Great idea Steve - lets have some rules to go with it so it doesn't descend into wild theories
1. list your information and source if making a statement of fact.
2. Your source must not be simply re stating others information. i.e. if you are going to list a Fox news video as a source reporting on what a police investigation found or didn't find - instead get the police report directly and quote from that instead.
Interesting. I remember the remote keyfob being claimed as a safety feature by stopping the car if it got far enough out of range from the key. Apparently now all they do is keep you from (re)starting it.
I guess that leaves yanking a fuse or a manual switch. That's not very inspiring, really. I kind of want my key and old-fashioned ignition switch back.
Odd, the one in my Buicks, Volvos, Mercedes, Toyotas, Mitsubishis, and other cars that I have owned over the last few decades have never had a problem.
How about the congressional testimony by Rhonda Smith, the Sevierville woman?
The, ahem, news report says "As she pulled onto Interstate 40, Smith said, the car suddenly accelerated out of control. She took off the cruise control, hit the brakes, threw the car into reverse and even pulled the emergency brake. Nothing worked." (knoxnews.com)
Here's a transcript of her House testimony in pdf format.
I simply responded to hackers intentionally attacking a system. Nothing more.
So, if a stray electron comes out of nowhere and confuses the software or firmware, does it really matter if it's a nefarious attempt to hack the system or is it just one of those hard to reproduce situations that just happens to result in a stuck throttle and inability to shift a transmission out of neutral?
Well, first of all, it would be necessary to show some sort of proof that this event has actually happened. Some otherwise rational and responsible people are prone to make some pretty unbelieveable claims at times, so a simple "Joe said that's what happened" may be good enough for the average guy, but not to any technician attempting to figure out what's actually going on.
Once again, you might take a claim of vehicle UA as gospel fact. Yet, if the same person told you he had been abducted by aliens and probed on a UFO, most likely you would have serious doubts.
Why?
There's certainly no physical reason prohibiting either action from happening.
Is it because you've seen a car, but not a UFO?
Time and time again, when a somewhat "believeable" UFO sighting has been "popularized" by the media, there have been flurries of "sightings" in the same area, many by highly educated and rational people. Yet, nothing seen on extremely sophisticated radar/tracking systems. If I'm smart enough to hide from radar, I'm probably smart enough to high from your sight.
Maybe they really are seeing UFO's. Maybe not. The probability of seeing UFO"s?
Small....Very small.
Now, I'm not that familiar with the CAN access port and system mandated in new cars. I say again, though, that if standardization is mandated and access forced by that mandate, that is an "open door" to the car's network....allowing anyone in.
Sort of like an apartment complex requiring a lock on your apartment that would allow maintenance-man entry via a master key, and then publishing the codes so that anyone could duplicate that very key...Then, when you are robbed, the apartment manager tells you "You really should have taken better care watching your stuff".
AM I the only one who sees a potential problem with that scenario?
NHTSA has had the vehicle now for three months. They bought it from the second owner who bought it from Rhonda Smith. The car has 30,000 miles on it and Smith sold it with just 3000 - So far nothing. I think given the governments zealousness in fining Toyota one can assume that NHTSA wasn't able to validate any of her claims otherwise they would have mentioned it by now. It doesn't take top vehicle investigators including help from NASA 3 months to investigate on car.
Once again, you might take a claim of vehicle UA as gospel fact. Yet, if the same person told you he had been abducted by aliens and probed on a UFO, most likely you would have serious doubts.
Depends on the credibility of the source eh? Are we talking beer consuming types who've been fishing off the pier all day or Stephen Hawking?
Thetruth7, it is a bit of a circular argument isn't it? Pretty credible witness to many people but no fault registered in the computer and the error (if any) is unreproducible on the dyno. The jury is going to have fun with these cases.
Your point about the time involved studying Smith's Lexus is well taken. The Challenger report was finished in 5 months (too bad we don't have Feynman around now). Challenger may have had a bit more resources thrown at it though.
I don't think Rhonda Smith is viewed by most people as a credible witness.
So you think the Wall Street Journal,who reported: "The federal safety agency followed up with the new owners last week. A NHTSA spokeswoman said "they have had no problems with the Lexus since they bought it with less than 3,000 miles on the car..." NHTSA who investigated it and Toyota mechanics who inspected it, would all look silly in front of a Judge compared to Rhonda "I talk on my bluetooth at 100 mph" Smith?
Steve - your statements like "Pretty credible witness to many people.." simply defy common sense. Are hosts being paid by Ford and GM to make such unfounded claims?
I listened to Smith testify and I thought she made a pretty credible witness. Bluetooth is handsfree; don't know why taking advantage of it would be such an issue. Common sense says that cars don't accelerate out of control, even when owners try to shift them out of drive or stand on the brakes.
Hosts have their own opinions around here and I've been expressing mine for over ten years and 30,000+ posts. Are you interested in fact-finding or attacking people personally?
(fwiw, the best car I ever owned was my '82 Tercel that I drove for 17 years, although my '99 Quest may yet take the title. Had good luck with Fords and GMs that my folks owned too).
A terrified women phones her husband while her car races out of control. For what reason? Either she was so dependent on him to think for her or she was completely unfamiliar with her car and needed instruction. Either way it shows she lacked the knowledge or ability to operate her own car otherwise she wouldn't have wasted time making a phone call for help.
Did you stop to think the 3 most famous cases to date all involved cell phone calls - Saylor - the mat was the cause, Sikes the faker, no problems found and Rhonda God saved her, no fault found. To date the computer fault theories are batting zero for evidence. Evidence that will be needed in court to prove the car was at fault. How far do you expect the computer theory to go in a court without any real world examples from any manufacturers?
It was your suggestion to get into an investigation remember? "Maybe we should pick one and dissect it...?
Your willingness to accept a single witness's testimony (that wasn't verified by any other witnesses) compared to trained investigators, government agencies, mechanics and company engineers who inspected the car is not by any stretch just an opinion.
Do you have other facts about her or her car that would be useful to know or is that it?
Depends on the credibility of the source eh? Are we talking beer consuming types who've been fishing off the pier all day or Stephen Hawking?
Point well made. However, even the most credible eye witnesses quite often get it wrong.
One only has to look at legal cases where several eye witnesses placed someone at the scene of a crime, only to have the sentence thrown out later because of DNA evidence making their claim an impossibility.
I would say that the vast majority of those claiming UA actually believe it to be exactly that, and would most likely pass a lie detector test as well. But, that only means the person believes what he is saying... Not that the event actually happened that way. Once again, I bring up the vaccination/autism debate as a glowing example of belief in an event taking on almost religious fervor.
Personally, I have no interest in hearsay evidence... Only that which can be proven and duplicated. While that may eventually not be the level demanded in a court of law, it still doesn't change the facts. Even if Toyota (or any other manufacturer) looses in the lower courts, I have faith that the ultimate high court decisions rendered will require quite a bit of tangible evidence over and above hearsay... regardless whichever way the "axe" falls.
As the Audi cases demonstrate, we may all be dead and gone before an ending resolution is determined.
And, lets be honest here. Having someone testify before Congress simply to recant an event that they think happened to them is as much a political PR "stunt" as anything else, regardless what the subject is that they are telling about.
FYI - GM was famous for ignition locks that wear out jam etc.
Guess what caused this, btw? People with key chains the size and weight of baseballs. My sister alone must have 20 keys, five carabiners and quick-release loops, several fobs, and a couple of car remotes on her wad.
Mine never wore out. A proper ignition lock will last the life of the car. My Mercedes at 40 years old when it dies still worked fine with the original key and ignition swiitch.
Your willingness to accept a single witness's testimony (that wasn't verified by any other witnesses) compared to trained investigators, government agencies, mechanics and company engineers who inspected the car is not by any stretch just an opinion.
So, I'm supposed to believe that Toyota is more credible? Or Exponent?
Yeah, I think it's credible that someone in a car they can't control speeding around Knoxville (I drive through there a couple of times a year) would want to call their dearest loved one while wondering if they are going to run into traffic and have to take to the ditch or guard rail and maybe die.
The Challenger report was finished in 5 months (too bad we don't have Feynman around now)
The engineers involved knew what the problem was the moment of the explosion. The O rings between the sections of the SRB were never designed to seal at the temperatures Challenger experienced sitting on the launch pad. Inspections of recovered SRBs from earlier launches showed blow-by of the first 1 or 2 O-rings, but since the third one held (triple redundancy here), management became complacent. Challenger was more of a failure of management than it was a technical one.
A terrified women phones her husband while her car races out of control. For what reason? Either she was so dependent on him to think for her or she was completely unfamiliar with her car and needed instruction. Either way it shows she lacked the knowledge or ability to operate her own car otherwise she wouldn't have wasted time making a phone call for help
I've seen that lots of time and we see it today in lots of different ways. People not being aware of how to use their car properly. Keys are a great example and FLOOR MATS piled 4 high are another. This marks a milestone for you - its the first time you acknowledged a driver, in this case your sister, can actually be the cause of the vehicle malfunctioning - we're making progress
You automatically assume Toyota lies to the public and that people like Smith don't. If thats not bias I don't know what is.
Funny, you didn't mention the second owners of the Smith's Lexus? They didn't have any troubles with her old car and they drove it 10 times further- why don't you weight their statements against Smiths? The two statements are in obvious conflict with one another and they are both private citizens. What do you have to say about the difference between them?
I've read that the putty was the suspected cause before the O rings. NASA had reformulated it a couple of times.
As I said, I've driven the stretch of Interstate where Smith experienced unintended acceleration probably 20 times in the last decade. It can be an awful commute but it was also rebuilt a few years back (malfunction junction) and if traffic is light, there's no reason why a driver couldn't go 100 mph and talk on a Bluetooth device and maintain control.
Oh, if I was going to be called before a congressional subcommittee, I'd write out and practice my testimony too.
I'm not automatically assuming anything. I'm not taking Toyota or Hyundai or the NTHSA's statements at face value either. Remember the quote attributed to the Firesign Theater? Everything you think you know is wrong. :shades:
I'm not sure what weight the second owner's experience has - I've had one-off car troubles that I've ignored, and never experienced the problem again. Maybe it was bad gas or damp or something, but I ignored the problem and it went away. I suppose I could have asked a mechanic to track something down. Or asked the NTHSA to buy my car and test it. It doesn't change the fact that I experienced a problem.
If SUA was easily demonstrated or reproducible, we wouldn't be having this conversation eh? Meanwhile people are reporting it and we can rest assured that Henry Waxman is hot on the trail (yes, that is a bit of pre-8 am sarcasm )
The second owners should be given the same level of doubt as Smith at a minimum. They claim no problems in 30,000, Smith claims one in under 3000 - how could you possibly come to the conclusion that Smith's claim has more validity than a claim that refutes it especially since Smith's claim lacks any physical evidence from any source and the owners have 4 different sources that support their claim?
SUA is reproducible and has been done before - just put the camera and microphone in the car and create the unintended acceleration and watch the feet.
I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds it is completely unnecessary. If you don't like my experts get your own to prove me wrong. If you make an accusation of wrong doing you'd better be able to back it up with some real evidence. The onus of proof is completely on the accuser.
Never in the history of recalls of any kind has an accuser not been able to independently prove a defect exists by holding the part in their hand. Can anyone think of an example to the contrary?
A terrified women phones her husband while her car races out of control. For what reason? Either she was so dependent on him to think for her or she was completely unfamiliar with her car and needed instruction. Either way it shows she lacked the knowledge or ability to operate her own car otherwise she wouldn't have wasted time making a phone call for help
My thoughts exactly.
Add my name to the list. If I am in a runaway vehicle attempting to regain control, the last thing on my mind is having a chat over the phone...Remember, the call was initiated AFTER the event was in process, not the other way around.
Yet, never before in the history of recalls has a car been completely drive-by-wire and software controlled, either. Every sensor and input in the car in question was converted from analog to digital and then back to analog again. So holding the part in your hand won't do anything if the code in-between is faulty.
It's like looking at your new computer and wondering why it's crashing, but never bothering to turn on the monitor to look at what software is running. Toyota's refusal to release their software is essentially the same as their removing the monitor. No, more like removing the entire video card.
I've read that the putty was the suspected cause before the O rings. NASA had reformulated it a couple of times.
Well, that certainly wasn't the conclusion of the Morton Thiokol engineering staff (the manufacturer of the SRB's) that fought to halt the launch. They knew well in advance that there were specific o-ring issues. Indeed, there was a history of o-ring failure, and they knew a catastrophic failure was a virtual guarantee at some point.
Their testimony is readily available for anyone to read, if they are interested.
The temperature may effect possible transients that may effect the computer chip. At lower temperatures, the internal impedance of batteries increases making them more susceptible to transients. A once UA involved vehicle may never see it again if operated in a significantly warmer climate. There seems to be at least two who used cell phones during the supposed UA events. Although one of these may have been floor mats caused. RF energy may be one trigger. Other sources of temporary interference,such as transients induced by relatively nearby high voltage power line transients that may magnetically induce current transients in the computer chip or effect Hall effect sensors. Some lower high voltage lines are buried, but would still have magnetic radiation.
And my personal favorite, gamma radiation. Although silicon is usually not dense enough to offer a susceptible trap of gamma radiation, if a gamma ray hits in the active area of a silicon chip, a transient can be induced. I once used lithium drifted silicon as an X-ray detector. ( X -rays and gamma rays are the same) . One comes from outer space (gamma) one is generated with a cathode ray tube. The voltage and cathode target material determine the eV power of the X-ray. Naturally occurring radioactive elements can emit gamma rays. Americium radiates both gamma and beta radiation. A gamma ray is no doubt a one time event and hardly repeatable. Other sources such as interferences by unique loading of the 12V battery by using the heat, radio, cd, mirror adjustments, moon roof use, A/C etc etc that may have interfered with the accelerator controlling software. Again, hardly repeatable I once designed an X-Ray communication system. I used CDTE chips (cadmium terlluride) to detect X-rays reliably I used Pulse Position modulation for sending and receiving X-rays I do have a BSEE. plus significant post graduate courses from Penn State (Sonar Systems,) George Wash U,(Signals, Systems and Noise) U of MI at Ann Arbor ( Spread Spectrum Systems) and Naval ,Post Graduate School Monterey (electronic Systems in Navy environment.) My general area of expertise was circuit design. I had no direct experience with automotive design. I did design some items for shipboard use, ocean moored sensor buoys, and helicopter sonar recording equipment. I also designed a remote hand emplaced sensor system including RF reporting system. I had to use non linear circuits to allow a magnetic sensor to use an RF system without unstable feedback. My seismic detector used a geophone connected to a variable gain amplifier. I used a circuit that eliminated the first input to get rid of aircraft or wind generated noise. I only wanted to detect footsteps. I think I know what doesn't work and why.
It's interesting that the UAs have completely disappeared all of a sudden.
I agree, but I think the main reason is British Petroleum and the oil spill in the Gulf.
The news media loves disaster stories, and that happens to be the disaster event du jour.
Also, I suspect that many who might have been lined up to make a claim are re-thinking their plans. I feel sure a lot of the would be "me, toos" now realize that these cars do have some sort of data event recorders that can be used to dispute these types of claims.
Of course, Mr. Sikes' (The Poster Child of UA) background being made public could have deterred some folks as well.
Probably several reasons why its quieted down.
Wait a bit....It'll be back in full force before you know it.
Yes you heard right. I was asking if anyone knew where I could find this documentary style video. I'm positive that about 20 years ago I saw a "study" that was conducted on the Audi issue and they had devised a test protocol on how to prove driver error. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the researchers, what agency or university did it. I do remember getting the feeling it was done by someone connected to a government agency, there was a "test assistant" in the car and the car was rigged, but that's it. There is no doubt in my mind that such a thing exists I just need help finding it. It was a deceptive study as far as I recall and may not be replicable today given the greater concern for legal issues.
I'm still quite skeptical that the problem is real, but of course very open to evidence. My skepticism is founded upon the claims of drivers who report multiple systems failing simultaneously, especially those who report the car "lurching forward" from a standstill and that braking the car had no effect.
This particular scenario I find extremely hard to believe.
It's more believable than Sasquatch of course, but not too much more. We have sightings, we have fuzzy videos but we don't have much evidence.
Went back and read the Sussman and Pollard report again - there were studies of the kind I remembered seeing on TV - Here in part is a quote from "An Examination of Sudden Acceleration"
Two small-scale studies which demonstrate the effects of startling the driver have been published. In the first, conducted by VRTC, 32 subjects, who were not professional drivers, were tested in a 1986 Audi 5000 (Reference 34). The idle stabilizer of the test vehicle was modified so the experimenter could switch on maximum idle speed whenever he desired. One of the subjects did apparently become confused as a result of the excessive idle speed and applied the accelerator rather than the brake, resulting in a 0.6 g acceleration jolt. That driver lost control to the extent that the experimenter terminated the test with the engine-kill switch.
In the second study, conducted by John Tomerlin for Road & Track, 130 subjects were tested under three types of driving in three different passenger cars, each of which had been modified so that high idle speeds could be switched on by the experimenter (Reference 33). On two occasions during the reverse-driving test, subjects became confused when the high-idle condition was activated and applied the accelerator when they meant to brake.
I'd be more apt to attribute UA incidents occurring from a standstill to driver error, but on the other hand I could see a case where a cruise control would malfunction while driving at 55 MPH and how this might be difficult to correct with stepping on the brake.
Let's say your cruise control module malfunctioned AND your brake switch shorted out at the same time (unlikely, but hey......)
Thus, stepping on the brake would not disconnect the cruise---you'd have to hit the button the steering wheel.
And what if all 3 systems simultanously failed....cruise module, brake switch and wheel on/off switch?
Then you'd have to know to either turn off the ignition, or in the case of the Prius, push it into neutral or hit the start button (not very intuitive).
The odds are practically nil, but if they all route through a single point and THAT fails, it's suddenly very likely.
Guess where all the components and sensors all meet in most modern vehicles? If you answered the computer, you're correct. If it crashes, everything does fail and jam all at once unless there is a backup computer in place.
We should be concentrating on the computer crashing and freezing rather than arguing over statistics. It should be pretty easy to purposely crash the main computer and see what happens while the car is still running.
It might be difficult to correct but it wouldn't be difficult to detect, to date there are no published works by automotive engineers to support the theory it would be undetectable or even occur in the real world - again a quote from "An Examination of Sudden Acceleration 1989"
"few verified instances of cruise-control failure leading to wide open throttle were reported, but they occurred when the vehicle was already travelling at considerable speed and their causes were readily detected in post-incident investigations. In all of these instances, application of the brake caused the cruise control to disengage and usually allowed the vehicle to stop without crashing."
There are plenty of documented cases of automotive ECM programing instruction errors in automotive computers, (stalling is common), shifting problems, sensitivity settings (Honda emission problem) etc. etc. all well documented and all easily detected and corrected. All the "errors" where intentional, not the result of a malfunctioning program from faulty lines of code.
However, quite simply, there is no published information from any automotive engineers association that supports a claim that automotive ECMs can or do "crash" in any way that you are suggesting. Therefore, one has to ask the question why you would ever suggest such a hypothesis.
Well if the computer crashed the car wouldn't run at all, so really that leaves, possibly, some very obscure set of conditions that so far, have not been replicated by anyone.
Well if the computer crashed the car wouldn't run at all, so really that leaves, possibly, some very obscure set of conditions that so far, have not been replicated by anyone.
Congratulations!
You have brought up the "nasty little detail" that many who continue to promote electronic UA don't seem to fully understand.
The same computer that supposedly is crashing is also controlling the engine functions... very dynamic functions that are constantly changing. So, for this to be the scenario, one really has to "reach" in order to believe it could happen.
I'd be more apt to attribute UA incidents occurring from a standstill to driver error, but on the other hand I could see a case where a cruise control would malfunction while driving at 55 MPH and how this might be difficult to correct with stepping on the brake.
Let's say your cruise control module malfunctioned AND your brake switch shorted out at the same time (unlikely, but hey......)
Thus, stepping on the brake would not disconnect the cruise---you'd have to hit the button the steering wheel.
And what if all 3 systems simultanously failed....cruise module, brake switch and wheel on/off switch?
Then you'd have to know to either turn off the ignition, or in the case of the Prius, push it into neutral or hit the start button (not very intuitive).
Still---what are the odds?
On hitting the start button to terminate the car's ignition, I completely agree.
Does anyone know if any manufacturer's owner's manuals specifically detail how to turn the ignition "off" in a case of emergency?
And, I may have misunderstood your reference on this point, but I would think shifting a car into neutral would be very intuitive, be it manual or automatic...or, at least, it should be intuitive!
Something I don't understand is why we don't have any driving simulators in use today at the DMV (if there are any in use, I'm not aware of them).
It just seems that a simulator (allowing an instructor to inject unanticipated events into a driver's exam in order to judge how well the driver could cope with unexpected problems) in conjunction with a real-world driving test would make for a much better educated and capable driver.
And, the costs aren't prohibitive. Driving games are in just about every electronic video game arcade nowadays.
When one compares the process of getting a license here to that of getting a license in, say Germany, its like night and day. I'm 55, and the process of obtaining a license hasn't changed much at all since I was 16. Yet, the complexity of automobiles has increased by several orders of magnitude.
Even if vehicle UA doesn't exist (and I'm certainly open to the possibility of it being out there), wouldn't it be a little prudent to at least, throw a hypothetical instance or two at a driver being tested to see how they might respond if such an event occurred?
Does include instruction on what to do in an emergency.
In fact, I specifically remember instruction and textbook type referring on what to do if an accelerator gets stuck. The process is the same whether it's a floor mat sticking your accelerator down or a computer chip pushing your throttle wide open.
Driver error for SUA is inexcusable.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The Toyota owners manuals for their vehicles that have push button all detail in them how to shut the vehicle off while in motion. It is currently being re written with additional warnings and a new information to buyers in the form of education prior to purchase is being developed according to a source of mine at Toyota.
Bursiris - Funny you mentioned driver training for accidents. I was reading a study on the NHTSA site today about truck driver training on sudden tire tread separation. Amazing read. Every driver failed to brake and instead steered when an unexpected tire failure occurred, the opposite of what you are supposed to do apparently. Another group of drivers who were warned to expect a tire failure used the brake first - the exact opposite of the first group. Amazing insight into natural reactions to emergency driving situations. I would have thought the second group would have done the same thing as the first but just had faster reaction times. http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/nadstreadsepre- port_final_300dpi.pdf
You know - if Edmund's was concerned about finding a cure instead of a cause (a difference with a distinction) maybe they could change the rules to include "any demonstrable, verifiable solution technical or biological." instead of excluding driver error. You have to wonder why a company would limit finding a solution to an unknown problem by restricting any type of research. On what logical grounds can you exclude a possible factor if you claim you don't know the answer. The only logical answer is Edmund's has some logical grounds for excluding it. I wonder what they are.
When one compares the process of getting a license here to that of getting a license in, say Germany, its like night and day. I'm 55, and the process of obtaining a license hasn't changed much at all since I was 16.
German drivers still crash (the most notorious example being the big Autobahn pileups in the fog). But yeah, better driver's ed seems like it would be a no brainer.
"Nevertheless, it remains unclear as to whether the cars involved in those accidents were actually defective. The same cars exist around the world, but no accidents of this type have occurred anywhere outside of North America. There were also cases of stuck Toyota gas pedals in Germany. The drivers braked successfully, and notified their car dealerships. None of them met their deaths." (Der Spiegel(
Thetruth7, if no technical causes are found, that just leaves drivers to point fingers at.
Oh, the trucker study is interesting - we had a long thread on how people react in panic situations over in the Mend discussion a while back. People assume they'd react in a common sense way, but that doesn't seem to be the case in real situations.
Comments
1. list your information and source if making a statement of fact.
2. Your source must not be simply re stating others information. i.e. if you are going to list a Fox news video as a source reporting on what a police investigation found or didn't find - instead get the police report directly and quote from that instead.
3.No using unidentified sources
Lets go -you pick Steve - which one?
I guess that leaves yanking a fuse or a manual switch. That's not very inspiring, really. I kind of want my key and old-fashioned ignition switch back.
The, ahem, news report says "As she pulled onto Interstate 40, Smith said, the car suddenly accelerated out of control. She took off the cruise control, hit the brakes, threw the car into reverse and even pulled the emergency brake. Nothing worked." (knoxnews.com)
Here's a transcript of her House testimony in pdf format.
I simply responded to hackers intentionally attacking a system. Nothing more.
So, if a stray electron comes out of nowhere and confuses the software or firmware, does it really matter if it's a nefarious attempt to hack the system or is it just one of those hard to reproduce situations that just happens to result in a stuck throttle and inability to shift a transmission out of neutral?
Well, first of all, it would be necessary to show some sort of proof that this event has actually happened. Some otherwise rational and responsible people are prone to make some pretty unbelieveable claims at times, so a simple "Joe said that's what happened" may be good enough for the average guy, but not to any technician attempting to figure out what's actually going on.
Once again, you might take a claim of vehicle UA as gospel fact. Yet, if the same person told you he had been abducted by aliens and probed on a UFO, most likely you would have serious doubts.
Why?
There's certainly no physical reason prohibiting either action from happening.
Is it because you've seen a car, but not a UFO?
Time and time again, when a somewhat "believeable" UFO sighting has been "popularized" by the media, there have been flurries of "sightings" in the same area, many by highly educated and rational people. Yet, nothing seen on extremely sophisticated radar/tracking systems. If I'm smart enough to hide from radar, I'm probably smart enough to high from your sight.
Maybe they really are seeing UFO's. Maybe not. The probability of seeing UFO"s?
Small....Very small.
Now, I'm not that familiar with the CAN access port and system mandated in new cars. I say again, though, that if standardization is mandated and access forced by that mandate, that is an "open door" to the car's network....allowing anyone in.
Sort of like an apartment complex requiring a lock on your apartment that would allow maintenance-man entry via a master key, and then publishing the codes so that anyone could duplicate that very key...Then, when you are robbed, the apartment manager tells you "You really should have taken better care watching your stuff".
AM I the only one who sees a potential problem with that scenario?
FYI - GM was famous for ignition locks that wear out jam etc.
Hey Steve you there? - agree to the rules and lets get going
http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/DOT-35-10
Depends on the credibility of the source eh? Are we talking beer consuming types who've been fishing off the pier all day or Stephen Hawking?
Thetruth7, it is a bit of a circular argument isn't it? Pretty credible witness to many people but no fault registered in the computer and the error (if any) is unreproducible on the dyno. The jury is going to have fun with these cases.
Your point about the time involved studying Smith's Lexus is well taken. The Challenger report was finished in 5 months (too bad we don't have Feynman around now). Challenger may have had a bit more resources thrown at it though.
So you think the Wall Street Journal,who reported: "The federal safety agency followed up with the new owners last week. A NHTSA spokeswoman said "they have had no problems with the Lexus since they bought it with less than 3,000 miles on the car..." NHTSA who investigated it and Toyota mechanics who inspected it, would all look silly in front of a Judge compared to Rhonda "I talk on my bluetooth at 100 mph" Smith?
Steve - your statements like "Pretty credible witness to many people.." simply defy common sense. Are hosts being paid by Ford and GM to make such unfounded claims?
Hosts have their own opinions around here and I've been expressing mine for over ten years and 30,000+ posts. Are you interested in fact-finding or attacking people personally?
(fwiw, the best car I ever owned was my '82 Tercel that I drove for 17 years, although my '99 Quest may yet take the title. Had good luck with Fords and GMs that my folks owned too).
Did you stop to think the 3 most famous cases to date all involved cell phone calls - Saylor - the mat was the cause, Sikes the faker, no problems found and Rhonda God saved her, no fault found. To date the computer fault theories are batting zero for evidence. Evidence that will be needed in court to prove the car was at fault. How far do you expect the computer theory to go in a court without any real world examples from any manufacturers?
It was your suggestion to get into an investigation remember? "Maybe we should pick one and dissect it...?
Your willingness to accept a single witness's testimony (that wasn't verified by any other witnesses) compared to trained investigators, government agencies, mechanics and company engineers who inspected the car is not by any stretch just an opinion.
Do you have other facts about her or her car that would be useful to know or is that it?
Point well made. However, even the most credible eye witnesses quite often get it wrong.
One only has to look at legal cases where several eye witnesses placed someone at the scene of a crime, only to have the sentence thrown out later because of DNA evidence making their claim an impossibility.
I would say that the vast majority of those claiming UA actually believe it to be exactly that, and would most likely pass a lie detector test as well. But, that only means the person believes what he is saying... Not that the event actually happened that way. Once again, I bring up the vaccination/autism debate as a glowing example of belief in an event taking on almost religious fervor.
Personally, I have no interest in hearsay evidence... Only that which can be proven and duplicated. While that may eventually not be the level demanded in a court of law, it still doesn't change the facts. Even if Toyota (or any other manufacturer) looses in the lower courts, I have faith that the ultimate high court decisions rendered will require quite a bit of tangible evidence over and above hearsay... regardless whichever way the "axe" falls.
As the Audi cases demonstrate, we may all be dead and gone before an ending resolution is determined.
And, lets be honest here. Having someone testify before Congress simply to recant an event that they think happened to them is as much a political PR "stunt" as anything else, regardless what the subject is that they are telling about.
Guess what caused this, btw? People with key chains the size and weight of baseballs. My sister alone must have 20 keys, five carabiners and quick-release loops, several fobs, and a couple of car remotes on her wad.
Mine never wore out. A proper ignition lock will last the life of the car. My Mercedes at 40 years old when it dies still worked fine with the original key and ignition swiitch.
So, I'm supposed to believe that Toyota is more credible? Or Exponent?
Yeah, I think it's credible that someone in a car they can't control speeding around Knoxville (I drive through there a couple of times a year) would want to call their dearest loved one while wondering if they are going to run into traffic and have to take to the ditch or guard rail and maybe die.
Indeed! Is there some sort of unwritten competition between some women to see exactly how many things they can put on a car key ring?
The engineers involved knew what the problem was the moment of the explosion. The O rings between the sections of the SRB were never designed to seal at the temperatures Challenger experienced sitting on the launch pad. Inspections of recovered SRBs from earlier launches showed blow-by of the first 1 or 2 O-rings, but since the third one held (triple redundancy here), management became complacent. Challenger was more of a failure of management than it was a technical one.
I didn't think so. It's like she was coached on what to say in front of the panel.
Bluetooth is handsfree; don't know why taking advantage of it would be such an issue
Because it's still a distraction to the task at hand - trying to wrestle an out of control car at 100 mph, if you believe Smith.
My thoughts exactly.
Funny, you didn't mention the second owners of the Smith's Lexus? They didn't have any troubles with her old car and they drove it 10 times further- why don't you weight their statements against Smiths? The two statements are in obvious conflict with one another and they are both private citizens. What do you have to say about the difference between them?
As I said, I've driven the stretch of Interstate where Smith experienced unintended acceleration probably 20 times in the last decade. It can be an awful commute but it was also rebuilt a few years back (malfunction junction) and if traffic is light, there's no reason why a driver couldn't go 100 mph and talk on a Bluetooth device and maintain control.
Oh, if I was going to be called before a congressional subcommittee, I'd write out and practice my testimony too.
I'm not sure what weight the second owner's experience has - I've had one-off car troubles that I've ignored, and never experienced the problem again. Maybe it was bad gas or damp or something, but I ignored the problem and it went away. I suppose I could have asked a mechanic to track something down. Or asked the NTHSA to buy my car and test it. It doesn't change the fact that I experienced a problem.
If SUA was easily demonstrated or reproducible, we wouldn't be having this conversation eh? Meanwhile people are reporting it and we can rest assured that Henry Waxman is hot on the trail (yes, that is a bit of pre-8 am sarcasm
Lawmakers Chastise Toyota Over Handling of Recalls (Inside Line)
"I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds I may incriminate myself."
SUA is reproducible and has been done before - just put the camera and microphone in the car and create the unintended acceleration and watch the feet.
Never in the history of recalls of any kind has an accuser not been able to independently prove a defect exists by holding the part in their hand. Can anyone think of an example to the contrary?
Good luck Congress - you'll need it.
My thoughts exactly.
Add my name to the list. If I am in a runaway vehicle attempting to regain control, the last thing on my mind is having a chat over the phone...Remember, the call was initiated AFTER the event was in process, not the other way around.
It's like looking at your new computer and wondering why it's crashing, but never bothering to turn on the monitor to look at what software is running. Toyota's refusal to release their software is essentially the same as their removing the monitor. No, more like removing the entire video card.
Well, that certainly wasn't the conclusion of the Morton Thiokol engineering staff (the manufacturer of the SRB's) that fought to halt the launch. They knew well in advance that there were specific o-ring issues. Indeed, there was a history of o-ring failure, and they knew a catastrophic failure was a virtual guarantee at some point.
Their testimony is readily available for anyone to read, if they are interested.
That's very old news.
There's no denying it.
A once UA involved vehicle may never see it again if operated in a significantly warmer climate.
There seems to be at least two who used cell phones during the supposed UA events. Although one of these may have been floor mats caused.
RF energy may be one trigger.
Other sources of temporary interference,such as transients induced by relatively nearby high voltage power line transients that may magnetically induce current transients in the computer chip or effect Hall effect sensors. Some lower high voltage lines are buried, but would still have magnetic radiation.
And my personal favorite, gamma radiation. Although silicon is usually not dense enough to offer a susceptible trap of gamma radiation, if a gamma ray hits in the active area of a silicon chip, a transient can be induced. I once used lithium drifted silicon as an X-ray detector. ( X -rays and gamma rays are the same) . One comes from outer space (gamma) one is generated with a cathode ray tube. The voltage and cathode target material determine the eV power of the X-ray. Naturally occurring radioactive elements can emit gamma rays. Americium radiates both gamma and beta radiation.
A gamma ray is no doubt a one time event and hardly repeatable.
Other sources such as interferences by unique loading of the 12V battery by using the heat, radio, cd, mirror adjustments, moon roof use, A/C etc etc that may have interfered with the accelerator controlling software. Again, hardly repeatable
I once designed an X-Ray communication system. I used CDTE chips (cadmium terlluride) to detect X-rays reliably I used Pulse Position modulation for sending and receiving X-rays
I do have a BSEE. plus significant post graduate courses from Penn State (Sonar Systems,) George Wash U,(Signals, Systems and Noise) U of MI at Ann Arbor
( Spread Spectrum Systems) and Naval ,Post Graduate School Monterey
(electronic Systems in Navy environment.)
My general area of expertise was circuit design. I had no direct experience with automotive design. I did design some items for shipboard use, ocean moored sensor buoys, and helicopter sonar recording equipment.
I also designed a remote hand emplaced sensor system including RF reporting system. I had to use non linear circuits to allow a magnetic sensor to use an RF system without unstable feedback. My seismic detector used a geophone connected to a variable gain amplifier. I used a circuit that eliminated the first input to get rid of aircraft or wind generated noise. I only wanted to detect footsteps.
I think I know what doesn't work and why.
Did someone say that someone reproduced this defect and videotaped it?
Or did I read that wrong? Any source? Any Youtube?
I agree, but I think the main reason is British Petroleum and the oil spill in the Gulf.
The news media loves disaster stories, and that happens to be the disaster event du jour.
Also, I suspect that many who might have been lined up to make a claim are re-thinking their plans. I feel sure a lot of the would be "me, toos" now realize that these cars do have some sort of data event recorders that can be used to dispute these types of claims.
Of course, Mr. Sikes' (The Poster Child of UA) background being made public could have deterred some folks as well.
Probably several reasons why its quieted down.
Wait a bit....It'll be back in full force before you know it.
.
Maybe you should visit more discussions around here too. :shades:
You'd probably enjoy Toyota on the mend for 2010? or one of Shifty's favorites - Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em".
Visiting Host
This particular scenario I find extremely hard to believe.
It's more believable than Sasquatch of course, but not too much more. We have sightings, we have fuzzy videos but we don't have much evidence.
Visiting Host
Two small-scale studies which demonstrate the effects of startling the driver have been published. In the first, conducted by VRTC, 32 subjects, who were not professional drivers, were tested in a 1986 Audi 5000 (Reference 34). The idle stabilizer of the test vehicle was modified so the experimenter could switch on maximum idle speed whenever he desired. One of the subjects did apparently become confused as a result of the excessive idle speed and applied the accelerator rather than the brake, resulting in a 0.6 g acceleration jolt. That
driver lost control to the extent that the experimenter terminated the test with the
engine-kill switch.
In the second study, conducted by John Tomerlin for Road & Track, 130 subjects were tested under three types of driving in three different passenger cars, each of which had been modified so that high idle speeds could be switched on by the experimenter (Reference 33). On two occasions during the reverse-driving test, subjects became confused when the high-idle condition was activated and applied the accelerator when they meant to brake.
I'd be more apt to attribute UA incidents occurring from a standstill to driver error, but on the other hand I could see a case where a cruise control would malfunction while driving at 55 MPH and how this might be difficult to correct with stepping on the brake.
Let's say your cruise control module malfunctioned AND your brake switch shorted out at the same time (unlikely, but hey......)
Thus, stepping on the brake would not disconnect the cruise---you'd have to hit the button the steering wheel.
And what if all 3 systems simultanously failed....cruise module, brake switch and wheel on/off switch?
Then you'd have to know to either turn off the ignition, or in the case of the Prius, push it into neutral or hit the start button (not very intuitive).
Still---what are the odds?
Guess where all the components and sensors all meet in most modern vehicles? If you answered the computer, you're correct. If it crashes, everything does fail and jam all at once unless there is a backup computer in place.
We should be concentrating on the computer crashing and freezing rather than arguing over statistics. It should be pretty easy to purposely crash the main computer and see what happens while the car is still running.
"few verified instances of cruise-control failure leading to wide open
throttle were reported, but they occurred when the vehicle was already
travelling at considerable speed and their causes were readily detected
in post-incident investigations. In all of these instances, application of
the brake caused the cruise control to disengage and usually allowed the
vehicle to stop without crashing."
However, quite simply, there is no published information from any automotive engineers association that supports a claim that automotive ECMs can or do "crash" in any way that you are suggesting. Therefore, one has to ask the question why you would ever suggest such a hypothesis.
Congratulations!
You have brought up the "nasty little detail" that many who continue to promote electronic UA don't seem to fully understand.
The same computer that supposedly is crashing is also controlling the engine functions... very dynamic functions that are constantly changing. So, for this to be the scenario, one really has to "reach" in order to believe it could happen.
I'd be more apt to attribute UA incidents occurring from a standstill to driver error, but on the other hand I could see a case where a cruise control would malfunction while driving at 55 MPH and how this might be difficult to correct with stepping on the brake.
Let's say your cruise control module malfunctioned AND your brake switch shorted out at the same time (unlikely, but hey......)
Thus, stepping on the brake would not disconnect the cruise---you'd have to hit the button the steering wheel.
And what if all 3 systems simultanously failed....cruise module, brake switch and wheel on/off switch?
Then you'd have to know to either turn off the ignition, or in the case of the Prius, push it into neutral or hit the start button (not very intuitive).
Still---what are the odds?
On hitting the start button to terminate the car's ignition, I completely agree.
Does anyone know if any manufacturer's owner's manuals specifically detail how to turn the ignition "off" in a case of emergency?
And, I may have misunderstood your reference on this point, but I would think shifting a car into neutral would be very intuitive, be it manual or automatic...or, at least, it should be intuitive!
Something I don't understand is why we don't have any driving simulators in use today at the DMV (if there are any in use, I'm not aware of them).
It just seems that a simulator (allowing an instructor to inject unanticipated events into a driver's exam in order to judge how well the driver could cope with unexpected problems) in conjunction with a real-world driving test would make for a much better educated and capable driver.
And, the costs aren't prohibitive. Driving games are in just about every electronic video game arcade nowadays.
When one compares the process of getting a license here to that of getting a license in, say Germany, its like night and day. I'm 55, and the process of obtaining a license hasn't changed much at all since I was 16. Yet, the complexity of automobiles has increased by several orders of magnitude.
Even if vehicle UA doesn't exist (and I'm certainly open to the possibility of it being out there), wouldn't it be a little prudent to at least, throw a hypothetical instance or two at a driver being tested to see how they might respond if such an event occurred?
In fact, I specifically remember instruction and textbook type referring on what to do if an accelerator gets stuck. The process is the same whether it's a floor mat sticking your accelerator down or a computer chip pushing your throttle wide open.
Driver error for SUA is inexcusable.
Bursiris - Funny you mentioned driver training for accidents. I was reading a study on the NHTSA site today about truck driver training on sudden tire tread separation. Amazing read. Every driver failed to brake and instead steered when an unexpected tire failure occurred, the opposite of what you are supposed to do apparently. Another group of drivers who were warned to expect a tire failure used the brake first - the exact opposite of the first group. Amazing insight into natural reactions to emergency driving situations. I would have thought the second group would have done the same thing as the first but just had faster reaction times.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/nadstreadsepre- port_final_300dpi.pdf
You know - if Edmund's was concerned about finding a cure instead of a cause (a difference with a distinction) maybe they could change the rules to include "any demonstrable, verifiable solution technical or biological." instead of excluding driver error. You have to wonder why a company would limit finding a solution to an unknown problem by restricting any type of research. On what logical grounds can you exclude a possible factor if you claim you don't know the answer. The only logical answer is Edmund's has some logical grounds for excluding it. I wonder what they are.
German drivers still crash (the most notorious example being the big Autobahn pileups in the fog). But yeah, better driver's ed seems like it would be a no brainer.
"Nevertheless, it remains unclear as to whether the cars involved in those accidents were actually defective. The same cars exist around the world, but no accidents of this type have occurred anywhere outside of North America. There were also cases of stuck Toyota gas pedals in Germany. The drivers braked successfully, and notified their car dealerships. None of them met their deaths." (Der Spiegel(
Thetruth7, if no technical causes are found, that just leaves drivers to point fingers
at.
Oh, the trucker study is interesting - we had a long thread on how people react in panic situations over in the Mend discussion a while back. People assume they'd react in a common sense way, but that doesn't seem to be the case in real situations.