Law enforcement officers wrap their vehicle around things all the time here. While I do believe they are better drivers, they are not perfect by any stretch.
that the brake inputs are reversed in the EDR. From the description:"Of the 58 recording devices analyzed, 35 showed that at the moment of the crash impact, the driver hadn't depressed the brake pedal at all, safety officials said. Fourteen more cases showed partial braking. In another nine cases, the brake had been depressed at the "last second" before impact.", if the inputs were reversed, you would have 35 had brakes fully depressed, 14 no change, and 9 the brake was released the last second before impact(to brace for impact). This would make more sense. If you go to the NHTSA site and look at sample EDR reports you will see that one sample(GM cars) had reverse inputs. ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/eventdata.aspx) See Report R004 p2. Note that the EDR only records for 5 secs before airbag deployment. What do you think wwest?
chuck - yes no one is perfect that is for sure. Smile - we are just human. But CHP officers emergency drivers training, and his active duty training for meeting/passing work performance standards does make him much more qualified than average drivers. As in all types of work some individuals are better than others. And CHP are professionally trained/must meet standards to work and function in emergency situations.
Are they all real good at what they do and how they interact with public? No. But most are though. Our local CHP and local city/town police are fairly good, and quite nice. If you have some proven incidents of "rogue" officers in your area - think it is time for your local public to speak out for some changes. Video use is helping correct some problems.
Yes, CHP do have accidents. The emergency driving situations they must face accidents would occur. Risks increase.
Here is another report I found today that is actually quite interesting. And yes, I know it is Sean Kane's site. He is critcal in his analysis. Some points are quite good, and some are same questions I still have.
Is good for us to review all articles and see both sides. I do like his sample breakdown of those NHTSA Toyota EDR readouts.
News reports do vary and are each written to pyschologically leave readers with their own intended messages. It's up to us to evaluate objectively and look at all the other known available facts too.
But CHP officers emergency drivers training, and his active duty training for meeting/passing work performance standards does make him much more qualified than average drivers. As in all types of work some individuals are better than others. And CHP are professionally trained/must meet standards to work and function in emergency situations.
So are commercial airline pilots, but a substantial amount of crashes are caused by mistakes made by these extremely well-trained personnel, many with tens of thousands of flight hours.
The point is...For those who can't accept that a CHP officer could have negatively responded to a stressful situation and done exactly all the wrong things....You are simply ignoring the facts as they relate to human behavior. We never hear about the successes that HP officers have in stressful situations such as these....just the failures.
Bursiris - good point and is what I was attempting to say. CHP do have emerency training requirements and on duty emergency experience. But CHP officers are human, and they can make mistakes. Any of us can make mistakes in our professional work. The training and usual ongoing inservice training approaches are implemented/revised to minimize the mistakes.
Saylor would still be considered a qualified/tested emergency driver. California CHP requirement. Other emergency drivers must have some degree of emergency drivers training also.
I would be the last to blame Office Mark Saylor for the accident though. Courts can decide.
That is EXACTLY my point busiris, look, lets say there are the fair amount of drivers who really sometimes pressed the wrong pedal. Say 1000 ? Then with toyota's market share at around say 14%, just do the maths.
One should expect toyota SUAs market share to be AROUND 14% +- a few percentage points for variance. One should then also expect around like what also similar number of cases of SUAs happening to GM, Ford, drivers.
Also what about Nissan drivers ? What about Honda ? What about Hyundai ? These 3 automakers also have sizeable market shares mind you.
Then WHY IS IT THAT toyota totally DOMINATES the no. of SUA cases ? More than any other automakers COMBINED as reported by several sources sometime ago ?
Till now nobody can answer this question abt this phenomena. Let's give ourselves a challenge, could someone come up with JUST a few examples of GM, Ford, Nissan, Honda drivers whose fate are similar to those in the earlier link I provided, where their cars are totally ruined like it suffered a bomb attack (a collision due to pedal error could never result in such a Ghastly crash, unless its a HIGH SPEED collision (it was)), and their victims are dead.
And pls give us the links to the website. With photos and testimonies for better clarity.
Anyone wants to try ? Nissan cases, Ford cases, Hyundai cases, Honda cases. Just to satisfy ourselves that the other 86% non-toyotas also have their share of SUAs.
The fact is, YES, I do believe that out of so many drivers, there WILL be some who once in a while DO press the wrong pedal. But you see, ALL 100% of the GHASTLY cases, crashes belong to toyota drivers. Till today I have not seen any report of such a ghastly crash suffered by non-toyota drivers.
Talk about the ODDS ! 14% market share but having 100% of the ghastly crashes. No statistician can exonerate toyota on this one !
Maybe there are cases of narrow escapes, minor crashes due to pedal error done by non-toyota drivers, but because such cases are so minor, its no surprise that the press won't waste their time to report it.
After all, when someone pressed the wrong pedal and even if he corrects it a bit late, you won't expect the final collision speed to be in excess of 60 mph or more right ? But look at many of the toyota SUA cases. At high speeds mind you.
Its so difficult to convince die hard toyota fans that there IS something wrong with their automaker at this moment. If so then CONVINCE me by proving toyota SUA cases only have a +- 14% market share ! And that close to 100% of oldies and people on medication buys only toyotas.
Obviously some people have not or forgotten history abt how toyota " persuaded " NHTSA to do things in their favour while compromising consumer safety. Heres an old thread :
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking - ALL 100% of the GHASTLY cases, crashes belong to toyota drivers.
This is one of the more ghastly ones in the last five years - old guy, pedal misapplication and in a Buick. Killed ten people on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica (home of Edmunds). (Wiki)
OK, to be more fair, could someone quote some data from reliable sources that TABULATES the respective market shares of each automaker in the US for SUA cases ? There used to be one but I lost the link to the site.
Quote "....There is, however, a failsafe Toyota neglected to build into its cars that could help drivers counteract the problem. Kicking Tires explains, “Since the most recent Toyota recall, many analysts are calling for Toyota and others to add ‘smart brake’ technology.” Smart Braking, also known as brake override, is a simple concept: if the driver depresses the brake pedal firmly, it overrides the throttle control, “thus canceling any acceleration, intended or otherwise. Most European and luxury automakers and Nissan already use smart brake technology, but Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota do not.”
Small wonder that Nissan, as one of the brands with a sizeable market share, have one of the smallest market share of SUAs. As for the other European and luxury brands, their market share is pretty small, thats why they have much less cases. To be fair.
What shocked me was that not only the big 3 and toyota, but HONDA too failed to incorporate such an important feature.
Quote "...Toyota Motor Corporation, consisting of its Toyota, Lexus and Scion brands, had 1,133 consumer complaints of unintended acceleration filed with NHTSA through Feb. 3. The complaints cover model years 2005 to 2010.
Toyota's number of complaints for unintended acceleration exceeds similar complaints for the other Big Six manufacturers COMBINED. (Now folks, once again, does toyota's annual sales EXCEED the other big 6 COMBINED ?) FAR FROM IT !!!
Rounding out the Big Six are, in order of most complaints to fewest are, Ford Motor Company, consisting of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models, with 387 complaints; Chrysler LLC, consisting of Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge models, with 171 complaints; General Motors, consisting of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac, GMC, Saturn, Saab, Buick and Hummer brands, with 152 complaints; Honda, including its Acura division, with 113 complaints; and Nissan, including its Infiniti division, with 62 complaints.
The Toyota brand has the highest number of such complaints of any Big Six brand, with 929. Ford brand follows with 300 complaints. Toyota's Lexus ranks third with 186 complaints.
Toyota Motor Corporation models — Toyota Camry (290 complaints), Toyota Tacoma (184 complaints) and Lexus ES 350 (100 complaints) — rank 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for most complaints by model, in Edmunds.com's analysis, which ranks the vehicles on the raw number of complaints, not on a sales- weighted basis.
Nine of the top 12 models with the most complaints of unintended acceleration are made by Toyota. In addition to the Camry, Tacoma and ES 350, the other Toyota models among the top dozen are: Toyota Prius, No. 5 with 85 complaints; Toyota Avalon, No. 6 with 79 complaints; Toyota Tundra, No. 7 with 66 complaints; Toyota Corolla, No. 8 with 55 complaints; Toyota Highlander, No. 11 with 42 complaints; and Toyota RAV4, No. 12 with 41 complaints.
The top 12 list is rounded out by two Fords: Ford F-150 in the No. 4 position with 86 complaints and Ford Mustang, which was No. 9 with 53 complaints. Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee was No. 10 with 46 complaints...Unquote
Now, these data DO NOT indicate the SEVERITY of the case, like does it result in a final fatal crash ? I mean a minor SUA that quickly vanishes and does not result in casualties cannot be put in the same category as some of the horrific toyota SUAs where the car slammed into the final resting place at extreme speed, squashing the occupants with the car.
What I would like to see is a tabulation of these more severe cases. But even without this, its pretty fair to say that, since toyota have the HIGHEST market share of SUA complaints, far above the others like Nissan and Honda, I think its also HIGHLY PROBABLE to say that toyota too have the highest market share of FAST, FATAL CRASHES due to SUAs.
And all the reports I see so far DO indicate that toyota is the king of High speed FATAL SUAs.
Steve, this old accident is serious no doubt, but I don't call it ghastly because why ? This guy is very very old and probably screwed up and killed people. Well, I believe it CAN also happen to old Nissan drivers, old Honda drivers. But thats the point, such cases are relatively RARE.
But those ghastly toyota cases are that, ghastly, because the drivers are normal not too old folks just doing their normal routine like you and I, and all of a sudden their toyotas speed up like possessed by a spirit, and they could not stop it. And I have read accounts where even putting the transmission into NEUTRAL DID nothing to stop it.
I can imagine the last moments of the driver, its like on an airplane plummeting down to the ground at accelerating speeds, and you know opening the door and jumping out is NOT an option. THEY ARE SCREWED !
And of course is the scene of the final resting place. COMPLETELY mangled wreck. Look at those photos in the website I provided earlier on. And the worse of all is, the case you quoted is someone screwed up, but the toyota cases is DRIVER INNOCENCE yet murdered.
And today, their families have to bear with the insult when NHTSA, toyota's good old friend says their loved one probably screwed up so badly that they even failed to brake EVEN when their speed is more than 60 mph !!!
WHAT ARE THEY DOING ? Got leg cramps where they failed to brake even when a car or river or cliff or a huge Home Depot building is approaching in front of their very eyes at terrific speeds ?!!
Its UNBELIEVABLE !!! Look at those photos again. some are young, some are middle aged. Can't be compared to the 86 year old driver case you quoted.
Sharon/Steve: you've both made several good points.
Saylor had 2 factors that make this incident different than what he covered in training:
1. 3 panicked passengers. Not a licensed instructor with him.
2. Element of surprise. He was prepared for and expected this while in training, but not while on a leisurely drive in a loaner car with family and friends.
A 3rd factor is that the training was likely done a long time ago - do they do annual updates/refresher courses? I doubt it.
How he could not find neutral remains a mystery, though I doubt that was covered in his training. They usually focus on car control and PITT manuevers.
Why does Toyota dominate the # of complaints? Because all the attention is on them. An uneducated public is LOOKING for a flaw.
Every time a Camry's A/C compressor turns on, the hysteria has people thinking the normal surge in RPMs is UA. Or during warm-up. There are many cases where an RPM surge is intended.
The numbers you should really look at are the reports that came in prior to April 2010, before the media attention on Toyota had customers looking for it. I bet more than half of the reports were filed after April 2010. Edit: do we have that data? Can anyone tell us what % were filed before/after the date of the Sikes hysteria?
Even so, let's analyze the numbers, and apply to those 1,133 cases. In the 58 cases NHTSA analyzed, our best hard data really, they reported:
35 no brakes applied = 60.3% 14 partial braking = 24.1% 9 last second braking = 15.5%
If those black boxes were analyzed, we'd see about 680 cases with no brake application at all, the majority actually. 272 partial braking, and roughly 176 cases where the brakes were only applied at the last second. In other words, driver error is the #1 factor.
One other thing - note how Audi is not even mentioned in that Edmunds article, that's because they've installed a the brake override that removes human error as a factor.
Why does Toyota dominate the # of complaints? Because all the attention is on them. An uneducated public is LOOKING for a flaw.
I'm not buying your argument. First off there were over 3000 complaints against Toyota for SUA before the Saylor accident. Edmund's went through the ODI and narrowed it down to 1133, that THEY considered legitimate complaints.
Using those percentages from very questionable EDR database has NO credibility. By toyota's own admission the EDR in their 2009 Lexus ES350 involved in the Saylor accident was NOT ready for primetime. Now they want US to believe it can point the finger at driver error in ALL cases of SUA. Gimme a break. I just hope the juries are smart enough to see through the lies and deceit toyota employs to win their cases.
What about the fatal accidents before the EDR was installed? There are cases back to at least 2003. It is incredible how rational minds can defend toyota, when they have no iron in the fire. Toyota has lied to and brow beat their customers in their quest to be the biggest. Now they want US to believe toyota owners are more incompetent than owners of any other brand. UNBELIEVABLE.
You are leaving out the most important element. The EDR is not a dependable source of data. In the Saylor accident, toyota at that time had the ONLY reader in the USA. They were asked to read the data by the Sheriff's department doing the investigation. Result data corrupted by the fire. How convenient was that? Now we are led to believe the data was good enough in all 58 fatality accidents to condemn the drivers. Convince me we are not being duped by a very powerful PR machine in place at toyota.
>If those black boxes were analyzed, we'd see about 680 cases with no brake application at all,
We're back to trusting the electronics to have reported to and stored in the EDRs the correct info about braking again.
>Every time a Camry's A/C compressor turns on, the hysteria has people thinking the normal surge in RPMs is UA. Or during warm-up. There are many cases where an RPM surge is intended.
Odd they should have such poor electronics control to have surging when the AC engages. Or when the car is warming up.
Did the NHTSA get the EDR data from toyota? With their limited staff would they be able to do a credible job of deciphering the EDR data? I would be more inclined to believe the NHTSA reports if they had a history of unbiased analysis.
>RPM increase under heavy accessory load is perfectly normal.
Why?
If you have good control of the motor electronically with the idle bleeds, mixture, and in these cases the electronic throttle plate control, the car should be able to be kept at the same smooth idle speed at a stoplight, e.g.
I always find it annoying the way our friend's Corolla sitting in the driveway when she stops to visit and has the car running. The AC goes on with a loud buzz and the cooling fans sound like an airport for 20 seconds, then they turn off. Then 30 seconds later the noise repeats, all while we're talking to our friend. Why not just let the AC run and operate smoothly like GM does on our cars?
This is related to the engine and component control routes chosen by toyota.
Wonder WHY that after Oct 2009, Toyota SUA complaints skyrocketed.
For those who think it's some kind of mysterious, as-yet-unidentified hardware/software problem in Toyota cars: How can you explain away the SUDDEN SURGE in complaints? What could have POSSIBLY happened to the CARS to make them ALL OF A SUDDEN start accelerating our of control?
I don't think that's a mystery which has a solution.
Unless it's copycat complaints, people getting caught up in the frenzy, joining the "in crowd," jumping on the chance to say "Hey, mine did that TOO !!!"
This is the note on the one report I was talking about.
"-If the vehicle is a 2000 - 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 or a Pontiac Sunfire GT, with a manual transmission (RPO MM5) and a 2.4L engine (RPO LD9), the Brake Switch Circuit Status data will be reported in the opposite state than what actually occurred, e.g. an actual brake switch status of ?ON? will be reported as ?OFF?."
That's why the Toyota circuitry should be checked(by engineers) to see if that is happening.
For those of you who refuse to believe it's driver error, we can't convince you otherwise.
I won't go so far to say that 100% is driver error, but its got to be close. Once one actually examines the data, its the most likely conclusion.
However, there may be some ergonomic issues relating to pedal placement that may also affect this "confusion", or driver error. That is where I would like to see some research done, either to negate or support that line of thought.
How can you explain away the SUDDEN SURGE in complaints? What could have POSSIBLY happened to the CARS to make them ALL OF A SUDDEN start accelerating our of control?
I know you are smarter than that. Very simple answer. Built up frustration with dealers telling people that their car is fine after they run a simple diagnostic. One that Dr. Gilbert PROVED, would not register a WOT condition, if it does happen. That is until toyota went after Sikes. Then all of a sudden it shows everything. WOT and 250 times hitting the brakes. All too convenient for my very logical mind.
Wife says to husband when the recalls hit the news. "I told you it did that to me". So they register a complaint.
Ateixeira, I personally do not want to bash the good reputation of a CHP officer who was tragically killed in a horrible auto accident.
CHP officer Mark Saylor was a qualified California licensed emergency driver. His multiple years of meeting requirements for on-duty work experience, and training initially/+ ongoing inservice emergency drivers training standards would support fact he met/was qualified per governing California State Law Codes/California CHP standards.
I am aware for the past few years(?) he had worked in an administrative capacity. But it does not take a "genius" to remember/or deal with emergency driving situations. That horrible accident and his reactions did not involve memory recall of performance reactions that would be considered highly detailed/or technically difficult.
CHP officer Mark Saylor died, he can't tell us what he did and did not do. Could he have made a mistake? Yes. But I prefer not to go there. I prefer to respect/honor his professional work experience. . I prefer to think that he went into CHP officer work mode when incident occurred. Why? Mark Saylor can not defend/explain himself. Poor Mark Saylor and his family are deceased.
A law suit has been filed. Courts can decide case. And I doubt if any of us will ever know the true factual details of that trial due to mutual confidentiality money award/settlement agreements. This is our US legal system. I prefer to wait until that time and evaluate results.
The first thing that comes to mind is that you are WRONG about Dr. Gilbert "proving" anything - at least anything that can REALLY HAPPEN in the REAL WORLD on the road.
His test is replicable in the LAB, but could never happen in a real car.
Toyota JUSTIFIABLY went after that [non-permissible content removed] Sikes (HOAX)
I think you have missed what Dr. Gilbert's test proved. The diagnostic software in toyota cars is not worth a hoot. It does not show when a WOT has occurred without the pedal being depressed. If Dr. Gilbert was so far off, why did toyota try to get him fired from the school? Why didn't they listen to him when he first found the error in their diagnostic software? Maybe their arrogance was in play until after the news hit the airwaves. Then toyota hired Exponent to discredit the good doctor, who was not trying to screw toyota at all. He used his own new Tundra as a test bed. Then repeated the experiment on an Avalon. You are just easily fooled by toyota PR. Many are, many are not.
...is their slide in quality a la GM. While most of the noise in this forum is about UA, the fact is that it is rare and the public is mostly going to forget about it. The real problem with Toyota is that they've been resting on their reputation, they've cheapened their interiors, their quality is slipping, and they've grown too fast. That is what is going to weaken them the most. Hyundai is quickly building a very good reputation, and Ford is not far behind.
I do think that Toyota is a lot smarter than GM and won't take 30 years to figure out they need to step it up.
Look, I'm not disparaging the "good doctor" at all.
It's just that he presented an although VALID TEST, it was one which could not TECHNICALLY OCCUR in the real world the way he presented the possible cause of the problem:
The analysis of Professor's Gilbert's demonstration establishes that he has re-engineered and rewired the signals from the accelerator pedal.This rewired circuit is highly unlikely to occur naturally and can only be contrived in a laboratory. There is no evidence to suggest that this highly unlikely scenario has ever occurred in the real world. As shown in the Exponent and Toyota evaluations, with such artificial modifications, similar results can be obtained in other vehicles.
Great test if you are trying to proved that a system can be "re-engineered and re-wired to perform a specific task."
Just not something that could REALLY HAPPEN IN THE WILD.
I'm not "believing in the Toyota PR machine" at all - I believe in the scientific method, not the political one, for solving difficult technical issues.
I am by trade and training a computer technician.
I have re-wired a computer power supply to stay turned on without using the power button on the computer - but that does not mean that a computer power supply can "re-wire itself" on it's own.
Look, I'm not disparaging the "good doctor" at all.
It's just that he presented an although VALID TEST, it was one which could not TECHNICALLY OCCUR in the real world the way he presented the possible cause of the problem:
The analysis of Professor's Gilbert's demonstration establishes that he has re-engineered and rewired the signals from the accelerator pedal. This rewired circuit is highly unlikely to occur naturally and can only be contrived in a laboratory. There is no evidence to suggest that this highly unlikely scenario has ever occurred in the real world. As shown in the Exponent and Toyota evaluations, with such artificial modifications, similar results can be obtained in other vehicles.
Great test if you are trying to proved that a system can be "re-engineered and re-wired to perform a specific task."
Just not something that could REALLY HAPPEN IN THE WILD.
I'm not "believing in the Toyota PR machine" at all - I believe in the scientific method, not the political one, for solving difficult technical issues.
I am by trade and training a computer technician.
I have re-wired a computer power supply to stay turned on without using the power button on the computer - but that does not mean that a computer power supply can "re-wire itself" on it's own.
From a factual standpoint, Dr. Gilbert's test proved one thing....That if you apply forces or some sort of stimulant into a system that was not anticipated by the designer, unanticipated results can occur.
No surprise there. Anyone with any training is science and logic absolutely understands what I just wrote.
Using his test as an example of a flaw in Toyota's design is no different than claiming an analog TV is defective because it will not receive digital TV signals, or that a microwave oven is defective because it killed your pet when you attempted to dry your pet in it after a bath, or thinking the space shuttle should be able to do double duty as a deep-sea exploration vehicle..
Once again, for the weak-minded out there.... Dr. Gilbert's test is IRRELEVANT unless and until he (or anyone else) can demonstrate how it could occur outside the lab without malicious tampering with the system to induce the error condition.
For those who insist on continuing to spout off his test results as some type of proof, you're only demonstrating your absolute lack of understanding of the mechanics of the situation.
"A law suit has been filed. Courts can decide case. And I doubt if any of us will ever know the true factual details of that trial due to mutual confidentiality money award/settlement agreements."
Agreed! You also forget to mention that we have the best legal system money can buy. Any guess who will have the most money to spend?
Ateixeira - There is no present law governing EDR's - has not been implemented to date - present existing law states is to be implemented 2012-2013. Implementation date is when law becomes effective and is enforced. EDR manufacturer reliability is not challenged, required, enforced, etc. at present.
NHTSA has recently done reliabilty test on less than 10 Toyota autos. Number of autos tested would automatically inflict/create a faulty study claim/expert evaluation. Is it faulty? I don't know, but I too would say faulty due to small number of autos used. I have not found any documented reliabilty study documents for Toyota EDR. Studies have been done on some other manufacturers, but did not see any for Toyota's EDR.
Yes, NHTSA does have the Toyota readout tools printing out the Toyota EDR information. Yeah! But we have to also keep in mind Toyota has full/total corporate control of this Toyota EDR computerized information website. No legal law governance exists for this website computerized information presently. I would be more inclined to support Toyotas information if they actually used an outside manufacturers EDR information. And I was aware of any contractural manufacturer/Toyota contained information use agreements. Total corporate legal control of all information/website does legally present/create many questions that all consumers would/should have.
I totally support/am for EDR use being mandatory. Yes, there are pros and cons. But seems like a balance is being brought forward to address each side's concerns.
EDR readout information is still only one piece of the puzzle for an auto incident/accident investigation. We all must consider this and evaluate. Alot of information is presently online for us to review.
NASA investigation and National Academy of Science study investigation are still not completed. NHTSA has made it clear long way to go for any final decision/results/or decided approach. This additional statement was included when NHTSA released latest preliminary findings from Toytota EDR readout information.
Chuck - smile - usually the attorneys will come out just fine, and many times lots better than their client/s. Attorneys are in a professional service business, salesmanship performance is evident/practiced in this type of business. And many other professional businesses as well. I sure hope people that use an attorney understand all of the possibles when evaluating any financial agreements/decisions with attorneys. Many attorneys will honorably advise clients of all aspects well. Some don't. If a person wisely negotiates, has solid good legal law suit case supported with legally allowed strong proof documents, then an individual can/may come out ok - just must have alot of "if" questions answered. People sure can not be niiave. They have to play a strong pro-active role/have strong financial cost oversight/control/good understanding of possible costs. Possible cost expenses are usually too high and most people decide not to pursue a law suit.
Client/attorney law suit contingency agreements for any filed law suit are generally best financial arrangment for consumers. Most top notch attorneys would not even consider any such contract. Case would have to have some special beneficial business aspect for a well respected attorney to even consenting to case contingency agreement.
Corporations usually have the legal advantage in court law suit cases. Indivduals are usually at a legal disadvantage due multiple factors/reasons.
Anyone can sue. But winning and actually getting paid a court ordered money award is not generally easy. I had done research on this about five years ago. At that time actual money award collection/payment was 35+%. Court only orders money award, they do not collect. If person does not receive payment, then more court costs for more/additional court orders, more attorney fees, more investigation charges, + any money collection seizure costs, etc. Corporations usually drag this process out.
Class action law suits are entirely different. Attorneys reveiw/evaluate possible cases, and start process. I have not fully researched these types of law suits, but can see where attorney can be the ultimate winner. The lawyer gets paid for his services if he wins, and as he should. Any collection costs are just subtracted from the class action client data base money awards. And each client money award is generally quite small. Exceptions do exist though, but are rare.
If any attorneys are present among the bloggers would sure like to hear their perspective. Please know I am not attempting to criticze your professional work. I do respect the attorneys.
I hope you are not criticizing Dr Gilberts preliminary study results. Oversight Committee May 20th documents reveal government hired independent hired experts highly respected Dr Gilbert's work. Dr Gerdes with Stanford Auto Reseach - same gentleman who Toyota had asked to review Dr Gilbert's work stated Dr Gilberts work was good place to begin. Wiring of autos in auto research/teaching labs to introduce problems are the usual and customary routines used. This is how new auto technology is developed. Dr Hubing who spoke at National Academy of Science meeting found same results - and below linked news article reports he had discovered issues before Toyota recalls even occurred.
Exponent's debunking webcast demonstration presentation was actually highly criticized by government consulted/hired engineer experts. They felt Exponent's engineer presentation was not good science. Government documents reveal Exponent engineers added steps/etc./did not wire setup correctly/conduct/or honestly present/portray Dr Gilbert's actual auto lab used study procedures
And these government documents also reveal Exponent is conducting similar present business practices, same as they have done in their prior/past tactic reports/business practices. Their followed business model has been perfected over the years and is quite good, but it is not a honest/honorable model. I know you saw some of the links I posted here in past. And those were links I have had for several years following a medical research meeting & a discussion regarding Exponent practices/reports/research work. This meeting involved some of Kaiser top medical researchers and San Francisco University of California Medical Center medical research experts. UCSF is one of the top medical centers in US. These UCSF experts are researchers who can not be bought to produce biased based medical research work results. Wish I could say same about Kaiser, but I can't positively say for sure. I have to hope they can't be, as they did agree with UCSF researchers description evaluation. Biased based work/research is big existing problem and difficult/time consuming to investigate.
NOTE - Dr Hubing - Clemson University - Info Here are links to Dr Hubing research findings and his news report interview with an actual video of that TV interview. Dr Hubing was speaker at the National Academy of Science meeting. Do note Toyota has not attacked Dr Hubing or Clemson University for presenting same findings as Dr Gilbert. I find this interesting after how Toyota attacked University of Sotuhern Illinoise, attempted to get Dr Gilbert fiored, withdrew duppoirt money, made University stop Dr Gilbert's work, etc. AP requested university records under the Public Information Act, when they received, did a news report on what occurred and stated they had document proof to back up their story claims. Did note Safety Research & Strategies had article containg almost the same claims, but AP artilce had even more info.
Do note statement quote that Dr Hubing stated Toyota autos did not recognize multiple introduced problems. Possibly even more than Dr Gilbert. News article reports Dr Hubing also recognizes more testing needs to be done to connect lab findings to real situations. Same as Dr Gilbert testified when presenting at Oversight Committee hearing about his preliminary study results. Study document Dr Gilbert submitted to committee is titled Preliminary. And we all know what meaning of preliminary is.
You can scroll down and can click on Dr Hubing's speech bullet point outline given at National Academy of Science commitee panel members meeting http://www.trb.org/main/uastudy.aspx
So as I keep saying I prefer to stay in pending mode. Once study is done I will evaluate and discuss with my immediate family expert. These two studies are not completed. No final decison/action/.approaches made by NHTSA. May be a year before we know. Possibly NASA study will be done sooner.
They just have a brake at 0%? Is that the reversed data that goldsuv talked about?
That was speculation, and a real stretch. (EDIT: it happened on a GM, to say Toyota has the same mistake is speculation)
NHTSA performs NCAP tests on new cars so if this were reversed they'd have caught that years ago. Plus, anyone could test that on a Toyota that's on the road today.
The report was authored by NHTSA, not Toyota, per AN. Everyone is skeptical about Toyota so there's no way they'd just accept what Toyota said and publish that as their own.
Why not just let the AC run and operate smoothly like GM does on our cars?
My guess is to optimize fuel economy. When there is no load the engine can run at lower rpm and consume less fuel. When accessories like A/C add a big load, RPMs can be increased only when needed, which is more efficient.
I wonder if newer, more fuel efficient GM cars will do the same. How else is GM going to reach new CAFE standards?
Wonder WHY that after Oct 2009, Toyota SUA complaints skyrocketed.
Thank you, that's the data I was asking for. And exactly what I expected.
People throwing around these numbers should look at complaints BEFORE that date, before all the hysteria and media attention, when things were "normal".
After that you have to include all the cases of the A/C kicking on and paranoid owners worrying about there being something wrong, when there isn't. As imidazol said "The AC goes on with a loud buzz and the cooling fans sound like an airport for 20 seconds".
An airport! That's enough for lots of owners scared by the media witch hunt to think something is wrong, when indeed there isn't.
The real problem with Toyota is that they've been resting on their reputation, they've cheapened their interiors, their quality is slipping, and they've grown too fast
So true and that could really be the conclusion of this entire thread (not that anyone will let it end there).
Anyone who disagrees, go sit in a new Sienna. Open the glove box, you'll agree, it's case closed. Quality is way down.
> Do note Toyota has not attacked Dr Hubing or Clemson University for presenting same findings as Dr Gilbert. I find this interesting after how Toyota attacked University of Sotuhern Illinoise, attempted to get Dr Gilbert fiored, withdrew duppoirt money, made University stop Dr Gilbert's work, etc. AP requested university records under the Public Information Act, when they received, did a news report on what occurred and stated they had document proof to back up their story claims.
Sadly this is where much of toyota's effort has gone: PR via the nasty route.
Popular Mechanics has an article "Carhacked" about the electronics in a vehicle being susceptible to outside influences. They are vague in their statements and they describe using a computer hooked to the system in the testing by a group other than Popular Mechanics.
They carefully state that the car make involved is not significant because most cars could be vulnerable. They do include a picture in the article of a dash. I do not know what car brand it is that is shown.
Because the talk is about the electronics, I feel the etymology of the testing was the toyota-lexus problems.
I'm having trouble viewing the full PDF, but here is an alternate link to the same slides. I'll have to read that later since I'm on a very slow connection right now and can't download the 128 pages easily.
Thank you, that's the data I was asking for. And exactly what I expected.
What Data? That was merely speculation by the poster. The fact is the ODI had over 3000 complaints of SUA filed against Toyota, prior to the Saylor accident.
Comments
( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/eventdata.aspx)
See Report R004 p2. Note that the EDR only records for 5 secs before airbag deployment. What do you think wwest?
Are they all real good at what they do and how they interact with public? No. But most are though. Our local CHP and local city/town police are fairly good, and quite nice. If you have some proven incidents of "rogue" officers in your area - think it is time for your local public to speak out for some changes. Video use is helping correct some problems.
Yes, CHP do have accidents. The emergency driving situations they must face accidents would occur. Risks increase.
Is good for us to review all articles and see both sides. I do like his sample breakdown of those NHTSA Toyota EDR readouts.
News reports do vary and are each written to pyschologically leave readers with their own intended messages. It's up to us to evaluate objectively and look at all the other known available facts too.
http://www.safetyresearch.net/2010/08/11/no-black-box-exoneration-for-toyota-par- t-ii/
So are commercial airline pilots, but a substantial amount of crashes are caused by mistakes made by these extremely well-trained personnel, many with tens of thousands of flight hours.
The point is...For those who can't accept that a CHP officer could have negatively responded to a stressful situation and done exactly all the wrong things....You are simply ignoring the facts as they relate to human behavior. We never hear about the successes that HP officers have in stressful situations such as these....just the failures.
Saylor would still be considered a qualified/tested emergency driver. California CHP requirement. Other emergency drivers must have some degree of emergency drivers training also.
I would be the last to blame Office Mark Saylor for the accident though. Courts can decide.
The Saylor family accident was heartbreaking.
One should expect toyota SUAs market share to be AROUND 14% +- a few percentage points for variance. One should then also expect around like what also similar number of cases of SUAs happening to GM, Ford, drivers.
Also what about Nissan drivers ? What about Honda ? What about Hyundai ? These 3 automakers also have sizeable market shares mind you.
Then WHY IS IT THAT toyota totally DOMINATES the no. of SUA cases ? More than any other automakers COMBINED as reported by several sources sometime ago ?
Till now nobody can answer this question abt this phenomena. Let's give ourselves a challenge, could someone come up with JUST a few examples of GM, Ford, Nissan, Honda drivers whose fate are similar to those in the earlier link I provided, where their cars are totally ruined like it suffered a bomb attack (a collision due to pedal error could never result in such a Ghastly crash, unless its a HIGH SPEED collision (it was)), and their victims are dead.
And pls give us the links to the website. With photos and testimonies for better clarity.
Anyone wants to try ? Nissan cases, Ford cases, Hyundai cases, Honda cases. Just to satisfy ourselves that the other 86% non-toyotas also have their share of SUAs.
The fact is, YES, I do believe that out of so many drivers, there WILL be some who once in a while DO press the wrong pedal. But you see, ALL 100% of the GHASTLY cases, crashes belong to toyota drivers. Till today I have not seen any report of such a ghastly crash suffered by non-toyota drivers.
Talk about the ODDS ! 14% market share but having 100% of the ghastly crashes. No statistician can exonerate toyota on this one !
Maybe there are cases of narrow escapes, minor crashes due to pedal error done by non-toyota drivers, but because such cases are so minor, its no surprise that the press won't waste their time to report it.
After all, when someone pressed the wrong pedal and even if he corrects it a bit late, you won't expect the final collision speed to be in excess of 60 mph or more right ? But look at many of the toyota SUA cases. At high speeds mind you.
Its so difficult to convince die hard toyota fans that there IS something wrong with their automaker at this moment. If so then CONVINCE me by proving toyota SUA cases only have a +- 14% market share ! And that close to 100% of oldies and people on medication buys only toyotas.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atXvi2msqPOM
Its strange how some people believe that an ex-convict will not strike again !
This is one of the more ghastly ones in the last five years - old guy, pedal misapplication and in a Buick. Killed ten people on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica (home of Edmunds). (Wiki)
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/100202-Could-Non-Toy- ota-Vehicles-Face-Unintended-Acceleration-/
Quote "....There is, however, a failsafe Toyota neglected to build into its cars that could help drivers counteract the problem. Kicking Tires explains, “Since the most recent Toyota recall, many analysts are calling for Toyota and others to add ‘smart brake’ technology.” Smart Braking, also known as brake override, is a simple concept: if the driver depresses the brake pedal firmly, it overrides the throttle control, “thus canceling any acceleration, intended or otherwise. Most European and luxury automakers and Nissan already use smart brake technology, but Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota do not.”
Small wonder that Nissan, as one of the brands with a sizeable market share, have one of the smallest market share of SUAs. As for the other European and luxury brands, their market share is pretty small, thats why they have much less cases. To be fair.
What shocked me was that not only the big 3 and toyota, but HONDA too failed to incorporate such an important feature.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/161706/article.html
Quote "...Toyota Motor Corporation, consisting of its Toyota, Lexus and Scion brands, had 1,133 consumer complaints of unintended acceleration filed with NHTSA through Feb. 3. The complaints cover model years 2005 to 2010.
Toyota's number of complaints for unintended acceleration exceeds similar complaints for the other Big Six manufacturers COMBINED. (Now folks, once again, does toyota's annual sales EXCEED the other big 6 COMBINED ?) FAR FROM IT !!!
Rounding out the Big Six are, in order of most complaints to fewest are, Ford Motor Company, consisting of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models, with 387 complaints; Chrysler LLC, consisting of Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge models, with 171 complaints; General Motors, consisting of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac, GMC, Saturn, Saab, Buick and Hummer brands, with 152 complaints; Honda, including its Acura division, with 113 complaints; and Nissan, including its Infiniti division, with 62 complaints.
The Toyota brand has the highest number of such complaints of any Big Six brand, with 929. Ford brand follows with 300 complaints. Toyota's Lexus ranks third with 186 complaints.
Toyota Motor Corporation models — Toyota Camry (290 complaints), Toyota Tacoma (184 complaints) and Lexus ES 350 (100 complaints) — rank 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for most complaints by model, in Edmunds.com's analysis, which ranks the vehicles on the raw number of complaints, not on a sales- weighted basis.
Nine of the top 12 models with the most complaints of unintended acceleration are made by Toyota. In addition to the Camry, Tacoma and ES 350, the other Toyota models among the top dozen are: Toyota Prius, No. 5 with 85 complaints; Toyota Avalon, No. 6 with 79 complaints; Toyota Tundra, No. 7 with 66 complaints; Toyota Corolla, No. 8 with 55 complaints; Toyota Highlander, No. 11 with 42 complaints; and Toyota RAV4, No. 12 with 41 complaints.
The top 12 list is rounded out by two Fords: Ford F-150 in the No. 4 position with 86 complaints and Ford Mustang, which was No. 9 with 53 complaints. Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee was No. 10 with 46 complaints...Unquote
Now, these data DO NOT indicate the SEVERITY of the case, like does it result in a final fatal crash ? I mean a minor SUA that quickly vanishes and does not result in casualties cannot be put in the same category as some of the horrific toyota SUAs where the car slammed into the final resting place at extreme speed, squashing the occupants with the car.
What I would like to see is a tabulation of these more severe cases. But even without this, its pretty fair to say that, since toyota have the HIGHEST market share of SUA complaints, far above the others like Nissan and Honda, I think its also HIGHLY PROBABLE to say that toyota too have the highest market share of FAST, FATAL CRASHES due to SUAs.
And all the reports I see so far DO indicate that toyota is the king of High speed FATAL SUAs.
But those ghastly toyota cases are that, ghastly, because the drivers are normal not too old folks just doing their normal routine like you and I, and all of a sudden their toyotas speed up like possessed by a spirit, and they could not stop it. And I have read accounts where even putting the transmission into NEUTRAL DID nothing to stop it.
I can imagine the last moments of the driver, its like on an airplane plummeting down to the ground at accelerating speeds, and you know opening the door and jumping out is NOT an option. THEY ARE SCREWED !
And of course is the scene of the final resting place. COMPLETELY mangled wreck. Look at those photos in the website I provided earlier on. And the worse of all is, the case you quoted is someone screwed up, but the toyota cases is DRIVER INNOCENCE yet murdered.
And today, their families have to bear with the insult when NHTSA, toyota's good old friend says their loved one probably screwed up so badly that they even failed to brake EVEN when their speed is more than 60 mph !!!
WHAT ARE THEY DOING ? Got leg cramps where they failed to brake even when a car or river or cliff or a huge Home Depot building is approaching in front of their very eyes at terrific speeds ?!!
Its UNBELIEVABLE !!! Look at those photos again. some are young, some are middle aged. Can't be compared to the 86 year old driver case you quoted.
Saylor had 2 factors that make this incident different than what he covered in training:
1. 3 panicked passengers. Not a licensed instructor with him.
2. Element of surprise. He was prepared for and expected this while in training, but not while on a leisurely drive in a loaner car with family and friends.
A 3rd factor is that the training was likely done a long time ago - do they do annual updates/refresher courses? I doubt it.
How he could not find neutral remains a mystery, though I doubt that was covered in his training. They usually focus on car control and PITT manuevers.
Every time a Camry's A/C compressor turns on, the hysteria has people thinking the normal surge in RPMs is UA. Or during warm-up. There are many cases where an RPM surge is intended.
The numbers you should really look at are the reports that came in prior to April 2010, before the media attention on Toyota had customers looking for it. I bet more than half of the reports were filed after April 2010. Edit: do we have that data? Can anyone tell us what % were filed before/after the date of the Sikes hysteria?
Even so, let's analyze the numbers, and apply to those 1,133 cases. In the 58 cases NHTSA analyzed, our best hard data really, they reported:
35 no brakes applied = 60.3%
14 partial braking = 24.1%
9 last second braking = 15.5%
If those black boxes were analyzed, we'd see about 680 cases with no brake application at all, the majority actually. 272 partial braking, and roughly 176 cases where the brakes were only applied at the last second. In other words, driver error is the #1 factor.
One other thing - note how Audi is not even mentioned in that Edmunds article, that's because they've installed a the brake override that removes human error as a factor.
I'm not buying your argument. First off there were over 3000 complaints against Toyota for SUA before the Saylor accident. Edmund's went through the ODI and narrowed it down to 1133, that THEY considered legitimate complaints.
Using those percentages from very questionable EDR database has NO credibility. By toyota's own admission the EDR in their 2009 Lexus ES350 involved in the Saylor accident was NOT ready for primetime. Now they want US to believe it can point the finger at driver error in ALL cases of SUA. Gimme a break. I just hope the juries are smart enough to see through the lies and deceit toyota employs to win their cases.
What about the fatal accidents before the EDR was installed? There are cases back to at least 2003. It is incredible how rational minds can defend toyota, when they have no iron in the fire. Toyota has lied to and brow beat their customers in their quest to be the biggest. Now they want US to believe toyota owners are more incompetent than owners of any other brand. UNBELIEVABLE.
NHTSA made the report and Automotive News reported on it.
I don't trust WSJ any more than you do, but AN is legit, they're the auto industry standard, the paper dealers read.
Their subscribers are people who work in the auto industry in the USA, i.e. the majority are domestic auto industry employees.
There is no way they'd be biased.
We're back to trusting the electronics to have reported to and stored in the EDRs the correct info about braking again.
>Every time a Camry's A/C compressor turns on, the hysteria has people thinking the normal surge in RPMs is UA. Or during warm-up. There are many cases where an RPM surge is intended.
Odd they should have such poor electronics control to have surging when the AC engages. Or when the car is warming up.
I don't have surging on my GM cars. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
NHTSA has EDRs, that's certainly better than speculation and wishful thinking by Toyota's enemies.
RPM increase under heavy accessory load is perfectly normal.
Looking at the graphs of EDR info, many don't have accelerator, speed, info. Why is that?
They just have a brake at 0%? Is that the reversed data that goldsuv talked about?
Are these toyota graphs?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Did the NHTSA get the EDR data from toyota? With their limited staff would they be able to do a credible job of deciphering the EDR data? I would be more inclined to believe the NHTSA reports if they had a history of unbiased analysis.
Why?
If you have good control of the motor electronically with the idle bleeds, mixture, and in these cases the electronic throttle plate control, the car should be able to be kept at the same smooth idle speed at a stoplight, e.g.
I always find it annoying the way our friend's Corolla sitting in the driveway when she stops to visit and has the car running. The AC goes on with a loud buzz and the cooling fans sound like an airport for 20 seconds, then they turn off. Then 30 seconds later the noise repeats, all while we're talking to our friend. Why not just let the AC run and operate smoothly like GM does on our cars?
This is related to the engine and component control routes chosen by toyota.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Take a look at Page 17. Then page 19. Notice graph lines for Toyota and Volvo.
What's the big deal? It's my wife's daily driver. I have no major issues what so ever with this car.
The only issue I have had was one leaky shock, replaced under the extended warranty.
For those of you who refuse to believe it's driver error, we can't convince you otherwise.
You will believe what you want.
Wonder WHY that after Oct 2009, Toyota SUA complaints skyrocketed.
For those who think it's some kind of mysterious, as-yet-unidentified hardware/software problem in Toyota cars: How can you explain away the SUDDEN SURGE in complaints? What could have POSSIBLY happened to the CARS to make them ALL OF A SUDDEN start accelerating our of control?
I don't think that's a mystery which has a solution.
Unless it's copycat complaints, people getting caught up in the frenzy, joining the "in crowd," jumping on the chance to say "Hey, mine did that TOO !!!"
Or was it because of the Oct 2009 Toyota Recall?
Hard to explain it any other way, no?
"-If the vehicle is a 2000 - 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 or a Pontiac Sunfire GT, with a manual transmission (RPO MM5) and a
2.4L engine (RPO LD9), the Brake Switch Circuit Status data will be reported in the opposite state than what actually occurred,
e.g. an actual brake switch status of ?ON? will be reported as ?OFF?."
That's why the Toyota circuitry should be checked(by engineers) to see if that is happening.
I won't go so far to say that 100% is driver error, but its got to be close. Once one actually examines the data, its the most likely conclusion.
However, there may be some ergonomic issues relating to pedal placement that may also affect this "confusion", or driver error. That is where I would like to see some research done, either to negate or support that line of thought.
You will believe what you want.
That is SUCH an UNDERSTATEMENT!
I know you are smarter than that. Very simple answer. Built up frustration with dealers telling people that their car is fine after they run a simple diagnostic. One that Dr. Gilbert PROVED, would not register a WOT condition, if it does happen. That is until toyota went after Sikes. Then all of a sudden it shows everything. WOT and 250 times hitting the brakes. All too convenient for my very logical mind.
Wife says to husband when the recalls hit the news. "I told you it did that to me". So they register a complaint.
CHP officer Mark Saylor was a qualified California licensed emergency driver. His multiple years of meeting requirements for on-duty work experience, and training initially/+ ongoing inservice emergency drivers training standards would support fact he met/was qualified per governing California State Law Codes/California CHP standards.
I am aware for the past few years(?) he had worked in an administrative capacity. But it does not take a "genius" to remember/or deal with emergency driving situations. That horrible accident and his reactions did not involve memory recall of performance reactions that would be considered highly detailed/or technically difficult.
CHP officer Mark Saylor died, he can't tell us what he did and did not do. Could he have made a mistake? Yes. But I prefer not to go there. I prefer to respect/honor his professional work experience. . I prefer to think that he went into CHP officer work mode when incident occurred. Why? Mark Saylor can not defend/explain himself. Poor Mark Saylor and his family are deceased.
A law suit has been filed. Courts can decide case. And I doubt if any of us will ever know the true factual details of that trial due to mutual confidentiality money award/settlement agreements. This is our US legal system. I prefer to wait until that time and evaluate results.
His test is replicable in the LAB, but could never happen in a real car.
Toyota JUSTIFIABLY went after that [non-permissible content removed] Sikes (HOAX)
I do think that Toyota is a lot smarter than GM and won't take 30 years to figure out they need to step it up.
It's just that he presented an although VALID TEST, it was one which could not TECHNICALLY OCCUR in the real world the way he presented the possible cause of the problem:
The analysis of Professor's Gilbert's demonstration establishes that he has re-engineered and rewired the signals from the accelerator pedal. This rewired circuit is highly unlikely to occur naturally and can only be contrived in a laboratory. There is no evidence to suggest that this highly unlikely scenario has ever occurred in the real world. As shown in the Exponent and Toyota evaluations, with such artificial modifications, similar results can be obtained in other vehicles.
Great test if you are trying to proved that a system can be "re-engineered and re-wired to perform a specific task."
Just not something that could REALLY HAPPEN IN THE WILD.
I'm not "believing in the Toyota PR machine" at all - I believe in the scientific method, not the political one, for solving difficult technical issues.
I am by trade and training a computer technician.
I have re-wired a computer power supply to stay turned on without using the power button on the computer - but that does not mean that a computer power supply can "re-wire itself" on it's own.
It's just that he presented an although VALID TEST, it was one which could not TECHNICALLY OCCUR in the real world the way he presented the possible cause of the problem:
The analysis of Professor's Gilbert's demonstration establishes that he has re-engineered and rewired the signals from the accelerator pedal. This rewired circuit is highly unlikely to occur naturally and can only be contrived in a laboratory. There is no evidence to suggest that this highly unlikely scenario has ever occurred in the real world. As shown in the Exponent and Toyota evaluations, with such artificial modifications, similar results can be obtained in other vehicles.
Great test if you are trying to proved that a system can be "re-engineered and re-wired to perform a specific task."
Just not something that could REALLY HAPPEN IN THE WILD.
I'm not "believing in the Toyota PR machine" at all - I believe in the scientific method, not the political one, for solving difficult technical issues.
I am by trade and training a computer technician.
I have re-wired a computer power supply to stay turned on without using the power button on the computer - but that does not mean that a computer power supply can "re-wire itself" on it's own.
From a factual standpoint, Dr. Gilbert's test proved one thing....That if you apply forces or some sort of stimulant into a system that was not anticipated by the designer, unanticipated results can occur.
No surprise there. Anyone with any training is science and logic absolutely understands what I just wrote.
Using his test as an example of a flaw in Toyota's design is no different than claiming an analog TV is defective because it will not receive digital TV signals, or that a microwave oven is defective because it killed your pet when you attempted to dry your pet in it after a bath, or thinking the space shuttle should be able to do double duty as a deep-sea exploration vehicle..
Once again, for the weak-minded out there.... Dr. Gilbert's test is IRRELEVANT unless and until he (or anyone else) can demonstrate how it could occur outside the lab without malicious tampering with the system to induce the error condition.
For those who insist on continuing to spout off his test results as some type of proof, you're only demonstrating your absolute lack of understanding of the mechanics of the situation.
Agreed! You also forget to mention that we have the best legal system money can buy. Any guess who will have the most money to spend?
NHTSA has recently done reliabilty test on less than 10 Toyota autos. Number of autos tested would automatically inflict/create a faulty study claim/expert evaluation. Is it faulty? I don't know, but I too would say faulty due to small number of autos used. I have not found any documented reliabilty study documents for Toyota EDR. Studies have been done on some other manufacturers, but did not see any for Toyota's EDR.
Yes, NHTSA does have the Toyota readout tools printing out the Toyota EDR information. Yeah! But we have to also keep in mind Toyota has full/total corporate control of this Toyota EDR computerized information website. No legal law governance exists for this website computerized information presently. I would be more inclined to support Toyotas information if they actually used an outside manufacturers EDR information. And I was aware of any contractural manufacturer/Toyota contained information use agreements. Total corporate legal control of all information/website does legally present/create many questions that all consumers would/should have.
I totally support/am for EDR use being mandatory. Yes, there are pros and cons. But seems like a balance is being brought forward to address each side's concerns.
EDR readout information is still only one piece of the puzzle for an auto incident/accident investigation. We all must consider this and evaluate. Alot of information is presently online for us to review.
NASA investigation and National Academy of Science study investigation are still not completed. NHTSA has made it clear long way to go for any final decision/results/or decided approach. This additional statement was included when NHTSA released latest preliminary findings from Toytota EDR readout information.
Client/attorney law suit contingency agreements for any filed law suit are generally best financial arrangment for consumers. Most top notch attorneys would not even consider any such contract. Case would have to have some special beneficial business aspect for a well respected attorney to even consenting to case contingency agreement.
Corporations usually have the legal advantage in court law suit cases. Indivduals are usually at a legal disadvantage due multiple factors/reasons.
Anyone can sue. But winning and actually getting paid a court ordered money award is not generally easy. I had done research on this about five years ago. At that time actual money award collection/payment was 35+%. Court only orders money award, they do not collect. If person does not receive payment, then more court costs for more/additional court orders, more attorney fees, more investigation charges, + any money collection seizure costs, etc. Corporations usually drag this process out.
Class action law suits are entirely different. Attorneys reveiw/evaluate possible cases, and start process. I have not fully researched these types of law suits, but can see where attorney can be the ultimate winner. The lawyer gets paid for his services if he wins, and as he should. Any collection costs are just subtracted from the class action client data base money awards. And each client money award is generally quite small. Exceptions do exist though, but are rare.
If any attorneys are present among the bloggers would sure like to hear their perspective. Please know I am not attempting to criticze your professional work. I do respect the attorneys.
Exponent's debunking webcast demonstration presentation was actually highly criticized by government consulted/hired engineer experts. They felt Exponent's engineer presentation was not good science. Government documents reveal Exponent engineers added steps/etc./did not wire setup correctly/conduct/or honestly present/portray Dr Gilbert's actual auto lab used study procedures
And these government documents also reveal Exponent is conducting similar present business practices, same as they have done in their prior/past tactic reports/business practices. Their followed business model has been perfected over the years and is quite good, but it is not a honest/honorable model. I know you saw some of the links I posted here in past. And those were links I have had for several years following a medical research meeting & a discussion regarding Exponent practices/reports/research work. This meeting involved some of Kaiser top medical researchers and San Francisco University of California Medical Center medical research experts. UCSF is one of the top medical centers in US. These UCSF experts are researchers who can not be bought to produce biased based medical research work results. Wish I could say same about Kaiser, but I can't positively say for sure. I have to hope they can't be, as they did agree with UCSF researchers description evaluation. Biased based work/research is big existing problem and difficult/time consuming to investigate.
NOTE -
Dr Hubing - Clemson University - Info
Here are links to Dr Hubing research findings and his news report interview with an actual video of that TV interview. Dr Hubing was speaker at the National Academy of Science meeting. Do note Toyota has not attacked Dr Hubing or Clemson University for presenting same findings as Dr Gilbert. I find this interesting after how Toyota attacked University of Sotuhern Illinoise, attempted to get Dr Gilbert fiored, withdrew duppoirt money, made University stop Dr Gilbert's work, etc. AP requested university records under the Public Information Act, when they received, did a news report on what occurred and stated they had document proof to back up their story claims. Did note Safety Research & Strategies had article containg almost the same claims, but AP artilce had even more info.
Do note statement quote that Dr Hubing stated Toyota autos did not recognize multiple introduced problems. Possibly even more than Dr Gilbert. News article reports Dr Hubing also recognizes more testing needs to be done to connect lab findings to real situations. Same as Dr Gilbert testified when presenting at Oversight Committee hearing about his preliminary study results. Study document Dr Gilbert submitted to committee is titled Preliminary. And we all know what meaning of preliminary is.
TV News video interview Dr Hubing and written news report
http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010/jul/21/clemson-professor-studies-unintended-accel- eration--ar-607687/
Can scroll down to view resume of Dr Hubing's professional background and some work experience
http://www.wll.com/Clemson_Greenville_course.html
You can scroll down and can click on Dr Hubing's speech bullet point outline given at National Academy of Science commitee panel members meeting
http://www.trb.org/main/uastudy.aspx
National Academy of Science NHTSA requested SUA study on all auto manufacturers. - Project Description - will last approximately 15 months
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49236
National Academy of Science June 30th meeting
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=4462&MeetingNo=1-
So as I keep saying I prefer to stay in pending mode. Once study is done I will evaluate and discuss with my immediate family expert. These two studies are not completed. No final decison/action/.approaches made by NHTSA. May be a year before we know. Possibly NASA study will be done sooner.
That was speculation, and a real stretch. (EDIT: it happened on a GM, to say Toyota has the same mistake is speculation)
NHTSA performs NCAP tests on new cars so if this were reversed they'd have caught that years ago. Plus, anyone could test that on a Toyota that's on the road today.
The report was authored by NHTSA, not Toyota, per AN. Everyone is skeptical about Toyota so there's no way they'd just accept what Toyota said and publish that as their own.
My guess is to optimize fuel economy. When there is no load the engine can run at lower rpm and consume less fuel. When accessories like A/C add a big load, RPMs can be increased only when needed, which is more efficient.
I wonder if newer, more fuel efficient GM cars will do the same. How else is GM going to reach new CAFE standards?
Thank you, that's the data I was asking for. And exactly what I expected.
People throwing around these numbers should look at complaints BEFORE that date, before all the hysteria and media attention, when things were "normal".
After that you have to include all the cases of the A/C kicking on and paranoid owners worrying about there being something wrong, when there isn't. As imidazol said "The AC goes on with a loud buzz and the cooling fans sound like an airport for 20 seconds".
An airport! That's enough for lots of owners scared by the media witch hunt to think something is wrong, when indeed there isn't.
Huge difference.
Totally agree about Saylor, it was very sad and we'll never know exactly what happened and why. May he RIP.
So true and that could really be the conclusion of this entire thread (not that anyone will let it end there).
Anyone who disagrees, go sit in a new Sienna. Open the glove box, you'll agree, it's case closed. Quality is way down.
Meanwhile, many competitors have improved.
Sadly this is where much of toyota's effort has gone: PR via the nasty route.
Popular Mechanics has an article "Carhacked" about the electronics in a vehicle being susceptible to outside influences. They are vague in their statements and they describe using a computer hooked to the system in the testing by a group other than Popular Mechanics.
They carefully state that the car make involved is not significant because most cars could be vulnerable. They do include a picture in the article of a dash. I do not know what car brand it is that is shown.
Because the talk is about the electronics, I feel the etymology of the testing was the toyota-lexus problems.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ua/100630DOTSlides.pdf
The Truth About Cars wrote:
we’d even argue that this data puts a lot of the controversy over unintended acceleration in Toyotas to rest
Another conclusion surely to be completely ignored here. LOL
To me the most interesting part is that prior to Oct '09 there were many, many more complaints for Ford cars than Toyota.
Nearly double, actually.
What Data? That was merely speculation by the poster. The fact is the ODI had over 3000 complaints of SUA filed against Toyota, prior to the Saylor accident.