Except the two examples aren't quite the same. The State of Montana was evidently able to prove malfeasance, but no one on the face of this earth has yet to prove that Toyota either created a dangerous car or tried to hide the fact.
Congressional testimony is no more than politics. Its a way for elected officials to show their constituents that they are doing something for their vote.
Facts play little, if any, role in Congressional testimony.
Perhaps he was intending suicide and to take his family with him and the call was just so it wouldn't appear so, but I can make up all kinds of fantastic stories.
That makes just as much sense as some of the other fantastic theories that are being aired here !!
OK, granted "unintended acceleration" can occur because of a vehicle defect. We have the right to expect safety and fail-safe designs engineered into the cars we drive. But more often than not, accidents involving unintended acceleration are the driver's fault. Until we find a good way of preventing drivers who are impaired, distracted, and or careless about how they use cars off the roads we all share, this will remain to be a problem.
I was hit by an elderly driver who did not have the self-control to refrain from driving even though he did not have the capacity to pilot his own vehicle safely. He was coasting extremely slowly up to the red light in the right lane in a very wide intersection. I was stopped, waiting at the read light in the left lane, watching him carefully because I was on a motorcycle and vulnerable, and he was operating the vehicle in a suspicious manner. The traffic light control, like most in CA, is one that does not change for a waiting motorcycle; a car must trigger the timer before the motorcyclist can legally get out of "harm's way". I was waiting for the driver behind me in the right lane to creep up to the sensor, and I always watch who's behind me. Little good that did, as he crept slowly up instead of putting his foot on the brake, he hit the accelerator, and mashed the accelerator to the floor and swerved when he realized he wasn't stopping. He swerved right at me (there was sooo much room for him to NOT hit anything) with his engine at full boil, his early 80's Lincoln Continental's chrome bumper crushed my knee right into the motorcycle frame, sending the large bike tumbling across the wide intersection, and me to the ground with my leg badly broken and torn backwards.
The injuries I sustained were not life-threatening, however I will never be able to walk well again. We both had good insurance with high limits, but it doesn't even begin to cover the losses, financial and otherwise that this person was responsible for. Because I ride a motorcycle does not make me a daredevil looking for trouble. Yes, there are some foolish riders on motorcycles, however the vast majority are not the riders seen cutting lanes on the freeway looking to cheat death.
This driver who, with all his experience, was confused which pedal was needed to stop his car, robbed me of my freedom because he refused to allow someone else to drive for him. We deserve the right to share the road in a safe manner, however this is an example of the root problem of bad driving as a culprit in most (not all) "unintended acceleration" situations. Software glitches and electronic nannies didn't have anything to do with it. A driver - sure in his belief his car should be slowing instead of accelerating - pushes the pedal to the floor, but it's the wrong pedal! That's probably why it's so hard to diagnose whether it's the car's design that's the problem, or just someone who doesn't control their car properly.
If you know someone who's hitting the wrong pedal, get them off the road before they hurt someone else!
I ride also and couldn't sympathize with your bad luck, more. You were even doing what i do while at a light...watching your butt around u, but darn...even with all your defensive habits, there isn't anything u could have done. Beam me up Scotty, and hurry will ya..
I hope that driver quit driving after that. It is the only darn thing he could do to prove his regret for his inadequacies behind the wheel and how they will affect u you for life. Things change, we change, we get old. But not all at the same rate so is hard to enforce.
No, he did not claim any responsibility. Fortunately, his responsibility was not challenged. There were witnesses including his wife. In his confusion he blamed it on everyone else. He said it was his wife's (passenger) fault because she told him to look out for the motorcycle on his right (I was in the left lane) so he swerved to the left. He said he just couldn't stop in time for the red light, and it was my fault for being in front of him. Fortunately, because he struck me from the rear, his insurance accepted 100% responsibility even before the police report was available.
But after creeping so slowly, the roar of the engine when he was "trying to stop" was a giveaway.
As a motorcyclist, you likely recognize this is a rider's classic situation of a decision to abide by the law (wait at the red light until it turns green) or abide by your own sense of safety (just run the red light when it's safe to get out of "harm's way" risking a ticket even though it's the safest course of action). And also a classic situation of the attitude most automobile drivers project: a complete careless disregard for riders because of an underlying or sub-conscious attitude that "motorcycles aren't safe".
your post put this idea in my head---I wonder if anyone ever plotted incidents of UA against age of the driver, to see what, if any, correlations there are.
FWIW, This driver was 96, and very sure of his driving ability even though he was not aware of the police approaching him.
Age/awareness of one's own reactions could be a factor for someone who's younger, too. Bad drivers come in all ages, genders, and flavors. When you're on a bike you get hyper-sensitive. But I'd have to say, not being "ageist" or pointing fingers, even before this occurence, I'm always on edge around elderly drivers, I try to be hyper-aware.
Sorry, but anyone who rides a "donorcycle" on a daily basis is either an idiot or has a death wish. Motorcycles are fun in the same way as downhill skiing.
Talk to an insurance company statistician if you don't want to take my work for it.
I am absolutely positive that any rider here does not, and would never, 'take your word for it'.
I would elaborate but feel your post was nothing more than bait to get a bunch hairs on people's neck standing up. But I will say that your stereo-typical post was as if you: a) had no regard whatsoever for what happened to la4mead in his post, or...possibly, but unlikely; b) didn't even read it. It can only be one or the other so take your pick. Neither is very cordial, or informed.
Accident statistics for motorcycle accidents are skewed WAY toward the youngest drivers in the first 6 months of their purchasing a bike.
I rode 22 years and never a scratch on me or the bike. Well, one time I got off it and forgot to put the kickstand down...
First time I romp on the gas instead of the brake and knock someone off a motorcycle, and I pray I never do, --- I'm tearing my license up and getting an electric bicycle.
I have ridden since I was 8. Learned in the winter on the crust in a field on a Passport 50. And I have raced for 10 of my over 40 years on a bike.
It really boils my blood when i hear someone say the term donor-cycle. It is the epitome of stereo-typing and a very very ignorant view of bikes and the true level of danger. Sure, sometimes bad stuff happens. But i have been in situations that had i been in "a car" I would have been creamed and stewed. Being on the bike and able to make myself thin and fast...well..I'm still here. Reminds me of the debate over helmet types...open face, vs full face. Tell me the type of crash you are about to have and i'll tell you the best helmet style to wear to mitigate the risk.
Just because someone in their family got hurt, they must slot it with a term for the rest of their life. I just wish for once people would take responsibility for themselves, instead of always blaming the equipment.
post 3 and 5 and 8 and a bunch after had me wondering this very thing again. It happens often...you read someone who just bought a new - whatever- and they are singing its praises etc. but this was almost 9 years ago. You click and find they don't have the new 02 Sube anymore and u deduce that the replacement likely happened in 06 with RAV4. So one can assume AWD was probably a priority still, but interesting that they didn't stay with the same brand. I'd love to know from a lot of these old Read Only posts why they changed brands. What sorts of problems did they have? That sorta thing..
But while I'm here, as i don't know where to ask this, Joe, do you follow Subaru posts fairly regularly i take it, are Sube engines as cost friendly after 100 to 130k miles as an inline Accord or Camry engine? I keep hearing 'things' about Subaru and they seem to have a real weakness around the heads or something. I can't recall if it is head gaskets or how serious the ailments were. I wonder why i have this impression tho, that most Asian inline 4 cyl are less costly to own than the flat four. Any truth to it ya think?
btw, i was impressed to read u put 235k on your turbo Saab. I take it u didn't spend big money on it to get there?
But in my crowded place, no thanks. Too many phone yappers, errant affluent women in SUVs, new resident drivers, and elderly.
You're not saying that you don't really trust Seattle area women SUV drivers, are you? Did I read that right? Isn't that against the ACLU law...or something even worse?
Anyone whose ever worked in AVIONICS on design of electronic equipment as I have, knows that RFI Radio Frequency Interference is a real issue that is defeated by ensuring metal to metal contacts between fasteners on box enclosures are no longer than a half-wave of RF signals you wish to defeat- any GAP or Conductor Length anywhere near a half wave will allow that particular wavelength to penetrate into the electronics box where it might disrupt things, cause loss of control in Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
So if I were to look at ANY vehicle that had a 7" length of wire protruding into the cockpit area (like the Cruise Control Arm we call Turn Signals) then that conductor length would lead me to suspect an RF signal of 14" wavelength might "HOOK UP" with the 7" conductor wire length- Working backwards I can only conclude its an RF frequency as follows, Speed of Light (30x10^9cm/sec) divided by (2 x 7"x 2.54cm/in) = 844MHz
Now what could be generating a digital RF signal at that frequency?? Mrs. Smith called her husband before "God Intervened" Could it possibly be her CELL PHONE that intervened? I dunno' What frequency range do USA Cell Phones operate within? Google "Cell Phones" you get a range of 824MHz to 894MHz. Does 844MHz lie within that range? you bet it does
But thats just tip of the iceberg for we also have Murphy's Law at work To "Hook Up" to the Cruise Control, that particular Cell Phone used has to be precisely TUNED to the EXACT wire length of that particular car's Turn Signal. Any twisted wire pair in the Turn Signal wiring defeats tuning In short its like tuning in an FM radio station- have to be right on tune or there's NO signal transmitted, just static the CPU will ignore. Now if its spot on and someone dials 911, their internationally used cell phone also generates European emergency number 112. Cruise Control CPU fuzzy logic ignores 911mph instruction but Toyota can DO 112MPH-
Another issue is Cell Phone Towers- for 2 way communication they re- broadcast at a differing frequency that might be the culprit for other wire lengths of Turn Signals. All cars are NOT IDENTICAL, so its unlikely ALL cars would have SUA, only those which match up to a particular Cell Phone one might use. Has anyone noticed locations of where these SUA's occur- Perhaps one particular Cell Phone Tower is broadcasting runaway Toyota signals- but I suspect its an outside possibility. More likely the INTENSITY of an RF signal generated INSIDE COCKPIT is way more likely to be found to have caused the problem in the first place.
Why do not operator instructions like turn off engine or change to neutral work- Ever try to get a word in edgewise when a non-stop talker has the floor and monopolizes the entire conversation without letup- That's what you get with 800+MHz, almost 1MILLION instructions per second- shuts out ALL OTHER INPUTS, so that's why Cell Phone Use is PROHIBITED on board ALL Fly-By-Wire aircraft, possible loss of control during landing and takeoff when a fatal mistake can't be corrected- not so in flight- more time
Any aeronautical design engineer would not even question this logic but most untrained laymen who know absolutely nothing about the electromagnetic spectrum and its interaction with conductors, ie know nothing about electronic engineering hardware design simply jump to the conclusion that if they don't understand it then it must be wrong.
Welcome to America, the land of free loaders and home of know-it-alls
When I'm in my car with good German steel and a score of airbags around me, I don't fear for my life, but on a bike...no thanks. I wonder when a UI Toyota product will hit a motorcycle? :shades:
The ACLU would probably want to have me sent to the chair for my unapologetic un-PC mind
Actually, I was an insurance underwriter for years... I understand how to interpret risk statistics.
Mr. West, with all due respect, your response was a venomous lashing-out and typical of either someone who is ignorant to recognizing responsibility for his/her own actions or someone who has an unbalanced attitude towards the rights of others. You might as well say "that's what he gets for having his death wish".
You might be shocked to learn that MOST experienced riders do not have a "death wish" and are at least as concerned about safety as anyone else, likely more (that's an understatement). Your attitude is typical, however that does not make you correct or prove your point. However, it does provide a perfect example of how aggressively callous typical "cage" drivers can be toward safe riders. And yes, we drive cars, too.
Learn to share the road; it's your responsibility when you drive. Anything less is irresponsible.
No doubt most bikers are pretty sane and level headed. I'd probably ride like a little old lady...although I do like the idea of splitting lanes :shades:
My grandpa was sharp enough to know when his abilities were faltering, and stopped driving when he was in his early 80s. Kudos to him for that.
most untrained laymen who know absolutely nothing about the electromagnetic spectrum and its interaction with conductors, ie know nothing about electronic engineering hardware design simply jump to the conclusion that if they don't understand it then it must be wrong.
Like I said before, theories around here are a dime a dozen and taking pot shots in the form of long winded rants will not win you the big prize. If you want the prize you will actually have to find a solution.
Sorry about the accident. I rode for several years as a youngster with nothing more serious than laying it down a couple of times on sandy country roads.
Here's hoping that your leg continues to improve and that some of our more insensitive posters can get a clue.
I think so too, but u don't think the RF interference post was an interesting read? I am a sponge for knowledge and some of (from my own {very} limited world of electronic knowledge) what he said, i recognized as facts. Pretty extenuating odds, but still in potential existence.
I have a big sheet of lead that a dear long lost friend due to lung cancer at only age 53, gave me when i was telling him I was getting a lot of RF interference with a ham set I was working on at the time. Bob says...Steve, not sure how this is going to help you but will this do? I assured him it was perfect. After wrapping it in a huge sealed plastic wrap I showed him just how effective it was at curbing RF from outside sources. He was impressed. Lead tho...handle carefully and know what not to do with it..
Hope u all have a real good New Year, safe and healthy, and for all your loved ones too. 2011 simply has to be an improvement of some sort over 2010 in this neck of the woods at least.
I would just say that sometimes we confuse knowledge with wisdom. If auto technology was that fragile and in that bad a shape we would all be involved in a demolition derby every time we went to the store for milk !!
Throw another log on the fire and have a great 2011 !!
Keep that thought---and let's talk about this interesting diversion in the appropriate Subie topic (go pick one, I read them all) . I think our regular host would like us to stay with UA.
...so that's why Cell Phone Use is PROHIBITED on board ALL Fly-By-Wire aircraft, possible loss of control during landing and takeoff when a fatal mistake can't be corrected- not so in flight- more time
No, cell phones, initially, were not allowed to be used on commercial flights for fear that the spurious freqencies they generate, might generate, would or could interfer with the planes nav-aids. The second issue was involving the doubt that the cell phone ground stations could resolve the "who's on first issue". Which ground station would handle the traffic when so many additional ground stations were in the decision "tree"/zone.
9/11 resolved that latter issue.
The FAA may soon allow cell-phone use except during take-off and landing.
The only parallel to automotive use of cell-phones that I can think of off-hand would be possible interference with the GPS/NAV or AM/FM radio reception.
These SUA issues appear to me to be a typical conditional or situational firmware "livelock" case. Certain key sequences, events, must occur in exactly the correct order for the "livelock" to come into effect.
Mrs. Smith stated that she saw her cruise control indication come on without any action on her part....
ALL of these 3 or 4 cars acted EXACTLY as if the CC was somehow locked into the "accel" mode, and apparently to the exclusion of all other engine/transaxle ECU control inputs.
Sorry, I just remembered that the last flight I was on had WIFI available and allowed cell-phone use once above 10,000ft. WIFI operates in the same frequency area of concern as cell-phones, and your home microwave.
First time I romp on the gas instead of the brake and knock someone off a motorcycle, and I pray I never do, --- I'm tearing my license up and getting an electric bicycle.
It's probably been said here before, but as long as you drive a 3-pedal manual, it shouldn't be an issue. When you "romp on the gas instead of the brake", I expect that you will also instinctively de-clutch.
I believe that unintended acceleration is the exclusively and auto-tranny issue.
Oh I would think there is a higher incidence as age goes up. "Sorry, I got flustered."
but worse is when they are not sorry and admit inadequacy.
I don't mean to be insensitive to aging drivers, faced with the possibility of their mobility getting chopped off at the knees practically if they aren't allowed to drive anymore. I will face it myself some day. But among gvt regulators, there seems to be a consensus to leave the decision to pack it in, up to the driver's themselves. They do this by too lenient retesting. Sure, there are many responsible elderly drivers who assert that difficult decision to hang up the wheels, but there are also a discouragingly high number like the guy that just creamed one our members here while he was stopped at the lights on his bike.
In CA there seems to be a strong lobby by AARP against a preset age for retesting, and government regulators and legislators don't approach the issue. After this incident, I tore up the AARP mailers and remailed them back. Screw AARP. I don't believe an age-required retest infringes on anyone's rights, and don't buy their argument against it. I would willingly retest.
I probably wouldn't like not driving either, but in CA seniors can get rides for free, so it does not mean an extreme limitation on their mobility (or any knee chopping, I've had plenty myself Yet by this person driving and hitting me, my mobility was taken away (right leg, couldn't drive) and the transportation afforded to seniors (eligible for medicare?) was not available to me.
In the case of the 96 year old who tried to brake using his accelerator causing the SUA and hitting me, the policeman said told me the driver was not not alert and the report listed a violation of a motor vehicle code, yet did not cite him (in CA they rarely cite for an accident, unlike other states).
So yes, I do believe retesting would have a direct impact on SUA. I would be glad to retest, if it were me. And if not, I'd make friends on the senior van!
Gosh, I'm sorry i used the knee chopping phrase...i use it often..but didn't realize u lost your leg and wasn't typing it with any innuendo or reference in that way at all. Sorry man..
Recent public forum in Wash. DC on Safety, Mobility, and The Aging Driver was 09-10 November. Organized & hosted by Natl. Transp. Safety Board invited guests took a deep dive into mentality, biology of drivers, vehicle revisions, roadway improvements. A Distracted Driver summit was held in September. Available at "Distraction.gov". Secy Transportn. LaHood has high priority on texting and cell phones.
True. As the 40+ Texans set free from Texan prisons after DNA analysis of evidence since 2000 can attest, winning in court doesn't mean the other side was guilty.
That really irritates me. The insurance companies gouge us for premiums, and then it's still not enough profit for them---they want to "subrogate" against Toyota? Gimme a break.
Why don't the insurance companies sue the tobacco and sugar industries then?
Comments
If you think testimony before Congress means anything, I suggest you review Stephen Colbert's testimony before Congress.
I mean, someday they *might*, but so far, no go.
Congressional testimony is no more than politics. Its a way for elected officials to show their constituents that they are doing something for their vote.
Facts play little, if any, role in Congressional testimony.
That makes just as much sense as some of the other fantastic theories that are being aired here !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So, "I was in a runaway Honda" does not equate with "Hondas have a defect that makes their cars runaway"
I was hit by an elderly driver who did not have the self-control to refrain from driving even though he did not have the capacity to pilot his own vehicle safely. He was coasting extremely slowly up to the red light in the right lane in a very wide intersection. I was stopped, waiting at the read light in the left lane, watching him carefully because I was on a motorcycle and vulnerable, and he was operating the vehicle in a suspicious manner. The traffic light control, like most in CA, is one that does not change for a waiting motorcycle; a car must trigger the timer before the motorcyclist can legally get out of "harm's way". I was waiting for the driver behind me in the right lane to creep up to the sensor, and I always watch who's behind me. Little good that did, as he crept slowly up instead of putting his foot on the brake, he hit the accelerator, and mashed the accelerator to the floor and swerved when he realized he wasn't stopping. He swerved right at me (there was sooo much room for him to NOT hit anything) with his engine at full boil, his early 80's Lincoln Continental's chrome bumper crushed my knee right into the motorcycle frame, sending the large bike tumbling across the wide intersection, and me to the ground with my leg badly broken and torn backwards.
The injuries I sustained were not life-threatening, however I will never be able to walk well again. We both had good insurance with high limits, but it doesn't even begin to cover the losses, financial and otherwise that this person was responsible for. Because I ride a motorcycle does not make me a daredevil looking for trouble. Yes, there are some foolish riders on motorcycles, however the vast majority are not the riders seen cutting lanes on the freeway looking to cheat death.
This driver who, with all his experience, was confused which pedal was needed to stop his car, robbed me of my freedom because he refused to allow someone else to drive for him. We deserve the right to share the road in a safe manner, however this is an example of the root problem of bad driving as a culprit in most (not all) "unintended acceleration" situations. Software glitches and electronic nannies didn't have anything to do with it. A driver - sure in his belief his car should be slowing instead of accelerating - pushes the pedal to the floor, but it's the wrong pedal! That's probably why it's so hard to diagnose whether it's the car's design that's the problem, or just someone who doesn't control their car properly.
If you know someone who's hitting the wrong pedal, get them off the road before they hurt someone else!
I know we're all begging to ask you: Did the driver claim that the car "just shot forward" or did he immediately take responsibility?
Beam me up Scotty, and hurry will ya..
I hope that driver quit driving after that. It is the only darn thing he could do to prove his regret for his inadequacies behind the wheel and how they will affect u you for life.
Things change, we change, we get old. But not all at the same rate so is hard to enforce.
But after creeping so slowly, the roar of the engine when he was "trying to stop" was a giveaway.
As a motorcyclist, you likely recognize this is a rider's classic situation of a decision to abide by the law (wait at the red light until it turns green) or abide by your own sense of safety (just run the red light when it's safe to get out of "harm's way" risking a ticket even though it's the safest course of action). And also a classic situation of the attitude most automobile drivers project: a complete careless disregard for riders because of an underlying or sub-conscious attitude that "motorcycles aren't safe".
Age/awareness of one's own reactions could be a factor for someone who's younger, too. Bad drivers come in all ages, genders, and flavors. When you're on a bike you get hyper-sensitive. But I'd have to say, not being "ageist" or pointing fingers, even before this occurence, I'm always on edge around elderly drivers, I try to be hyper-aware.
Talk to an insurance company statistician if you don't want to take my work for it.
I would elaborate but feel your post was nothing more than bait to get a bunch hairs on people's neck standing up. But I will say that your stereo-typical post was as if you: a) had no regard whatsoever for what happened to la4mead in his post, or...possibly, but unlikely; b) didn't even read it. It can only be one or the other so take your pick. Neither is very cordial, or informed.
But in my crowded place, no thanks. Too many phone yappers, errant affluent women in SUVs, new resident drivers, and elderly.
I rode 22 years and never a scratch on me or the bike. Well, one time I got off it and forgot to put the kickstand down...
First time I romp on the gas instead of the brake and knock someone off a motorcycle, and I pray I never do, --- I'm tearing my license up and getting an electric bicycle.
It really boils my blood when i hear someone say the term donor-cycle. It is the epitome of stereo-typing and a very very ignorant view of bikes and the true level of danger. Sure, sometimes bad stuff happens. But i have been in situations that had i been in "a car" I would have been creamed and stewed. Being on the bike and able to make myself thin and fast...well..I'm still here. Reminds me of the debate over helmet types...open face, vs full face. Tell me the type of crash you are about to have and i'll tell you the best helmet style to wear to mitigate the risk.
Just because someone in their family got hurt, they must slot it with a term for the rest of their life. I just wish for once people would take responsibility for themselves, instead of always blaming the equipment.
Truly, a comment only a jerk would make.
I was over on an (unfortunately) Read Only forum for the Subarus.
here actually:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ef0c062/0!make=Subaru&model=Impreza&ed_ma- keindex=.ef0c062
post 3 and 5 and 8 and a bunch after had me wondering this very thing again. It happens often...you read someone who just bought a new - whatever- and they are singing its praises etc. but this was almost 9 years ago. You click and find they don't have the new 02 Sube anymore and u deduce that the replacement likely happened in 06 with RAV4. So one can assume AWD was probably a priority still, but interesting that they didn't stay with the same brand. I'd love to know from a lot of these old Read Only posts why they changed brands. What sorts of problems did they have? That sorta thing..
But while I'm here, as i don't know where to ask this, Joe, do you follow Subaru posts fairly regularly i take it, are Sube engines as cost friendly after 100 to 130k miles as an inline Accord or Camry engine? I keep hearing 'things' about Subaru and they seem to have a real weakness around the heads or something. I can't recall if it is head gaskets or how serious the ailments were. I wonder why i have this impression tho, that most Asian inline 4 cyl are less costly to own than the flat four. Any truth to it ya think?
btw, i was impressed to read u put 235k on your turbo Saab. I take it u didn't spend big money on it to get there?
You're not saying that you don't really trust Seattle area women SUV drivers, are you? Did I read that right? Isn't that against the ACLU law...or something even worse?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
as I have, knows that RFI Radio Frequency Interference is a real issue that is defeated by ensuring metal to metal contacts between fasteners on box enclosures are no longer than a half-wave of RF signals you wish to defeat- any GAP or Conductor Length anywhere near a half wave will
allow that particular wavelength to penetrate into the electronics box
where it might disrupt things, cause loss of control in Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
So if I were to look at ANY vehicle that had a 7" length of wire protruding into the cockpit area (like the Cruise Control Arm we call Turn Signals)
then that conductor length would lead me to suspect an RF signal of 14" wavelength might "HOOK UP" with the 7" conductor wire length-
Working backwards I can only conclude its an RF frequency as follows,
Speed of Light (30x10^9cm/sec) divided by (2 x 7"x 2.54cm/in) = 844MHz
Now what could be generating a digital RF signal at that frequency??
Mrs. Smith called her husband before "God Intervened" Could it possibly
be her CELL PHONE that intervened? I dunno' What frequency range do USA Cell Phones operate within? Google "Cell Phones" you get a range of
824MHz to 894MHz. Does 844MHz lie within that range? you bet it does
But thats just tip of the iceberg for we also have Murphy's Law at work
To "Hook Up" to the Cruise Control, that particular Cell Phone used has
to be precisely TUNED to the EXACT wire length of that particular car's
Turn Signal. Any twisted wire pair in the Turn Signal wiring defeats tuning
In short its like tuning in an FM radio station- have to be right on tune or
there's NO signal transmitted, just static the CPU will ignore. Now if its
spot on and someone dials 911, their internationally used cell phone
also generates European emergency number 112. Cruise Control CPU
fuzzy logic ignores 911mph instruction but Toyota can DO 112MPH-
Another issue is Cell Phone Towers- for 2 way communication they re-
broadcast at a differing frequency that might be the culprit for other
wire lengths of Turn Signals. All cars are NOT IDENTICAL, so its unlikely
ALL cars would have SUA, only those which match up to a particular
Cell Phone one might use. Has anyone noticed locations of where these
SUA's occur- Perhaps one particular Cell Phone Tower is broadcasting
runaway Toyota signals- but I suspect its an outside possibility. More
likely the INTENSITY of an RF signal generated INSIDE COCKPIT is way
more likely to be found to have caused the problem in the first place.
Why do not operator instructions like turn off engine or change to neutral
work- Ever try to get a word in edgewise when a non-stop talker has the
floor and monopolizes the entire conversation without letup- That's what
you get with 800+MHz, almost 1MILLION instructions per second- shuts
out ALL OTHER INPUTS, so that's why Cell Phone Use is PROHIBITED on
board ALL Fly-By-Wire aircraft, possible loss of control during landing and
takeoff when a fatal mistake can't be corrected- not so in flight- more time
Any aeronautical design engineer would not even question this logic
but most untrained laymen who know absolutely nothing about the
electromagnetic spectrum and its interaction with conductors, ie know
nothing about electronic engineering hardware design simply jump to
the conclusion that if they don't understand it then it must be wrong.
Welcome to America, the land of free loaders and home of know-it-alls
The ACLU would probably want to have me sent to the chair for my unapologetic un-PC mind
Mr. West, with all due respect, your response was a venomous lashing-out and typical of either someone who is ignorant to recognizing responsibility for his/her own actions or someone who has an unbalanced attitude towards the rights of others. You might as well say "that's what he gets for having his death wish".
You might be shocked to learn that MOST experienced riders do not have a "death wish" and are at least as concerned about safety as anyone else, likely more (that's an understatement). Your attitude is typical, however that does not make you correct or prove your point. However, it does provide a perfect example of how aggressively callous typical "cage" drivers can be toward safe riders. And yes, we drive cars, too.
Learn to share the road; it's your responsibility when you drive. Anything less is irresponsible.
My grandpa was sharp enough to know when his abilities were faltering, and stopped driving when he was in his early 80s. Kudos to him for that.
electromagnetic spectrum and its interaction with conductors, ie know
nothing about electronic engineering hardware design simply jump to
the conclusion that if they don't understand it then it must be wrong.
Like I said before, theories around here are a dime a dozen and taking pot shots in the form of long winded rants will not win you the big prize. If you want the prize you will actually have to find a solution.
Odds are it was simply operator error.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Here's hoping that your leg continues to improve and that some of our more insensitive posters can get a clue.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I think so too, but u don't think the RF interference post was an interesting read? I am a sponge for knowledge and some of (from my own {very} limited world of electronic knowledge) what he said, i recognized as facts.
Pretty extenuating odds, but still in potential existence.
I have a big sheet of lead that a dear long lost friend due to lung cancer at only age 53, gave me when i was telling him I was getting a lot of RF interference with a ham set I was working on at the time. Bob says...Steve, not sure how this is going to help you but will this do? I assured him it was perfect. After wrapping it in a huge sealed plastic wrap I showed him just how effective it was at curbing RF from outside sources. He was impressed. Lead tho...handle carefully and know what not to do with it..
Hope u all have a real good New Year, safe and healthy, and for all your loved ones too. 2011 simply has to be an improvement of some sort over 2010 in this neck of the woods at least.
Throw another log on the fire and have a great 2011 !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Could Challenger have crashed due to a solar flare? Interference by a foreign government? Interesting theories!
Same deal...either prove it or accept the sealing ring conclusion....which was a pretty good answer BTW.
board ALL Fly-By-Wire aircraft, possible loss of control during landing and
takeoff when a fatal mistake can't be corrected- not so in flight- more time
Yes...The key word here is "possible".
Almost anything is "possible"...
No, cell phones, initially, were not allowed to be used on commercial flights for fear that the spurious freqencies they generate, might generate, would or could interfer with the planes nav-aids. The second issue was involving the doubt that the cell phone ground stations could resolve the "who's on first issue". Which ground station would handle the traffic when so many additional ground stations were in the decision "tree"/zone.
9/11 resolved that latter issue.
The FAA may soon allow cell-phone use except during take-off and landing.
The only parallel to automotive use of cell-phones that I can think of off-hand would be possible interference with the GPS/NAV or AM/FM radio reception.
These SUA issues appear to me to be a typical conditional or situational firmware "livelock" case. Certain key sequences, events, must occur in exactly the correct order for the "livelock" to come into effect.
Mrs. Smith stated that she saw her cruise control indication come on without any action on her part....
ALL of these 3 or 4 cars acted EXACTLY as if the CC was somehow locked into the "accel" mode, and apparently to the exclusion of all other engine/transaxle ECU control inputs.
It's probably been said here before, but as long as you drive a 3-pedal manual, it shouldn't be an issue. When you "romp on the gas instead of the brake", I expect that you will also instinctively de-clutch.
I believe that unintended acceleration is the exclusively and auto-tranny issue.
Until we get a DBW clutch pedal...
Except in the hands of an expert.
Life with Unintended Acceleration, Joe Hollingsworth/autoMedia.com (last paragraph)
This ties in with the argument that trained drivers (and pilots) still screw up.
It's rather hard to have SUA via depressing the clutch.
A professional driver using left foot braking...hard to accept.
Maybe for you, but not for those with some experience in performance driving on closed courses.
"Sorry, I got flustered."
but worse is when they are not sorry and admit inadequacy.
I don't mean to be insensitive to aging drivers, faced with the possibility of their mobility getting chopped off at the knees practically if they aren't allowed to drive anymore. I will face it myself some day. But among gvt regulators, there seems to be a consensus to leave the decision to pack it in, up to the driver's themselves. They do this by too lenient retesting. Sure, there are many responsible elderly drivers who assert that difficult decision to hang up the wheels, but there are also a discouragingly high number like the guy that just creamed one our members here while he was stopped at the lights on his bike.
I probably wouldn't like not driving either, but in CA seniors can get rides for free, so it does not mean an extreme limitation on their mobility (or any knee chopping, I've had plenty myself
In the case of the 96 year old who tried to brake using his accelerator causing the SUA and hitting me, the policeman said told me the driver was not not alert and the report listed a violation of a motor vehicle code, yet did not cite him (in CA they rarely cite for an accident, unlike other states).
So yes, I do believe retesting would have a direct impact on SUA. I would be glad to retest, if it were me. And if not, I'd make friends on the senior van!
Sorry man..
According the a similar article in the WSJ WSJ Article, "These types of claims are common between insurers and auto maker".
Is there ANY automotive manufacturer that has done, had done, that previous to the current SUA episodes...??
Even the ones that have now agreed to do are not attempting to do it with any semblance of a failsafe design.
Why don't the insurance companies sue the tobacco and sugar industries then?