By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
We have a mandatory charge for every vehicle with a VIN, which includes, bikes, snowmobiles, ATV's, boat, PWC etc etc.
It's called Accident Benefits and if your policy costs 2000 bucks, 1750 of that will be just the Accident Benefits.
Well lets say you work in a factory or any other place of work that has Accident Benefits built into their packages (representing the majority of the work force) And let's say you are unfortunate enough to be in a crash and make a bodily injury claim. Well for starters, guess which insurance plan pays out first even tho your car crash was on vacation and not even within 3000 miles of your workplace? That's right...the AB from your work place. If for some reason your claim gets exceeded (very rare) THEN they take from the auto AB part of your policy. But that is far from the very corrupt, crooked end of it. Remember, you have to pay for that AB portion on every single VIN you own. And you can only drive one at a time right? So u might say, well what if someone uninsured drives that vehicle and gets in an at fault crash? Well guess what? We ALSO pay what is called an "underinsured motorist" fee on every one of the VINS also. Like so much 'legalized' taxation in Cda, we pay redundant fees over and over again. This country has redundant charges down to a fine art. And to ad insult on injury of course they charge all the other taxes we pay including our 13% HST. (a tax on basically every expletive thing)
And you might ask why I say they are collusive with gvt? Well because you can't renew a lic sticker or anything else without showing proof of insurance.
So add up all those AB's on just a very realistic average family that might have
2 cars, a motorcycle, one or two snowmobiles, a boat and a PWC, and BAM, you just racked up SEVEN AB charges. And remember they represent (depending on your policy) the largest percent hit of your policy by a long shot.
As for my personal costs, I think my AB chg is close to 800. on a policy total of 1200. And that is with a low risk customer with no claims beyond the odd windshield, no tickets (for over 20 years) no accidents etc etc for over 35 years.
And of course I just love paying the underinsured motorist fee as an insult on injury. Gotta love paying the way for the criminal. And guess who pays his 5000 fine if he is actually caught driving without insurance? Yup, not the criminal. You can't get blood out of a stone. And when we send the lowlife to jail...guess who pays that also, to the tune of about 70 thousand bucks a year??
Brake override would have been the solution even in panic - as he pressed the brakes. Nissan commercials say they have had it for 6 years - Toyota's defense is now that one has to press the brake pedal for brake override to work - claiming other cases are from old farts like me pushing the accelerator in panic. Maybe for parking lots but not for the many high-speed incidents - still a possibility for the YOUNG cop, Saylor.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/green-tech/advanced-cars/lawyers-try-new-ang- le-against-toyota-in-sua-lawsuits
"Brake override only works when your foot is on the brake," a Toyota spokesperson was quoted as saying in the LA Times story.
Back to contest extension request - what about it Mr. Shiftright? - I doubt there is a winner or else you would have told the NHTSA to save lives as I did with my remote possible cause. EDMUNDS could get more publicity with a new contest as NASA now says it will be later for their Toyota report and the other group of gurus say a report on all vehicles will be done in June:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49236
The contest could be that the cause has to be as described by NASA/NESC team tests. It can't be nebulous such as "due to a computer code glitch". The computer code error needs described. I believe that is why NASA asked for an extension - see the report on the code checker MISRA I passed on to them - hope they have it or something better. See:
http://www.oregonsae.org/Meetings/misra_C.pps
Not if the throttle were mechanically stuck wide open..!
Or any other of a veritable myriad of SUA causes.
A true brake override would need to be a method of shutting the engine off, open the fuel pump circuit, say.
Oh, and that Nissan commercial is just flat out misleading, or lying in the sense of the Saylor incident.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/
If you're even more handy, you can also just wire up the injector solenoid(s) or fuel pump relay to the switch. No fuel means no go in as little as a couple of seconds. On most vehicles, though, the it's under the hood, and is a bit trickier to wire up. On mine, it's a 2X3 inch brick near the brake booster. (interestingly enough, the same type of 30A relay "module" also is used to power the air suspension and the ABS - nice cost-saving measure as in a pinch you can sacrifice one to keep the car running.
EDIT - this also is a nearly fail-safe anti theft device if it's out of plain sight.
I also do the same with every car that I've owned concerning the annoying door buzzer. When I resell the car, I flip it back on and notify the new owner of the modification/choice in the matter.
Have you ever tried to move a manual shifter "out of gear" without the clutch and with the gears under HIGH torque..?
Under high torque loading, WOT and FULL braking, the transaxle clutches may/might not have disengaged even if the ATF pressure was removed.
Shifting into neutral with WOT should be no harder than shifting from 2 to 3 or 3 to D under WOT. Cars do it all the time.
"..Cars do it all the time..."
I don't know of anyone who has intentionally laid on the brakes, HARD, with simultaneous WOT (FWD) and tried to shift up or down or even into neutral. Not exactly a commonplace event, that.
Think of the inner and outer splines on that transaxle clutch set. Would the spring return really be able to push the clutch disks apart with so much side torque applied to those splines...?
I rather doubt that being something the design engineers even considered in selecting the clutch return spring force.
Many people, everyday, shift an automatic gearbox at WOT throttle through the gears. You can do it with one finger.
But we're on the same page on one matter---it is not intuitive to shift a car into neutral during a UA event.
And, this relates to Toyota UA in what way?
None at all, since its a MANUAL transmission.
Now then---if you're gonna come up with an idea that some defect allows you to go through all the gears in WOT but prevents you from going into neutral, I'm going to roll my eyes, I promise. :P
..Simultaneous SEVERE, HARD, braking, as much as one of us could muster given our family at RISK, imminent RISK.
At WOT throttle the transaxle would have been in the lowest gear possible under the shift pattern "rules". WOT, engine driving the FRONT wheels, wheels that are your primary resource for slowing/stopping the vehicle.
So you have the two MAIN sources of HP, the front brakes and the engine, trying to MIGHTILY overcome the other. Pick one of the "engaged" transaxle clutches and think about just how much geartooth TORQUE is applied under those circumstances.
Obviously only a theory....
"Obviously only a theory"
:P Hahahahahahhahahahahahha :P
In the 70s, we had many times where the throttle spring would snap and the vehicle went to WOT and you tossed it into neutral and shut it down.
Since it was something that you learned about, it wasn't too much of a problem.
As for dump trucks, they usually run a 9 speed or 13 speed transmission and while it can take some effort to kick them into neutral under load, it can be done. That is a case of comparing apples to oranges.
Lack of proper training accounts for a percentage of these problems.
Software is weird. Sometimes great members can't log on here and we can't figure out why.
The shift lever is physically connected to the transmission
No physical connection, other than the wiring.
(It's just one of those pretentious, in-vogue, cliches that bugs me) :P
You might enjoy this discussion here:
Grammar and the Peeves that Pet It
My point, EXACTLY....
In an automatic transmission the drum clutch gear teeth sets are "unmeshed" using a relatively light return spring. Is the spring design strong enough to unmesh those clutch disks/plates if on one side the engine, WOT, 200+ HP, is driving, and on the other side the front brakes are "restraining". 400+ HP across the input/output of the automatic transaxle.
So yes, that dump truck gear tooth set can be de-coupled with enough elbow grease appled, on the end of a long lever for multiplying the effort.
And I have driven dump trucks, and trailer dump trucks and I have even driven automatic tranny dumps, and I can definitively inform you, that there is so much free wheeling that takes place when you back outta the throttle it is disconcerting to say the least. If you're looking for any engine braking, you'll find more in your run-of-the-mill auto-equipped family minivan.
It isn't a matter if a baby could do it, it's a matter if the drum clutch piston return/release springs are strong enough to unmesh the drum clutch disks with so much side torque, 400+HP, on their gear teeth.
The other possibility is that the program froze and locked everything out. While that shouldn't happen, it is a possibility.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Ahh, yes....
The mantra of all conspiracy theorists...
Prove it didn't happen....
And in this case, the angry gremlin does not recognize it's actions as the cause, therefore accepts no responsibility.
The driver must still be using the correct pedal to stop (if the car is not stopping, check your right foot).
Speaking of Gremlins however, I remember experiencing the broken accelerator spring when I was unexperienced with cars. Cars of that era (70's and before) often ran at WOT when the accelerator spring broke. I had that experience when I was 16 driving my dad's Hornet. The pedal just went to the floor and prying it up with my foot only revealed it was no longer connected. By then I was moving three times the speed limit through a school zone. The non-assisted drum brakes could not begin to overcome the engine's torque. I quickly learned I had to get it into neutral and turn the key off. The runaway design of the accelerator cable was a sign of the times... cars weren't really designed to fail safely. It is possible, but not very likely, that DBW could do the same thing.
But somehow I doubt that '70's era issue of safe design costs too much money now. Auto manufacturers now consider fail safe designs important enough to spend $ on because they are wary of the costs if their design is flawed and someone gets hurt. Still the driver has to carry responsibility for operating the vehicle and stopping it as soon as possible, even if a failure occurs.
Unfortunately, far too many today don't see it that way. If something bad happens, then it MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE'S fault, and some amount of money should be paid to "correct" the condition...
But with so much electronic wizardry, "black magic", between the driver and "control" it is completely understandable why juries are granting more and more leeway.
My own expereince, TWICE, was that I would have been able to stop safely before rear-ending, VERY lightly rear-ending, the car in front had not the ABS kicked in on a perfectly dry and highly tractive surface thereby extending my stopping distance just ever so slightly.
The problem with juries and black-box-wizardry is NOT that the juries aren't capable of understanding, but that the manufacturers don't want to actually show what is inside the black box - and maybe for good reason. If everything was coded to critical safety system failsafe standards with full traceability, then the juries could trust it. Right now it is "yea, it's like your old computer running windows 95, but trust us that it works perfectly".
I'm sure that in whatever cases there truly was a jammed computer or gas pedal, that pumping and freak-outtedness, was compounded by this lack of power assist.
I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing redundant vacuum assist electric motors that would take over in event of poor manifold vacuum presence.
Diesels use such a system since they don't provide natural manifold vacuum.
So, I agree with your earlier statement. You are responsible for making sure you create a sufficient "window of opportunity" that will allow you to avoid an accident.
If not so, then no one would ever be cited for following too closely in a rear-end collision. The accepted defense would then be "I can't be in control of my vehicle when it is in motion, so therefore I am not responsible".
"My car hit a tree"
"The key got lost"
Somehow the individual got lost in translation.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460