yeah it's the driver's fault. You are required to be in control of your vehicle at all times---that's the law (that's why it's always your fault when you rear-end someone, right?) Besides, the scenario you present is highly unlikely IMO, as there is no warning light, totally treacherous conditions, and no explanation of why someone would suddenly crash because their ABS isn't working.
I mean, I'm totally seeing your point but it doesn't seem to work in the "real world".
"...perhaps a mechanical or electrical glitch as well. Who knows?
SO....... it is possible just like NASA says: " Our detailed study can't say it's impossible...." "Due to system complexity ... and the many possible electronic software and hardware systems interactions, it is not realistic to prove that the ETCSi cannot cause UAs.... Therefore, absence of proof that the ETCSi caused a UA does not vindicate the system."
Wonder if it is as good or better than MISRA that they mention. described in: http://www.oregonsae.org/Meetings/misra_C.pps And code checkmay not have been complete from reports I've seen - including unfettered access to Toyota's actual code.
As to lawsuit discussions - $20 mil Toyota settlement to Saylor relatives - don't know why - may come out in their lawsuit against the dealer.
wow, I was keeping it simple as an example. Say the 20 runs were once a day when I drive to work. 20 days in a row, it's Jan. and the road is snow and ice-covered each day (very plausible this year, wouldn't you say?). 19 days in a row I come around a curve, hit my brakes, ABS comes on, and I stop at the Stop sign. On day 20, I come around the curve step on the brakes, the ABS fails at that instant because the fault is linked to the activation (just like an incandescent light-bulb failing when turned on ), and because the car doesn't behave the same without ABS, I run off the road. Oh, and the ABS sensor does illuminate as the car goes out of control. More real-world for you?
If you want some actual real world examples, google such things as "plane landing-gear not deploying", "English car problems", and " missiles that miss their target".
And as you ponder this at your computer, consider that every device has a life-span. One day your mouse or keyboard is going to fail. A button will fall off, the contact will get too much dust in it ... do you still have control of your computer then? No. You have physical control of an inoperative device, but you've lost control of the machine. Your signal is no longer getting thru. Many critical systems have backup, replicate control systems, because it is known that everything fails at some point; but that is not in the budget of personal automobiles.
It's still your fault, in my opinion anyway. You lost control of your car. I don't think I would under those circumstances. You didn't lose your brakes, only how they "felt". When you hit ice, your brakes also behave differently. So don't drive on ice.
If my computer had a foot pedal to spin the hard drive, then yeah, maybe I'd still have control of it. :P When your ABS fails, you still have perfectly good brakes.
As for the lawsuit business----about all I can say about that is "you don't go to court for 'justice'--you go to outmaneuver the other party".
If I buy a new car, drive it out of the showroom, and the steering gear snaps in half----THAT'S not my fault.
I agree - back to the contest - "Find The Cause" even though no one won Edmunds should send the entries to the National Academy as I did mine. Two ideas could give simultaneous events needed. Hopefully the National Academy will resolve some issues for all SUA. http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/UnintendedAccelerationStudy.aspx
Feb. 23, 2011 Federal officials open probe of Toyota Highlander hybrid SUVs Reports of stalling in 2006 Toyota Highlander hybrid SUVs are prompting the review by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The investigation will involve about 44,000 vehicles.
So according to what you're saying if a part fails on a vehicle it could be either driver fault, or NOT. That sounds rather subjective as to whether the fault was serious enough that the driver couldn't maintain control. And it would be very dependent on driver skill, as to what is reasonable for someone to control a vehicle.
Say I take my PU down to the tirestore I can get a great deal on some old tires, say those infamous Firestone Wilderness ones. The shop slaps them on and off I go down the highway, doing 65mph or whatever the speed limit. So let's say 1 of the tires blows, now is it reasonable that the driver maintains control? You might say yes. What if 2 ties blew within a couple of seconds? If there's a crash is that driver-fault or NOT? what about 3? or all 4?
Do you see what the problem with your argument is? It's too subjective. I say it is fairly black-and-white. If something fails on a vehicle and 1-3 seconds later the driver crashes, it's the result of the failed-part. If I put the auto. transmission in D and the car goes in reverse, then it's the vehicles fault. If a vehicle's engine goes to WOT, and you can't get the auto. transmission to disengage because it is electronic too and may not be responding, then it is the vehicle's fault for any accident.
Pretty black-and-white: if you push a button, flip a switch, move a lever and the electronic controls of the machine does not respond or respond as as designed (ABS, throttle, transmission ...) and there is an accident within seconds mainly attributable to this incident, it is not driver fault. It is UNREASONABLE to expect a driver who has for years driven with ABS, and only knows ABS braking, to all of a sudden when BS fails, to learn to brake differently (pump the brakes), in a few seconds.
It is a far stretch for anyone to say that yes many drivers are idiots and mixup the gas and brake, or get their car mat around the accelerator and can't figure to pull it out; and THEN on the other hand argue that those same drivers should have the driver skill to IMMEDIATELY when something like ABS, their gear shifter or their ECM fail, to be able to handle the situation.
Which way do you want to argue - typical drivers are idiots with no skill, or they're Alain Prost?
Of course for the 2006 Highlander Hybrid stalling investigation Toyota lovers would say it's old farts like me pressing on the brake instead of the accelerator so it's our fault.
Stalling problems plague many manufacturers, and many have had recalls over the years for this problem.
Unless you drive a stickshift, stalling really can't BE your fault; but UA can be. That's a big difference.
The two situations are very different.
As for "driving skills".....here's my opinion:
The capabilities of the modern car are already way beyond the skills of a considerable percentage of American drivers. It is only the vast improvements in safety systems that prevents vehicle deaths from approaching unbearable levels of carnage.
So I'm not a bit surprised that many drivers cannot cope adequately with the higher speeds, greater agility, and electronic complexity of modern cars.
Things are moving too fast for most people to catch up.
Of course it's your fault! It's driver error, mass hysteria, or fraud. Auto manufacturers only hire engineers and programmers who are 100% accurate their whole lives, and we all know the executives of these companies give these perfect engineers and programmers as much as time as they need when developing a new vehicle. They also go out of their way to buy the highest quality parts from only the best companies in the world. They're not out looking to save $0.02 per part by having it made at the lowest-cost bidder in some 3rd world country!
Well until someone proves UA otherwise, it looks like human error is the best available explanation in most cases, so ironically, your comments are essentially correct---at least about the fault part.
As for engineers and programmers, I think you do them an injustice---I never met one who claimed to be 100% accurate.
That's why we HAVE recalls and warranties and consumer protection agencies. Everyone realizes that things go wrong, and there's no conspiracy to hide this fact seems to me.
Things are moving too fast for most people to catch up.
That's my point about making devices more and more complex. Engineers and programmers are "people", and if the devil-is-in-the-details, then you have issues.
At my company we just designed a new $7,500 machine. Went thru ana few R&D phases, then it thru 5 Stages of project reviews ovr a year, went thru Internal reliability testing, and testing at customers. For the last 6 months we have made at least 20 significant changes to the design. We've replaced many machines that customers have bought. 2 years of planning, and testing by our software and hardware engineers still resulted in a product with major flaws. Let me note that as in many projects there is "momentum" to keep on schedule and launch the product.
Well I meant that the technology is too confusing for people to properly understand, not that it doesn't work.
Case in point, the 3-second ignition shut-off button. Some people obviously didn't get the memo, or didn't read the telephone-book-sized owners manual.
Cars have never BEEN more reliable than they are now, but they are much more confusing to operate.
There was little difference between a 1979 and 1989 car, but enormous changes between 2001--2011.
The author of this article in the link, apparently has a great deal of knowledge concerning quality and software testing. Here's a few interesting passage:
"Predicting Product Quality
Let’s assume that the data collected tells us that developers inject approximately 40 defects per thousand lines of code(KLOC) in design and 60 defects per KLOC in code. Let’s also assume that eachdefect removal step typically removes between 35% and 50% of the defects thatare in the product."
I think these articles provide a better picture of what's going on behind the scenes at the companies that build our products.
There are a lot of issues with trying to prevent system problems, and finding the faults that are designed into them. Maybe those articles give a better idea of why I have my perspective (though I'm not a software engineer). It's similar to that reflection of "you probably wouldn't eat that food, if you knew how it was processed, and what's in it."
Cars have never BEEN more reliable than they are now, but they are much more confusing to operate.
And if you ask any independent mechanics - more confusing to diagnose and fix. First thing they need to do is investigate if there have been any technical bulletins and software updates.
I drive a standard, so that's my "Off switch" even if the engine does go to WOT. But on an automatic equipped car, when I'm at the wheel, what method do I have that isn't a switch, knob, or lever hooked into an electronic system that I can use. I've said it before there should be a foolproof way to shutdown the system; remember on Lost in Space's Robot, if you could get to the power-pack on the side you could deactivate him. A vehicle's engine needs 3 things to run, air, fuel, and spark. Can the driver of a speeding vehicle stop any of those 3 without using an electronic system? No. Why not? Why can't the driver have a valve, as easy to use as a water faucet, that will shutoff the gas supply? Why can't the driver have a spring-loaded valve that cuts the wire transmitting the spark from the battery?
Do either of those 2 things and I would then agree with you, that ultimately the driver has control of the vehicle, and should always be able to shut it down no matter if its confusion on the gas-brake, the mat, or the 1 in 1,000,000 fluke failure.
The reality of the matter is the lack of a dealer educational plan to advise, no, TEACH, new owners about new features, what they're for, and how to use them properly.
The reality of the matter is the lack of a dealer educational plan to advise, no, TEACH, new owners about new features, what they're for, and how to use them properly.
I agree in principle, but without governmental mandated "educational plans", there simply is no way I can see that this will happen.
Try and force a customer to sit through a training class... If he doesn't want to attend, how many dealers would be willing to let the customer walk?
Take a random survey at a shopping mall sometime and ask 10, 20 or 100 folks the question "Have you read your car Owner's Manual cover to cover?"
How many answers do you think would be in the affirmative?
So far I haven't seen any proof of the so-called "1 in 1,000,000" fluke being relevant to the discussion of the UAs, so yeah, a driver should be able to keep his vehicle under control and be held accountable as such unless it can be shown that driver negligence isn't a possible factor.
i think that's a reasonable enough stand.
TRAINING CLASSES: Shoot, you can be the absolute worst driver in the world, but you can walk in and buy a car that goes 180 MPH, no questions asked.
When there's no hard evidence one way or the other, and the only data is human testimony of what happened, I usually believe the human, and not consider them a liar or complete-idiot.
If a state trooper reports his vehicle is out-of-control, he has his family with him, he is not shown signs of being suicidal, and they have a moment to think about the situation after a couple seconds of alarm, I tend to believe the human.
I think if you talk to any good trial attorney, they will give you a pretty harsh opinion of eye witness testimony.
If there's no hard evidence either way, I'll pick human error every time. Why? Because our brains have evolved to do certain tasks, and as miraculous as our brains are, they get fooled very very easily. One example is how our brains are so good as recognizing "patterning". Unfortunately, this also means we recognize patterns that aren't actually there.
Perhaps you remember the classic clinical study where people were asked to watch a basketball game (6 students actually) and count the number of times the ball was dribbled in a certain time period.
All the participants dutifully did this and even after numerous tests done throughout the world, about half of them did not notice a woman in a gorilla suit walking across the court, pounding her chest!
The conclusion I came to wasn't so much "eyewitness" testimony, Mrs. Smith, Sikes, Barnard and Mr. X (***) but a compilation of the overall symptoms "witness" statements, and personal knowledge, research, into the various engine/transaxle control systems.
*** Mr. X: the owner who drove all the way to the dealer with the engine roaring out of control.
If you add all that up then it becomes very improbable that anything other than a runaway CC, firmware "livelock", was at fault.
Again, there is no doubt that 99.99% of UA incidents are due to the floor mat or human error.
The conclusion I came to wasn't so much "eyewitness" testimony, Mrs. Smith, Sikes, Barnard and Mr. X (***) but a compilation of the overall symptoms "witness" statements, and personal knowledge, research, into the various engine/transaxle control systems.
Why wouldn't all the episodes share so much in common?
The laws of physics don't change for the individual, and all cars pretty much share the same control systems that work in the same manner. Its certainly no surprise to me that the claims would mirror each other.
Now, if there were totally different symptoms in play (one car has no brakes, another one loses steering, etc.) I might be more inclined to believe some sort of electronic "lock up" occured.
Think about it... What is the difference (in described symptoms) between a modern Toyota's UA claim than that of an older Chevrolet that suffered UA from a broken motor mount?
Car races out of control.... can't stop.... crashes. Pretty much the exact same description of symptoms...
Reminds me of a NOVA program I saw several years ago about the Russian Buran, their model of the space shuttle. Since it looked so similar to the US version, the question was raised about the Russian's stealing the shuttle plans and copying our spacecraft.
The answer given by the scientists and designers (both US and Russian) was that the same laws of aerodynamics apply to both Russians and Americans.
I doubt that a Prius could even be rigged *electronically* (not using mechanical interferences) in a laboratory to mimic the complete and simultaneous failure of all those systems at once. I'd like to see 'em try----WOT, no gear shift, no brakes, no ignition shut off, and all able to be rendered inoperative in a split second AND able to be restored just as quickly. So no permanent disablement allowed, no fuse-blowing, no melting, etc. ...and no record in OBD-II.
This seems so unlikely that this is why I *would* buy into a defective throttle system causing WOT, but not all the rest of the simultaneous failures occurring all at once. A defective throttle module (at the gas pedal) would explain some of the symptoms described by drivers.
As for the woman who drove her van through the store, this is classic driver error IMO.
Think of yourself in a van, pulling into a shopping center---everything is okay, the car is behaving fine. You have a little foot pressure on the gas as you cruise for a spot----AHA! There's one to your left in front of the store. You let off the gas, drop to 5 mph, turn the wheel left, and step on the.....on the........
My family has been loyal Toyota owners since the 1970's. I myself have been very brand loyal to Toyota as well! I questioned any complaint anybody (even friends) had about Toyota products! That was until two people in my household purchased 2 brand new 2010 Toyota Corollas. One of the two had a bad power steering rack from the factory. We took the car in numerous times to be checked out. The first time we were told it was just that the car they delivered had different tires than the one we had test driven, so we put a set of brand new Michelin tires on the car. The new Michelin tires did not fix the problems, the next time we took the car in we were told that there wasn't anything wrong with the car. I then mentioned a TSB that stated to replace the computer for the electric power steering. I was told there were no TSBs on the car. I responded by telling them that there was a TSB that covered all 2009-10 Toyota Corollas that stated to replace the EPS computer if the customer complained about steering feel. I told them to start there. They ordered the computer and put it in. This again did NOT fix the issues with the steering. I then took the car back to tell them that the issue still existed, and was told that there was no issue with the car. I then asked the service manager to drive the car on the highway, and then a brand new Corolla equipped identically and see if he thought there wasn't a problem. We at this point owned 2 2010 Corollas and knew that the one had a steering issue. I took the car to the dealer, and we did our comparison test drive to be told yes there is a difference in the two cars that should not be there. They told us to give them time to get with the engineers at Toyota to come up with a list of things to check to try to find the problem. About 2 months later I took the car back and they spent a day testing and trying different things. They even tried adjusting the alignment specs on the front end. I was told by the service dept. shop foreman that they were ordering a new EPS rack, but the pay attention on my way home, and see what I thought and let him know my thoughts the next day. So I called him the next morning, to let him know that it was more stable, but that the issue was still present. He told me that was his opinion too, and that was why he went ahead and ordered the EPS rack the day before. Almost a month later the EPS rack finally arrives at the dealer, we get the call to bring the car in for the repairs. They told us that the Electric Power Steering rack had been getting input from a source other than the steering wheel, and that was why it wandered all over the highway. There was never a trouble code. No light ever illuminated, and they even hooked the car up to the computer to try and find the issue. Even though the steering system was getting and using input other than that given by the driver at the steering wheel the car didn't realize there was an issue! For this reason I can believe that it is possible for a Toyota vehicle to get accelerator input from a source other than that given by the driver at the accelerator pedal, and not ever realize that there is an issue! My opinion is that Toyota needs to work on there electrical systems! I apologize for the long read. After our new Corollas we are pretty sore in the mouth and unlikely to purchase more Toyotas. I must say Ford is looking better on a daily basis!
While I have the utmost sympathy for all involved the tragic accident involving the state trooper and his family, I would hope that anyone else in that situation would remember to put the vehicle into NEUTRAL before crashing?
You are likely correct on this case for the 42-year old woman getting her latte. The cops have the vehicle & contacted the NHTSA - Hopefully the EDR will actually be able to be read to see if and when brakes were applied - unlike the BS from Toyota before the NHTSA forced them to access EDR's like others already did. see http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/03/17/feyerick.toyota.black.box.cnn?hpt- =Sbin
Still high speed cases are perplexing as many were with mats not the cause, CTS claims just minor cases with the sticky pedals, and many were not a recalled model - some were after recalls. And it is just not mainly wrong pedal application as why not similar percentage of vehicles sold for other brands? GM has had very few cases - they use potentiometers with better pedal voltage scheme for error checking, and not all had brake override. Even with brake override the driver has to hit the brake.
Give me the firmware cruise control source code, high level language even, and I'll show you EXACTLY where and how the code might cause, simultaneously, ALL the known symptoms. Give me the actual machine object code, the specific machine's (computer) instruction execution definitions, a complete errata sheet, for the Saylor car and I'll show you, 99.99% confidence level, the code fault that led to the UA.
Livelock is a condition wherein the computer/processor/microprocessor is locked in a tight loop executing only one code sequence, sub-routine, to the detriment of ALL OTHER INPUT AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS.
In this case the computer was most probably livelocked in the CC "accel" code sequence.
How many times have you had a PC lock up such that your only recovery choice was to pull the power plug? With a very high probability I will tell you that that PC was not "dead" it was simple executing some sequence, perhaps a "livelock" sequence, that did not allow it to respond to the keyboard, mouse, internet, etc.
Toyota has made it unusually difficult, from a human factors standpoint, to stop the engine unless the gearshift is in neutral or park. So it seems entirely possible to me that the engine/transaxle firmware might be designed to prevent a shift into neutral at a high speed and/or with the engine producing an extremely high level of torque.
Or maybe you have to hold the shifter in the neutral position while pushing the start/stop PB as cofirmation that you actually do wish to shift into neutral even in these very unusual conditions.
But the truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, even more than once, or even into park. Plus there is GOOD reason to believe Saylor did exactly that.
buy a 2012 Ford Focus SE or a 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS. There. Someone had to say it and I have.
Both cars are available with 5-speed sticks if you want to row your own.
steve, you can close this hideous thread now!
steve, ya out there at 4:30AM Kellogg, ID, time? Heh-heh.
2012 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
2012 Ford Focus SE Hatchback
I love it when we can all get together, discuss things at length and come to a final conclusion that meets everybody's needs.
Anyone heard anything from Tripoli of late? Now there's a problem happening that we'll need fine Seattle's Best coffee for. Let's get our heads together and work on something real, not this perceived Toyota UA thing.
Agreed y'all?
Lord, have mercy...it's a Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart in blue...include this one in there, would ya?
I applaud your enthusiasm, but I want to see someone to actually do it. Isn't "accident reconstruction" a science that does this?
Speculating on how it might be done is fun over a few beers, but doing it as I specified---that'll be the day.
Your theory makes no sense to me, perhaps because I am ignorant of certain things (god knows), but your phrase "to the detriment of ALL OTHER INPUT AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS." does not explain why many functions of the car remain perfectly intact.
It is so *suspicious* that speculations on UA only cherry-pick situations where the imaginary computer malfunction directly mimics the observed malfunctions, as if the car only had wiring for brakes, ignition switch, CC and gear selection.
it really sounds like a conclusion in search of facts, but only those facts which match the conclusion--ignoring the ones that don't.
And we all know that the smartest scientists are prone to this type of human error.
I wonder if NASA actually had the actual code without any blocks etc.
Toyota's golden egg - ETCi - see videos in: http://www.lexus.com/recall/ they wouldn't even allow access to the EDR until the NHTSA insisted
A group of amubulance-chasers is trying to get it and still keep it secret: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9LK2PE8- 0 excerpt Plaintiff attorneys hope to begin analyzing the source code for Toyota's electronic throttle control system in April and expect the process could take up to 10 months, plaintiffs' attorney Mark Robinson told the court. The plaintiffs will hire 10 engineers who will examine the source code in two shifts in a specially designated and secure room in Maryland, he said.
Would be great if there was another study as to how many complaints were high speed and how many were at standstill or slow speed such as parking lot incidents.
Suggest that EDMUNDS do a similar study be done for sticky pedals - CTS denied that their pedals were the cause in the death cases (89 of them?). Part of that study should also compare Denso and CTS pedals in the complaints.
But the truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, even more than once, or even into park. Plus there is GOOD reason to believe Saylor did exactly that.
In a word... Bullxxxx!
Thats your opinion.... Nothing more.
An opinion in search of supporting facts... facts that can never be known.
What evidence do you have that suggest such a stand?
You have to be just kidding BURIRIS. Why wouldn't he? And why would he not keep hitting the stupid 3-second hold switch in the unfamiliar rental - unless it was suicide but his brother-in-law would have alluded to that in his 911 call.
That would be a good test for Edmunds as the Lexus model has such a high rate of UA - more than any other Toyota per vehicle sold I do believe. Make sure the test driver knows to hold that kill switch in for 3-seconds.
"..does not explain why many functions of the car remain perfectly intact..."
Oh, but yes, it does. With the engine/transaxle ECU firmware in "livelock" the purely mechanically implemented functions, things not under the CONTROL of the engine/transaxle ECU, would not be adversely affected.
I have very little doubt that NASA had the actual code....more likely than not after the flaw was found and fixed. On the other hand even if NASA had the actual assembly language object code they would still need persons with a COMPLETE understanding of the instruction set of specific computer used and it's errata sheet.
Not going to be very many of those folks around.
"Good code checker"
Would there even be one of those available...? And at the asssembly object code level?
Do you you really mean to say or imply that you KNOW Saylor DIDN'T try to shift into neutral....?
And that there ISN'T good reason to believe Saylor, with his experience and background, would have tried shifting into neutral....?
"...facts that can never be known.."
Other that stating as FACT that there was NO EVIDENCE available one way or another, for which FACT you seemingly agree, did I inadvertently present something as factual....?
Couldn't those things just go completely dead in "livelock"?
Also how does that theory explain failure of the ignition shut-off, and the brakes, and failure to shift the car into neutral manually.?The electronics only work the shifting from gear to gear. You could find neutral even with a dead battery---ask any tow truck driver.
"...Couldn't those things just go completely dead in "livelock"?
No.
You're making my life too easy.
The kneebone is connected to the thighbone.....etc, etc.
In the case of the brakes the answer is actually "yes". All four of the ABS manifolds could get "locked" into pressure release mode. But then again we have pretty factual evidence in all 5 cases that that did not happen.
But I don't know of any way the stearing could be interferred with via a livelock. Then again we have strong evidence in all 5 cases that the stearing remained operational.
"..ignition shut-off.."
Barnard's testimony indicates, strongly so, that he was not aware of the 3 second rule at the time of his UA episode. Given the extremely poor human factors engineering involved with this I can easily understand why Saylor also did no know of the 3 second requirement.
Idiot design, that.
"..failure to shift the car into neutral manually.?.."
There is NO manual, mechanical, connection between the shift lever and the electric solenoids that control the transmission, only electric switches. And if you have even tried to shift into "park" at speed you would know the parking pawl will not seat in that situation.
If the battery is dead then there is no need for shifting.
Unless the parking pawl is "set" why would a tow truck driver bother..?
"..the electronics only work the shift from gear to gear.."
Sorry, but the electronics are fully involved in shifting from any gear into neutral, or neutral for "park".
Yes, he could and should move the shifter to "neutral" but unless the ignition is on and a "livelock" is "set" the transaxle would be in neutral.
But the truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, even more than once, or even into park. Plus there is GOOD reason to believe Saylor did exactly that.
Now you say...
Do you you really mean to say or imply that you KNOW Saylor DIDN'T try to shift into neutral....?
And that there ISN'T good reason to believe Saylor, with his experience and background, would have tried shifting into neutral....?
That's nothing more than "weaseling".
The fact is we simply don't know WHAT he did or didn't do.
You are doing nothing more than twisting theories and "what ifs" to come to some conclusions, then building upon those conclusions as if they were facts.
That is a far cry from the "scientific method".
As Mr. Shiftright has stated many times, you're just building circles around circles.
Thankfully, the ones actually researching the issues looked at the available facts in coming to conclusions, rather than making up stuff.
Its obvious that you are convinced it must have been some sort of electronic failure.
I, along with the rational majority, believe its a possibility, but there is slim (if any) supporting evidence to prove that is what actually happened. The available facts point in another direction.
FLOOR MAT ENTRAPMENT is the most probable cause in the Saylors accident.
And, unless additional evidence comes to light, that is the conclusion that any rational investigator would have to accept.
Comments
I mean, I'm totally seeing your point but it doesn't seem to work in the "real world".
SO....... it is possible just like NASA says:
" Our detailed study can't say it's impossible...." "Due to system complexity ... and the many possible electronic software and hardware systems interactions, it is not realistic to prove that the ETCSi cannot cause UAs.... Therefore, absence of proof that the ETCSi caused a UA does not vindicate the system."
I still believe the Rare glitch is there and they just couldn't find it. Used
http://www.grammatech.com/news/2011/releases/02-14-11.html
Wonder if it is as good or better than MISRA that they mention.
described in: http://www.oregonsae.org/Meetings/misra_C.pps
And code checkmay not have been complete from reports I've seen - including unfettered access to Toyota's actual code.
As to lawsuit discussions - $20 mil Toyota settlement to Saylor relatives - don't know why - may come out in their lawsuit against the dealer.
If you want some actual real world examples, google such things as "plane landing-gear not deploying", "English car problems", and " missiles that miss their target".
And as you ponder this at your computer, consider that every device has a life-span. One day your mouse or keyboard is going to fail. A button will fall off, the contact will get too much dust in it ... do you still have control of your computer then? No. You have physical control of an inoperative device, but you've lost control of the machine. Your signal is no longer getting thru. Many critical systems have backup, replicate control systems, because it is known that everything fails at some point; but that is not in the budget of personal automobiles.
If my computer had a foot pedal to spin the hard drive, then yeah, maybe I'd still have control of it. :P When your ABS fails, you still have perfectly good brakes.
As for the lawsuit business----about all I can say about that is "you don't go to court for 'justice'--you go to outmaneuver the other party".
If I buy a new car, drive it out of the showroom, and the steering gear snaps in half----THAT'S not my fault.
The entire exercise seems like a waste of time AND effort.
What does it have to do with UA in Toyotas (or any other brand)???
Hopefully the National Academy will resolve some issues for all SUA.
http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/UnintendedAccelerationStudy.aspx
Toyota announced the latest floor mat VOLUNTARY recall one after pressure from the NHTSA. Doing it took a lot of press from the most recent announcement of a more serious problem.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-0223-autos-toyota-20110223,0,5800467- .story
Feb. 23, 2011
Federal officials open probe of Toyota Highlander hybrid SUVs
Reports of stalling in 2006 Toyota Highlander hybrid SUVs are prompting the review by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The investigation will involve about 44,000 vehicles.
Say I take my PU down to the tirestore I can get a great deal on some old tires, say those infamous Firestone Wilderness ones. The shop slaps them on and off I go down the highway, doing 65mph or whatever the speed limit. So let's say 1 of the tires blows, now is it reasonable that the driver maintains control? You might say yes. What if 2 ties blew within a couple of seconds? If there's a crash is that driver-fault or NOT? what about 3? or all 4?
Do you see what the problem with your argument is? It's too subjective. I say it is fairly black-and-white. If something fails on a vehicle and 1-3 seconds later the driver crashes, it's the result of the failed-part. If I put the auto. transmission in D and the car goes in reverse, then it's the vehicles fault. If a vehicle's engine goes to WOT, and you can't get the auto. transmission to disengage because it is electronic too and may not be responding, then it is the vehicle's fault for any accident.
Pretty black-and-white: if you push a button, flip a switch, move a lever and the electronic controls of the machine does not respond or respond as as designed (ABS, throttle, transmission ...) and there is an accident within seconds mainly attributable to this incident, it is not driver fault. It is UNREASONABLE to expect a driver who has for years driven with ABS, and only knows ABS braking, to all of a sudden when BS fails, to learn to brake differently (pump the brakes), in a few seconds.
It is a far stretch for anyone to say that yes many drivers are idiots and mixup the gas and brake, or get their car mat around the accelerator and can't figure to pull it out; and THEN on the other hand argue that those same drivers should have the driver skill to IMMEDIATELY when something like ABS, their gear shifter or their ECM fail, to be able to handle the situation.
Which way do you want to argue - typical drivers are idiots with no skill, or they're Alain Prost?
Of course for the 2006 Highlander Hybrid stalling investigation Toyota lovers would say it's old farts like me pressing on the brake instead of the accelerator so it's our fault.
Unless you drive a stickshift, stalling really can't BE your fault; but UA can be. That's a big difference.
The two situations are very different.
As for "driving skills".....here's my opinion:
The capabilities of the modern car are already way beyond the skills of a considerable percentage of American drivers. It is only the vast improvements in safety systems that prevents vehicle deaths from approaching unbearable levels of carnage.
So I'm not a bit surprised that many drivers cannot cope adequately with the higher speeds, greater agility, and electronic complexity of modern cars.
Things are moving too fast for most people to catch up.
As for engineers and programmers, I think you do them an injustice---I never met one who claimed to be 100% accurate.
That's why we HAVE recalls and warranties and consumer protection agencies. Everyone realizes that things go wrong, and there's no conspiracy to hide this fact seems to me.
That's my point about making devices more and more complex. Engineers and programmers are "people", and if the devil-is-in-the-details, then you have issues.
At my company we just designed a new $7,500 machine. Went thru ana few R&D phases, then it thru 5 Stages of project reviews ovr a year, went thru Internal reliability testing, and testing at customers. For the last 6 months we have made at least 20 significant changes to the design. We've replaced many machines that customers have bought. 2 years of planning, and testing by our software and hardware engineers still resulted in a product with major flaws. Let me note that as in many projects there is "momentum" to keep on schedule and launch the product.
Case in point, the 3-second ignition shut-off button. Some people obviously didn't get the memo, or didn't read the telephone-book-sized owners manual.
Cars have never BEEN more reliable than they are now, but they are much more confusing to operate.
There was little difference between a 1979 and 1989 car, but enormous changes between 2001--2011.
"Predicting Product Quality
Let’s assume that the data collected tells us that developers inject approximately 40 defects per thousand lines of code(KLOC) in design and 60 defects per KLOC in code. Let’s also assume that eachdefect removal step typically removes between 35% and 50% of the defects thatare in the product."
http://www.methodsandtools.com/archive/archive.php?id=13
and one more article from that website:
http://www.methodsandtools.com/archive/archive.php?id=59
I think these articles provide a better picture of what's going on behind the scenes at the companies that build our products.
There are a lot of issues with trying to prevent system problems, and finding the faults that are designed into them. Maybe those articles give a better idea of why I have my perspective (though I'm not a software engineer). It's similar to that reflection of "you probably wouldn't eat that food, if you knew how it was processed, and what's in it."
And if you ask any independent mechanics - more confusing to diagnose and fix. First thing they need to do is investigate if there have been any technical bulletins and software updates.
I drive a standard, so that's my "Off switch" even if the engine does go to WOT. But on an automatic equipped car, when I'm at the wheel, what method do I have that isn't a switch, knob, or lever hooked into an electronic system that I can use. I've said it before there should be a foolproof way to shutdown the system; remember on Lost in Space's Robot, if you could get to the power-pack on the side you could deactivate him.
Do either of those 2 things and I would then agree with you, that ultimately the driver has control of the vehicle, and should always be able to shut it down no matter if its confusion on the gas-brake, the mat, or the 1 in 1,000,000 fluke failure.
OJT, obviously did not work for Saylor.
I agree in principle, but without governmental mandated "educational plans", there simply is no way I can see that this will happen.
Try and force a customer to sit through a training class... If he doesn't want to attend, how many dealers would be willing to let the customer walk?
Take a random survey at a shopping mall sometime and ask 10, 20 or 100 folks the question "Have you read your car Owner's Manual cover to cover?"
How many answers do you think would be in the affirmative?
i think that's a reasonable enough stand.
TRAINING CLASSES: Shoot, you can be the absolute worst driver in the world, but you can walk in and buy a car that goes 180 MPH, no questions asked.
If a state trooper reports his vehicle is out-of-control, he has his family with him, he is not shown signs of being suicidal, and they have a moment to think about the situation after a couple seconds of alarm, I tend to believe the human.
If there's no hard evidence either way, I'll pick human error every time. Why? Because our brains have evolved to do certain tasks, and as miraculous as our brains are, they get fooled very very easily. One example is how our brains are so good as recognizing "patterning". Unfortunately, this also means we recognize patterns that aren't actually there.
Perhaps you remember the classic clinical study where people were asked to watch a basketball game (6 students actually) and count the number of times the ball was dribbled in a certain time period.
All the participants dutifully did this and even after numerous tests done throughout the world, about half of them did not notice a woman in a gorilla suit walking across the court, pounding her chest!
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2003097,00.html
Even when shown the film a second time, some insisted that this was a different film. It wasn't.
When our brains are focused on one type of task, apparently they can totally miss another set of data.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12003633867879/woman-drives-into-marylo- u-s-shop-in-cohasset/
*** Mr. X: the owner who drove all the way to the dealer with the engine roaring out of control.
If you add all that up then it becomes very improbable that anything other than a runaway CC, firmware "livelock", was at fault.
Again, there is no doubt that 99.99% of UA incidents are due to the floor mat or human error.
Why wouldn't all the episodes share so much in common?
The laws of physics don't change for the individual, and all cars pretty much share the same control systems that work in the same manner. Its certainly no surprise to me that the claims would mirror each other.
Now, if there were totally different symptoms in play (one car has no brakes, another one loses steering, etc.) I might be more inclined to believe some sort of electronic "lock up" occured.
Think about it... What is the difference (in described symptoms) between a modern Toyota's UA claim than that of an older Chevrolet that suffered UA from a broken motor mount?
Car races out of control.... can't stop.... crashes. Pretty much the exact same description of symptoms...
Reminds me of a NOVA program I saw several years ago about the Russian Buran, their model of the space shuttle. Since it looked so similar to the US version, the question was raised about the Russian's stealing the shuttle plans and copying our spacecraft.
The answer given by the scientists and designers (both US and Russian) was that the same laws of aerodynamics apply to both Russians and Americans.
Why wouldn't it look similar???
This seems so unlikely that this is why I *would* buy into a defective throttle system causing WOT, but not all the rest of the simultaneous failures occurring all at once. A defective throttle module (at the gas pedal) would explain some of the symptoms described by drivers.
As for the woman who drove her van through the store, this is classic driver error IMO.
Think of yourself in a van, pulling into a shopping center---everything is okay, the car is behaving fine. You have a little foot pressure on the gas as you cruise for a spot----AHA! There's one to your left in front of the store. You let off the gas, drop to 5 mph, turn the wheel left, and step on the.....on the........
see
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/03/17/feyerick.toyota.black.box.cnn?hpt- =Sbin
Brake Override was supposed to be the only computer mods made with the mat and sticky pedal recalls. I believe you can get free over-ride installed if you ask for it for not recalled models. Toyota has many fewer complaints now - still more than others - see:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/special-report-toyota-acceleration- -complaints-drop-following-recalls.html
and were much worse before the Saylor incident and recalls. See:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/12/sudden-unintended-acceleration-sua- -analysis-2008-toyota-lexus-ford-gm.html
Still high speed cases are perplexing as many were with mats not the cause, CTS claims just minor cases with the sticky pedals, and many were not a recalled model - some were after recalls. And it is just not mainly wrong pedal application as why not similar percentage of vehicles sold for other brands? GM has had very few cases - they use potentiometers with better pedal voltage scheme for error checking, and not all had brake override. Even with brake override the driver has to hit the brake.
More graphs in this AutoObserver story.
RAV4 Complaint Exception In New Toyota Recalls
You're ON.
Give me the firmware cruise control source code, high level language even, and I'll show you EXACTLY where and how the code might cause, simultaneously, ALL the known symptoms. Give me the actual machine object code, the specific machine's (computer) instruction execution definitions, a complete errata sheet, for the Saylor car and I'll show you, 99.99% confidence level, the code fault that led to the UA.
Livelock is a condition wherein the computer/processor/microprocessor is locked in a tight loop executing only one code sequence, sub-routine, to the detriment of ALL OTHER INPUT AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS.
In this case the computer was most probably livelocked in the CC "accel" code sequence.
How many times have you had a PC lock up such that your only recovery choice was to pull the power plug? With a very high probability I will tell you that that PC was not "dead" it was simple executing some sequence, perhaps a "livelock" sequence, that did not allow it to respond to the keyboard, mouse, internet, etc.
Or maybe you have to hold the shifter in the neutral position while pushing the start/stop PB as cofirmation that you actually do wish to shift into neutral even in these very unusual conditions.
But the truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, even more than once, or even into park. Plus there is GOOD reason to believe Saylor did exactly that.
Some would call that a "bag on a bag". Apologies to Tom West.
Both cars are available with 5-speed sticks if you want to row your own.
steve, you can close this hideous thread now!
steve, ya out there at 4:30AM Kellogg, ID, time? Heh-heh.
2012 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
2012 Ford Focus SE Hatchback
I love it when we can all get together, discuss things at length and come to a final conclusion that meets everybody's needs.
Anyone heard anything from Tripoli of late? Now there's a problem happening that we'll need fine Seattle's Best coffee for. Let's get our heads together and work on something real, not this perceived Toyota UA thing.
Agreed y'all?
Lord, have mercy...it's a Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart in blue...include this one in there, would ya?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
NASA couldn't figure it out, and they had most of that.
Speculating on how it might be done is fun over a few beers, but doing it as I specified---that'll be the day.
Your theory makes no sense to me, perhaps because I am ignorant of certain things (god knows), but your phrase "to the detriment of ALL OTHER INPUT AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS." does not explain why many functions of the car remain perfectly intact.
It is so *suspicious* that speculations on UA only cherry-pick situations where the imaginary computer malfunction directly mimics the observed malfunctions, as if the car only had wiring for brakes, ignition switch, CC and gear selection.
it really sounds like a conclusion in search of facts, but only those facts which match the conclusion--ignoring the ones that don't.
And we all know that the smartest scientists are prone to this type of human error.
Toyota's golden egg - ETCi - see videos in: http://www.lexus.com/recall/
they wouldn't even allow access to the EDR until the NHTSA insisted
A group of amubulance-chasers is trying to get it and still keep it secret:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9LK2PE8- 0
excerpt
Plaintiff attorneys hope to begin analyzing the source code for Toyota's electronic throttle control system in April and expect the process could take up to 10 months, plaintiffs' attorney Mark Robinson told the court. The plaintiffs will hire 10 engineers who will examine the source code in two shifts in a specially designated and secure room in Maryland, he said.
NASA used what looks like a good code checker:
http://www.grammatech.com/news/2011/releases/02-14-11.html
They mention MISRA - but don't say if they actually used it - described in: http://www.oregonsae.org/Meetings/misra_C.pps
Hey WWEST - if you know of others send it to the National Academy reviewing all UA - the committee are to question NASA/NESC in meetings this week:
http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/UnintendedAccelerationStudy.aspx
Also see my comment in your link that gives a link to pedal dimensions.
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/02/rav4-complaint-exception-in-new-toyota-recal- - ls.html
with more graphs that shows only about 10% for Camry's were due to mats and about 25% for the notorious Saylor Lexus model.
Suggest that EDMUNDS do a similar study be done for sticky pedals - CTS denied that their pedals were the cause in the death cases (89 of them?). Part of that study should also compare Denso and CTS pedals in the complaints.
In a word... Bullxxxx!
Thats your opinion.... Nothing more.
An opinion in search of supporting facts... facts that can never be known.
What evidence do you have that suggest such a stand?
Why wouldn't he? And why would he not keep hitting the stupid 3-second hold switch in the unfamiliar rental - unless it was suicide but his brother-in-law would have alluded to that in his 911 call.
I never did find out if it was a serpentine gear shift or if at very high speed the shifter just couldn't get it into neutral see p16 &17 in:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/UA/012811Champion.pdf
That would be a good test for Edmunds as the Lexus model has such a high rate of UA - more than any other Toyota per vehicle sold I do believe.
Make sure the test driver knows to hold that kill switch in for 3-seconds.
Oh, but yes, it does. With the engine/transaxle ECU firmware in "livelock" the purely mechanically implemented functions, things not under the CONTROL of the engine/transaxle ECU, would not be adversely affected.
Things like brakes, stearing, etc.
I have very little doubt that NASA had the actual code....more likely than not after the flaw was found and fixed. On the other hand even if NASA had the actual assembly language object code they would still need persons with a COMPLETE understanding of the instruction set of specific computer used and it's errata sheet.
Not going to be very many of those folks around.
"Good code checker"
Would there even be one of those available...? And at the asssembly object code level?
And that there ISN'T good reason to believe Saylor, with his experience and background, would have tried shifting into neutral....?
"...facts that can never be known.."
Other that stating as FACT that there was NO EVIDENCE available one way or another, for which FACT you seemingly agree, did I inadvertently present something as factual....?
Also how does that theory explain failure of the ignition shut-off, and the brakes, and failure to shift the car into neutral manually.?The electronics only work the shifting from gear to gear. You could find neutral even with a dead battery---ask any tow truck driver.
In those fantasy worlds ANYTHING can be possible....and they never have to admit being wrong about anything.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No.
You're making my life too easy.
The kneebone is connected to the thighbone.....etc, etc.
In the case of the brakes the answer is actually "yes". All four of the ABS manifolds could get "locked" into pressure release mode. But then again we have pretty factual evidence in all 5 cases that that did not happen.
But I don't know of any way the stearing could be interferred with via a livelock. Then again we have strong evidence in all 5 cases that the stearing remained operational.
"..ignition shut-off.."
Barnard's testimony indicates, strongly so, that he was not aware of the 3 second rule at the time of his UA episode. Given the extremely poor human factors engineering involved with this I can easily understand why Saylor also did no know of the 3 second requirement.
Idiot design, that.
"..failure to shift the car into neutral manually.?.."
There is NO manual, mechanical, connection between the shift lever and the electric solenoids that control the transmission, only electric switches. And if you have even tried to shift into "park" at speed you would know the parking pawl will not seat in that situation.
If the battery is dead then there is no need for shifting.
Unless the parking pawl is "set" why would a tow truck driver bother..?
"..the electronics only work the shift from gear to gear.."
Sorry, but the electronics are fully involved in shifting from any gear into neutral, or neutral for "park".
Yes, he could and should move the shifter to "neutral" but unless the ignition is on and a "livelock" is "set" the transaxle would be in neutral.
But the truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, even more than once, or even into park. Plus there is GOOD reason to believe Saylor did exactly that.
Now you say...
Do you you really mean to say or imply that you KNOW Saylor DIDN'T try to shift into neutral....?
And that there ISN'T good reason to believe Saylor, with his experience and background, would have tried shifting into neutral....?
That's nothing more than "weaseling".
The fact is we simply don't know WHAT he did or didn't do.
You are doing nothing more than twisting theories and "what ifs" to come to some conclusions, then building upon those conclusions as if they were facts.
That is a far cry from the "scientific method".
As Mr. Shiftright has stated many times, you're just building circles around circles.
Thankfully, the ones actually researching the issues looked at the available facts in coming to conclusions, rather than making up stuff.
Its obvious that you are convinced it must have been some sort of electronic failure.
I, along with the rational majority, believe its a possibility, but there is slim (if any) supporting evidence to prove that is what actually happened. The available facts point in another direction.
FLOOR MAT ENTRAPMENT is the most probable cause in the Saylors accident.
And, unless additional evidence comes to light, that is the conclusion that any rational investigator would have to accept.
In those fantasy worlds ANYTHING can be possible....
That's the way it works in bizarro world, where conclusions are made before the facts are examined.
And, if a fact is in conflict with the conclusion, simply dismiss the fact as irrelevant...