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
I suspect you are partially correct. The question I have is whether revisions are due to problems, or changes in new hardware... or far that matter....performance?
I know BMW has modified its programming for what it calls "driveability issues", but tweeking code to modify engine/transmission behavior doesn't translate into "problem" fixing.
Still, its a dedicated program running the ECM. No one is playing video games using the ECM's processor while driving down the road.
That, in itself, makes it much easier to track down issues.
Having said that, though, we may be seeing a change in the future, as cars get more and more complex.
I have heard "stories" (not verified) of late model BMW products doing crazy stuff after attempted pairings between iDrive equipped cars and non-compliant bluetooth phones, and the resolution being a complete resetting if the car's iDrive.
I have no idea if its true or not.
HAS something to do with that.
I certainly think thats part of it.
But, you are describing human-influenced events/behavior/opinions in your examples, and I don't think an engine's ECM really cares anything about the human driving it's car...
Application also is relevant...
If I build a million cars, allowing people to live their daily lives much easier and better, and a rare unforseen defect causes the death of 10 people, how would I be viewed?
Now, instead of building cars, I find a cure for a contageous disease and save a million lives. In the process, however, a rare unforseen allergic reaction kills 10 people. How would I be viewed then?
Right, I agree. But remember that it took the crew of Apollo many minutes (if you believe the movie) to confirm something was happening and not just a false-alarm, and then to understand what was happening. It then took many hours for the crew and all of NASA to determine the fix. Because it usually is something very simple that is the "trigger" of the sequence of events that lead to the main failure. My favorite is when one of our factory machines is disabled by a fuzz floating around that lands across the sensor.
That same machine has run for 10 years, but once every few months a motor overload (OL) is displayed on the controller, and the machine stops. Various people have looked at and found nothing wrong physically or electrically. It's all wired to code, and within manufacturer's parameters. We throw the power off and thrown it back on and it runs fine for a few more months.
I have a TiVo hooked to one of my TV's. The cable company came and installed a card in it so I get their digital HD channels. Last night the TiVo has all the channels, but this morning it can't get the same channel but gets the other 10 HD channels I tried. Right now it's getting that channel again. This has happened randomly,about once per month. Why? Especially when my other TV in the house with their Cable-box gets that channel fine at the same exact time. According to your premise of the way things work, this shouldn't happen, right?
If I've ever represented my opinion, suspicions, theories, however inadvertently, as factual then I offer my sincerest apologies to all.
And once again, I absolutely agree that the majority of UA incidents have causes OTHER than ECU firmware.
We don't have cars that drive themselves yet.
Take a look at the following, and check out the Manufacturing Industries block of the 6M's. http://www.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1416:the-cause-and- -effect-aka-fishbone-diagram&Itemid=200
That change resulted in a rash of premature transaxle failures for the '99 and '00 RX300 model years. As a result in '01 the VC, Viscous Clutch, coupling coefficient was dramatically reduced, the rear mechanical LSD option was dropped, and the engine/transaxle firmware was revised such that the line pressure level of the ATF was increased. I also think the towing package, including an external ATF cooling radiator, became standard as shipped from the factory.
The RX300 series' F/awd become a ONE-WHEEL drive system unless/until TC (TDC, Traction/Directional Control) activated in response to wheelspin/slip.
The firmware change resulted in localized (ATF gear type pump) overheating of the ATF and the subsequent requirement of 30,000 mile ATF drain/refill rather than ATF lifetime use.
Although the marketing and sales materials indicated otherwise the VC, now of no functionality anyway, was dropped entirely for the RX330 series.
The RX330 used DBW so as to prevent the engine from producing torque if a gear change was required with the real-time ATF line pressure control caught "lagging". That resulted in the infamous ~2 second downshift delay/hesitation still present in all Toyota/Lexus products today.
All of "this" behind the "curtain".
But it does, however indirectly.
The person or persons writing the firmware specifications (had better) very much care about the human driving the car, and that care will be carried over to the way the ECM operates.
But anti-intellectualism has a long long history in America, so I think, regrettably, that you are right about that aspect of it.
Experts' opinions can only be assessed by the smart investigation of observers. Merely mistrusting them in a fatal error IMO. They must be engaged with critical thought.
Also we must never confuse politicians and economists with people who toil in the field of hard science.
It's very hard to BS your way out of a mistake in science. Peer review will get you sooner or later.
None whatsoever. I have degrees in psychology and history. Getting thru college algebra and statistics was hard for me. My interest has always been in people, not numbers.
Though I have an IQ of 130+, my wife of 44 years tells me that I am defiantly stupid.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Welcome to the club, my friend.
I have a Pioneer Plasma (2-3 years old) that I originally equipped with a cablecard, and on occasion, the screen would freeze... then, after some time, it would return to normal.
After spending a lot of time on it, I found it only happened on a group of 8 channels (first clue) and the sequence was .... play, then freeze for exactly 50 seconds, then play for 8 minutes.... repeat sequence. Of course, 3 of these channels were ones I really liked, instead of QVC and Shopping Channel.
Turns out that all 8 channels shared the same frequency on the cable. That much, I was able to get from the cable company technicians. After going several rounds between the cable company and Pioneer, I threw in the towel and got the cable box.
Problem solved (for me, anyway). If I had really persisted and been willing to spend the effort/$$$, I could have found the actual cause. See, there was a pattern... I chose not to pursue it.
Seems the cablecard issue is similar to bluetooth. Turns out, there are several "devaitions" allowed within the standard, which can cause some really funky results in different equipment combinations. In any case, most manufacturers are moving away from the cablecard options on TVs.
Another "funny" thing about that. Shortly before buying the TV, I had read an article in Consumer Reports touting the cablecard option. When I contacted them with my issues, they acted if it was some sort of revelation to them, yet complaints abounded on discussion sites all over the Internet. I lost a lot of respect for them after that.
There are some really bad horror stories out there about bluetooth pairing and compatibility issues.
Didn't you mean to use the word "abortion" instead of "abolition"?
I do remember reading several articles about that transmission. In my opinion, it was flawed from the "get-go" (based upon my limited understanding of the subject) and Toyota was reluctant to admit defeat.
The very same issue may be happening with the Corolla electric power steering.... lots of complaints about it as well.
But, both of those issues are "duplicatable". The "problems" don't come and go, at least, as I read the complaints about them.
And, this type of behavior cuts across manufacturer lines. For example...I like BMW as much as anyone, but I wouldn't own any model with the 6-cyl direct fuel injection system (available since the 2006 model introduction, I think).
After 5 years, BMW finally introduced a recall to replace the HPFP's, but I have serious reservations whether the latest iteration of the HPFP (there have been several) is the final "fix". And, that happend ONLY after a national news channel broadcast about the issue.
Another bit of work which has led to my view is Juraissic Park. Read the book if you haven't it's more for adults then the action-movie for kids. It's a great introduction to the Chaos Theory. You wouldn't like the mathematics in the real Chaos theory.
I don't see the world as a neat little linear package of predictable events, with humanity able to understand everything. While 130 is a decent IQ relative to everyone, is the IQ of mankind, similar to the great power of our nuclear arsenals. What is the IQ of man or the power of man compared to the information and power of Nature. I say we should be very humble.
Anyway I agree there is no proof of UA being caused by electronics. And I agree that some UA's were mistaken pedals and mats. But I do not agree that the amount of testing done probably did more than skim the surface of the issue, or like I said "dug a few holes in the Sahara" in search of something. Not finding something is certainly not proof that it does not exist (especially if the map is vague).
All problems are not solved by a+b=c. There is a reason that LaPlace transforms, and 2nd order partial differitial equations and other mathematical techniques exist. They exist because some events are very complicated with multiple factors.
As I said my problem has been with different channels each time. Not the same set. Maybe there is a pattern, i just haven't seen the problem enough; I've had the TiVo about 5 months and the probelm has happened about 1/month. It is not a repeatable problem, unless there is some pattern as you say. You or I could turn the TV on and off numerous times and it won't happen. Everything would check out fine if the cable company was here. Then it would happen 3 weeks from now.
I had a Dodge Spirit RT that I bought used from Chrysler. Chrysler had bought that back from someone under a Lemon Law. I knew that, got a good price, and a 1 year unlimited warranty. I had sporadic unrepeatable problems trying to get the car started - it wouldn't crank; nothing when I turned the key. The car was towed numerous times to a dealer, and would start right-up. The service people could find nothing wrong with it, but did replace a few parts. I bet that was the same reason Chrysler bought it back originally. The problem was never found. I got rid of it, as the electronic gremlin was too good.
My experience is - I fully expect electronics to work when I activate them. But I am not surprised when a device fails.
"..want to tell why you think that happened..."
Sure.
The widespread publicity of the floor mat problem got enough public attention that that scenario all but disappeared. And due to that same level of publicity anyone encountering UA, even the slightest indication of UA, due to other causes, unknown causes, would park the car and call the dealer immediately.
I suspect that had Saylor been exposed to the level of UA publicity that today we all are he would have never continued on his way after the initial UA instance.
Then we also now have the issue of the probability of virtually EVERYONE now being aware that the start/stop PB must be depressed for 3 seconds in order to stop the engine if the tranny is in gear.
Barnard, obviously, was not aware of the need.
I am content to worry about more important things. Like how am I going to sink that next 10 foot putt. It works for me.
I also know that nothing made by man is perfect and that a wise man would never demand or expect it to be...almost perfect is good enough for me.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I love that song too.
"Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be." (Iris Dement) :shades:
Remember Sean Kane? Here's his recent take:
"Far from exonerating Toyota electronics, the reports by NHTSA and the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) confirm the paucity of the automaker’s safety diagnostics."
We Read the Report. Did Ray? (SRS)
More lawyer fodder.
Additionally, imagine the LIABILITY that the dealership would have with that information on a work order if UA arose again on that vehicle and someone was injured/killed, especially after the Saylors experience.
No, I'm not naive enough to think EVERY case would be reported, but if anything, that awareness would cause a rise in reports overall....if for no other reason, than drivers "fat-footing" the pedals, thinking they were laying on the brake when actually having the accelerator floored.
"Why, it must be UA! Others have been experiencing it, and now its happening to me!"
It follows the same pattern as UFO sightings. Have someone issue a credible sounding UFO sighting report, and then sit back and watch as additional sightings creep up out of the woodwork.
But, as you stated, the hightened awareness could cause people to re-examine the mats, have the pedal "fix" implemented, and be more careful with foot placement. That would probably cause a decrease in reported incidents, and I suspect that is exactly what has occured.
Lastly, I agree with your take on Saylors. If he were to be alive today and the same "event" were to happen now, I sincerely doubt he would end up being a "statistic".
Like you stated, there is a pattern. Given enough time and research using the right equipment I have no doubt it could be found. Fixing it, however, is quite a different story...
I found trying to use the cablecard a true disappointment. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it was never intended to work well.
Cable companies never wanted to provide them, and were forced to do so. They could make more money on box rental, and had complete control over the cable boxes... but not the cablecards.
I don't even think you can buy a TV nowadays with the cablecard option.
It was a great idea that was killed by the cable companies.
Here's a fairly good link on cablecards...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
I believe Ford still uses KT that I believe is better - NASA used it for Apollo 13
http://www.kepner-tregoe.com/PDFs/CaseStudies/PStory_PA.pdf
What saved the day was their knowledge of Apollo XIII's systems and of what could produce the exact kind of sudden failure that had occurred.
My point exactly!
One point that I found extremely interesting was the finding that the increased automation has, in a way, "dumbed down" the air-crew's understanding of the dynamics if flight control.
In an analysis of several simulator tests, they found that pilots were so dependent on automation that they often neglected to check the actual throttle settings for, in many cases, at least a minute or more after systems failures started occurring.
Evidently, the physical location of the throttle levers is not a true indicator of throttle settings in that model Airbus, and even though the true settings are clearly displayed on a screen in front of the pilots, they often neglect to scan the indicators until its too late to recover.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/06/air-france-447-one-year-out.html-
A few things I noted: 1) the investigators only have some data because there was a transmission of a failure a few mintues before the crash. 2) the Black Boxes with data are needed. In looking into UA, I believe neither of these are available.
Another thing to note is that it states - "WHEN automation fails ...", not IF or RARELY. WHEN something fails, is key.
Anyway if someone who doesn't think UA is possible, would like to explain why MANY or ALL of those type planes aren't falling from the sky if there's a defect ... Or why other planes flying that route everyday don't have a problem ... That plane shouldn't have crashed right? no equipment malfunction was possible, just all human error - right? The pilots were just fooling around with the stewardesses when some turbulence was hit? Then they panicked?
That's a really significant difference.
As for the Air France disaster, if you can find it, watch the show. They make no definite claims to the cause of the crash, but they DO make a really good case for the cause of the disaster, as well as why it was a "unique" event.
It would take me far too long to detail all that was put forward in the program, so see if you can find it airing again or on-line.
The most significant thing that I got from the program was that, if the theories are correct... even after all the possible failures on the aircraft, it was still possible to survive the incident. They even demonstrated their solution in the simulator.
Of course, its all just a guess, but the program really was well thought-out.
Edit: Try this link:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1685933496
You have 1 plane fail out of how many ever built? 1000? That particular plane flew for how many miles before it exhibited the problem? That would sort of fit the UA scenario where a very small percentage of vehicles are affected, and a problem appears after a while.
The cause would be totally unknown if the plane's system hadn't transmitted the fault prior to the accident.
I don't think anyone here has said UA is impossible, just that there is insufficient evidence in the hands of any poster here to make the claim that UA has occurred.
I agree. My position is that there are too many similar failures with automation and technology that go unexplained, to discount the possibility because Toyota (which has a strong bias on the issue) and NASA have run some tests. Again NASA may have some good ditch-diggers and map readers, but if they really don't have much data to go on, they aren't necessarily going to dig in the right spot.
Personally I had the opposite electronic problem with my 1992 Dodge Spirit RT - IS - Intended Starting. No one could figure out why my vehicle would intermittently just sit there when I turned the key - zilch - no crank. Multiple trips to the dealer and nothing found, though parts were replaced.
Some also believe that long haul flight crews (e.g. US to Asia, etc.) may lose some takeoff and landing skills because of the limited number they are involved in each month. I'm not sure I ascribe to either. The flight crews, particularly the captains, have an extensive experience advantage before they ever have enough seniority for overseas flights. It does bring up some potential issues down the line though, as military pilots are not leaving for airline jobs near as much as before, so more and more its commuter pilots getting into the major carrier flight crews - personally, I'm not sure they get as good training or experience in emergency situations. However, a lot of this is probably offset by simulator time once at the majors.
My personal feelings on Air France 447 is either an unrecoverable stall or an aircraft breakup. The Airbus may also have a bit too much automation and info overload which while normally a good thing, can perhaps cause confusion in a major cockpit crisis. I think the former airline captain on that show alluded to a possible pilot error in not initially setting the aircraft to a 5 degree nose pitch and 85% thrust. Its speculation, but with all the data overload and system failures a quite plausible explanation.
Speaking about all of this stuff makes me wonder if these new glass cockpits in vehicles like some of the Ford's will lead at least initially to distraction and frustration causing accidents? For me, I prefer hard tactile switches to glass boards.
The mountains of electronic junk that can no longer be fixed that goes to 3rd world countries to be melted down.
For the most part, modern cars will not be restoreable as the cars of decades past have been.
I'll take switches and knobs anyday, versus an iDrive or similar system. I'd take an HVAC system which has a know to mechanically open a vent, over some digital auto-temp. system, that can break someday and leave you with needing to go to a dealer and a $1,000+ repair bill.
I've been thinking for some time that in 100 years, there will still be Model T's in museums and in the hands of private collectors, but the real rarity will be models made from the 1980's onward.
But, as the saying goes, there "ain't no free lunch"...
We give up the mechanical-based technology (which gives us long-term, repairable machinery) for the precision capabilities and controls that newer, electronic controls give us.
Cars and increased gas mileage/less emissions are a great example.
My Lennox furnace runs circles around the one it replaced because of the electronic controls it uses... 60% less gas usage and a much more even heating airflow.
As in all things, there are good and bad issues that we must deal with in life.
For a good example of "keeping old machinery working", you should go to a county fair in farm country. Usually they have a parade of tractors, which almost always include many from the 50's and 40's (or earlier), still putting along.
when a jetliner falls out of the sky, it is *already* a statistically relevant number.
And every individual jetliner travels further each day than each individual Prius; and every plane is operated more hours/day than a Prius. Regardless of that, the point isn't to compare a plane to an auto in operating conditions.
The point is - you have a failure of a fairly sophisticated device. If I was to use the arguments you and others use, I would assume that it was pilot-error, unless 1) there was some undeniable evidence and proof of what the failure was, or 2) you took another 10 models of this airplane and flew them around for a few weeks, and 3) some NASA engineers went thru the software. The fault is pilot-error right, until proof there was a mechanical/electronic fault? You would tell me that obviously there is no problem with that airplane because there are 1,000 of them flying everyday, for the last 5 years, and no one else has seen this problem. Pilot error!
But the fact is there was a mechanical fault, and thru a chain of events which caused a control issue with the plane. Throw in that the pilots may not have reacted correctly, as they tried to figure out what was wrong and correct - what instruments to believe or think were in error.
All it takes to have a unique accident in a complex system is for 1 part to undergo a unique, never-tested, never-thought of situation, or some extreme variation in manufacturing and then fail. Then you have a crash, whether it be 1 in 1,000, or 2 in 500,000. And if you don't have a lot of data after the crash the problem can go undetermined, though some guesses can be made.
I have no doubt that any vehicle from any manufacturer, has design flaws that thru a series of events, you could lose control of the vehicle. Whether it be a piece of dust that got an electronic board during manufacture, a bad seal (improperly installed?) that allows salt and moisture in, a mouse that made a nest in the engine-bay, or many other possibilities ... parts on vehicles have many ways to fail. If those parts are the brains or communication to your control system ... well.
That's what I think back to when I try to imagine the Saylor crash. Mats, panic, different car, distractions in the car, pumping the brakes, unfamiliarity with the 3 second off button, perhaps a mechanical or electrical glitch as well. Who knows?
I think similar sets of circumstances happen in many of the aircraft wrecks.
I read once about a guy who got shot when his lawnmower ran over a bullet dropped out a nest by a squirrel. Does this require bullet or lawnmower re-design, or should we punish the mower operator or the squirrel?
Of course not. it's just 'bad luck'.
The position I've taken is: with the speed and pressure to bring new products to market, and to continually improve them, and to continually make them "better" by turning more functions (ABS, transmission, DSC, stability control, engine speed, fuel metering) over to the electronic brains, a vehicle has become a complex system. The more complex a system the more likely that design flaws have been inadvertently put into the system. These flaws may lie hidden for years and the "trigger" for the flaw may never happen in the life of the vast majority of the vehicles. Just as Steve said with his friend canoeing - there was a sequence of unplanned, "domino" effects.
Now there is no hard proof that we know of to support a flaw. This means it is inconclusive what is going on. It does not mean we just get tired of thinking about it, want to wrap up the issue, and say that every report is UA. Maybe modern culture wants this issue to be "15 minutes", draw a conclusion and then move on to the next issue - like 60 Minutes.
My experience tells me there are many problems with devices. Most are probably tracked down and solved; but some aren't; especially when there is little data recorded to start with.
I'm not looking to punish Toyota; I'm fairly neutral on them. But what I will say is that car companies are not going to be very happy in the future, as they move to cars-that-drive-themselves. They are going to have flawed systems, and when lawyers get ahold of these cases, the manufacturers are going to pay the price for taking control away from the drivers. It is a bad trend to continue to increase the functionality of the electronics on a machine which drivers apparently can't easily turn off! as evidenced by the crashes.
I think you hit the nail on the head. As in everything else, the general public wants instant gratification.
My experience tells me there are many problems with devices. Most are probably tracked down and solved; but some aren't; especially when there is little data recorded to start with.
With the current spate of recalls across all manufacturers, it would imply your conclusion to be credible.
I'm not looking to punish Toyota; I'm fairly neutral on them. But what I will say is that car companies are not going to be very happy in the future, as they move to cars-that-drive-themselves. They are going to have flawed systems, and when lawyers get ahold of these cases, the manufacturers are going to pay the price for taking control away from the drivers. It is a bad trend to continue to increase the functionality of the electronics on a machine which drivers apparently can't easily turn off! as evidenced by the crashes.
The problem with that concept is that many of the systems you addressed are REQUIRED, or will be, by the government in autos.
At some point, like vaccination manufacturer limited liability, there will no doubt be something similar in place to protect auto manufacturers.
Whether or not that's a valid protection is another story...
But back to Man vs. Machine driving. Say under identical situations that accident rate for a Human is 10/million miles driven, but a car totally driven by sensors and the computer only has an accident rate of 2/ million miles driven. What do you think that means? That means when Humans are driving and they have accidents, the auto companies are not liable. But even though the computer has a much better accident-rate when they do have an accident, most people are going to have lawyers suing the manufacturer. If the person in the vehicle is not driving, then how can they be responsible? The operator of the vehicle - the computer - and its builder will be responsible.
The question now is that technologically we are somewhere in-between full-driver-control, and full computer-control. What we are trying to understand is if a failure of some part, or failure-chain in the system, can lock-up the computer and deny the driver of most or all of their typical inputs into the controls.
Expect many more lawsuits if manufacturers decide to take this course, and assume responsibility for control of the vehicles!
The same rule should apply to Toyota---unless families could prove that EVERYTHING causing the accident was in control of Toyota, I think you are SOL.
Since there will (at least in the foreseeable future) always be a "driver" in an automobile, and since that driver will not be in the employ of the manufacturer (unless I guess it's a bus), then it's going to remain extremely difficult and costly to sue a car company for a crash. It *does* happen, and it *can* happen, such as with exploding gas tanks, but even then, I think that's more about jury-picking than actually having "proven" anything. More often than not, the company admits no guilt, makes a one-time settlement and gets out of the media.
Are those systems smart enough to determine that the car 100 ft ahead just entered a section with black-ice, and that your vehicle will in 1.5 sec, and you need to decrease speed and increase distance?
If I'm on a train or subway that crashes or derails, you're darn right I'm joining the class action lawsuit, to sue the people who manufactured and run those trains. If I'm driving thru the Big Dig tunnels in Boston and a ceiling panel collapses, I'm certainly going after someone. People need to be held accountable for not putting forth a product design that kills or injures, thru neglect. If you want to put forth a product that is extremely complex, and can fail thru a multitude of ways, then you live with the consequences.
Accountability is a concept that very, very few of our leaders or businesses have these days? (You could gather every politician in D.C. together and have them talk about their years of work in Congress or the Executive branch, and you'd be hard pressed to find 1 who was accountable for ANY of the problems we face today. They ALL did right! Same with the banks and Wall Street, the Fed and the Treasury - all have clean hands in their own minds, in the 2008 Financial Meltdown.)
Possibly they can sue but under the res ipsa loquitur rule it is mighty mighty hard to prove negligence on the part of the airline.
Well who would be responsible/accountable? Certainly the passengers didn't cause the crash (except terrorism). Either the manufacturer of the plane is responsible for a design/manufacturing defect, or the airline is responsible for not maintaining the plane, having a tired or otherwise bad pilot, or deciding to fly the route given the weather conditions. A 3rd possibility of course is that air traffic control made a mistake. If I was on a jury, I'd make sure 1 or more parties paid the people bringing the case.
Unless you can totally rule out human error, suing a manufacturer becomes extremely difficult--as it should be.
If I'm driving a car from the 1960's and I go to put the manual shifter in 1st that is completely driver-responsibility. If instead of 1st I select Reverse, that is also driver responsibility. However If I'm in a modern car with an electronic transmission and I select 1st gear, regardless of whether the car goes in 1st or into Reverse thru some wiring or software issue, the responsibility and control of that vehicle are now the manufacturer's (IMHO).
Currently the driver is "making requests" by accelerator, brake and transmission-position. The vehicle itself is what is actually getting that request communicated to it, and implementing the actions. Thus the modern car is responsible for carrying out those requests correctly.
So yes the driver is responsible for the request. The vehicle is responsible for carrying that out 100% of the time. Do you think millions and millions of vehicles with constantly changing designs - hardware and software - operate 100% error free? That is the crux of this discussion. If not then you accept the premise that UA can exist in vehicles due to design or individual defects in their systems.
Same thing with ABS and TDC....
And then there's "virtual" LSDs and even many "automatic" F/awd and/or R/awd systems. These more properly also referred to as TDC or TC(***).
*** TDC, Traction/Directional Control for FWD or F/awd, simple TC for RWD or R/awd.
True it's not easy to brake and steer with a dead engine, but you can if you are motivated to do so, and I would think you would be!
If I'm driving a vehicle with ABS, and the ABS is working, and I'm test-stopping on ice/snow with my ABS, yes the driver is in "request-control"of the vehicle. If on my 20th pass my ABS module fails for whatever reason, and I step on the brakes again fully expecting the ABS system to process my request to engage ABS, and then I find there is no ABS, and I lose control and crash, then it is not the driver's fault. The driver was no longer in-control as the vehicle was supposed to perform.
Whether there is a design problem or a manufacturing problem and they can be held responsible is 1 legal question. But it is not the driver's fault or error that the ABS did not work. The driver requested the ABS work, and it did not. No driver fault; it's a vehicle fault.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460