hadn't thought about the privacy issue until Paulr brought it up and it's a good one. 

As to inconsistencies, it's kinda like the 4 gospels that often seem to contradict each other, but they're from four different perspectives. Perhaps the information gathered has changed over the years - like braking info being added in later years. Time will tell and I'll reserve my final judgment until the facts come out. For now, the article is nothing more than a continuation of the witch hunt to me.

One more personal experience. I was in an accident that involved a Camry rear ending another car. The Camry was totaled from damage to the front end, but the airbag didn't deploy. I contacted Toyota to get the 'specs' on airbag deployment and couldn't. The reason I couldn't get them, is that there are too many parameters that influence deployment and I suspect that the black box is similar in at least interpreting the information that it gathers.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 11, 2010)

kitelights said:


> I saw him in an interview (don't remember which network) and his comment was 'that he was afraid to put it in neutral for fear that the car might flip or something.'
> 
> After hearing about the incident, like Tom, I was concerned that I might be eating my words about my confidence in Toyota. After hearing his statement, I could only think 'here's an idiot that has no business with a driver's license.'


 
Agreed.

After seeing the interview, it became obvious that the driver of the Prius is a moron when it comes to operating an automobile.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 11, 2010)

kitelights said:


> After hearing about the incident, like Tom, I was concerned that I might be eating my words about my confidence in Toyota. After hearing his statement, I could only think 'here's an idiot that has no business with a driver's license.'



This was my immediate thought too. In this particular case I'm very suspicious that this guy's just out to make a fast buck, or else he thought he'd been nabbed for speeding and figured he'd try the "Toyota Defense".

On the other hand I dare say most drivers would not think to throw the shifter into Neutral, at least until some seconds had passed and speeds had become dangerous.

Geoff


----------



## GLOCK18 (Mar 11, 2010)

If you listen to the 911 call on the '08 Prius driver, the 911 operator ask can you put in neutral, driver pause 10 seconds then says no, operator ask can you turn the car off right away driver says no, then the speed goes from 81 to 84 . It all seems kind of wired.


----------



## flashfan (Mar 12, 2010)

The plot thickens. Just heard on the radio that "Prius Guy" is supposedly more than $700,000 in debt, had filed for bankruptcy, and still owes thousands for his Prius. The report went on to say that Prius Guy has stated that he is _not_ going to sue, but supposedly _did_ ask for a new car. An earlier news story mentioned that the guy works in real estate. Hmm...

_All of the above may have nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged acceleration problem_, but it certainly makes for a good story. The police officer did seem to support the idea of a runaway car, as I heard him (officer) state that he could smell the burning/burnt brakes. It's up to the "experts" now to determine if there is/was a problem with the car.

On a related matter, also on radio news today was a story that Edmunds has reported sales of Toyota vehicles in the first week of March are _up 47% _over last year! There must be some great bargains to be had, or are scammers looking to cash in?


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 12, 2010)

flashfan said:


> On a related matter, also on radio news today was a story that Edmunds has reported sales of Toyota vehicles in the first week of March are _up 47% _over last year! There must be some great bargains to be had, or are scammers looking to cash in?


 

Well, if I were in the market for a truck right now, I would buy a Tundra. Why? I have always been a Chevy guy, but no anymore. Now that they are Government Motors, and are using fascist tactics to attack their competition, they will never get another dime from me.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 12, 2010)

flashfan said:


> On a related matter, also on radio news today was a story that Edmunds has reported sales of Toyota vehicles in the first week of March are _up 47% _over last year! There must be some great bargains to be had, or are scammers looking to cash in?


Or maybe people realize Toyotas come with a great perk - a ready-made excuse in case you get pulled over for speeding. "Hey officer, the gas pedal got stuck and I was afraid of flipping the car if I hit the brakes!"


----------



## kitelights (Mar 14, 2010)

This post was written in response to a post by Paulr about a report that State Farm reported high number of claims to the NHTSA in 2004. When I responded and posted, his post was gone?

Read it again. The writer wants you to believe that the stats are related to acceleration, but it doesn't say that. The Camry has been the best selling sedan for quite some time. Stands to reason if there's more of them out there, there's more of them to be involved in accidents.

The CA Prius incident appears even more likely to be a fake. 'Federal investigators' looked at the car and were unable to replicate the problem and unable to find evidence of the type of braking claimed.

With all the reports constantly in the news of vehicles being driven through buildings because someone stepped on the gas instead of the brakes, the fact that there are so many Toyotas out there might account for several of the reported 'acceleration related' accidents.

I'm not saying that there are no issues. My point is that Toyota has a history of taking care of it's problems far and above any other auto manufacturer. They've bought back Tacomas because they may only last for 5-10 years (rust problems) that don't directly affect being sued for liability due to injury.

It's out of character for them to dodge a liability issue. I just don't believe that that's the case. I still believe it's a witch hunt.


----------



## KD5XB (Mar 14, 2010)

The most obvious thing I can see, and one which is being ignored by just about everybody -- 

1. The United States government now owns a big amount of General Motors.

2. Toyota competes with General Motors, among others.

3. The United States government is now investigating Toyota.

It may all be totally on the up & up, but it really doesn't take much thought at all to see a conflict of interest here.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 14, 2010)

KD5XB said:


> The most obvious thing I can see, and one which is being ignored by just about everybody --
> 
> 1. The United States government now owns a big amount of General Motors.
> 2. Toyota competes with General Motors, among others.
> ...



The reason it's largely ignored (by me, at least) is that the government is not a person. As such, it is not greedy. It does not have a sense of self preservation. 

The reason it's being investigated is because the media made such a big deal about it. The media blew it out of proportion for the same reason that we were inundated with Kate+8 reports. It was a story they could sell. Once it became a big story the feds HAD to investigate. 

The fact that all of the news sources are owned by a handful of companies has put us in a position where the editorial decisions of a few men/women can influence what we perceive as the truth. Sad, but I think it's true.

Daniel


----------



## Big_Ed (Mar 14, 2010)

KD5XB said:


> The most obvious thing I can see, and one which is being ignored by just about everybody --
> 
> 1. The United States government now owns a big amount of General Motors.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but with all the deaths, media attention and such, if the government didn't investigate, imagine how many people would be crying the government isn't doing anything to protect people. Better to investigate, than to ignore it.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 14, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> The reason it's largely ignored (by me, at least) is that the government is not a person. As such, it is not greedy. It does not have a sense of self preservation.


 
True, the Government is not a person. But it is run by people. And greed has nothing to do with self-preservation. There's a well-known person in his 70s (forgot his name at the moment) who made about 12 billion (not a typo) during the current Wall Street scandal. Now that's greed right there. 

As for politicians, a lot of them are just as greedy.


----------



## KD5XB (Mar 14, 2010)

Big_Ed said:


> Yeah, but with all the deaths, media attention and such, if the government didn't investigate, imagine how many people would be crying the government isn't doing anything to protect people. Better to investigate, than to ignore it.



What deaths? I haven't heard of any, about all I have heard about are stories where somebody claims their car accelerated. In fact, the most recent story is starting to sound like the ravings of a bankrupt lunatic.


----------



## paulr (Mar 15, 2010)

KD5XB said:


> What deaths? I haven't heard of any, about all I have heard about are stories where somebody claims their car accelerated. In fact, the most recent story is starting to sound like the ravings of a bankrupt lunatic.



Have you been following the news? Do you think Toyota recalled millions of cars for no reason? Yes that recent guy appears to be this week's Balloon Boy as Jalopnik put it. But yes, recurring Toyota uncontrolled acceleration appears to be a real problem, though its exact cause is not yet known (at least by anyone who is telling).

LA Times story claiming 56 deaths so far: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-deaths-mainbar28-2010feb28,0,2282376.story

A fast Google search will get you plenty more info.


----------



## KD5XB (Mar 15, 2010)

paulr said:


> Have you been following the news? Do you think Toyota recalled millions of cars for no reason?



Well, let me explain something -- I drive an 18-wheeler long haul, and I don't carry a TV. I have a choice of AM/FM or recorded material. About the only news I get is via the radio when I happen to have it on at the right time. As for why Toyota recalled all those vehicles -- no, I don't think it was for NO reason, I think it was because of the media frenzy surrounding the issue. Anything they can do to sell papers or airtime, they will. Remember, Audi had the same peoblem years ago and the media did the same thing then, only to find that people were stepping on the wrong pedal. 

You might consider being a little less critical of other forum members.


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 15, 2010)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/134733/saturday-night-live-weekend-getaway


----------



## Steve K (Mar 17, 2010)

just a thought on the whole matter....

I've been working on and designing sensors and operator controls on earthmoving equipment for 10 years now, along with other design work prior, going back to the mid 80's. I'm following the whole issue closely, and would love to know the technical details. 

I think the details of the pedal sensor are pretty well established. It's a CTS sensor, dual analog output with the two signals separated by a volt or half volt (approx.). I talked to an engineer that I know at CTS, and he mentioned that the sensor is based on hall cells, so it's electronic and not potentiometers.

The ECM/ECU in the car is an unknown to me, both in terms of software and hardware. 

Due to the dual redundancy in the sensor, it seems unlikely that it would be the cause. Even in the event of a double fault, such as was demonstrated by the professor in Carbondale, one of the two faults occurred first, and should have been caught by the ECU which should have reduced the throttle.

The ECU hardware and software is still a possible culprit, I think. I've seen cases where odd voltage spikes occur that cause the program pointer to jump into undesired chunks of program code, with the result of unexpected behavior. It took months of trying to duplicate the voltage spike before we succeeded, and that was possible only because the unexpected behavior left its mark in the device's memory. 

I am certain that Toyota is trying to figure out what is going on, but I'm also certain that this could be extremely difficult. And in the meantime, if the problem is in the ECU, then it is possible that it could be briefly ignoring all pedal inputs and injecting the maximum fuel quantity. Interesting problem, but I'm glad I'm not part of the team that has to find the answer fast. 

regards,
Steve K.
(shoot, that wasn't a quick reply, was it?)


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 17, 2010)

Remember the good old days when you pressed on a pedal and there were no electronics, sensors, or programming getting in the way.

All you needed was a mechanic if there was a problem. Now you need an MIT graduate to figure out why the brake-pedal doesn't work. :thumbsdow


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 17, 2010)

Yes, I remember the good old days. The manual choke, the sticky throttle plates, the points that needed attention every 3,000 miles or less. 

I remmber the plugs that wore out in 10,000 miles.

I remember the car stumbling when it was cold anytime I floored it. 

I remember brakes that faded badly after the first few stops.

I remember sitting behind a 1960's vintage car and choking on the fumes. That has happened MANY times since the Good Guys car show comes to my town a couple of times a year.

Daniel


----------



## Steve K (Mar 17, 2010)

but.... you got so familiar with all of the car's problems that you learned how to fix them, and adapted to the not-so-good behavior. There's something to be said for that.

of course, I drive a 14 year old Honda product... not too much electronics, but enough to make it run well. Too bad they hadn't figured out how to keep it from rusting out at the rear wheel wells. 

Steve K.
(so who knows where all of the tech data is on the Toyota problem?)


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 17, 2010)

If my 1964 Plymouth Belvadere were produced today, it would be decalred un-road worthy due to:

1) poor handling
2) brakes that could fail all at once (a single hydraulic line)
3) Loss of power steering when the engine died.
4) A choke that would sometimes stick open, sometimes closed.
5) A floor mat that curled under the brake pedal, greatly reducing the stopping power.
6) A fuel line that, on a real hot day, would vaprize the gas, making the engine stall at unpredictable times.

In the course of owning that car for 3 years, I only experienced each problem a time or two, but I think it makes teh point that the old way was not always better.

Daniel


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 18, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> In the course of owning that car for 3 years, I only experienced each problem a time or two, but I think it makes teh point that the old way was not always better.
> 
> Daniel


 
Sorry to hear you had so many problems with your classic car. But not everyone had as many issues.


----------



## rodfran (Mar 18, 2010)

If it had been a 1968 Pymouth Roadrunner or GTX with a hemi or a 440, your opinion might have been different. lol A good friend of mine had a GTX with 440, a/c, cruise, and front disc brakes that he took on his honeymoon. It was a great car. Of course, gas was cheaper back then, too!


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 18, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Sorry to hear you had so many problems with your classic car. But not everyone had as many issues.


My brother has 3 classic cars ( 1966 Toronado, 1969 Mark III, 1970(?) Thunderbird ). They all have issues of one sort or another which plain don't exist with the 1994 Mark VIII he drives daily. I remember the boots for the front wheel drive on his Toronado have never been right, no matter what he did. None of the three stay in tune for long without fiddling. Don't even get me started on how bad the exhaust fumes from these old cars are. I get nauseous enough when a modern SUV passes by, but those old cars make you puke in about 30 seconds. When he used to run them in the driveway, it was like I could feel the cancer growing inside me. Sometimes newer things really are better. When electrics become mainstream then you might actually go back to being able to work on them yourself, just like the old cars ( not that electrics break down much anyway ). Very simple-battery, motor controller, electric motor. If you use hub motors there aren't even any gears. As the electric motors provide the braking you don't need brake rotors or brake pads or brake cylinders. Best of all-no fumes! If/when something breaks, it should be plainly obvious what the problem is.

Anyway, no argument that modern cars, like modern electronics, have reached the point where most people haven't a clue how to fix them. That's the price you pay for increased reliability I suppose. I'd rather have something which I can't fix myself which rarely breaks down, than something which breaks often which I can fix. Besides, almost nobody nowadays wants to get their hands dirty fixing cars. It's hard enough to find people willing to do it for what they're paying mechanics, never mind as a hobby.


----------



## luckybucket (Mar 19, 2010)

3000k said:


> My truck has had the throttle stuck twice (mechanical linkage), and with only drum brakes on the rear axle, the engine easily overpowers the brakes. I just shut it off, you lose power sterring but vacuum pressure remains in the brake booster a while after the car is shut off. I really do not trust the drive by wire systems because when the sensor starts to wear out it becomes "noisy" and can input random throttle positions, plus throttle response is worse.




Drum brakes actually work better than disc because they have mechanical leverage against the drums and much more friction surface. I just realized that the problem may be from insufficient vacuum to the booster when the engine is at full throttle for too long. You will have vacuum at first from the reserve canister, but after that is used you won't have any until the engine is back at idle. I think some engines actually do make a little vacuum at full rpm's but not enough to help the brakes. I sure wish I had my old clunker so I could try that out.


----------



## luckybucket (Mar 19, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Toyota's legendary reputation took a major hit that it's not going to recover from overnight.
> 
> My best friend's wife found out her Camry was on the huge recall list. All those models . . .
> 
> ...




It wont be overnight, but people will forget quickly. I say this because Ford seems to be a popular brand right now and they had that incident with explorers rolling over. I would still buy a Toyota right now before I bought anything else if that was my favorite brand, but I'm a Honda fan. I realize every company makes mistakes, but you can't ignore a proven track record.


----------



## InTheDark (Mar 19, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> Yes, I remember the good old days. The manual choke, the sticky throttle plates, the points that needed attention every 3,000 miles or less.
> 
> I remmber the plugs that wore out in 10,000 miles.
> 
> ...



I'm reliving the good ol' days everyday in my 35 year old car. Let's not forget the vague manual steering, the 4 wheel drum (non-ABS) brakes, no crumple zones, periodic valve adjustments, carb adjustments, points setting, and poor handling. Ah, the good old days. People who long for the days of the all mechanical, non-electronic cars probably don't remember what it was like driving those cars and what a constant pain it was to keep it running.

I'm wondering when exactly did the responsibility for car problems shift to the automakers, even if it is found to be a design problem? Stuck gas pedals are nothing new, they've been around as long as there have been cars. I can guarantee that every car company has had a similar complaint in their almost all of their cars at some point. The causes might have been different, but the results are the same. How much responsibility is there for an automaker to produce a defect free car? For example, take the Ford Explorer crisis just a decade ago, is it the carmakers responsibility to make a car that can not flip over under any circumstances? Now Toyota is facing another issue with the car stalling. It sucks to have that happen, but is Toyota (or any other company for that matter) legally responsible to provide a 100% defect free car? Or does the driver of the car share some responsibility to know how to handle a given failure?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 19, 2010)

3000k said:


> View Post
> I really do not trust the drive by wire systems because when the sensor starts to wear out it becomes "noisy" and can input random throttle positions, plus throttle response is worse.



I would be quite surprised if any control sensor uses a simple single analog input like that. The Toyota design (based on a post I read) uses two sensors that work in opposite directions so that a failure of one sensor is easily detected. A failure of either sensor, or a short or an open, will result in an invalid input condition.

Noise should not be a major problem. We long ago learned how to use twisted pair cables and differential inputs. An RF noise cancels itself in these designs. 

The biggest fear is that some wet behind the ears manager will hire an over enthusiastic intern to design parts, and have a similar situation in the QA and QC departments. Interns can be scary. 

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 20, 2010)

InTheDark said:


> I'm wondering when exactly did the responsibility for car problems shift to the automakers, even if it is found to be a design problem? Stuck gas pedals are nothing new, they've been around as long as there have been cars. I can guarantee that every car company has had a similar complaint in their almost all of their cars at some point. The causes might have been different, but the results are the same. How much responsibility is there for an automaker to produce a defect free car? For example, take the Ford Explorer crisis just a decade ago, is it the carmakers responsibility to make a car that can not flip over under any circumstances? Now Toyota is facing another issue with the car stalling. It sucks to have that happen, but is Toyota (or any other company for that matter) legally responsible to provide a 100% defect free car? Or does the driver of the car share some responsibility to know how to handle a given failure?


I agree 100% here. A car is a mechanical device ( and lately a mechanical/electronic device ). At some point there is likely to be a failure. Unless it's a really glaring oversight by the manufacturer ( say putting inadequate brakes on a car which can go 150 mph ), then the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable. Field failures are part of operating a vehicle. Any competent driver should be trained to deal with them. The fact that most aren't speaks volumes of the ridiculously easy licensing procedure in place. It's high time standards where greatly increased, and everyone retested to the new standards.

I read something in the paper today about another Toyota "runaway". Fortunately this time Toyota accessed the black box and found that the brake pedal wasn't even being pressed! That should get them off the hook in this case. The driver didn't even take _minimal_ steps to slow the car down, assuming it really did run away ( I personally think he/she just stepped on the wrong pedal ).

I also don't see what all the fuss is over black boxes. Every other type of vehicle has them,. They are regularly checked by authorities in the event of an accident. It's been this way for years. Cars shouldn't be any different. In fact, the black box should be standard equipment and in an open format which authorities ( or even the car owner ) can read. I think readily accessible black box data would help a lot of drivers involved in accidents not their fault clear their names. Often when there are no witnesses the insurance companies assign some liability to each driver. Black box data would prevent that. It might also enable us to weed out habitually accident-prone drivers, then get them off the roads for good. There are no privacy issues here. When you step into an automobile and operate it on public roads, whatever you do in regards to the operation of that auto is subject to public record.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 20, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> I also don't see what all the fuss is over black boxes. Every other type of vehicle has them,. They are regularly checked by authorities in the event of an accident. It's been this way for years. Cars shouldn't be any different. In fact, the black box should be standard equipment and in an open format which authorities ( or even the car owner ) can read. I think readily accessible black box data would help a lot of drivers involved in accidents not their fault clear their names. Often when there are no witnesses the insurance companies assign some liability to each driver. Black box data would prevent that. It might also enable us to weed out habitually accident-prone drivers, then get them off the roads for good. There are no privacy issues here. When you step into an automobile and operate it on public roads, whatever you do in regards to the operation of that auto is subject to public record.



I understand your logic and in many ways I agree with this. I can see it going further though. 

Let`s say we jump ahead some years...30 maybe. You go down to your driver license office...do your 8hr simulator test (where they cause flat tires...brake loss...runaway throttle ect). 

You get you license...slip it into the slot in your car...look into the eye/face scanner/verifier and it starts up (electric powered). Your car is constantly sending info through it`s cell phone thing to a state/federal computer. Every time you go over the speed limit...fail to come to a complete stop...ect...your are issued a ticket which is displayed on a screen on your dash.

Every month you receive a driving bill...for miles driven (wear and tear on the road...no longer taxed at the pump...you don`t buy gas), for all your tickets, and an insurance bill (paid monthly, based on miles driven, number of tickets for the month and with accident record). To many and you have to take a bus...cars will not start with your license.

No longer do we need so many police...they don`t run around issuing tickets anymore...saves taxpayer $$$ (but this has added just a touch, to the huge unemployment problems). 

But some people don`t like it...they don`t like the government knowing where you are...if you pushing on the brake at that moment...or just inserted your license into a slot at a rest stop to open the door...to a stall...to take a **** (also billed at the end of the month).

But it doesn`t take to much imagination to see that could be a realistic concept of the future.

Further down the road of time cars simply will not go over the limit and always come to a complete stop...you are no longer totally in control.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 20, 2010)

Badbeams3 said:


> I understand your logic and in many ways I agree with this. I can see it going further though.
> 
> Let`s say we jump ahead some years...30 maybe. You go down to your driver license office...do your 8hr simulator test (where they cause flat tires...brake loss...runaway throttle ect).
> 
> ...


Honestly, in 30 years the way technology is going I would hope cars drive themselves, making the whole licensing/ticketing thing you described moot. The only thing a car might verify in that situation is whether the person using it has the authority to do so ( i.e. is either the owner of the car, or something to whom they gave permission to use it-spouse, child, relative, friend ). Yeah, you'll probably still be billed for miles used, corrected for the weight of your vehicle ( heavier cars cause more road wear and should be billed more ), but other than that I'm not seeing much negative here. Sure, the days of driving yourself will be over, but so will 50,000 annual deaths, 2 million injuries, costs to police the roads, etc. The carrot which I think might get the general public onboard would be much higher speeds than is possible these days, plus the end to traffic jams. That and the ability to safely use whatever electronic toys they want while traveling. I personally think it would be great. No need to jump through hoops to get a license. Anyone can use a car, even with disabilities, or if they're a minor. No need for parents to chaffeur their kids around any more. Conceptually, using a car wouldn't be any different than getting on an elevator, then pushing the button for your floor.

Assuming self-driven cars don't become a reality, I still see some positives in what you describe. We might finally get reasonable speed limits if it was a given a driver would be ticketed whenever they exceeded the limit ( or perhaps prevented by their cars from exceeding the limit at all ). Now we tolerate limits under what most people find comfortable because the likelihood of getting ticketed for speeding is relatively low. There would ( and should ) be a major outcry if technology allowed zero tolerance enforcement, so the limits would be raised to the 95th percentile, rather than being set by legislators. You might also have a little leeway at stop signs where a roll-thru at 10 mph or less wouldn't be fined if another vehicle wasn't detected within 250 feet. Bottom line is in a highly monitored zero tolerance environment the laws could be changed to accomodate driving behavoir which is currently illegal but not necessarily dangerous. The general idea is to use the new technology more as a helping hand than as a traffic cop.

Going back to the situation nowadays, if black box info is only pulled by authorities, and then _only in an accident_, I'm not seeing any negatives. If you're a bad driver, sure you won't like it, but a bad driver who causes accidents has no inherent "right" to drive. The beauty of using black box info this way is that it's totally results oriented. You'll never be penalized by your black box data for not following the letter of the law so long as you don't get into an accident. If you get in an accident and its not your fault you won't be penalized, either.

If anything positive comes out of this whole Toyota thing, I hope it's the realization of how inadequately trained most drivers are these days.


----------



## mrartillery (Mar 20, 2010)

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of hearing everyone bash toyota, sure they may have a few problems here and there but show me one car manufacturer that hasn't! IMO a lot of this comes from drivers who are not responsible or just plain out cant drive, they're wrecking and blaming toyota for their troubles. I own 2 toyotas and they have never gave any trouble, i service them myself and they run just as good as the day they rolled off the line, all my family owns toyota products too, also no troubles!

The media and other car manufacturers have blown this whole thing out of proportion!  The reason other manufacturers have jumped on the media bandwagon to bash toyota is because they know its the only way they can sell their half rate junk. Granted, there are other great car makers out there, such as honda which are also wonderful automobiles. My biggest problem comes from detroit, the ones who have to get bailed out by the federal government to save their two bit company, and after its saved they still continue to make sh*t cans for automobiles.

I've vented that to say this, people can say what they want about toyota but the fact remains, they make some of the best, most dependable, longest lasting cars on the road, bar none!! Anyone who doesn't agree is a fool, I've owned several and they have all been good to me. So my advice to people, dont be scared to buy a toyota product just because of what someone says. I believe they will pull through all of these "allegations" and continue to be one of the best car makers out there.

I wish them very best! :thumbsup:


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 20, 2010)

What happens in 30 years if there's an electronic glitch. . . 

"Massive multi-car pile up on the highway today. Drivers unable to get their cars to stop in time or to drive around the accident. Numerous dead."

No way in Hell am I turning over control of my car to some electronic, computerized system that might fail, crash, or be infected with a virus from a cyber terrorist. Every electronic anything that I've owned has failed. Regardless of price. I'm supposed to put my Life and that of my family's into an electronic car that drives itself?! I don't think so. I'm an excellent driver. Made a few small mistakes when I was younger, but that's how we learn. I prefer relying on my own driving skills to keep me alive.

In fact, that's the reason why I drive; despite living in NYC. (The one place in the entire developed world where you truly don't need a car to live well.) I've ridden on buses and subway trains. I still recall one obnoxious bus-operator who had no freaking clue how to proper operate the bus, and she didn't give a f**k either! Nothing like being in a large vehicle with no seatbelts, or having to stand and rely on a smooth metal pole to prevent you from tumbling to the ground if you are unlucky enough to get some moron who doesn't care! I put my Life into the hands of some low-life piece of $#^% who coped an attitude for no reason at all. Nice!

When the bus reached my destination, I gave that joke of a human being a reason for having an attitude. 

I'm not putting my Life into the hands of some stranger, nor into the electronic hands of some computerized gizmo that could short out or get infected; and then drive me into a pile of other cars because its sensor tells it that the road is all clear.


----------



## Toons (Mar 20, 2010)

Three Toyota products operated here at Toon's house. No runaways, sticky pedals or even a floor mat I could argue with the dealer about to get a free new one. They start, they run they get you where you want to go issue free. And they do it economically and efficiently.

Several years ago I sold my Chevy pickup. Fellow that bought it asked if anything had ever been done to it. I recounted the several recalls, transmission rebuild, software changes to get it to shift smoother etc. Then a few months later I sold the wife's Toyota. Fellow that bought it asked the same question. I struggled a bit trying to remember anything that needed attention. I told him that all we had done was change the oil and put gas in it. The light bulb went off in my head and we have been driving Toyota's ever since...

*Toons*


----------



## mrartillery (Mar 20, 2010)

Toons said:


> Three Toyota products operated here at Toon's house. No runaways, sticky pedals or even a floor mat I could argue with the dealer about to get a free new one. They start, they run they get you where you want to go issue free. And they do it economically and efficiently.
> 
> Several years ago I sold my Chevy pickup. Fellow that bought it asked if anything had ever been done to it. I recounted the several recalls, transmission rebuild, software changes to get it to shift smoother etc. Then a few months later I sold the wife's Toyota. Fellow that bought it asked the same question. I struggled a bit trying to remember anything that needed attention. I told him that all we had done was change the oil and put gas in it. The light bulb went off in my head and we have been driving Toyota's ever since...
> 
> *Toons*



My point exactly! 

:twothumbs Thank you


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 20, 2010)

Toons said:


> Three Toyota products operated here at Toon's house. No runaways, sticky pedals or even a floor mat I could argue with the dealer about to get a free new one. They start, they run they get you where you want to go issue free. And they do it economically and efficiently.
> 
> Several years ago I sold my Chevy pickup. Fellow that bought it asked if anything had ever been done to it. I recounted the several recalls, transmission rebuild, software changes to get it to shift smoother etc. Then a few months later I sold the wife's Toyota. Fellow that bought it asked the same question. I struggled a bit trying to remember anything that needed attention. I told him that all we had done was change the oil and put gas in it. The light bulb went off in my head and we have been driving Toyota's ever since...
> 
> *Toons*


 
Don't take this the wrong way, but were all of your Toyotas recently purchased, or are they at least a couple of years old? No one is saying that there are issues with Toyota vehicles that are a bit older.


----------



## Toons (Mar 20, 2010)

Hi Monocrom,
No problem, just the facts. 

Currently owned:
2008 Tacoma
2007 Lexus IS250
2006 Scion XA

Previously owned:
2005 Tundra
2005 4Runner
2002 4Runner
1998 Corolla
Because of our experiences uncle who never owned a foreign car (he is 90) drives a 2006 Camry.

Toons


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 20, 2010)

I appreciate the response. Thank you.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 20, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> What happens in 30 years if there's an electronic glitch. . .
> 
> "Massive multi-car pile up on the highway today. Drivers unable to get their cars to stop in time or to drive around the accident. Numerous dead."
> 
> No way in Hell am I turning over control of my car to some electronic, computerized system that might fail, crash, or be infected with a virus from a cyber terrorist. Every electronic anything that I've owned has failed. Regardless of price. I'm supposed to put my Life and that of my family's into an electronic car that drives itself?! I don't think so. I'm an excellent driver. Made a few small mistakes when I was younger, but that's how we learn. I prefer relying on my own driving skills to keep me alive.


I'm not doubting your driving skills here. The problem is your safety depends upon the driving skills of others, not just yours. If you think you can compensate for every mistake other drivers might make you're only kidding yourself. It's already been adequately proven to me that the majority have zero interest in honing their driving skills past the bare minimum needed to get from point A to point B under ideal conditions. A fair number don't even want to do that, but would rather text or read the paper. Given that, I can't wait for the day humans are no longer in control. It'll be nice being able to cycle without some bozo driving in the bike lane, or go for a walk without worrying that some senior citizen on too many meds drives right off the road. Sure, the scenario you mentioned will likely happen-perhaps once every few years, if that. Much better than the 100+ who have died since this time yesterday in motor vehicle accidents. Nothing humans make will ever be perfect. But I've little doubt we can do WAY better than today. There are numerous redundancies which can be built into a system to make catastrophic failure of the type you describe exceedingly unlikely. That's a fact. You do know the Space Shuttle goes into orbit entirely via computer control? And many airliners fly themselves for most of the flight, sometimes including take-offs and landings. If we can do that in 3 dimensions, then we can certainly do it in 2.

There aren't any virus issues here, either. All of these types of systems are dedicated microcontrollers which _can't_ be reprogrammed in the vehicle without physically connecting them to an appropriate programmer. The central system for directing traffic would do just that-direct it to whatever road. The systems on board the vehicles would be responsible for adjusting speed, spacing, etc. to avoid collisions. Multiple redundant microcontrollers with redundant power supplies could ensure that an accident doesn't occur because of failed electronics. Done right, modern electronics are exceedingly reliable. Don't compare a dedicated controller system to a DVD player you picked up in Best Buy for $10. Given the liability issues involved, you can be pretty sure such systems will be as good as we can make them.

Not sure what to make of your incident with the bus driver, either. You probably got a bad apple on a bad day. Most of the bus drivers I've ridden with operate overly cautious in my opinion. Yeah, they start and stop fast but that's how you maintain a schedule when you need to stop every 3 blocks. If she was really that incompetent, you should have got the bus number and time and reported her. As for the subways, since they removed field shunting, it's pretty much impossible for train operators to speed. Timers stuck everywhere slow the trains down further. Trip cocks stop a train running a red signal. It's medium speed transit now, not rapid transit, but the MTA pretty much took the human error factor out of the equation. The token clerks still have an attitude, but that's been going on as long as I've ridden the subways. Do that job for a few months dealing with the idiotic general public and you might be just as bad.

Since it seems now with this Toyota fiasco that people expect their vehicles to never fail and/or compensate for their driving mistakes, then automakers might as well take the next step and just remove the human from the driving process. From a liability standpoint this is exactly what I would do. If I'm legally responsible if a driver sticks extra floor mats under the gas pedal, making it stick, or due to a minor software glitch which might cause a runaway vehicle once in a blue moon, then I'll let the car handle the driving. Either way I'll have to pay if something fails, but at least with the car driving itself a screw-up is probably a few orders of magnitude less likely. I've little doubt some corporate lawyers in Toyota, GM, Ford, etc. are thinking exactly these thoughts right now. Probably the insurance companies too. I'd really be surprised if driverless cars don't happen in the next 20 years.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 20, 2010)

I drive on the expressway everyday. And yes, I can compensate for the errors that many drivers make. Driving defensively helps. Scanning the road ahead helps. Also, you get to the point where you just know that the guy in the red Volvo is content to drive along in his lane, while the guy in the beat-up Chevy Blazer is getting ready to jump into your lane without signaling. A bit of a sixth sense that is often spot-on.

Even without that, yes; I've found I can compensate for other drivers' errors because they make the same ones. NYC has some of the worst drivers out there. Some guys mainly have experience riding in the backseat of large sedans that are either yellow or black in color. When they're behind the wheel, it's the same mistakes over and over again. You get used to them, and you watch out for other drivers committing them. For example, if I see a guy flick on his turn-signal, I know he's jumping into my lane the very next second. Always happens! They never even realize that's not the right way to use a turn-signal. Reminds me of the guy who goes into a gym for the first time. Buys a weight-belt, puts it on, and tightens it up as much as he can _before _starting to lift weights.

Statistics are one thing. And they are certainly not meaningless. But driving on a daily basis is no more dangerous than many activities that people perform on a daily basis. And as stupid as some folks can be behind the wheel, I'd much rather deal with that than a computerized system that makes decisions for me. That's one issue facing Toyota. Their system apparently contains a glitch in some of their vehicles where the computer overrides the driver's input of pressing on the brake pedal.

Like a nightmare from a movie . . . 

"HAL, I'm hitting the brakes! I want to stop!"

"I'm sorry, Dave. But I can't do that."


----------



## Steve K (Mar 21, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> I would be quite surprised if any control sensor uses a simple single analog input like that. The Toyota design (based on a post I read) uses two sensors that work in opposite directions so that a failure of one sensor is easily detected. A failure of either sensor, or a short or an open, will result in an invalid input condition.
> 
> Noise should not be a major problem. We long ago learned how to use twisted pair cables and differential inputs. An RF noise cancels itself in these designs.
> 
> ...



There are automotive standards that require two inputs, although I've seen some designs that just use a low-idle switch as the second input. At least then it'll always know if you command the engine to go to idle.

The dual analog pedal sensor is pretty common. Just go to CTS's web site and look at their product line-up. The data I've seen said that the CTS sensor sold to Toyota are set up so that both output voltages increase and decrease together, however, there is an offset (or a scaling difference?) between the two signals. This allows the ECU to detect if the signal wires short to each other and take the appropriate action.

The manufacturers do plenty of EMC testing, and always use the most cost effective fixes for any problems. Twisted pair wires and differential inputs are pretty expensive, and I've only seen them used as a last resort. A couple of caps and ferrites are usually sufficient.

The biggest problem I've seen is when someone decides that since there haven't been any problems with a design, it must be over engineered! Time to cut cost of the design by making it crappier. 

Maintaining engineering experience is a problem too.... unfortunately, management skills are usually rewarded better than technical expertise. Based on Toyota's comments about growing too fast, I'm inclined to think that they promoted the experienced engineers to management before they could properly train the new engineers.
(but I could be wrong!)

Steve K.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 21, 2010)

Steve K said:


> Maintaining engineering experience is a problem too.... unfortunately, management skills are usually rewarded better than technical expertise. Based on Toyota's comments about growing too fast, I'm inclined to think that they promoted the experienced engineers to management before they could properly train the new engineers.
> (but I could be wrong!)
> 
> Steve K.


I won't touch any of your technical input - you appear to be knowledgeable and I'm not, but I don't think for a minute that Toyota believes that they did anything wrong (nor do I). They were accused and convicted in the media and the only way that they could move on and start to put this behind them was to accept responsibility and deal with it. It didn't matter if they were guilty of cover ups or poor engineering or whatever - the public's perception was that they were, because of the witch hunt mentality. 

Interesting that no real 'flaws' have been discovered, but several incidents have been proven to be either faked or just false accusations.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 21, 2010)

kitelights said:


> I won't touch any of your technical input - you appear to be knowledgeable and I'm not, but I don't think for a minute that Toyota believes that they did anything wrong (nor do I). They were accused and convicted in the media and the only way that they could move on and start to put this behind them was to accept responsibility and deal with it. It didn't matter if they were guilty of cover ups or poor engineering or whatever - the public's perception was that they were, because of the witch hunt mentality.
> 
> Interesting that no real 'flaws' have been discovered, but several incidents have been proven to be either faked or just false accusations.


 
A lot of what has happened hasn't been faked. Yes, there was one idiot who didn't even hit the brakes. Then you had another one who called the cops, didn't bother putting the car into neutral, and is horrifically in debt. Two very fishy cases. But the others which have been documented, are not in doubt. Folks testifying before Congress how their Toyotas took them on a wild ride. It's not a witch hunt when there's more than a few legit incidents. And there are. (To put it mildly.)

I can understand the high level of brand loyalty Toyota enjoys. A used one is still a good deal. But there's clearly a problem with current versions. What's needed is a proper fix. After that, Toyota can start rebuilding their legendary reputation for dependability. A reputation that Toyota itself tarnished.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 22, 2010)

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I don't believe that there are no issues, but this has been totally blown out of proportion milking it for all they can. Maybe Gov't Mtrs has something to do with it, who knows. There are 12 members of the committee that raked Toyota over the coals who are known to have taken contributions from UAW. I suspect the biggest motivation is to find them guilty or negligent in some regard in order to open up easy litigation against them. 

Their reputation goes beyond making quality cars - they have a history of recalls for things that go beyond issues of liability.


----------



## dudemar (Mar 22, 2010)

It wasn't too long ago that American car manufacturers decided to put standard safety equipment in cars- only under overwhelming pressure from guys like Ralph Nader. Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't give a rat's @$$ about safety, and it wasn't until he made these points people cried foul.

At least Toyota is going out of their way to do something about it.

We are indeed the United States of Amnesia.:shakehead


----------



## Steve K (Mar 22, 2010)

kitelights said:


> I won't touch any of your technical input - you appear to be knowledgeable and I'm not, but I don't think for a minute that Toyota believes that they did anything wrong (nor do I). They were accused and convicted in the media and the only way that they could move on and start to put this behind them was to accept responsibility and deal with it. It didn't matter if they were guilty of cover ups or poor engineering or whatever - the public's perception was that they were, because of the witch hunt mentality.
> 
> Interesting that no real 'flaws' have been discovered, but several incidents have been proven to be either faked or just false accusations.



I expect that Toyota understands the risks of intentionally producing products that they know have safety issues. My assumption is that they may be unintentionally producing an unsafe product as a result of various possible scenarios:
1. not maintaining a sufficient base of engineering experience
2. insufficient validation testing
3. the usual bad luck that causes new problems to pop up.
4. failure to benchmark their competitors (not knowing that others had software that killed the fuel delivery when the brake pedal and accel pedal are pressed at the same time).

The toughest problems to fix are the ones that pop up once in a blue moon, and if you haven't been through a few miserable projects already, it's easy to ignore these problems as something caused by the test set-up instead of the product itself. 

There's also the possibility that Toyota knew about the problem, but assumed that it wouldn't be a safety issue because people would know to shift into neutral, etc. In this case, they would have mistakenly assumed that Americans were competent drivers. 

If you think the world has been unfair to Toyota so far, wait for the jury trials to start. The jurors won't understand any of the technical info, and will decide the case based on how sorry they feel for the plaintiff versus whatever goodwill the Toyota brand still has. 

I keep looking for tech info on the case, but that's been pretty sparse. Most of what you see in the papers, and almost all(?) of what you see on TV is anecdotal, and doesn't mean much at all in terms of understanding the cause of the problem. Without decent info, people tend to form opinions without a basis, and that doesn't help the resolution of the issue at all.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 22, 2010)

Steve K said:


> I keep looking for tech info on the case, but that's been pretty sparse. Most of what you see in the papers, and almost all(?) of what you see on TV is anecdotal, and doesn't mean much at all in terms of understanding the cause of the problem. Without decent info, people tend to form opinions without a basis, and that doesn't help the resolution of the issue at all.


Bingo. All of our comments really mean nothing, because the facts just haven't come out. I've based my opinions on the history of their character. There may have been changes in leadership that differs from the past.

Regardless of the outcome, I still believe they have unfairly been tried and convicted in the media, unlike any other auto manufacturer. It will be interesting to eventually know what the issues are. We currently have 6 Toyotas in my immediate family, one was involved in a current recall.


----------



## tino_ale (Mar 22, 2010)

When I see how Toyota problems have blown out of proportion, it makes simply no doubt that there IS a smoking gun. People who are switching car in a blink of an eye are begging the holding hands to manipulate them furthermore.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 22, 2010)

Steve K said:


> 4. failure to benchmark their competitors (not knowing that others had software that killed the fuel delivery when the brake pedal and accel pedal are pressed at the same time).


 
Why do I see people everyday driving down the highway, clearly on the accelerator, yet with brake lights lit up? Shouldn't their car be shutting down?


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 22, 2010)

dudemar said:


> It wasn't too long ago that American car manufacturers decided to put standard safety equipment in cars- only under overwhelming pressure from guys like Ralph Nader. Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't give a rat's @$$ about safety, and it wasn't until he made these points people cried foul.


I've been saying this for years. I'll bet if it wasn't required by law a lot of cars wouldn't even have _brakes_, never mind stuff like seat belts or air bags. That's the extent of the lack of concern for safety by American car manufacturers.



Steve K said:


> If you think the world has been unfair to Toyota so far, wait for the jury trials to start. The jurors won't understand any of the technical info, and will decide the case based on how sorry they feel for the plaintiff versus whatever goodwill the Toyota brand still has.


Cases like this cry out for a panel of experts versed in the relevant technical info. Hopefully Toyota's lawyers will convince the presiding judge in these cases to go that route. An average jury simply isn't qualified to make a valid judgement here.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 22, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Why do I see people everyday driving down the highway, clearly on the accelerator, yet with brake lights lit up? Shouldn't their car be shutting down?



Only some more recent cars have the feature, but yes, if you try to two-foot a car with a throttle cutoff, you're in for a herky-jerky ride as the car will drop to neutral each time you try to brake.


----------



## Steve K (Mar 22, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> Cases like this cry out for a panel of experts versed in the relevant technical info. Hopefully Toyota's lawyers will convince the presiding judge in these cases to go that route. An average jury simply isn't qualified to make a valid judgement here.



well, I brought this up because I was recently involved with a somewhat similar case with my employer. An individual was seriously hurt while operating the machine. The available data clearly indicated that the scenario proposed by the plaintiff's lawyer to explain how the machine malfunctioned could not happen, and much data indicated that the poor guy hadn't been properly trained by his employer to operate the equipment safely. 

Unfortunately, my employer is big and has considerable assets. The plaintiff's employer is small and owns a bunch of well used equipment. My interpretation of the results: the jury felt sorry for the guy (and for good reason), so they decided to award him a large settlement even though he was misusing the machine.

The trial was held in the area where the injury occurred, so there was little incentive for the judge to stick his neck out for my employer.

Honestly, I and my fellow engineers had a hard enough time explaining the technical details to our corporate lawyers, so communicating the same stuff the average judge or juror is not likely to be successful. I recall having to explain voltage using the old fluid pressure analogy. Of course, the corporate lawyers wanted things explained in the simplest way possible, so they could hope to explain it to the jurors. 

Knowing what I knew about the machine and its electrical systems, I thought there was no way the plaintiff could win. I was very, very wrong!

Steve K.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 22, 2010)

A big enough company can always just appeal the decision until the Plantiff accepts a settlement for much less money.

Jurors do award money based on feeling sorry for an injured Plantiff. Happens all the time. The case of the moron who sued because her fast-food hot coffee was too hot, and she spilled it on herself is a perfect example of that.


----------



## InTheDark (Mar 22, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> A lot of what has happened hasn't been faked. Yes, there was one idiot who didn't even hit the brakes. Then you had another one who called the cops, didn't bother putting the car into neutral, and is horrifically in debt. Two very fishy cases. But the others which have been documented, are not in doubt. Folks testifying before Congress how their Toyotas took them on a wild ride. It's not a witch hunt when there's more than a few legit incidents. And there are. (To put it mildly.)
> 
> I can understand the high level of brand loyalty Toyota enjoys. A used one is still a good deal. But there's clearly a problem with current versions. What's needed is a proper fix. After that, Toyota can start rebuilding their legendary reputation for dependability. A reputation that Toyota itself tarnished.



Another interesting twist to the story

http://www.carlist.com/blog/?p=1398

Yes, I believe there are cases where a person unintentionally acclerated out of control. The bigger question is, is this abnormally higher than average, or do all cars have a similar proportion for failing? I also believe a lot of current cases are fueled by the media frenzy, had it not become such big news, I doubt many of these people would have even complained. It's going to be difficult, if not impossible to sort through the current pending cases to find out what was really going on. So far Toyota has been building a strong defense against all of the Prius claims, it seems 2 out of 3 have been disproven, and the 3rd is already looking like another hoax. Now extrapolate that to the hundreds (or maybe thousands) of current cases for their other cars, how many of them are legit?



dudemar said:


> We are indeed the United States of Amnesia.:shakehead



This was my thought when the whole Toyota debacle started. 

How many people remember the Audi fiasco in the early 80's? It was pretty much the exact same situation, people were complaining about how their Audi's were accelerating on their own, some people died, the media went into a frenzy and tried and publicly cruicified Audi without any proof. NBC or CBS even went as far as to rig up an Audi to accelerate on it's own in order to nail the point home. In the end, no problems were ever found, the case went away attributed to driver error, and people forgot about it.

This is nothing new for car companies and the media. Look at the Ford Pinto, Chevy S-10, Ford Explorer recalls from the past few decades. A lot of hype, lots of so-called experts testifying, a couple of quick media soundbytes with rigged cars to exemplify their point, and millions of dollars and lawsuits later, the result is really no faults found. 



Steve K said:


> I expect that Toyota understands the risks of intentionally producing products that they know have safety issues. My assumption is that they may be unintentionally producing an unsafe product as a result of various possible scenarios:
> 1. not maintaining a sufficient base of engineering experience
> 2. insufficient validation testing
> 3. the usual bad luck that causes new problems to pop up.
> ...



Maybe not the type of tech info you were looking for, but here is toyota's response to the testing performed by a so called independent consultant

http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/GILBERT-Evaluation_of_the_Gilbert_Demonstration_1_.pdf

The question I have been asking myself is, even with all those possible scenarios, how much is Toyota legally responsible for? Who defines what is an "unsafe" product? There's no doubt that any car today, even a recalled Toyota, is an order of magnitude safer that what was available just a decade ago. The advances in safety mechanisms such as air bags, seat belts, anti-lock brakes, etc, have made vehicles into virtual rolling fortresses. Has the standard of safety been raised, and in doing so, the responsibility been pushed to the automakers to make up for the lack of driver skill? For example, if a car's ABS fails (but otherwise the brakes work normally), are carmakers legally responsible? Remember, these are features that didn't exist until a decade or so ago, but now they're standard on every car. If anyone went through drivers ed before the 90's, you probably remember to pump the brakes to build up pressure. I'm pretty sure they even taught what to do if your accelerator was stuck. Do they not teach these basic techniques anymore?


----------



## tino_ale (Mar 22, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> What happens in 30 years if there's an electronic glitch. . .
> 
> "Massive multi-car pile up on the highway today. Drivers unable to get their cars to stop in time or to drive around the accident. Numerous dead."
> 
> No way in Hell am I turning over control of my car to some electronic, computerized system that might fail, crash, or be infected with a virus from a cyber terrorist. Every electronic anything that I've owned has failed. Regardless of price. I'm supposed to put my Life and that of my family's into an electronic car that drives itself?! I don't think so. I'm an excellent driver. Made a few small mistakes when I was younger, but that's how we learn. I prefer relying on my own driving skills to keep me alive.


It's interesting to see how most of us are reluctant to turn control over an automated system, because it could fail.

Yet, we as humans can also fail for sure. A heart attack. An aneurysm or whatever. The thing is, we can see a device fail, because we've all experienced it. On the other hand, most of us have never experienced a health attack that would have lead to a deadly accident for sure. Maybe that's the reason why ?

As long as the automated system driving my car is developed and manufactured in such a way that makes it more reliable than me, I WILL thrust it and I will have no problem with that. It's simple logic. Just the same, if you replace a mechanical link (let's say, the steering) by a by-wire link, as long as the by-wire is developed and manufactured in such a way that it is more reliable than the mechanical link (that is made up to certain tolerances, with a certain level of material spec) I would have no problem using it.


BTW it's already the case when you take the plane or the train or an automated metro like we have here. All of these could kill all the passengers if it went off.



Monocrom said:


> I'm an excellent driver.


Not questioning if you are or not, but it's interesting to note that more than 90% of the people consider that they are good drivers. I don't know about excellent but you get the idea! My point is, knowing this I now refrain from judging my own driving (even if I know that I am an excellent driver )


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 22, 2010)

tino_ale said:


> It's interesting to see how most of us are reluctant to turn control over an automated system, because it could fail.
> 
> Yet, we as humans can also fail for sure. A heart attack. An aneurysm or whatever. The thing is, we can see a device fail, because we've all experienced it. On the other hand, most of us have never experienced a health attack that would have lead to a deadly accident for sure. Maybe that's the reason why ?
> 
> As long as the automated system driving my car is developed and manufactured in such a way that makes it more reliable than me, I WILL trust it and I will have no problem with that. It's simple logic. Just the same, if you replace a mechanical link (let's say, the steering) by a by-wire link, as long as the by-wire is developed and manufactured in such a way that it is more reliable than the mechanical link (that is made up to certain tolerances, with a certain level of material spec) I would have no problem using it.


 
It's not so simple when you consider that everything must be maintained. Be it an electronic system or a mechanical one. Difference is, you don't need a Degree in electronics when referring to a mechanical system. Let's say an automated system is created. One day, there's a glitch. You know something is wrong. Good luck trying to pinpoint the problem and fix it quickly. With a mechanical system, if you detect a lot of brake fade, you check the brakes. No need to run a check on the entire system to pinpoint which wire or circuit got crossed. No need to bring in a specialist from MIT to fit it.

Earlier in this topic, someone asked which would you prefer, a system that needs more work done on it from time to time to run reliably; or a very reliable system that'll be a nightmare to fix when something goes wrong. I can only speak for myself, but I'd prefer the former over the latter. No electronics Degree needed if a problem comes up. As mentioned earlier, every electronic anything I've owned has failed at one point or another. (Including this computer that I'm using to post this response.)

Worst thing happens when my computer goes down, I can't visit my favorite sites for a few days. Cellphone craps out, I need to locate a working payphone to make a call. Automated system in my car craps out . . . Hopefully by then my future children will be old enough so that none of my close friends has to explain to them why daddy won't be coming home anymore. 

An automated system is going to be created by human hands. It can be close to perfect, but never will be. Even the best trained and skilled individuals make mistakes. A minor oversight, a zero instead of a one put in the wrong spot, maybe even the Head Technician having a stressful day because he missed out on an item on e-Bay that he's been searching for for years. A company with a legendary reputation for reliability can still make an item that fails for no reason at all. Let's put Toyota aside for a moment. I went on vacation back in October. Visited a shop where you can rent automatic weapons to fire on their shooting range. One weapon I tried was an H&K MP5 sub-machine gun. Legendary in terms of quality and reliability. It jammed on me before I got off one shot! The firearms instructor examined it, examined the ammunition, everything. Still refused to fire. He swapped out the clip, no good. Handed it to another instructor. The guy barely touched it, and it worked fine. Which brings up another issue . . . 

Gremlins! Not the ones from the film. The ones that pop up apparently just to mess with you. The system isn't working. But everything checks out as fine. Yup, folks can have heart attacks and strokes while driving. Totally unexpected. But gremlins and glitches can pop up unexpectedly too. That automated system isn't going to be bullet-proof reliable.




> BTW it's already the case when you take the plane or the train or an automated metro like we have here. All of these could kill all the passengers if it went off.


 
Lives were saved not too long ago thanks to an experienced pilot with lots of grey hairs. Sully Sullenberger saved the lives of the folks on board his airplane. No way could an automated system have pulled that off. 




> Not questioning if you are or not, but it's interesting to note that more than 90% of the people consider that they are good drivers. I don't know about excellent but you get the idea! My point is, knowing this I now refrain from judging my own driving (even if I know that I am an excellent driver )


 
Can't speak for others, but I'm realistic about my driving ability. When I get too old to drive in a manner that is safe for both me and other drivers, I'll cut up my driver's license.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm fairly certain that an automated system can pull off a water landing just like Captian Sully did. They make the stealth bomber flyable. That's a system that no human can fly by hand.

I can't quite undersdtand the angst about automated systems. Ever get in an elevator? The last control panel I looked at was a horrific mess of electrical and mechanical systems. Yet they are amazingly safe. 

The reality is that every electric (not even electronic) system in your house has the capaicty to kill you, and is much more likely to fail than a well designed automobile. 

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

There's no argument that an automated system will fail. The only question is how often, and what are the consequences when it does? It's relatively easy to make a system on a car practically failsafe. Have an interlock with the brakes where if the guidance and other systems go down, the brake applies, bringing the vehicle to a halt before it crashes into anything. It's been done this way for years on railways. As the car with the failed systems halted, cars following it still under automated guidance would stop or go around it. The only way a fatal collision would potentially happen is a near-simultaneous failure of the systems on two vehicles in close proximity at nearly the same time. The chances of that are fairly low.

Statistically, you might end up with a handful of deaths or injuries each year due to control system failures. Then again you might not have any deaths. Even a few annual deaths is an excellent tradeoff for the 50,000 deaths plus 2 million injuries annually keeping things as they are now. It's all about numbers. If the automated system is significantly or radically safer than human control, then it should become the standard. With distracted and/or poor driving becoming the norm, it's clear things have to change. We can either start using public transit more, or automate our cars. Better driver training is a lost cause and a political nonstarter ( can you imagine the outcry when drivers who can't meet the higher standards have their licenses taken away? ). The system as it stands presents a huge burden on the economy in terms of lost productivity, hospital/police expenses, plus legal expenses.

As for the pilot bringing in the plane under human control, sure, great example of one instance where a human in control can be useful. It's also entirely possible a computer could have done as good a job. The difference here is a mechanical or computer failure in an airliner is inherently fatal due to the speeds involved plus the lack of a guideway. Not necessarily so in a car. In fact, if we went to roll cages and race car type restraints nearly any auto collision would be surviveable. Even without those things most auto accidents are surviveable if you're belted in. And yet we have no problem entrusting planes to automatic guidance, yet for reasons unfathomable to me there are those resistant to doing so with our cars. My understanding is the technology is just about there. Actually, the control systems to interface with a computer ARE there, it's just that we need to work on the AI a bit. The experts say we'll have the first cars with an option to drive themselves by 2020. Probably 10-15 years after that the option to drive the car yourself on public roads will disappear. AI is actually easier to program once all cars are automated as they would all behave in a completely predictable manner. When you have a mix of AI plus human, then you'll probably need to have the AI cars behave in an overly cautious manner around human drivers.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 23, 2010)

Honestly, if the option to drive on public roads disappears, then I'll just become a criminal. Find a guy who can hack into the system, disable it, and I'm driving again. I think a lot of drivers will go that route if an automated system is shoved down their throats. I'm not someone who is mentally handicapped. Most drivers aren't. Whats the point of coming up with a system designed for such drivers?

As for the idiots who drive and text; increase the punishments. Instead of just a fine, how about 30 days in jail. Oh did you lose your job because they wouldn't hold it for you for a month? Well, tough $#^%! When you find a new job, you'll know better not to do that sort of thing, won't you.

I'm sure the insurance companies would love that too. Customer got caught texting & driving. Guess who's rates are going up! More money in the pockets of the insurance companies. As for guys like me, why should I care? I'm a safe and responsible driver. I don't need an automated system designed by a company hired by a Nanny State to what . . . Protect me from everything on the road?? No thank you. Some of us actually enjoy driving. That merging of man & machine that one either understands or doesn't. 

As far as planes go, I'm not a pilot. It's not as though my ability to fly has been taken away. When I do fly, which is rare I admit, I want a pilot with tons of experience in the cockpit. Let's put technology to good use and clone a few thousand Sullenbergers. If I need an operation, I don't want some automaton or a pimply-faced Med School Grad operating on me. I want someone with years under their belt, lines in their face, and more than a few grey hairs on their head. (Unless it's a woman. In which case, hair dye is to be expected.)

As for elevators, they're very simple compared to an an automated system that clearly will have to find a way for every car on the road to communicate with each other. Otherwise, how will a car know if it's dangerously close to the rear bumper of a car in front of it while each one is driving down the expressway. One miscommunication, and they crash. It's not just about numbers. Is the technology really that close behind? Who's going to have the skill to not just put it in place, but to maintain it too? And if a problem does pop up, and there's a major recall; now the roads will be even more dangerous to travel on.


----------



## paulr (Mar 23, 2010)

Elevators are safe because of the gravity brake, a mechanical safety stop invented in the 1800's. It's some kind of mouse-trap like thing held open by tension in the elevator cable. If the cable snaps and the elevator starts falling, the cable tension can no longer keep the trap open, so it snaps shut, driving spikes into the wall of the elevator shaft and stopping the elevator. Apparently you can cut the cable with an axe, and the elevator falls no more than a few inches before the gravity brake stops it.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 23, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> Statistically, you might end up with a handful of deaths or injuries each year due to control system failures. Then again you might not have any deaths. Even a few annual deaths is an excellent tradeoff for the 50,000 deaths plus 2 million injuries annually keeping things as they are now. It's all about numbers.


 
I would agree with you, but in reality if we eliminated all accidental deaths except for exactly one event per year where one person died when their car went , you know there would still be outcry.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Honestly, if the option to drive on public roads disappears, then I'll just become a criminal. Find a guy who can hack into the system, disable it, and I'm driving again. I think a lot of drivers will go that route if an automated system is shoved down their throats. I'm not someone who is mentally handicapped. Most drivers aren't. Whats the point of coming up with a system designed for such drivers?


The point is to reduce the number of deaths from 50,000 a year to hopefully zero ( or at least only a handful ). If you don't consider this a problem of epic proportions then we really are living in different worlds. If you do think it's a problem, but can think of a way to fix it without automating cars, I'm listening. I can't. I've thought of the other options. Stricter licensing and periodically retesting everyone? Might work except I'll guess 75% of current drivers will NEVER be able to pass the new test for whatever reason, no matter how much they trained. They would either lack the physical or mental ability. What to do with all these people who need to get around but can't drive any more? Build more public transit? Might work but only if you had draconian incentives for getting people out of their cars. I actually like this alternative better. It lets people like you continue to drive, plus gives people like me who can't drive more options. Problem is we just don't have the money to build the requisite amount of public transit, likely never will.

Almost everyone thinks they're a wonderful driver. Unfortunately, the reality is very few are. This whole Toyota thing is clearly bringing this fact to light. I'm frankly SHOCKED at some of the things I hear these drivers say. They shouldn't even be in control of a tricycle, never mind a 2-ton lethal weapon. I see how abysmal driving habits are whenever I walk or cycle. People are utterly clueless of the burden their poor driving habits place on others. So long as they don't get in an accident ( mostly because people like you are able to compensate for their mistakes ) they continue to think they're great drivers. I've even heard the "I've only been in six accidents in 20 years" line. And yet they still think they're a great driver. Maybe it's the illusion that if you're in control you think you're safe? I rarely travel by car because I consider it quite dangerous, regardless of who's doing the driving. NYC driving might be a little safer in that the speeds are relatively low, but the drivers are also worse than average. You can predict the mistakes of others to some extent. There's also going to be the one time in ten years when someone else throws you for a loop, or something totally unexpected comes up ( 2 years ago my brother hit a pile of concrete he wasn't able to see until it was too late ).

From what I'm reading about these systems, it isn't going to be that someone can "hack" into the system so you can drive yourself. The car won't even have controls to let you do that. I wouldn't worry about it, though. By the time this comes to pass, perhaps 25 or 30 years from now, it's likely your driving days will be long behind you anyway. You might actually welcome it if it lets you continue to use a car when you're past the point of being able to drive safely.



> As for the idiots who drive and text; increase the punishments. Instead of just a fine, how about 30 days in jail. Oh did you lose your job because they wouldn't hold it for you for a month? Well, tough $#^%! When you find a new job, you'll know better not to do that sort of thing, won't you.


This might work, except I'd probably make the punishment for distracted driving ( and especially DWI ) permanent loss of your license, plus prohibition of car ownership. Or you can raise the insurance rates for these people to the point that it's cost-prohibitive for them to drive. Again, what to do with everyone who can no longer drive? As much as I've love a lot more public transit, the money just isn't there. We can't even afford to maintain what we have.



> As for guys like me, why should I care? I'm a safe and responsible driver. I don't need an automated system designed by a company hired by a Nanny State to what . . . Protect me from everything on the road?? No thank you. Some of us actually enjoy driving. That merging of man & machine that one either understands or doesn't.


I'm often heard the "I enjoy driving" as a reason not to implement such a system. Assuming all this becomes reality, you can still drive yourself on a race track or other closed course if that's your thing. At least that's real driving, not going 10 mph in stop and go on the LIE. Watching paint dry is more interesting than driving at legal speeds among distracted drivers.



> As for elevators, they're very simple compared to an an automated system that clearly will have to find a way for every car on the road to communicate with each other. Otherwise, how will a car know if it's dangerously close to the rear bumper of a car in front of it while each one is driving down the expressway. One miscommunication, and they crash. It's not just about numbers.


I sounds like a lot of your apprehension of the system stems from not knowing how it would work. Cars don't have to communicate with each other at all. They only need to know how far away they are from other cars, along with following the guidance embedded in the road ( probably a passive cable ). That technology already exists. It uses either radar or sound waves. It doesn't depend upon complex, failure-prone radio communication between cars. Also, with autodrive there is no such thing as dangerously close. Cars behave in a predictable fashion, plus they can react 1000 times faster than a human. It's perfectly feasible to have cars riding bumper to bumper at 100 mph. Even if the lead car has to slow or turn for an obstacle, all the following vehicles can act in unison. If the systems on one car fail, the cars following it go around it while it's slowing down.



> Is the technology really that close behind? Who's going to have the skill to not just put it in place, but to maintain it too? And if a problem does pop up, and there's a major recall; now the roads will be even more dangerous to travel on.


It's still about 10 years away before you even have the _option_ to let the car drive itself. As for maintaining things, it's pretty much the same issues you have now. A vehicle would need to be inspected to ensure it's mechanically sound, same as now. And the control system could be inspected as well. Maintenance requirements might be a little stricter, and much more highly enforced, but it's not as onerous as you think. We've been doing this on airplanes for years. The automated systems work just fine, probably more reliably than the mechanical components.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I would agree with you, but in reality if we eliminated all accidental deaths except for exactly one event per year where one person died when their car went , you know there would still be outcry.


And yet there's not an outcry with the current situation? We should be screaming bloody murder. Think about this. Over 100 people have died, and over 5000 have been injured, since this time yesterday. If this happened on any other mode of transport, there would be a major Congressional inquiry. I don't get why the current situation has been tolerated for so long. The costs are HUGE, plus I'm tired of reading about innocent people's lives cut short just getting from point A to point B. It needs to be fixed. The only question is how.

We have a handful of people dying on planes or trains each year and there's hardly a major outcry. Same thing if we adopted automated cars. People have a tolerance for very occasional incidents. They seem to have a much higher tolerance for incidents when they have the illusion of being in control.


----------



## Steve K (Mar 23, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> As far as planes go, I'm not a pilot. It's not as though my ability to fly has been taken away. When I do fly, which is rare I admit, I want a pilot with tons of experience in the cockpit. Let's put technology to good use and clone a few thousand Sullenbergers. If I need an operation, I don't want some automaton or a pimply-faced Med School Grad operating on me. I want someone with years under their belt, lines in their face, and more than a few grey hairs on their head. (Unless it's a woman. In which case, hair dye is to be expected.)



It's not Sully's genetic material that needs to be cloned, it's his experience and training. For the same reason that we appreciate having Sully (and the other experienced pilots) in the cockpit, I'd like to see properly trained drivers in cars. If nothing else, at least bring the training and test standards up to the levels seen in the UK and other first world nations. 

The issue of how to accomodate the folks who just shouldn't be driving a motor vehicle is a problem, and accomodating them may be a challenge. Maybe limit them to driving smaller cars, if only so they can't kill as many people at once? Perhaps just a Mini Cooper with a 85 hp engine? And paint it safety orange so people can see it coming?

As far as automation goes... it's hard to imagine that full automation will ever happen, but I can certainly envision a true cruise control when on interstate highways and such. Punch in the destination and keep an eye on the system now and then as you watch a dvd (just like the pilots at Northwest when they overflew Minneapolis). 

The downside of that level of automation is all of the design work and testing needed to fully validate the system. Aircraft can be 95% autonomous (I'm guessing) because they have multiple redundant systems. Multiple hydraulic systems, dual redundant data buses, hydraulic backup for the control surfaces if the whole electrical system craps out, etc.... The aircraft companies spend an incredible amount of time and money building in this level of reliability (which is a nice thing to think about as you fly over the ocean). Only the biggest car companies can hope to invest the necessary amount amount of money into this sort of advanced technology.

Steve K.
(did I ever mention that I spent a number of years in the aerospace industry? fascinating stuff!)


----------



## tino_ale (Mar 23, 2010)

*jtr1962*, you are simply excellent at putting in nice words exactly my opinion. I'd second you on all above points, to me they make perfect sense


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 23, 2010)

gadget_lover said:


> I can't quite undersdtand the angst about automated systems.



This is the bit a lot of people are missing - cars have been sold to the American public as a symbol of independence and freedom for roughly a century now, there isn't anything that represents go-wherever-you-want-whenever-you-want more than owning a car. It's why people frown on riding a bus, and if you wholly automate a car, you're essentially just making it a small bus.

That being said, and despite being a car enthusiast, I'm still in favor of automating the car, perhaps just in city/suburban areas where traffic density becomes an issue, outlying and rural areas could still be drivable.



Steve K said:


> As far as automation goes... it's hard to imagine that full automation will ever happen, but I can certainly envision a true cruise control when on interstate highways and such. Punch in the destination and keep an eye on the system now and then as you watch a dvd (just like the pilots at Northwest when they overflew Minneapolis).
> 
> The downside of that level of automation is all of the design work and testing needed to fully validate the system. Aircraft can be 95% autonomous (I'm guessing) because they have multiple redundant systems. Multiple hydraulic systems, dual redundant data buses, hydraulic backup for the control surfaces if the whole electrical system craps out, etc.... The aircraft companies spend an incredible amount of time and money building in this level of reliability (which is a nice thing to think about as you fly over the ocean). Only the biggest car companies can hope to invest the necessary amount amount of money into this sort of advanced technology.



Don't forget about the march of technology - your iPod has over five orders of magnitude more data storage than the Apollo 11 moon lander, and a Prius is a totally different beast from a VW Bug. Consumer cars can already parallel park and emergency brake themselves, and we saw what DARPA could do with automating a Hummer in just a couple of years..


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> That being said, and despite being a car enthusiast, I'm still in favor of automating the car, perhaps just in city/suburban areas where traffic density becomes an issue, outlying and rural areas could still be drivable.


That might actually be a good compromise in my mind. When the car detects that traffic density falls under a given level, it asks you if you would like to drive. This way you can still participate in "fun" driving ( i.e. 125 mph along an almost empty Interstate ) while only putting yourself in potential danger, but avoid the aggravation and danger of driving in places like NYC ( where I can often cycle between two points faster than one can drive ).


----------



## Big_Ed (Mar 23, 2010)

But what about things that an automated system can't do? Say you're driving down the street, and you see a group of kids playing in a yard (not right in the street) with a ball, and you see the ball bouncing towards the street. Not yet in the street, but headed towards the street. A situation where there's no car-pedestrian conflict, YET, but might happen if that ball keeps bouncing closer and closer towards the street with a child chasing it. You, as a human can identify that potential problem, predict what might happen, decide what action you should take, and then execute that action. 

The automated system, would be great at deciding what to do, and executing that action, but I don't feel it would be able to identify a potential problem, one that's based on human nature, such as a kid wanting to chase a ball into the street, or predicting what might happen (the kid running into the street after the ball). Is the computer going to be able to tell that there are kids that might possibly run into the street? Not as I see it. A human would be able to see, predict and act way before a computer could in certain instances. The computer would either slam on the brakes only after the kid enters the street, where as the human would have slowed down once he/she saw the kids in the first place, or the computer would stop every time it would sense something close to the side of the street (like a pedestrian waiting to cross the street).

It seems a lot like cruise control. There are times when it's more efficient for people to control the speed of the vehicle, like in hilly areas, for example.

As for me, I'd rather keep the control over my vehicle.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

Big_Ed said:


> But what about things that an automated system can't do? Say you're driving down the street, and you see a group of kids playing in a yard (not right in the street) with a ball, and you see the ball bouncing towards the street. Not yet in the street, but headed towards the street. A situation where there's no car-pedestrian conflict, YET, but might happen if that ball keeps bouncing closer and closer towards the street with a child chasing it. You, as a human can identify that potential problem, predict what might happen, decide what action you should take, and then execute that action.


As a initial knee jerk response I might say that parents should watch kids who are too young to know not to venture out into the street. However, the reality is that irresponsible parenting seems to be the norm these days, and no driver wants to end up killing someone else's kid, no matter how irresponsible their parents are.

Second, there are probably algorithms to deal with this better than a human can. For starters, residential streets could be flagged for 15 mph maximum. Next, if a pedestrian under a certain height is detected on the sidewalk, the vehicle can take preemptive action to move as far as practical to the opposite side of the street in case the pedestrian darts out. At the same time it might also start flashing the headlights, emitting some sort of warning sound, perhaps reducing speed to 10 mph. Should the person suddenly dart out, there would be adequate time to detect them and stop.

I live in a residential area where kids sometimes play in the streets. I honestly don't see any behavoir by human drivers which might help them avoid such a situation. The usual driver here comes up to a stop sign, slows to about 10 mph, proceeds at that speed if clear, stops if not, guns the engine right about midway through the intersection, gets up to about 40 mph mid block, slams on the brakes at the next stop sign, etc. In all honesty, given how I see human drivers deal, or rather don't deal, with potential unexpected hazards like you describe I think machines could do better.

The more predictably cars behave, the better it actually is for other road users ( pedestrians and cyclists ). While cycling I too often see unpredictable and downright ridiculous driving behavior, such as drivers moving at a very slow pace, speeding up and slowing down repeatedly, for blocks for no reason I can fathom. Or gunning their car to pass me, only to slam on their brakes next block to turn, making me almost rear end them. I long for the day cars just proceed to their destinations in a totally predictable manner.



> It seems a lot like cruise control. There are times when it's more efficient for people to control the speed of the vehicle, like in hilly areas, for example.


PID ( proportional-integral-differential ) control deals with that just fine. The biggest problem with cruise control is most systems only control the throttle, not the brakes. On a sufficiently steep incline the car could coast right past the set point.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

tino_ale said:


> *jtr1962*, you are simply excellent at putting in nice words exactly my opinion. I'd second you on all above points, to me they make perfect sense


Thanks! I'm glad I make sense to at least one person here. And apologies to all if I took the thread a little off track. I _love_ talking about stuff like this!


----------



## Big_Ed (Mar 23, 2010)

JTR, well a person can predict human behavior better than a computer can. Algorithms aren't going to be able to outdo humans just yet. They aren't going to say, hmmm, there's a dog standing in the grass by the sidewalk and he may jump out into the street to chase that squirrel on the other side of the road. Sorry, I'm not buying the fact that a computer will be better at a human at things like that.

And your observations are exactly what I expect from people in big cities. People are really ruthless behind the wheel in large cities, like NY, Chicago, and LA. I live in a small town outside of the suburbs. Drivers out here are way better, less pushy and more courteous. I drive into Chicago weekly and see it all the time. So, yes, people are definitely less than careful. Some people definitely should not be behind the wheel. But not everyone is a bad driver. 

I doubt I will ever see self driving cars in my lifetime. Even if they did come out, they'd be too expensive, and largely unneccesary. I'd never have one. I think you may like the idea of these self driving cars because you don't drive a car yourself. There are many, many thousands of people who really enjoy driving. I happen to be one of those people.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and then see what the future holds. You're completely disregarding the exponential advances in both computer power and programming taking place. It's not only possible, but virtually certain, we'll have computers which learn soon. Take such a machine, let it learn expert driving techniques beyond its initial programming for a few months, and then put that algorithm in the self-drive system of production cars. It'll be better than any human could possible program it, and better than any human could drive. That dog chasing a squirrel thing is a red herring. Sometimes there's nothing either a human driver or an automated one can do to prevent a fatality. 

Suffice it to say also I think you're 100% wrong with the "largely unnecessary" comment. See here.

Similar list for all modes

Fatalities and injuries per passenger mile by mode

Interesting how the total of motor vehicle deaths for 2009 is over an order of magnitude higher than ALL of the other modes combined. Also note how the fatalities and injuries per passenger mile are much higher.



> I think you may like the idea of these self driving cars because you don't drive a car yourself. There are many, many thousands of people who really enjoy driving. I happen to be one of those people.


There's nothing enjoyable about driving on public roads given the expense, the low speed limits, the other drivers constantly getting in your way doing dumb things, the exhaust fumes, well, you get the idea. I did have a permit once and tried driving a little. I couldn't legally drive how I wanted to, so I said screw it. The fact that I really can't afford a car anyway, plus don't go places where I would need one, kind of clinched the deal for me. The only place I imagine driving might be remotely enjoyable would be in deep rural areas. Problem is that would be about the only thing I might find enjoyable in such an area, so no thanks.

I like the idea of self-driving cars because I like anything which will keep me safer while walking or biking, and reduce the taxes I pay to keep a huge highway patrol on the payroll. More public transit, coupled with restrictions on car use in city limits, would work just as well for me except it's not as politically viable at this time.



> And your observations are exactly what I expect from people in big cities. People are really ruthless behind the wheel in large cities, like NY, Chicago, and LA. I live in a small town outside of the suburbs. Drivers out here are way better, less pushy and more courteous.


A lot of the aggressive driving you observe comes about because other drivers do stupid things. Someone double parks maybe, then half a block later a taxi cuts you off to drop off a passenger. Now you get stuck at a red light you would have made if not for those two things. So next few blocks you try and make up those 45 seconds you lost, perhaps even run a light if you can. Or maybe even if nothing happened you preemptively try and make up time in case you get delayed down the road. If you live in a slow place 45 seconds or even 10 minutes may not matter. Here it does to a lot of people ( not me personally, but I've known people who get pissed if something delays them for 15 seconds ). That's why people go crazy trying to make a light, or get the best position when the light changes. Maybe if some small percentage of awful drivers didn't delay everyone else with their stupidity, driving times here would be more predictable, and people would drive more sanely. I'm not saying I agree with what I see on the roads, but I understand the reasons behind it. I kind of do the same thing cycling against the clock, except my options to make up time are much more limited.

What it amounts to really is the same thing which happens when anything becomes accessible to the masses. Once something goes from an exclusive "club" with its own unspoken courtesy to something the masses have, it degrades to the least common denominator. That probably happened with the auto soon after WWII. We really should have kept the trains and trolleys. Something similar happened to the Internet once AOL made it accessible in the late 1990s, or so I've heard from people who were online in the 1990s ( I wasn't - couldn't afford a PC at the time ).

If car drivers were as professional as this guy, I wouldn't have any complaints.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 24, 2010)

I see where some shareholders of Toyota stock are suing Toyota. Their claim is Toyota knew there was a problem but did not come forward with it. So they had purchased the stock under the belief things were fine, only to see it drop in value. Might have a case...we shall see.

I think we could see some level of self driving cars. But only on highways in between cities...not in cities. And only on 4 lane ones. The 2 most left lanes will be the auto drive ones. The most right lane will be self drive with one next to it used as a transition lane (from self to auto)...but mostly empty as a buffer. 

"Auto control engaging...please remove you hands from the wheel"  :shakehead

" Auto highway ending...Please place you hands on the wheel within two miles and move to the right lane". 

If you don`t take control, the car will exit left into a rest area and park ... :tired: There, you will be subjected to one minute of punk rock at a rather loud level (in the future considered punishment for a variety of minor offenses and crimes) and then allowed to go on your way.

Myself...think I`ll just find back roads 

But I don`t know...I can see a lot of problems as others have pointed out with auto driving cars. I`m still waiting for those flying cars everyone was suppose to have by now. And those hot robot women :naughty:


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 24, 2010)

Badbeams3 said:


> I`m still waiting for those flying cars everyone was suppose to have by now.


Putting aside that flying cars are a solution waiting for a problem, I read that the reason we won't have them any time soon is ( surprise ) because we lack the means to automate their control. You would need an enormously complex, failsafe system to deal with millions of vehicles moving in three dimensions, probably several orders of magnitude beyond what would be needed to automate cars. You couldn't allow human control of skycars and hope to sell them to the masses. Most people are utterly incapable of thinking in 3 dimensions. Many can't even deal with the 2 needed to drive a car.

Getting back to Toyota, this whole automated car scenario came up because of the liability situation. It's entirely likely given how our court system works that Toyota will be found liable even in cases where operator error is clearly the cause of a crash. Whether or not an actual known defective design exists will be secondary. Given that reality, what would you do if you were Toyota? Or an automaker, period? Remember, you would now be legally responsible for any crashes, even those caused by human error, if there was even a hint of a defect in your product. Since you really can't make a perfect product, you would seek to minimize the number of crashes. Other automakers would follow lest it leaves them at a competitive disadvantage. You might start by doing what can easily be done right now, such as automatically adjusting the speed if you're following another vehicle too closely, applying the brakes if the driver tries to run a red light, perhaps using GPS to prevent the car from physically exceeding the speed limit, maybe even limiting acceleration rates except on highway entrance ramps. Later on, as technology allows, you'll automate the entire driving process. Not because you want to, but because it'll reduce your exposure to liability.

IMO, all these Toyota lawsuits just opened a huge can of worms which we'll see crawling all over the automotive landscape in the coming years.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> Putting aside that flying cars are a solution waiting for a problem, I read that the reason we won't have them any time soon is ( surprise ) because we lack the means to automate their control. You would need an enormously complex, failsafe system to deal with millions of vehicles moving in three dimensions, probably several orders of magnitude beyond what would be needed to automate cars. You couldn't allow human control of skycars and hope to sell them to the masses. Most people are utterly incapable of thinking in 3 dimensions. Many can't even deal with the 2 needed to drive a car.
> 
> Getting back to Toyota, this whole automated car scenario came up because of the liability situation. It's entirely likely given how our court system works that Toyota will be found liable even in cases where operator error is clearly the cause of a crash. Whether or not an actual known defective design exists will be secondary. Given that reality, what would you do if you were Toyota? Or an automaker, period? Remember, you would now be legally responsible for any crashes, even those caused by human error, if there was even a hint of a defect in your product. Since you really can't make a perfect product, you would seek to minimize the number of crashes. Other automakers would follow lest it leaves them at a competitive disadvantage. You might start by doing what can easily be done right now, such as automatically adjusting the speed if you're following another vehicle too closely, applying the brakes if the driver tries to run a red light, perhaps using GPS to prevent the car from physically exceeding the speed limit, maybe even limiting acceleration rates except on highway entrance ramps. Later on, as technology allows, you'll automate the entire driving process. Not because you want to, but because it'll reduce your exposure to liability.
> 
> IMO, all these Toyota lawsuits just opened a huge can of worms which we'll see crawling all over the automotive landscape in the coming years.



Honestly? Um...perhaps I would include an option for the customer to purchase a defective product insurance. If they don`t choose this option, they understand and agree that my company can only be held accountable for willful negligence (very hard to prove) and repairs are limited to the terms of the warranty. Another words...if you do not choose to buy my insurance and the throttle sticks and your injured...you are out of luck. I have no other liability beyond repairing the throttle.

They would have to choose and sign either way at the point of purchase. Pay and accept...or decline and run the risk.

The bulk of people will decline...the middle class and poor...the wealthy will pay. So the poor loose out if something happens like the Toyota situation...but the rich come out just fine. Same as always


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 24, 2010)

Big_Ed said:


> JTR, well a person can predict human behavior better than a computer can. Algorithms aren't going to be able to outdo humans just yet. They aren't going to say, hmmm, there's a dog standing in the grass by the sidewalk and he may jump out into the street to chase that squirrel on the other side of the road. Sorry, I'm not buying the fact that a computer will be better at a human at things like that.



I think you are highly over estimating the skill and attention span of the average driver. I spend a couple of hours a day in the car, and I see thousands of people who are barely paying attention to their driving, much less the hazards near the roads.

Just as an example of how flawed humans are, we have to put automated crossing guards at rail-road crossings because people don't look out for trains. They miss locomotives the size of a house moving at 30 to 50 mph at marked intersections, even when they blow their whistles. Or they try to go around the gates to beat the train and a few dozen get killed every year (that I hear on the news).

People are NOT good guidance systems. They are unpredictable. Send 10 people though a marked hazard course and you will see 10 different sets of reactions. Send several people at the same time and you are likely to see a lot of accidents.

Now imagine if we can segregate the automated and the manual systems. The cars follow a strict program. They are predictable. They can communicate via cameras, light, RF, etc. That makes it easy to program in avoidance systems. All of them can react like the individual birds in a flock of swallows, moving in unison.

Automated systems will allow a lot more cars per mile than we have now. According to the experts, you should leave 160 feet between cars at 65 MPH. That's the 2 second rule. That means the road is over crowded at just 29 cars per mile. If you have automated systems that signal the need to brake, that gap can be safely cut to just 50 feet, adjusted based on the car's ability to stop. So you can triple the number of cars per lane AND maintain the speed.

If you say "but what if a car can't stop, or if one crashes?" Well, the same thing that happens now, except instead of a 100 car pileup you have 5 or 6 cars and the rest (being notified by radio) stop gracefully or change lanes before hitting anything. With human pilots we have multiple car crashes every day in every part of the country.

It will happen if population continues to grow, Most of the pieces are available. It's just a matter of selling it.

Daniel


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> Thanks! I'm glad I make sense to at least one person here. And apologies to all if I took the thread a little off track. I _love_ talking about stuff like this!


 
Quite a bit of what you post makes sense. However, I must admit that I feel you are a bit too willing to trust in the suspect reliability of modern technology. Even here in our little community, how often do we see topics made in referrence to a brand new light that folks have been eagerly anticipating? It comes out, and then problems & glitches galore! 

While the above can be greatly reduced simply through Beta-Testing, who's going to do that if an automated system goes into production?


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> A lot of the aggressive driving you observe comes about because other drivers do stupid things. Someone double parks maybe, then half a block later a taxi cuts you off to drop off a passenger. Now you get stuck at a red light you would have made if not for those two things. So next few blocks you try and make up those 45 seconds you lost, perhaps even run a light if you can. Or maybe even if nothing happened you preemptively try and make up time in case you get delayed down the road. If you live in a slow place 45 seconds or even 10 minutes may not matter. Here it does to a lot of people ( not me personally, but I've known people who get pissed if something delays them for 15 seconds ). That's why people go crazy trying to make a light, or get the best position when the light changes. Maybe if some small percentage of awful drivers didn't delay everyone else with their stupidity, driving times here would be more predictable, and people would drive more sanely. I'm not saying I agree with what I see on the roads, but I understand the reasons behind it. I kind of do the same thing cycling against the clock, except my options to make up time are much more limited.


 
I hear what you're saying, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this almost comes across as justifying bad driving, which I completely disagree with in all circumstances. I hear all the time people (who I know to be reckless drivers) say things like "yeah, he was going so slow I just HAD to pass him on the right lane" when the driver in question was probably going the speed limit or even over.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 24, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Quite a bit of what you post makes sense. However, I must admit that I feel you are a bit too willing to trust in the suspect reliability of modern technology. Even here in our little community, how often do we see topics made in referrence to a brand new light that folks have been eagerly anticipating? It comes out, and then problems & glitches galore!
> 
> While the above can be greatly reduced simply through Beta-Testing, who's going to do that if an automated system goes into production?


I've been in the electronics business for a long time. There are two things I've found which often compromise products. One is lack of beta testing as you said. The other is pressure from the buyer to get down costs. I recently had a lot of problems with a new regulator I made. Why? First off, I would rather have had the customer beta test it for a year in a few cars before production, but he wanted to get the device it was in out sooner. Second, he pressured me on costs, so I had to use an electrolytic cap instead of a solid polymer cap. It also didn't help that I had limited information ( not really his fault ) about the circuitry powering the device. End result? A ton of field failures. He issued a recall, I'm currently doing a redesign.

Bottom line-this pressure to get things out to market in a hurry, and cut costs to the bone, has to end if we want reliable products. Sure, there's always an off chance someone will beat you to market, but chances are good they'll have a piece of junk which won't last anyway. When their product breaks, you'll sell their ( former ) customers your better version.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I hear what you're saying, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this almost comes across as justifying bad driving, which I completely disagree with in all circumstances. I hear all the time people (who I know to be reckless drivers) say things like "yeah, he was going so slow I just HAD to pass him on the right lane" when the driver in question was probably going the speed limit or even over.


What it comes down to is people don't like a lot of variability in their trip times, especially for things like their commute to work where they have a certain scheduled arrival time without much flexibility. Thanks to a relatively small percentage of really bad drivers doing things like slowing down for no apparent reason right in the middle of a street, or double parking, or cutting others off, there is far too much variability in driving times these days. What exactly is a driver supposed to do if someone needlessly delays them and they need to be at work at such and such time? I don't buy the usual line "leave earlier", either. That might mean 3 days out of 5 you'll arrive 15 or 20 minutes early and have to sit there twiddling your thumbs with no pay. In a year it comes to over two full days of wasted time. If you have more or less consistent trip times then everyone wins. For example, prior to working at home I had to be at work at 8 AM. I didn't get paid if I came early, and there was a 5 minute grace period for lateness. Thankfully the subway and connecting bus line were pretty consistent that time of day. If I left my house at 7:20 AM and everything ran good, I would get to work more or less at 8 on the dot. Occasionally I might arrive a minute or two early, other times a minute or two late ( which was fine by my employer ). About once a month the trains might get screwed up and I would get to work 15 or 30 minutes late, sometimes even more. Not a big issue since it happened rarely. Now what if the same thing happened once or twice a week? My employer likely wouldn't tolerate me arriving that late once or twice a week. I could leave 30 minutes early, and eliminate most ( but not all ) of my latenesses. Problem is 3 or 4 days out of 5 I would get to work at 7:30, then have to waste 30 minutes of my life twiddling my thumbs ( not to mention losing valuable sleep as I often got home from work at 10 or 11 PM previous day ). This is why car drivers do what I mentioned in the city. Trip times by car are highly variable on account of the human factor. Now imagine how different it would be if you know it takes you exactly, say 45 minutes and 20 seconds to get to work, plus or minus 30 seconds? Sometimes even if a trip takes longer, people would prefer it over a usually shorter, but highly variable trip time. That's often why people in NYC will take the train even at off-peak times when driving might be faster. Sometimes it will be, sometimes not. The trains are generally pretty reliable, especially off-peak, even if we love to complain about them.


----------



## tino_ale (Mar 24, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Quite a bit of what you post makes sense. However, I must admit that I feel you are a bit too willing to trust in the suspect reliability of modern technology. Even here in our little community, how often do we see topics made in referrence to a brand new light that folks have been eagerly anticipating? It comes out, and then problems & glitches galore!
> 
> While the above can be greatly reduced simply through Beta-Testing, who's going to do that if an automated system goes into production?


I understand your scepticism about modern technology and I don't think we should blindly thrust it either.

On the other hand it seems you completely overlook how high reliability systems are made and how they share so very little with the stuff you are used to deal with, and see fail on a regular basis. You just can't compare a flashlight which has basically 0% failure tolerance, redundancy, backup or defense mechanism with a system that will have to implement them.

Yes a new system always need to mature and yet ultimately will never reach a 100% reliability.

About maintenance. Thousands of airplanes are in the air at any given moment. Do you see one fall very often ? No. So without being at 100%, they ARE freaking reliable. Yet do you think the people who are working on their maintenance are all PhD? I don't think so.

Now it's all about "what is enough" and how much failure leading to death the public can bear. But for some reason, the public will be much less forgiving with an automated system, even if the manual version leads to the exact same number of killed.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> What it comes down to is people don't like a lot of variability in their trip times, especially for things like their commute to work where they have a certain scheduled arrival time without much flexibility. Thanks to a relatively small percentage of really bad drivers doing things like slowing down for no apparent reason right in the middle of a street, or double parking, or cutting others off, there is far too much variability in driving times these days. What exactly is a driver supposed to do if someone needlessly delays them and they need to be at work at such and such time? I don't buy the usual line "leave earlier", either. That might mean 3 days out of 5 you'll arrive 15 or 20 minutes early and have to sit there twiddling your thumbs with no pay. In a year it comes to over two full days of wasted time. If you have more or less consistent trip times then everyone wins. For example, prior to working at home I had to be at work at 8 AM. I didn't get paid if I came early, and there was a 5 minute grace period for lateness. Thankfully the subway and connecting bus line were pretty consistent that time of day. If I left my house at 7:20 AM and everything ran good, I would get to work more or less at 8 on the dot. Occasionally I might arrive a minute or two early, other times a minute or two late ( which was fine by my employer ). About once a month the trains might get screwed up and I would get to work 15 or 30 minutes late, sometimes even more. Not a big issue since it happened rarely. Now what if the same thing happened once or twice a week? My employer likely wouldn't tolerate me arriving that late once or twice a week. I could leave 30 minutes early, and eliminate most ( but not all ) of my latenesses. Problem is 3 or 4 days out of 5 I would get to work at 7:30, then have to waste 30 minutes of my life twiddling my thumbs ( not to mention losing valuable sleep as I often got home from work at 10 or 11 PM previous day ). This is why car drivers do what I mentioned in the city. Trip times by car are highly variable on account of the human factor. Now imagine how different it would be if you know it takes you exactly, say 45 minutes and 20 seconds to get to work, plus or minus 30 seconds? Sometimes even if a trip takes longer, people would prefer it over a usually shorter, but highly variable trip time. That's often why people in NYC will take the train even at off-peak times when driving might be faster. Sometimes it will be, sometimes not. The trains are generally pretty reliable, especially off-peak, even if we love to complain about them.


 
Ok, no more need to beat around the bush; you are without a doubt justifying bad driving.

I don't agree with your math; you are exagerating the benefits of driving above the speed limit. You've implied that you can "make up" 20 minutes over a 45 minute commute. Let's make some assumptions and say that you have 5 minutes of 35mph in town driving, then 35 minutes of 60 mph highway driving, followed by 5 more minutes at 35mph in town. Do you think these are fair assumptions? Driving 10mph over the speed limit for both in town sections would yield a 2.3 minute gain total over both sections, meaning you'd have to make up the other 17.7 minutes on the highway, at a speed of 121mph. That is giving you the best case scenario of having the entire commuter to bridge the difference.

I think the more likely answer is that most drivers (aggressive or not) are slowed down throughout their journey by just a few miles per hour at occassional moments. Some new math: same trip, slowed down by 5mph for 30 seconds once every 5 minutes would result in being delayed by about .37 miles behind the same driver going the constant speeds assumed before. That comes out to one minute or less (at worst).


----------



## Steve K (Mar 24, 2010)

tino_ale said:


> About maintenance. Thousands of airplanes are in the air at any given moment. Do you see one fall very often ? No. So without being at 100%, they ARE freaking reliable. Yet do you think the people who are working on their maintenance are all PhD? I don't think so.



heavens, you really don't want a PhD fixing your aircraft! They could prove that it should work, but they just don't know the first thing about which end of the wrench to hold. 

Prior to getting my engineering degree, I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps fixing electronics on tactical jets. You need to be a reasonably smart person to do the job, but there are tools to help diagnose the various potential failure modes. Actually, it's getting to be more and more similar to fixing a modern car. The onboard diagnostics can get you close to figuring out what has failed, but you need to have a good understanding of how the system is supposed to operate in order to efficiently figure out what part is bad or out of adjustment.

Anything can be made reliable, but it takes a certain amount of money, development time, etc. to do so. Just think about how reliable a cheap LCD watch is, compared to a mechanical watch built 50 years ago. Almost no parts to wear out, nothing to adjust, nothing to wind, just replace the battery every seven years or so. And think about how many different technologies had to mature in order for this to happen! 

Steve K.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 24, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I don't agree with your math; you are exagerating the benefits of driving above the speed limit. You've implied that you can "make up" 20 minutes over a 45 minute commute.


I'm not saying they CAN make up 20 minutes they might lose in a 45 minute commute, only that they'll die trying ( both figuratively and literally ). You eloquently proved that with your example. BTW the 121 mph on the highway isn't far from what I've seen some here do trying to make up time.  I've seen 100 mph driving on one of the local arteries which has a 30 mph limit and lights every few blocks. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. 



> I think the more likely answer is that most drivers (aggressive or not) are slowed down throughout their journey by just a few miles per hour at occassional moments. Some new math: same trip, slowed down by 5mph for 30 seconds once every 5 minutes would result in being delayed by about .37 miles behind the same driver going the constant speeds assumed before. That comes out to one minute or less (at worst).


It's a little more complicated than that. Sometimes a delay of a few seconds means you get stuck at the next traffic light which you might have made. Now you could suddenly be 45 seconds or a minute behind. 3 blocks later it happens again. Now you're 2 minutes behind. Not hard to lose 10 or 20 minutes this way. You might even get delayed 5 seconds, then get stuck at a light for a minute. Perhaps an accident just occurred on a highway you planned to take. If you made the light you may have gotten on the highway, and went past the point where the accident occurred before it happened. Now you hit the light, then get stuck in traffic behind the accident for 15 minutes. Small delays in the city easily compound into big delays.

Another example has to do with the psychological effects of this. I cycle purely for exercise and pleasure. I don't have to be anywhere on a schedule when I cycle. However, I'm used to certain trips taking certain amounts of time. I often start my rides with a warm up down the local bike path. From my house to where I turn around is 2.99 miles on the nose with a roughly 60 foot gain in elevation. It usually takes about 12 minutes. With bad weather or headwinds or if I'm weak it might take 13. On my better days it can take under 11. Not much more variance than that due to the fact that I ride when traffic is relatively light. There is usually a spot where the road is rough enough to need to slow down. I might also encounter a few minor slowdowns, perhaps one red light as well. But this doesn't bother me much as it doesn't affect the travel time by much.

A couple of times I made the mistake of riding midday or rush hours. Ironically, I found myself doing exactly the same things I see drivers do. The situation quickly got frustrating. One block someone slows down for a turn, and right after I reach a double parked car I can't swing around due to traffic. Now I'm stuck at a light I easily could have made, and traffic is too heavy to go through even if I wanted to. Next few blocks more BS, and another light. When I come to the bumpy spots I run through at full speed trying make up lost time. When all is said and done I get to the turnaround point about 17 minutes after leaving my house. Sure, not a huge delay compared to my normal rides, but constantly having my progress frustrated almost every single block by something or other raised my blood pressure. In the end I did a lot of things I might otherwise not do in a futile quest to make up the lost time. Little doubt the same psychology applies to driving in heavy traffic. Everyone can deal with a few minor delays amounting to a couple of seconds. It's when something stupid happens literally every block that you end up with the kind of driving behavoir you see in big cities. The things I encountered which frustrated me all had to do with inconsiderate, stupid driving. Don't double park, don't just stop your car in the middle of the street to yap on the phone, don't drive if you're too ill to keep up with traffic, don't drive if you have brain fog from taking drugs, illegal or not, don't try and jockey for position at every stop light. If everyone was courteous and sure of where they were going, then driving times would be more predictable, and the aggressive behavoir would mostly vanish. Sadly, the opposite seems to be occurring. People are totally clueless of how much their inconsiderate, selfish behavoir frustrates those who need to be somewhere on a schedule.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> I've been in the electronics business for a long time. There are two things I've found which often compromise products. One is lack of beta testing as you said. The other is pressure from the buyer to get down costs. I recently had a lot of problems with a new regulator I made. Why? First off, I would rather have had the customer beta test it for a year in a few cars before production, but he wanted to get the device it was in out sooner. Second, he pressured me on costs, so I had to use an electrolytic cap instead of a solid polymer cap. It also didn't help that I had limited information ( not really his fault ) about the circuitry powering the device. End result? A ton of field failures. He issued a recall, I'm currently doing a redesign.
> 
> Bottom line-this pressure to get things out to market in a hurry, and cut costs to the bone, has to end if we want reliable products. Sure, there's always an off chance someone will beat you to market, but chances are good they'll have a piece of junk which won't last anyway. When their product breaks, you'll sell their ( former ) customers your better version.


 
Unfortunately, you've pointed out the main reason why I believe an automated system would likely be failure-prone. If the Federal government decided to install such a system on the highways, the main issues will be cost and how soon the program can be implamented. The company that promises delivery in the shortest amount of time, at the lowest cost, is going to get the contract. The two worst elements for reliability. Build it fast. (Limited testing, system put in place before it's ready.) Build it cheap. (You clearly know the problems involved in doing that.)

Brings to mind a sign I once saw above an autobody shop:

_"Car Repairs._

_Cheap, fast, and good. _

_(Pick from two of the three)."_

It's not the dedicated Engineers or Technicians who decide when an automated is ready. It's going to be either an impatient client, or the men at a company who have been promoted because they are good at one thing . . . Making money for the company. They don't have a technical mind. They have one talent. They excel at making money. They get promoted to top positions. They decide when a system is ready. A Head Engineer or Technician can object all he wants. But when Money Man says "Release it or you lose your job," that's going to be the end of the conversation right there. In this world, if your one talent is making money; you're considered more important than folks who make other things.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 24, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> don't try and jockey for position at every stop light.


 
I'm glad you said this because I think it has helped to clear some of my misunderstanding. Until now I was under the impression that you WERE the guy jockeying for position. I stand corrected and I think we are on the same page.

Sorry for the misdirection off topic.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 24, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I'm glad you said this because I think it has helped to clear some of my misunderstanding. Until now I was under the impression that you WERE the guy jockeying for position. I stand corrected and I think we are on the same page.
> 
> Sorry for the misdirection off topic.


It couldn't be me-I don't have a car or a driver's license. Yes, I do pull closer to a red light on the far right of traffic when I cycle, but I'm supposed to ride there anyway. The cars aren't. It annoys me when they "steal" my lane just so they can gain a couple of car lengths at a traffic light. I also try to be predictable when I ride so cars don't have a reason to say they didn't see me.

On the subject of seconds mattering, you might find this video both educational and enjoyable. The reason here isn't so much that the passengers care if they arrive 15 seconds late. Rather, it's that the line is 2 track, with no room for more tracks, is full of trains, and a 15 second delay can throw the entire operation in disarray.

EDIT:

_Very_ relevant to this topic:

The incompetent shall inherit the roadway

_Why do motorists seem increasingly incompetent? Well maybe because the traffic engineers keep trying to design the roads to compensate for irresponsibility and stupidity. Everything and everyone must be gotten out of the way of the incompetent!

When you design the system for minimal attention to the task, guess what you get?_


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 24, 2010)

Buses help reduce traffic


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 25, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Buses help reduce traffic



Improve traffic flow whilst aiding in population control...a win win :twothumbs

Notice the buses left headlight is already out...obviously an experienced driver


----------



## Steve K (Mar 25, 2010)

Badbeams3 said:


> Improve traffic flow whilst aiding in population control...a win win :twothumbs
> 
> Notice the buses left headlight is already out...obviously an experienced driver



and notice how the driver pulled slightly to one side when he impacted the car... clearly an effort to save the one headlight still functioning! Of course, that one headlight is aimed at a point about 4 feet in front of the bus, so it's not all that valuable.

that is a scary video! As I watch it loop over and over, I can't fight the urge to to tell the pedestrian "don't step into the intersection!" each time. I sorta feel bad that we don't know what happens to him.

Steve K.


----------



## Steve K (Mar 25, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> It's not the dedicated Engineers or Technicians who decide when an automated is ready. It's going to be either an impatient client, or the men at a company who have been promoted because they are good at one thing . . . Making money for the company. They don't have a technical mind. They have one talent. They excel at making money. They get promoted to top positions. They decide when a system is ready. A Head Engineer or Technician can object all he wants. But when Money Man says "Release it or you lose your job," that's going to be the end of the conversation right there. In this world, if your one talent is making money; you're considered more important than folks who make other things.



in larger companies, there are also corporate lawyers who understand that if they ship an unsafe product, the company will be bankrupted from the lawsuits. 

In mature industries, there are also regulations that limit what can be produced. The regulations are a result of products that were unsafe. In a new industry such as automated machinery, there will certainly be an early period where we learn how smart the manufacturers are, and how much oversight and regulation they need. 

In my current position, I can see that the EU is much faster at instituting regulations, while the US is content to let manufacturers do whatever they think is appropriate and will keep them out of court (mostly regarding electro-magnetic compatibility issues and RoHS, "reduction of hazardous substances").

Steve K.


----------



## tino_ale (Mar 25, 2010)

To me it looks like he made it, but he surely must have wet his pants


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 25, 2010)

Steve K said:


> I can't fight the urge to to tell the pedestrian "don't step into the intersection!" each time. I sorta feel bad that we don't know what happens to him.



He cleared the bus by about a foot, but to be fair, running into an intersection without even looking earns you that kind of reminder. 

The footage is from last October in Perm, Russia; the bus lost its brakes and rocketed through several city blocks, collecting a pile of cars along the way (20 destroyed in all) before finally plowing into a raised stage area in the city square. Only four people were injured, all passengers on the bus.

So before anyone else gets to it:_ In Soviet Russia, bus stops YOU._


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 14, 2010)

UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Transportation has spent a few months analyzing several dozen data recorders from a broad range of Toyota products involved in sudden-acceleration accidents; according to the data, the total number of accidents where the brake pedal was applied at all came to a grand total of ..one. In every other instance, the data shows that the throttle was floored and the brakes were never touched, consistent with a driver panicking and pressing the accelerator instead of the brake.

The one case in which the brake pedal was depressed was the incident with the Highway Patrolman and the Lexus, which has since been traced to the pedal becoming stuck on the floor mat (and still the sole case where the floor mat was to blame.)

Despite ongoing efforts by the Department of Transportation AND the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AND Toyota, there has been no throttle/electronic hardware flaw found to date. All involved are committed to continuing the search, and the NHTSA is conducting a broader study in conjunction with NASA which will require several more months.

Meanwhile, Toyota continues its tour of endless apologies and fix attempts; this recent service bulletin to Pontiac Vibe mechanics advises removing the entire throttle assembly, wrapping the sensor hardware in bubblewrap, and sawing the base of the pedal off so it's physically impossible for it to catch on anything..







Full Story


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 14, 2010)

Something just sounds fishy with that conclusion. It seems weird that in all of the other reported cases, it was not about hitting the brakes and having the car accelerate.

Not sure if she reported it regarding her Camry, but my best friend's wife mentioned just the other day that it wasn't just because of the reports that she turned her car in. She mentioned hitting the brakes and the car accelerating. Thankfully, she didn't panic. She put the Camry in neutral, and it slowed to a stop. 

I had originally thought that she had gotten concerned with all of the reported cases of issues with the brakes. Turns out, she experienced it for herself. Turned in the Camry. Got herself a Saturn Aura instead.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 14, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Transportation has spent a few months analyzing several dozen data recorders from a broad range of Toyota products involved in sudden-acceleration accidents; according to the data, the total number of accidents where the brake pedal was applied at all came to a grand total of ..one.




Several dozen data recorders? I thought there were thousands of incidents. Heck, I've got a brother-in-law that had this problem on a few occasions, and Toyota hasn't bothered looking at his vehicle.

I don't think that looking at several dozen recorders is significant in light of the size of the reported problem. I was really hoping that the DOT was doing more to investigate this.... I'll have to read the linked article and get the whole story.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## Alaric Darconville (Jul 14, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Transportation has spent a few months analyzing several dozen data recorders from a broad range of Toyota products involved in sudden-acceleration accidents; according to the data, the total number of accidents where the brake pedal was applied at all came to a grand total of ..one. In every other instance, the data shows that the throttle was floored and the brakes were never touched, consistent with a driver panicking and pressing the accelerator instead of the brake.



So, either the vast majority of Toyota drivers are panicking idiots that can't tell one pedal from another, or the data they're reading is from the same faulty ECU that is ignoring pedal input and just merrily accelerating.

I'm going with the data being read from a faulty ECU.

Otherwise, it's like this:
Cop 1: I think Joey the Weasel killed Billy the Rat.
Cop 2: Hey, Joey, did you kill Billy?
Joey: Nope! And since I was the only one in the alley where you found me and Billy, you have no other data source to check. Never mind that Billy is dead and with a knife in the back of his throat-- I say I didn't stab him! He confused his knife with a candy bar, and panicked, and jammed the knife in his mouth. It's OBVIOUS!
Cop 2: See, there you have it! Joey, you're free to go


----------



## Steve K (Jul 14, 2010)

Alaric Darconville said:


> So, either the vast majority of Toyota drivers are panicking idiots that can't tell one pedal from another, or the data they're reading is from the same faulty ECU that is ignoring pedal input and just merrily accelerating.
> 
> I'm going with the data being read from a faulty ECU.



I'm inclined to agree. If the general public is this incompetent (and I'm not ruling this out), why doesn't the same problem show up with every make of car?

As a EE with plenty of experience with sensor design and a modest amount of experience in writing assembler code for ECU's, I know that both can have very subtle failure modes. 

The sensor is dual redundant, so a single failure is unlikely to occur. There may still be ways for a single failure to produce a valid output. For instance, if a large magnet were to be near the sensor, it could cause a change in output (this was one of my standard tests for hall cell sensors). Depending on how the car is wired, there may be a chance that a single intermittent wire problem could produce both sensor output signals to shift.

As for the ECU, there are plenty of ways that either a software problem or a hardware problem could cause intermittent uncommanded fuel delivery. 

Unfortunately, unless the DOT has people with the right skills involved in this investigation, they'll never know where to look. I've seen instances where a brief voltage transient caused the microcontroller's software to jump into self-calibration mode, it took us many months to duplicate the problem. 

I'd love to see some conclusive results from this investigation, but my expectation is that it will get 6 months of attention and then it'll all just fade away.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 14, 2010)

I just want to clarify my last post.

Toyota owners are some of the most loyal when it comes to car brands. Toyota itself has spent many years fostering a reputation for being both reliable and very non-cut throat. You just don't hear stories of Toyota aggressively trying to put the competition out of business. You just don't. They're known for being competitive, but also for being the nice guy car company.

To me, it just seems extremely odd that one case involving one of their cars malfunctioning in that way, could somehow cause a hysteria involving sooo many reports of similar incidents. I mean, really?? One verified case lead to such mass hysteria that it has put a huge dent in Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability? 

It just doesn't add up. _That _level of mass hysteria due to one incident? Nope, just doesn't add up.


----------



## IMSabbel (Jul 14, 2010)

Yes, it ads up.

There might have been a few honest incidents.
Then came the denial people "I did NEVER mess up. I heard something on TV and they are at fault".
And then the "1000s" of incidents did suddenly appear after the sweet sweet smell of punitive charges was wafting through the air.

A analysis half a year ago showed that nealy all recorded cases are from old people, half of them already past their due date.

its a typical US situation, where a small cause is fueled by patriotism (IMPORTS!), mass media dominance (we do not have anything important to reports, so lets fill the waves with something), ligitation happiness (I can get how much by just flooring the pedal and driving into something) and the general power of the collective room temperature (in celsius) IQ of combined masses of "concerned" people.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 14, 2010)

IMSabbel said:


> Yes, it ads up.
> 
> There might have been a few honest incidents.
> Then came the denial people "I did NEVER mess up. I heard something on TV and they are at fault".
> ...



FWIW, my brother-in-law complained about the first of his incidents of sudden acceleration a few years ago. Toyota was just blowing him off at the time, and is still doing so.

I did find a short blog in the Atlantic mentioning that the folks who died in these incidents had a median age of 60. Half were older, half were younger. I haven't seen any data on the age of the drivers in all of the incidents. Can you point me to the data that you are refering to?

The rest of your hypothesis is interesting... maybe you have some data to back that up too?

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 14, 2010)

Steve K said:


> I did find a short blog in the Atlantic mentioning that the folks who died in these incidents had a median age of 60.



The median age for a Toyota Corolla owner is 48, so I'm sure once you throw in the larger models like the Avalon, the ES, that goes way up; 60 sounds reasonable. 



Steve K said:


> The rest of your hypothesis is interesting... maybe you have some data to back that up too?



Remember that for some time, GM was under a sizable bailout loan by the US Government. The Government had a vested interest in ensuring their product was profitable, so Toyota was no longer just another name competing in a market, they were the foreign brand going up against the company store; we were inundated with Toyota horror stories and recall warnings, up until about March (note that this thread died about then), then in April, GM made the final payment on their loan and was free from the Treasury debt. And then there were no more Toyota stories, it completely vanished as a news item. Logic would have it that if there were some elusive flaw that still existed in Toyotas, there would be a great deal more accidents and incidents, the news story should grow larger over time, but instead it went away entirely along with GM's Government debt..


----------



## Steve K (Jul 14, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> The median age for a Toyota Corolla owner is 48, so I'm sure once you throw in the larger models like the Avalon, the ES, that goes way up; 60 sounds reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that for some time, GM was under a sizable bailout loan by the US Government. The Government had a vested interest in ensuring their product was profitable, so Toyota was no longer just another name competing in a market, they were the foreign brand going up against the company store; we were inundated with Toyota horror stories and recall warnings, up until about March (note that this thread died about then), then in April, GM made the final payment on their loan and was free from the Treasury debt. And then there were no more Toyota stories, it completely vanished as a news item. Logic would have it that if there were some elusive flaw that still existed in Toyotas, there would be a great deal more accidents and incidents, the news story should grow larger over time, but instead it went away entirely along with GM's Government debt..



anyone have any data on age of people involved in the incidents? 
and if old folks, or anyone, is so lousy of a driver, why is it just Toyotas? And does anyone have any data on the number of incidents reported to NTSA at all? 

The conspiracy theory of GM being the preferred auto company is a fun theory, but why attack Toyota? They build a lot of cars in the USA. Why not go after someone like Nissan?

Or for that matter, how when did the story really hit the fan? I don't really know. Before or after GM getting a loan? 
How many incidents are still being reported? 
I don't know that the media is now ignoring the issue. I just heard a story on NPR about 10 minutes ago about the woman who didn't appear to hit her brakes when she had an incident in a parking ramp. It's in the Chicago Tribune too.....
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/07/u-s-study-driver-error-in-toyota-sudden-acceleration.html

As far as the assertion "if there were some elusive flaw that still existed in Toyotas, there would be a great deal more accidents and incidents, the news story should grow larger over time, but instead it went away entirely along with GM's Government debt"....
- I haven't seen any data showing the number of incidents reported over time
- what is "a great deal more"? In one part that I've worked with, we were building around 20,000 a year, and we only got 4 or 5 back in a year. There was definitely a design flaw, though.

I don't mind people throwing around crazy theories, but it would be helpful if supporting data could be cited.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## deadrx7conv (Jul 14, 2010)

Have several Toyotas in the family. None have had issues. 

Had to teach a few friends how to 'stop' their vehicle in-case of a sudden acceleration glitch. Can't believe how incompetent the typical driver is these days. The number of people that don't even know what neutral is or how to shut off their vehicle is amazing. 

Media frenzy simply attacking #1 automaker. Jump on the bandwagon. 

My sudden acceleration issues with non-Toyotas and Toyotas, usually rentals while on vacation and doing some interstate driving. 
Crusing with cruise control set to 65mph. Pass someone and now using gas pedal to keep up with traffic at 75mph. Let up on gas to slow down and at ~63mph, vehicle starts accelerating again by itself. Oops, forgot about cruise control. Tapped the brake pedal to shut it off. 

My sudden acceleration issue #2. Waiting in line at car wash, little ol' lady with Cadillac floored gas pedal instead of using brake pedal and destroys 3 cars in line at the car wash. Car wash built on a hill. 20ft drop after fence. My totaled car only inches away from that 20ft drop. Was depressed that no Toyotas were involved!!!

My sudden acceleration issue #3. Frozen gas pedal. For those of you that broke those TB return springs, same feeling. Note to self, don't disconnect those coolant lines warming the TB. Not worth the million HP gain from that cooler dense air 

My sudden acceleration issue #4. Driving with co-workers that use 2 feet to drive and keep getting the gas/brake pedal confused. Advised to trade in their vehicle for Toyotas just in case. This way, they can't blame themselves. 

Yawn boring. Maybe Toyota should sue incompetent drivers for slander?


----------



## rodfran (Jul 14, 2010)

Yes, and take away their driver's license permanently . My senior next door neighbor had one of these runaway accelerations (a Honda actually) and hit a storage shed. Oh by the way, she has vision in only one eye. I asked her what pedal her foot was on and she replied " I don't know but I was terrifed!" So were the residents on that street! About 15 years ago had another senior that was a good friend and a nice lady hit a tree. She didn't make it. 
Do society a favor, take the bus or call a taxi!


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 14, 2010)

My dad is close to 90 and has never accidentally hit the gas when he meant to hit the brakes. Does it happen to others who are elderly? Yup. But if most of the cases involving Toyotas was due to elderly driver error, that would have come out in the report.

My best friend's wife who had a sudden acceleration issue in her Camry, she's 24 years old. And no, she's not the type of person who freaks out while driving. Toyota isn't a brand made up of just elderly drivers. Plenty of families rely on the Camry model as the family car. (Boy, that's a huge understatement. You guys know what I mean.)

Honestly, if there was an elderly brand; Buick would be the nearest thing to that. But you don't hear about a ton of Buicks that accelerate unexpectedly, due to elderly drivers getting confused and hitting the wrong pedal. If that was a significant contributing factor to the problems that Toyota is experiencing, then why is the Buick brand not experiencing the same problems?


----------



## Steve K (Jul 14, 2010)

If this whole incident (or series of incidents) results in requiring better driver training and more frequent tests of driver skills & knowledge, I'll be a happy camper! 

I'm primarily a bicycle commuter, and it's amazing how many people can't cope with a small change like a bike sharing the lane with them. Of course, I also see some bicyclists doing dumb stuff, so there's definitely room for education all across the board. 

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 14, 2010)

Steve K said:


> If this whole incident (or series of incidents) results in requiring better driver training and more frequent tests of driver skills & knowledge, I'll be a happy camper!


That makes two of us. For that to happen though we'll need politicians brave enough to put new stricter licensing laws through which may well result in a majority losing their license permanently. Right now unfortunately having a driver's license in the US is practically viewed as a birthright. Most drivers actually think their driving "skills" are good when the opposite is generally the case. I can only imagine the backlash that will happen when granny with her one good eye discovers she can no longer drive.



> I'm primarily a bicycle commuter, and it's amazing how many people can't cope with a small change like a bike sharing the lane with them. Of course, I also see some bicyclists doing dumb stuff, so there's definitely room for education all across the board.


The difference is when a cyclist does something stupid, usually they're the only ones getting hurt. Cyclists as a general rule _have_ to be much more competent than your average driver just to survive. Moreover, we're treated to a front-seat view of driving incompetence in all its ugliness.


----------



## rodfran (Jul 15, 2010)

I was simply making a statement about people that can't tell the accelerator pedal from the brake pedal. Two of these people I know, knew personally. The new information from the black boxes that just came out showed full throttle acceleration and not hitting the brakes.
Testing of black boxes performed by Department of Transportation. The NHTSA reported similar findings.


----------



## tino_ale (Jul 15, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> It just doesn't add up. _That _level of mass hysteria due to one incident? Nope, just doesn't add up.


Yes : _THAT _level of mass hysteria due to both media and other car maker manipulating the public. Even assuming the defects were all to be proven real, the hysteria has simply blown ridiculously out of proportion.

THAT is what's most concerning IMO, not the car maker's alledged screw-ups. 

A mass hysteria triggered by unverified data, many inaccurate versions of the same event in the media, people lying to get quick bucks and assumptions assumptions assumptions... all over the place. The whole process is very disturbing.
Human beings are definetely not smarted when in mass. :shrug:


----------



## kitelights (Jul 21, 2010)

tino_ale said:


> Yes : _THAT _level of mass hysteria due to both media and other car maker manipulating the public. Even assuming the defects were all to be proven real, the hysteria has simply blown ridiculously out of proportion.
> 
> THAT is what's most concerning IMO, not the car maker's alledged screw-ups.
> 
> ...


Just a couple of weeks ago, I was wondering what had become of this issue. I Googled it, but everything was old news. Then I heard the new report on the news and was not at all surprised. You can go back and read my position - this was a plain and simple hysterical lynching. 

And yes, there are a lot of 'idiots' out there including myself. I can remember two incidents in my 45 years of driving where my foot slipped from the edge of the brake pedal and hit the gas. Fortunately, no accident from it. And yes, it happens with other cars, too ..... I don't think that there's a week that goes by there's not a news story that someone has run their car or truck into a building (often inside of the building). The report is always that they thought they were hitting the brake, but stepped on the gas instead.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 21, 2010)

Some of the hysteria is just the media looking for a way to fill air time. The 24 hr cable news channels have to keep busy somehow. The BP oil leak has been a blessing for them, and my idiot ex-governor, Blagojavich, is certainly doing his part too. 

I don't get my news from the cable news folks, so I didn't really get the impression of any hysteria. Toyota certainly got a lot of heat, and they did admit that there was a problem with worn pedal sensors and interference from the floor mats. There's been a lack of numbers, statistics, etc. about the nature of all of the incidents, as far as I can tell. These would get my attention, but it would probably make for lousy TV ratings. 

Steve K.


----------



## Brigadier (Jul 21, 2010)

That and the fact that the media and the feds are in bed together, and now that the fed is majority owner in GM, and needs to smash competition, they have a willing accomplice in the 'free press'.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 21, 2010)

wait... are you saying that Fox News is in bed with the Obama administration?

or are you saying that Fox News isn't part of the free press?

strange bedfellows indeed!

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 21, 2010)

Steve K (and others, as applicable) ... please keep political comments out of this. You may take such comments to the Underground, but you may *not* post them here.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 21, 2010)

sorry, wasn't trying to make it political. More of a response to those who do. I've been an advocate of presenting actual data when discussing the issue to date, as opposed to throwing out conspiracy theories.

regards,

Steve K.


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 21, 2010)

It's not all hysteria.

As mentioned above, someone close to me experienced the rapid acceleration issue with her Camry. The conclusion might be only one verified incident. But how realistic is that? Hysteria is one thing, but based on one actual experience; and at that level? Sorry, not buying it.


----------



## LukeA (Jul 21, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> It's not all hysteria.
> 
> As mentioned above, someone close to me experienced the rapid acceleration issue with her Camry. The conclusion might be only one verified incident. But how realistic is that? Hysteria is one thing, but based on one actual experience; and at that level? Sorry, not buying it.


Lots of people believe that aliens visit earth on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it's ever happened. 

And I don't believe your friend's wife's friend's sister-in-law's acquaintance's story, either. It's like a gun, it doesn't just "go off." I was a passenger in a car once when the driver hit the cruise in a parking lot. To the casual observer and the driver, it certainly appeared that the car had a mind of its own, but really, no. When I hear hoofbeats, I don't think it's a zebra.


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 21, 2010)

LukeA said:


> Lots of people believe that aliens visit earth on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it's ever happened.
> 
> And I don't believe your friend's wife's friend's sister-in-law's acquaintance's story, either.


 
Unlike aliens, we can all agree that Toyota actually exists.

She's my best friend's wife. And if she was mentally unstable, I wouldn't have bothered posting about what she went through. But you're entitled to your opinion. Even though it is clearly based on complete blind-faith loyalty to your favorite car brand.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jul 22, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Unlike aliens, we can all agree that Toyota actually exists.
> 
> She's my best friend's wife. And if she was mentally unstable, I wouldn't have bothered posting about what she went through. But you're entitled to your opinion. Even though it is clearly based on complete blind-faith loyalty to your favorite car brand.


 
I don't know your best friend's wife, but I'll tell you right now if my own awesome beautiful wife of 11 years and mother of my child told me this happened to her, my first inclination would be user error. Just sayin.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 22, 2010)

LukeA said:


> Lots of people believe that aliens visit earth on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it's ever happened.
> 
> And I don't believe your friend's wife's friend's sister-in-law's acquaintance's story, either. It's like a gun, it doesn't just "go off." I was a passenger in a car once when the driver hit the cruise in a parking lot. To the casual observer and the driver, it certainly appeared that the car had a mind of its own, but really, no. When I hear hoofbeats, I don't think it's a zebra.



This isn't a gun, this is a complex electronic system. 

Speaking from direct experience, I've seen a lot of weird stuff "just happen". It can be a hardware issue, or it can be a software issue. It can happen once in 10,000 hours of operation. It can be incredibly difficult to duplicate in the lab.... but it most definitely *can *happen.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## Steve K (Aug 5, 2010)

just a quick update: The latest news from Toyota is that they have decided that their "black boxes", i.e. data recording feature, is reliable. 

"Now, facing continued claims that its vehicles are defective, Toyota appears to have done an about-face.

The Japanese automaker has been citing data from black boxes in Toyota and Lexus vehicles to suggest that driver error, rather than mechanical or electronic defects, is causing sudden acceleration."

this is from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-0729-toyota-blackbox-20100729,0,3298674.story

I assume that the same info is in a lot of other papers too.

This doesn't seem to be new information as much as Toyota's attempt to lend credibility to limited data. My understanding is that this data is recorded within the ECU (I know that my employer records quite a bit of info in the ECU's that we design). If the problem is in the ECU itself, then why should the recorded data be considered reliable? Or for that matter, if the data shows that the pedal sensor was commanding full fuel delivery, would that be considered to be due to the driver pushing on the gas pedal, or due to a malfunctioning pedal sensor?

Anyway... it looks like any answers are still far away. I'll be looking for further news, but not really expecting much.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## tino_ale (Aug 5, 2010)

Your observation about if the ECU is faulty, why should we thrust the recorded data it has recorded is interesting but most probably an EXTREMELY shallow and trivial observation compared to the investigations that have been done.

I don't mean to criticize your idea, it may or may not be valid, but we are here discussing "technical" points that are simply beyond the public knowledge. Any expert on the system leading the technical investigation on what has happened is thousands miles above that kind of trivial point.

I guess my point is just : do you really think the people who designed this kind of system are dumb enough not to think about this ? Or do you think the truth is known by these engineers but hidden to the public by their management ? I really don't think either is likely.


----------



## Steve K (Aug 6, 2010)

tino_ale said:


> Your observation about if the ECU is faulty, why should we thrust the recorded data it has recorded is interesting but most probably an EXTREMELY shallow and trivial observation compared to the investigations that have been done.
> 
> I don't mean to criticize your idea, it may or may not be valid, but we are here discussing "technical" points that are simply beyond the public knowledge. Any expert on the system leading the technical investigation on what has happened is thousands miles above that kind of trivial point.
> 
> I guess my point is just : do you really think the people who designed this kind of system are dumb enough not to think about this ? Or do you think the truth is known by these engineers but hidden to the public by their management ? I really don't think either is likely.



Well, I guess I have a few responses...

I raise the issue of whether the data recorder feature can be trusted because of the sudden change in how credible Toyota is regarding it. They used to say it couldn't be trusted (which I tend to agree with), and now they say it can. 

I haven't heard any discussion of the data recorder feature in the general media or in the electronics trade publications that I subscribe to. I'd be interested in hearing what others on CPF have heard about this.

I would be interested in knowing the technical skills of whoever is running the investigations. The Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, i responsible for the investigations, and has already said that they don't have the technical skills to investigate this. As such, they have procured a number of NASA scientists to help. I've worked with people at NASA before, and while they are smart folks, they don't work in the same sort of engineering and production environment as Toyota or myself (I currently work for a large construction equipment manufacturer, and have spent many years designing electronics and doing embedded software for ECU's and sensors).

Toyota has said that they expanded their business too fast and let their quality slip. This is the sort of situation where newer engineers make mistakes that more experienced engineers would catch. They aren't obvious mistakes, but little things that are very subtle but can cause problems like software pointers ending up in the wrong section of code and writing over memory locations that should not be touched. I've seen this sort of problem, and others, a number of times, and I have no doubt that it can happen at Toyota. As such, I don't know if Toyota's engineers have found the problem or not. I'm not saying that Toyota engineers are dumb, I'm saying what Toyota has said; that their quality has deteriorated.

Would Toyota managers cover up something like this? Well, we know that they covered up the problem with the pedal sensor wear, so why wouldn't they cover up an ECU problem? Especially when it'll cost 5 or 10 times as much to fix an ECU hardware problem? (they already flashed new code into ECU's, so maybe they are already fixing any software problems they knew of).

And I agree that my discussion goes beyond any public knowledge that I'm aware of. I'm hoping that someone can share some info they found from an obscure source, or maybe offer their own experiences with these sort of systems. Surely I'm not the only person here with a couple of decades of design experience in these sorts of systems?

regards,
Steve K.


----------

