Toyota's under huge pressure, in the hot seat. US Congressional hearings this week. I read an article yesterday that the Japanese govt are investigating inconsistencies and problems in how recalls may have been handled.
The second link is of a driver of an out of control Toyota. Scary. The car was basically uncontrollable, apparently. Nothing much she could do for six miles as the car raced along at speeds up to 100mph.
Quote
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967654,00.html
Congress Puts Toyota (and Toyoda) in the Hot Seat
Congress may well have trouble passing ambitious legislation these days, but they remain masters at summoning indignation. As a piece of political theater, the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday into Toyota's troubles had everything you could hope for: testy exchanges, Clintonian hairsplitting, obnoxious grandstanding, tearful testimony and even multiple references to Marisa Tomei's automotive wizardry in My Cousin Vinny. But the spectacle failed to untangle the knottiest question looming over the proceedings: whether Toyota has definitively pinpointed the problem causing its cars to accelerate out of control.
By hauling the top brass of the world's largest automaker to Capitol Hill for a public flogging, House members got to vent their outrage at Toyota's sclerotic response to the crisis. So far the once revered company has had to recall more than 8 million vehicles for issues ranging from troublesome floor mats to sticky gas pedals to faulty brakes. But several committee members maintained that Toyota has failed to address the possibility that scrambled computers in its cars could be the culprit. In a blistering letter submitted to Toyota's U.S. president, James Lentz, before the hearing, Representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak wrote, "Our preliminary assessment is that Toyota resisted the possibility that electronic defects could cause safety concerns, relied on a flawed engineering report, and made misleading public statements concerning the adequacy of recent recalls." (See pictures of Toyota's history.)
During his testimony, Lentz acknowledged that "it has taken us too long to come to grips with a rare but serious set of safety issues, despite all of our good-faith efforts." But he insisted that Toyota has resolved the manufacturing defects responsible for some 2,600 instances of sudden unintended acceleration and 34 deaths since 2000. "We are confident that no problems exist with the electronic throttle-control system in our vehicles," Lentz said in his statement, citing extensive testing of the system's fail-safe mechanisms. But under questioning from Waxman, Lentz conceded he was "not totally" certain that Toyota had fixed the problem. To safeguard against further occurrences, the company said it would install brake-override systems in its new North American vehicles by the end of year, and retrofit older models where possible. (Comment on this story)
When he takes his turn on the hot seat on Wednesday, Akio Toyoda, the company's president and CEO — and grandson of its founder — will attempt to mollify his detractors with a heavy dose of contrition. "Toyota has, for the past few years, been expanding its business rapidly," Toyoda said in a prepared statement that he is expected to read at Wednesday's hearing. "Quite frankly, I fear the pace at which we have grown may have been too quick." He also said the company would give greater weight to customer complaints, mandate that managers drive the company's cars and improve communication between the company's international branches. (See the 50 worst cars of all time.)
Toyoda won't be the only one in the crosshairs on Wednesday. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood will speak on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the regulatory body whose apparent lax oversight — since 2003 it opened and closed eight investigations of Toyota vehicles due to customer complaints — was pilloried on Tuesday. Accounts of NHTSA's failure to piece together a pattern of customer complaints have made the group one of the saga's twin villains. "Shame on you Toyota, for being so greedy, and shame on you, NHTSA, for not doing your job," said Rhonda Smith, a former social worker from Tennessee who, during emotional testimony, recounted a 2006 incident in which her Lexus ES 350 accelerated to more than 100 m.p.h. despite repeated braking. NHTSA "failed all along the way," Joan Claybrook, who formerly led the agency and who is scheduled to speak at Wednesday's hearing, told TIME earlier this month.
But it is Toyota, a company that built its reputation through its dogged commitment to reliability, that has plunged the farthest. Wednesday's appearance will mark the culmination of a brutal month for its chief, who has been battered by the media for his sluggish response to the crisis. Toyota surely hoped that the worldwide recall of its flagship Prius and other hybrid models earlier this month would close an ugly chapter in its storied history. But a series of damaging revelations has rekindled whispers that the automaker has valued profits over safety. In a document dated July 6, 2009, and obtained by the House Oversight Committee, Toyota officials claim it saved $100 million in 2007 by negotiating a limited recall of Camry and Lexus models rather than taking more drastic actions. (See the top 10 product recalls.)
The same document cites as a challenge the "activist [Obama] Administration," which owns a 61% stake in competitor General Motors and an interest in Chrysler. Under questioning from Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan, Lentz denied that the company believed politics helped spur the inquiry. Other reports, however, suggested that Toyota — which has 172,000 U.S. employees and a well-oiled Capitol Hill lobbying operation that has spent nearly $25 million over the past five years — could just as easily be the beneficiary of government favoritism as the victim. (See "Who Benefits from Toyota's Recall Problem?")
Meanwhile, Toyota has revealed it had received a federal grand-jury subpoena over its management of safety issues, as well as a Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena asking it to produce documents related to its "disclosure policy and practices." As its president acknowledged, the company is speeding toward a reckoning. "I myself, as well as Toyota, am not perfect. At times, we do find defects," he said. "But in such situations, we always stop, strive to understand the problem and make changes to improve further." It's not clear the company has done that in this case, and in failing to do so it may have driven itself to the precipice.
[\quote]
This is one driver, could not stop the car in any way. Brakes, in neutral, turning the key off... nothing worked. Very scary stuff. Testified in front of Congress.
Quote
http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/18292054
Toyota Owner: Ride 'A near death experience'
[\quote]
Ford and GM saboteurs in Toyota plants. :ph34r:
Quote from: KRonn on February 24, 2010, 01:03:51 PM
The second link is of a driver of an out of control Toyota. Scary. The car was basically uncontrollable, apparently. Nothing much she could do for six miles as the car raced along at speeds up to 100mph.
She could have turned off the ignition.
I have had that problem, once. It was a bit of the air filter that got stuck in the throttle. It wasn't a near-death experience for me, though.
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 01:10:51 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 24, 2010, 01:03:51 PM
The second link is of a driver of an out of control Toyota. Scary. The car was basically uncontrollable, apparently. Nothing much she could do for six miles as the car raced along at speeds up to 100mph.
She could have turned off the ignition.
I have had that problem, once. It was a bit of the air filter that got stuck in the throttle. It wasn't a near-death experience for me, though.
Turning off the ignition is not always possible, in some cases ignition is locked. Putting the car in the neutral should do it, though.
A near life experience?
This thread should be called Toyotal Recall. Mod?
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 01:10:51 PM
She could have turned off the ignition.
I have had that problem, once. It was a bit of the air filter that got stuck in the throttle. It wasn't a near-death experience for me, though.
Did you watch the video at the link? She tried to turn it off and it wasn't able to until the car had slowed to 33 MPH; she's also got witnesses saying that her husband shifted the car into neutral without the key fob, and that the car had tried to turn itself back on when they tried to winch it onto a tow truck (I'm assuming that something in the electronics was jammed "on" and running off the battery).
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
Turning off the ignition is not always possible, in some cases ignition is locked. Putting the car in the neutral should do it, though.
In a manual-transmission car with a clutch, yes, but in an automatic, the "gears" in an automatic are electronically determined differentials.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
Turning off the ignition is not always possible, in some cases ignition is locked. Putting the car in the neutral should do it, though.
In a manual-transmission car with a clutch, yes, but in an automatic, the "gears" in an automatic are electronically determined differentials.
1) What?
2) What does it have to do with the neutral? Automatic transmissions have the neutral gear just as manual transmission cars do.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 01:10:51 PM
She could have turned off the ignition.
I have had that problem, once. It was a bit of the air filter that got stuck in the throttle. It wasn't a near-death experience for me, though.
Did you watch the video at the link? She tried to turn it off and it wasn't able to until the car had slowed to 33 MPH; she's also got witnesses saying that her husband shifted the car into neutral without the key fob, and that the car had tried to turn itself back on when they tried to winch it onto a tow truck (I'm assuming that something in the electronics was jammed "on" and running off the battery).
Was it: Christine?
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 01:49:33 PM
1) What?
2) What does it have to do with the neutral? Automatic transmissions have the neutral gear just as manual transmission cars do.
Automatic shifters aren't mechanical; they're electronic. In theory (and what this woman is describing), they can fail to where you can't actually shift the car into neutral. I guess I was a little unclear; neutral will disconnect the gear train completely, but only if you can actually
get to it through the electronic shifter.
The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains.
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2010, 01:58:01 PM
The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains.
:yes:
Personally, I'm less impressed with automotive engineers of late than, say, the contestants participating in the hovercraft episode of
Junkyard Wars. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 01:10:51 PM
She could have turned off the ignition.
I have had that problem, once. It was a bit of the air filter that got stuck in the throttle. It wasn't a near-death experience for me, though.
Did you watch the video at the link? She tried to turn it off and it wasn't able to until the car had slowed to 33 MPH; she's also got witnesses saying that her husband shifted the car into neutral without the key fob, and that the car had tried to turn itself back on when they tried to winch it onto a tow truck (I'm assuming that something in the electronics was jammed "on" and running off the battery).
Yeah, it sounds like she tried to turn the ignition off but it never worked until the car was going a lot slower. But by the same reasoning, putting the gear in neutral should stop the run away ride. And she even put the gear in reverse, which also made no difference!!
Now if her testimony is true, and not fabricated to win money, that all is absurdly scary to have happen. (I have no reason to suspect her claims.) And this or similar has happened to others, some who didn't survive the ordeal.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2010, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Did you watch the video at the link? She tried to turn it off and it wasn't able to until the car had slowed to 33 MPH; she's also got witnesses saying that her husband shifted the car into neutral without the key fob, and that the car had tried to turn itself back on when they tried to winch it onto a tow truck (I'm assuming that something in the electronics was jammed "on" and running off the battery).
Was it: Christine?
When Herbie goes bad.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:54:53 PM
Automatic shifters aren't mechanical; they're electronic. In theory (and what this woman is describing), they can fail to where you can't actually shift the car into neutral. I guess I was a little unclear; neutral will disconnect the gear train completely, but only if you can actually get to it through the electronic shifter.
It also seems to me, from the fact that in a couple incidents of this shifting the car into neutral has failed, that car's logic controller is suffering some kind of massive fault. The throttles are electronic too afterall. Though you would hope that the failure mode of the system isn't throttle open...
Quote from: Savonarola on February 24, 2010, 02:20:14 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2010, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Did you watch the video at the link? She tried to turn it off and it wasn't able to until the car had slowed to 33 MPH; she's also got witnesses saying that her husband shifted the car into neutral without the key fob, and that the car had tried to turn itself back on when they tried to winch it onto a tow truck (I'm assuming that something in the electronics was jammed "on" and running off the battery).
Was it: Christine?
When Herbie goes bad.
The Lovebug loves no more. Now he is a car on a hunt for vengeance against a society that replaced his sweet and loving genre with KITT and a new era of cynicism and road rage.
Quote from: KRonn on February 24, 2010, 01:03:51 PM
Toyota's under huge pressure, in the hot seat. US Congressional hearings this week.
Well, they should be. Looks like their cars ended up sending people to jail:
QuoteEmerging evidence of flaws in Toyotas could help free a Minnesota man who was convicted of vehicular homicide despite his claims the brakes did not work as his Camry suddenly accelerated and slammed into another car, killing three members of one family.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/toyota-acceleration-problems-new-evidence-imprisoned-minnesota-toyota-camry-owner/story?id=9903455&page=1
Quote from: ulmont on February 24, 2010, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 24, 2010, 01:03:51 PM
Toyota's under huge pressure, in the hot seat. US Congressional hearings this week.
Well, they should be. Looks like their cars ended up sending people to jail:
QuoteEmerging evidence of flaws in Toyotas could help free a Minnesota man who was convicted of vehicular homicide despite his claims the brakes did not work as his Camry suddenly accelerated and slammed into another car, killing three members of one family.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/toyota-acceleration-problems-new-evidence-imprisoned-minnesota-toyota-camry-owner/story?id=9903455&page=1
Yes that's what's bad about that incident.
Thank you BBC comments!
Quote9. At 6:53pm on 24 Feb 2010, DouglasFeith wrote:
Yeah, think we got the point the first time. But it is interesting to note that over 30,000 people are killed every year in Amerika in auto accidents. That's ten times as many as were killed in 9/11. As a cause of death, terrorism is right near the bottom of the list, and yet it's being used as a pretext for obscene military budgets and unconscionable wars of unilateral aggression by Amerika that are incalculably worse than Toyota's inexcusable malfeasance. It wouldn't be at all difficult, however, to "outdo the emotion and tension of yesterday's event". All you would have to do is allow a few weeping mother's from Afghanistan or Gaza to testify about seeing their children one last time before they were killed by Amerikan drones or blockaded by Amerikan allies. Amerikans and Israelis are always so quick to feel sorry for their own over-privilged selves. Perhaps they should save a few tears for their endless uncounted victims.
I needed a good laugh. :lol:
Inside that anti-Semitic vitriol is a pretty large grain of truth. This whole Toyota situation is an example of a massive over-reaction, considering the death toll. Yes, having the throttle stick on you, and not being able to do anything about it, would be a very tramatizing experience. So would be spinning off the road in wet conditions and wrapping yourself around a tree, and that happens hundreds of times more frequently.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 03:20:36 PM
Yes, having the throttle stick on you, and not being able to do anything about it, would be a very tramatizing experience.
It stings a little more when it's caused by the negligence of others.
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2010, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 03:20:36 PM
Yes, having the throttle stick on you, and not being able to do anything about it, would be a very tramatizing experience.
It stings a little more when it's caused by the negligence of others.
But it kills and maims exactly the same.
The zero fatalities of Three Mile Island has cost us a lot of money. :(
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 03:39:11 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2010, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 03:20:36 PM
Yes, having the throttle stick on you, and not being able to do anything about it, would be a very tramatizing experience.
It stings a little more when it's caused by the negligence of others.
But it kills and maims exactly the same.
I am not sure what the point is here - the fact that lots of people die due to car accidents means that some people who die due to the negligence of Toyota is somehow less...what? Important?
It's not like we do nothing about all those people who are killed or injured in auto accidents.
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2010, 03:41:26 PM
I am not sure what the point is here - the fact that lots of people die due to car accidents means that some people who die due to the negligence of Toyota is somehow less...what? Important?
It's not like we do nothing about all those people who are killed or injured in auto accidents.
There are several points here.
1) I'm just putting the carnage into perspective. Given the frequency of fatal car crashes, having this throttle issue does not suddenly make Toyotas death traps. If we were fine with the safety of Toyotas as it was before this throttle issue, we should really be fine with this additional rare and marginal hazard added on. It doesn't mean that we should do nothing about it, but it does mean that we shouldn't go apeshit over it.
2) The reason this failure is possible is due to giving up much of the control over the car to the electronics. At first glance in seems reckless, because it opens the door for engineers to make a design mistake that kills a dozen of people or two when computers completely fuck up.
However, all this switch to electronics also makes possible things like stability control, as well as other active safety features that are still in infancy. Stuff like blind spot detection, automatic braking, belt pre-tensioner, etc.
All that stuff can make enormous dents into fatality rate from the ordinary, and by far the most common, types of accidents: the kinds where the driver, and not the car, fucks up. We have to be careful not to swear off the entire concept of having electronics do a lot of work in a car, because we'll be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That said, there is no excuse for the scummy corporate behavior aimed to conceal the problems. If Toyota engaged in it heavily, as it looks like they did, then they should be punished for that.
OK, fair enough - got no beef with any of that.
We will likely go apeshit over it, but that might mean I can get a good deal on a used Toyota, which is still just about one the best cars made, so that is ok.
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2010, 04:15:46 PM
We will likely go apeshit over it, but that might mean I can get a good deal on a used Toyota, which is still just about one the best cars made, so that is ok.
That's what I would've planned to do if I didn't dislike Toyota's cars. Resale values are almost guaranteed to plunge, mostly for dumb and irrational reasons.
About 20 years ago, there was a similar story concerning Audis. Turns out it was mostly fabricated by 60 Minutes, but lots of people gave away their cars for a huge discount. People who were smart enough to buy almost stole cars that were pretty good pieces of machinery.
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 03:57:46 PM
The reason this failure is possible is due to giving up much of the control over the car to the electronics. At first glance in seems reckless, because it opens the door for engineers to make a design mistake that kills a dozen of people or two when computers completely fuck up.
However, all this switch to electronics also makes possible things like stability control, as well as other active safety features that are still in infancy. Stuff like blind spot detection, automatic braking, belt pre-tensioner, etc.
All that stuff can make enormous dents into fatality rate from the ordinary, and by far the most common, types of accidents: the kinds where the driver, and not the car, fucks up. We have to be careful not to swear off the entire concept of having electronics do a lot of work in a car, because we'll be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Sort of like how airbags have saved a lot of lives, but in certain cases they can kill a driver or passanger who would have likely not been even injuried seriously without them.
Though it would probably be a good idea to have the emergency brake be a strictly mechanical device that can't be overcome by the electronics.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
Congress would hold hearings on whether or not shit stinks if it would allow the members to demagogue up a few extra votes come the next election.
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2010, 05:17:32 PM
Though it would probably be a good idea to have the emergency brake be a strictly mechanical device that can't be overcome by the electronics.
Brakes are not controlled by electronics even now. It's still hydraulic pressure, with power assist. The power assist may not be there if the car is at full throttle, which would make the brakes less effective, but that's a mechanical shortcoming of the design.
I also have a quibble with "emergency brake" being mentioned. "Emergency brake" is mostly a misnomer, it's really a parking brake. If you got no brakes at all and are coasting, then the handbrake can slow you down just a tad, if it doesn't make your car swap ends. It isn't even going to pretend to stop the car if your throttle is stuck.
I still hope to buy a Corolla by the time I retire :bowler:
I think this is a massive plan to boost the US automakers :tinfoil:
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 05:30:07 PM
I also have a quibble with "emergency brake" being mentioned. "Emergency brake" is mostly a misnomer, it's really a parking brake. If you got no brakes at all and are coasting, then the handbrake can slow you down just a tad, if it doesn't make your car swap ends. It isn't even going to pretend to stop the car if your throttle is stuck.
If your throttle is stuck, the emergency brake is going to blow your tire. This happened to me when I had my emergency brake get stuck.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
American legislators love to grandstand on shit that's none of their business, and public safety is always a good excuse.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
Congress has the power to regulate items (cars) that travel in interstate commerce (all of them), including setting safety standards. Associated with that, they may conduct hearings to decide what type of legislation might be wise.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
For starters, Congress gets involved in regulatory issues that are too big for an agency to handle on their own, such as the National Traffic Safety Bureau. For another, if Toyota supplied fleet vehicles for Washington, D.C. or the federal government, then yes, there is a public issue in the form of doing business with the feds.
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 05:30:07 PMBrakes are not controlled by electronics even now. It's still hydraulic pressure, with power assist. The power assist may not be there if the car is at full throttle, which would make the brakes less effective, but that's a mechanical shortcoming of the design.
Not necessarily. In modern cars, the electronics determine how much you actually want to break because humans usually break either too much or too little in dangerous situations. And the electronics can also initiate breaking by themselves if the sensors signal an imminent crash.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Why not?
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
Quote from: ulmont on February 24, 2010, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 05:30:07 PM
I also have a quibble with "emergency brake" being mentioned. "Emergency brake" is mostly a misnomer, it's really a parking brake. If you got no brakes at all and are coasting, then the handbrake can slow you down just a tad, if it doesn't make your car swap ends. It isn't even going to pretend to stop the car if your throttle is stuck.
If your throttle is stuck, the emergency brake is going to blow your tire. This happened to me when I had my emergency brake get stuck.
Not sure about that. Your tire is only gong to blow out if the handbrake locks the wheel. At high speeds, there most likely would not be enough power in the handbrake system to lock the wheel.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:20:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 05:30:07 PMBrakes are not controlled by electronics even now. It's still hydraulic pressure, with power assist. The power assist may not be there if the car is at full throttle, which would make the brakes less effective, but that's a mechanical shortcoming of the design.
Not necessarily. In modern cars, the electronics determine how much you actually want to break because humans usually break either too much or too little in dangerous situations. And the electronics can also initiate breaking by themselves if the sensors signal an imminent crash.
I forgot about that, but that's only in a few high end cars for now. Even those systems aren't brake-by-wire.
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2010, 01:41:55 AMI forgot about that, but that's only in a few high end cars for now. Even those systems aren't brake-by-wire.
The brake assist that increases braking power to maximum in emergencies is prescribed as standard by the European Commission starting in 2009. So every car sold in Europe must have this. It's not brake-by-wire, but I can imagine flukes with the electronics...
EDIT: Our latest prototype had a really cool feature: a congestion assistant. Up to speeds of 40 kph, it can follow the car in front of you by itself. That includes braking, accelerating and steering. So if you are stuck in traffic, you can just lean back and let the car drive.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
For starters, Congress gets involved in regulatory issues that are too big for an agency to handle on their own, such as the National Traffic Safety Bureau. For another, if Toyota supplied fleet vehicles for Washington, D.C. or the federal government, then yes, there is a public issue in the form of doing business with the feds.
Sorry but the state acting in its capacity as a legal entity engaging in commerce is not a "public issue".
Quote from: ulmont on February 24, 2010, 09:16:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:11:06 PM
I'm kinda surprised why you have congressional hearings for matters like this in the US. I mean, if I understand correctly, this is a purely private-to-private issue, with no public issue (e.g. misuse of power or corruption) involved.
Congress has the power to regulate items (cars) that travel in interstate commerce (all of them), including setting safety standards. Associated with that, they may conduct hearings to decide what type of legislation might be wise.
Ok, if this is done to determine what kind of regulations are needed, then it's alright - but then it shouldn't be about "Toyota recall hearings" but about "car safety hearings". If it is there to "name and shame" however, then this encroaches dangerously on individual rights and separation of powers (since that kind of stuff is done by the executive and judicature through regulatory enforcement).
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:19:25 AM
Sorry but the state acting in its capacity as a legal entity engaging in commerce is not a "public issue".
Martinus:Libertarian :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on February 25, 2010, 02:23:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:19:25 AM
Sorry but the state acting in its capacity as a legal entity engaging in commerce is not a "public issue".
Martinus:Libertarian :huh:
Nope, I'm a lawyer. In legal theory, you differentiate between what is called "imperium" (the state acting in its capacity of a sovereign) and "dominium" (the state, or more precisely, the "estate of the state", acting in its capacity of a proprietor/market actor). Only the former is normally recognized as giving the state special powers and thus being a "public" issue.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:30:06 AM
... the "estate of the state", acting in its capacity of a proprietor/market actor). Only the former is normally recognized as giving the state special powers and thus being a "public" issue.
Using public funds and public properties isn't a "public" issue?
Quote from: citizen k on February 25, 2010, 02:35:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:30:06 AM
... the "estate of the state", acting in its capacity of a proprietor/market actor). Only the former is normally recognized as giving the state special powers and thus being a "public" issue.
Using public funds and public properties isn't a "public" issue?
To the extent there is a breach of law (e.g. corruption) or it involves e.g. public procurement procedures, yes. But not when there is essentially a commercial private dispute ("you sold us a shitty car") - this is what civil courts are for, not congressional hearings.
It's America, an inherently Socialist country.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:24:22 AM
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
Never seen any on the street. Would expect the UAW to raise a stink.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2010, 02:42:42 AM
It's America, an inherently Socialist country.
Yeah, just look at the NFL and Major League Baseball
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:40:57 AM
To the extent there is a breach of law (e.g. corruption) or it involves e.g. public procurement procedures, yes. But not when there is essentially a commercial private dispute ("you sold us a shitty car") - this is what civil courts are for, not congressional hearings.
Congress doesn't just make laws. It's also in the car making business.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:40:57 AM
To the extent there is a breach of law (e.g. corruption) or it involves e.g. public procurement procedures, yes. But not when there is essentially a commercial private dispute ("you sold us a shitty car") - this is what civil courts are for, not congressional hearings.
To the extent there is a breach of law, there's a question of whether Toyota has been acting in good faith in trying to achieve compliance with statutory safety regulations. In terms of public procurement procedures, since Washington, D.C. doesn't have a state government, Congress has to act as an arbitrator in state concerns for the city like allocation of public funds.
Yi: Yes, Chevy and Ford are typically the fleet vehicles you see most often, but they're still done through bidding. IIRC, congressmen and congresswomen typically are allocated a BMW 740iL "Protection" because it's one of the cheapest armored cars you can get.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:24:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Why not?
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 24, 2010, 01:10:39 PM
Ford and GM saboteurs in Toyota plants. :ph34r:
Is it time for nerve stapling?
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2010, 01:38:38 AM
Quote from: ulmont on February 24, 2010, 07:08:47 PM
If your throttle is stuck, the emergency brake is going to blow your tire. This happened to me when I had my emergency brake get stuck.
Not sure about that. Your tire is only gong to blow out if the handbrake locks the wheel. At high speeds, there most likely would not be enough power in the handbrake system to lock the wheel.
I don't think the wheel was ever locked, but it definitely blew out at about 50 mph.
It seems in these more bizarre incidents, that the Toyota's electronics just took over. Car sped up greatly, and neither braking, shutting off the ignition, nor shifting out of a drive gear had much or any effect. That is pretty bizarre.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:24:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Why not?
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
I promised myself to ignore your posts, but this post's idiocy exceeds even your usual standards. Are you fucking retarded?
Quote from: KRonn on February 25, 2010, 10:34:02 AM
It seems in these more bizarre incidents, that the Toyota's electronics just took over. Car sped up greatly, and neither braking, shutting off the ignition, nor shifting out of a drive gear had much or any effect. That is pretty bizarre.
I Robot? :huh:
My Toyota has not tried to kill me yet. :ph34r:
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 25, 2010, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 25, 2010, 10:34:02 AM
It seems in these more bizarre incidents, that the Toyota's electronics just took over. Car sped up greatly, and neither braking, shutting off the ignition, nor shifting out of a drive gear had much or any effect. That is pretty bizarre.
I Robot? :huh:
My Toyota has not tried to kill me yet. :ph34r:
Maybe it's like the end of Revenge of the Sith; the Toyotas are programmed to kil lthe Jedi and leave the Sith alone.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 25, 2010, 11:30:25 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 25, 2010, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 25, 2010, 10:34:02 AM
It seems in these more bizarre incidents, that the Toyota's electronics just took over. Car sped up greatly, and neither braking, shutting off the ignition, nor shifting out of a drive gear had much or any effect. That is pretty bizarre.
I Robot? :huh:
My Toyota has not tried to kill me yet. :ph34r:
Maybe it's like the end of Revenge of the Sith; the Toyotas are programmed to kil lthe Jedi and leave the Sith alone.
Amen.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 02:40:57 AM
To the extent there is a breach of law (e.g. corruption) or it involves e.g. public procurement procedures, yes. But not when there is essentially a commercial private dispute ("you sold us a shitty car") - this is what civil courts are for, not congressional hearings.
Congress is responsible for authorizing the funding for purchases, and it is very much in the business of considering the vendor and the locations of production (whether it shoud be or not isn't worth discussion).
If Congress is buying cars from an auto maker that may be selling a defective product, why not investigate to see whether future car purchases are warranted? Civil courts have no role in that process.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:24:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Why not?
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
If that's an attempt at witty humour, you fail miserably.
And as much as I hate televised congressional hearings on just about anything, considering they do create auto safety legislation, it is a good thing for congress to look into potential death traps that are being sold under the label of Toyota.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 10:39:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
I promised myself to ignore your posts, but this post's idiocy exceeds even your usual standards. Are you fucking retarded?
:lmfao:
No, it is true. You can look it up, or ask a lawyer: the US has its own procurement laws, and does not use those of the EU.
It is hugely fucking funny that you would call someone aware of that fact "fucking retarded' when the fucking retard is obviously the one who
doesn't know that basic (and rather obvious) fact.
This thread delivers.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 12:02:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 01:24:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas.
Why not?
In the EU, all big public contracts are open for all bidders, including e.g. Toyota. I know that the Germany Army bought over 1000 Nissan SUVs last year.
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
If that's an attempt at witty humour, you fail miserably.
It is a simple statement of facts, which answers your question (which was apparently based on your perception that the US government followed EU law, else you wouldn't have brought up EU law in discussing US government procurement). As I note, I have no clue why you brought up German Army procurement; not even you could think that affects US government procurement.
Wow, Grandpa Grumbler being willfully obtuse. Say it ain't so. ;)
Quote from: citizen k on February 25, 2010, 12:53:23 PM
Wow, Grandpa Grumbler being willfully obtuse. Say it ain't so. ;)
Sometimes I wonder about the "willfully" part.
Quote from: citizen k on February 25, 2010, 12:53:23 PM
Wow, Grandpa Grumbler being willfully obtuse. Say it ain't so. ;)
:lmfao:
Yes, I should have responded to what was
not written, because responding to what
was written is "willfully obtuse." :rolleyes:
Sorry, homey doesn't play that game. If people cannot write clearly, they should reconsider writing at all.
And you should stick to what I say, rather than telling a lie about why I am saying it.
This gets better and better.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2010, 02:38:43 PM
This gets better and better.
Glad you are enjoying it. Slargos isn't here to join in the dogpile any more, but Gral is around, so there is hope for more.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 12:16:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2010, 10:39:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
:huh: The US government follows US, not EU, laws regarding procurement contracts. What the German Army bought doesn't impact US government procurement at all.
I promised myself to ignore your posts, but this post's idiocy exceeds even your usual standards. Are you fucking retarded?
:lmfao:
No, it is true. You can look it up, or ask a lawyer: the US has its own procurement laws, and does not use those of the EU.
It is hugely fucking funny that you would call someone aware of that fact "fucking retarded' when the fucking retard is obviously the one who doesn't know that basic (and rather obvious) fact.
It should be abundantly clear by now that Marty doesn't understand US law. And considering that he doesn't practice law here, normally that's understandable. That he doesn't seem to grasp the concept that Congressional hearings are largely a matter of politicians grandstanding, well, that's new.
Poor Zanza. Cease and desist. :yes:
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 12:20:41 PMIt is a simple statement of facts, which answers your question (which was apparently based on your perception that the US government followed EU law, else you wouldn't have brought up EU law in discussing US government procurement). As I note, I have no clue why you brought up German Army procurement; not even you could think that affects US government procurement.
Oh, you really mean it? Sorry then.
I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services. I thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics, but I guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well. So sorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post. Next time, I will state it so that even people who have no idea at all about the topic at hand, can contribute in a meaningful way.
By the way, the German Army procurement is an example that I used to illustrate my point. Examples are a pretty common figure of speech in debates. If you are attentive while reading I am sure you can find other instances of that figure of speech. You should try it sometime.
Oh snap.
Every time I see this thread on the board I read it as "Total recall hearings"
SEN. AL FRANKEN: How long will your testimony last, Mr. Quaid?
QUAID: Two weeks.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: So tell us about the recall process.
QUAID: Two weeks.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Excuse me?
QUAID: Two weeks. Twooo weeks. TWOWEEKS... twoWEEEEEEEEKS
*blam blam blam blam blam*
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 08:23:42 PM
I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services.
I think you completely misunderstand the Agreement on Government Procurement. It doesn't make the US subject to Eu procurement law, nor does it harmonize procurement law. It simply states that government procurement will consider foreign sources (of signatory nations) no less favorably than domestic sources when making procurement decisions over a certain value.
Had you cited the GSA or US procurement law when questioning why the US government didn't buy Toyotas,* rather than irrelevant EU law, you would have a point. Note that, if you replace "US" with "Polish" as the subject government, all your points suddenly become relevant. That should indicate that you are off base applying those arguments to the US (which isn't
in the EU).
QuoteI thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics, but I guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well.
Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy! :lol: It doesn't work, you know. The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting. I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.
QuoteSo sorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post. Next time, I will state it so that even people who have no idea at all about the topic at hand, can contribute in a meaningful way.
Just keep your facts relevant to the topic at hand and you won't need to engage in these petty displays of petulance. I suppose they have a bit of entertainment value but they are largely a waste of lifespan.
QuoteBy the way, the German Army procurement is an example that I used to illustrate my point. Examples are a pretty common figure of speech in debates. If you are attentive while reading I am sure you can find other instances of that figure of speech. You should try it sometime.
The problem with your "example" is that it says nothing whatever about US procurement, which is what the issue was. Getting prissy about my pointing that out does not make your example any more relevant. If anybody needs to "try it sometime," it is you who needs to look at examples and see if they have any bearing on the point you are trying to make.
*Not that I am convinced that the US government does
not buy Toyota vehicles.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 10:18:52 PMI'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.
^_^ I think you could be wrong in that assertion.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy! :lol: It doesn't work, you know. The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting. I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.
I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default. It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student. You pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2010, 01:49:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
Ah, the old "weasel wrapped around a personal insult" ploy! :lol: It doesn't work, you know. The weasel isn't credible, and the personal insult doesn't sting. I'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.
I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default. It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student. You pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.
grumbler is not as much a school bully as the weird kid who smells, always wears sweat pants covered in dog hair, eats his own boogers and screams words like "penis" and "vagina" repeatedly.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 10:53:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 10:18:52 PMI'm not the one that looks bad when you stoop to these ploys.
^_^ I think you could be wrong in that assertion.
No, I am pretty sure that when you call people stupid for pointing out logical flaws in an argument, you don't persuade people. Sure, the dogpilers will dogpile on the statement, but are those the people you really wanna have on your side?
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2010, 01:49:22 AM
I think I speak for most people here when I say that yes, you are the one who looks bad here, and pretty much by default. It's like when a school bully gets in a fight with a well-mannered A student.
Ah, the old "I think I speak for most people here" claim! :lmfao: Didn't we know that was coming? I wasn't sure whether you or Marti would claim to be the leader of Languish, but I was pretty sure it would be one of the two.
As for who has been well-mannered and who has been name-calling and claiming that only stupid people could fail to agree with them, I think the record speaks for itself.
QuoteYou pretty much know exactly what happened just by seeing who the two participants in a brawl are.
Interesting that you call this a "brawl" when I certainly don't see it as one, but even more interesting that you concede that you draw your conclusions based on who is posting rather than what is posted.
That explains a lot, actually.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 02:43:36 AM
grumbler is not as much a school bully as the weird kid who smells, always wears sweat pants covered in dog hair, eats his own boogers and screams words like "penis" and "vagina" repeatedly.
I am just quoting this so you cannot delete it and pretend you never said it. I am just gonna leave this hanging in cyberspace so i can point at it whenever you claim you are logical.
BTW, Grumbler, I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers about federal fleet vehicles, but I can confirm that at least local and state governments do use Toyotas as fleet vehicles.
SOURCE: http://www.government-fleet.com/News/List/Tag/Toyota.aspx
Oh, and there's nothing excluding Toyotas from federal government procurement.
The relevant information regarding vehicle procurement for the federal government: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/41cfr101-26.501_R2OI2Q_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 26, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
BTW, Grumbler, I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers about federal fleet vehicles, but I can confirm that at least local and state governments do use Toyotas as fleet vehicles.
SOURCE: http://www.government-fleet.com/News/List/Tag/Toyota.aspx
Oh, and there's nothing excluding Toyotas from federal government procurement.
The relevant information regarding vehicle procurement for the federal government: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/41cfr101-26.501_R2OI2Q_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
The quick check I did found Toyotas in the US government auctions, but as these could have been ones seized by customs I didn't mention them in passing.
Not that my point is impacted by whether or not Toyotas are purchased by the US government. Yi is the one who argued that "I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas" and even that wasn't very emphatic.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 08:23:42 PM
I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services.
All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 11:22:02 AM
The quick check I did found Toyotas in the US government auctions, but as these could have been ones seized by customs I didn't mention them in passing.
Not that my point is impacted by whether or not Toyotas are purchased by the US government. Yi is the one who argued that "I very much doubt the US government has ever bought any Toyotas" and even that wasn't very emphatic.
Yeah, sorry about that. Got mixed up there, I did. :blush:
Where did you find feds auctioning Toyotas, BTW? I checked GSA's link and didn't even see a possibility to search with "Toyota" as make, so I gave up early; just typical government-issue laziness about categorizing?
Quote from: dps on February 27, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.
They're foreign goods as products of a business that's headquartered outside of the US. You made a funny.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 27, 2010, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: dps on February 27, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.
They're foreign goods as products of a business that's headquartered outside of the US. You made a funny.
Check the domestic content laws as they apply to automobiles. Toyatas sold here are domestic.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2010, 08:23:42 PM
Oh, you really mean it? Sorry then.
I guess I should not have assumed that everybody is aware of the Marrakesh Agreement on Government Procurement of 1994 which harmonized the government procurement rules in the EU and the USA. That's why citing EU procurement rules - at least in the very general terms I did here - makes sense when you talk about US government procurement. They are bound by international treaties to have the same non-discrimination rules for foreign goods and services. I thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics, but I guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well. So sorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post. Next time, I will state it so that even people who have no idea at all about the topic at hand, can contribute in a meaningful way.
By the way, if your genius doesn't get in the way, check out the Buy American Act http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t41t42+22+1++%2841%29%20%20AND%2 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t41t42+22+1++%2841%29%20%20AND%2) 41 USC Sec. 10a
It is exempt from the GSA, as acknowledged by http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng (http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng).
QuoteU.S. government exceptions under NAFTA Chapter 10 and the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement allow for such procurement preferences.
To us stupids, this seems to indicate that you geniuses have your oversized heads up your (now also oversized) asses.
This would also tend to support Yi's query, except in such cases as the Toyotas in question are made in the US.
So, while
QuoteI thought that everybody who would weigh in on a debate on government procurement would at least know these very basics
is proven false by your words far more than by mine,
QuoteI guess I should have expected ignorant readers such as you as well
and
Quotesorry for not considering your ignorance when I made my initial post
can be made true simply by making yourself the exemplar rather than me.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 27, 2010, 09:39:02 AM
Where did you find feds auctioning Toyotas, BTW? I checked GSA's link and didn't even see a possibility to search with "Toyota" as make, so I gave up early; just typical government-issue laziness about categorizing?
I didn't keep the link, because it wasn't reliably saying anything useful for the discussion. It might have been a private link to the GSA auctions, though, and what few Toyotas were there may have been sold already.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 10:30:16 AM
[snip]
This would also tend to support Yi's query, except in such cases as the Toyotas in question are made in the US.
[/snip]
I'm not entirely convinced this is germane to the argument; as was mentioned earlier in the thread, almost all mass-distributed vehicle makes in the United States build onshore, so while it might preclude brands not widely available in the US like Aston Martin or Renault, it certainly wouldn't preclude any of the major Asian "import" makes like Toyota, Hyundai, or Nissan.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 27, 2010, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 10:30:16 AM
[snip]
This would also tend to support Yi's query, except in such cases as the Toyotas in question are made in the US.
[/snip]
I'm not entirely convinced this is germane to the argument; as was mentioned earlier in the thread, almost all mass-distributed vehicle makes in the United States build onshore, so while it might preclude brands not widely available in the US like Aston Martin or Renault, it certainly wouldn't preclude any of the major Asian "import" makes like Toyota, Hyundai, or Nissan.
I thought that "except in such cases as the Toyotas in question are made in the US" would cover that possibility.
There may be some detail about "manufacture" that would make Toyotas assembled in the US (but maybe from components made elsewhere) not eligible under "Buy American" but I don't care to get so deeply into the technicalities.
EU procurement laws would not apply in any case.
Quote from: dps on February 27, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
All Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US (at least in recent years--obviously, this wasn't always the case), so non-discrimination against foreign goods isn't even germane to the discussion.
Really?
I thought that was Honda's marketing edge, the Japanese car built in America.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2010, 08:51:05 PM
Really?
I thought that was Honda's marketing edge, the Japanese car built in America.
Acura is Honda's "American" brand. Likewise, my Kia is an "American" Hyundai.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
Acura is Honda's "American" brand. Likewise, my Kia is an "American" Hyundai.
I thought Acura was Honda's luxury brand, to compete with Lexus, Beemer et al.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2010, 08:51:05 PM
Really?
I thought that was Honda's marketing edge, the Japanese car built in America.
Acura is Honda's "American" brand. Likewise, my Kia is an "American" Hyundai.
Where do you get all your automotive facts? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
Acura is Honda's "American" brand. Likewise, my Kia is an "American" Hyundai.
I thought Acura was Honda's luxury brand, to compete with Lexus, Beemer et al.
That is correct, Acura is the luxury/performance brand of Honda. Honda created the Acura brand because the Honda brand is just not at all synonymous with either of those two things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
I thought Acura was Honda's luxury brand, to compete with Lexus, Beemer et al.
Acura's been somewhat of a unique case in that it's not simply a luxury marquee. In several cases, the equivalent Honda lines actually went higher (most notably the NSX/S-2000 in the '90s).
I don't know why people read DontSayBanana with such seriousness. The boys been known for years to just randomly make up facts and claim expertise on just about every topic.
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2010, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2010, 08:51:05 PM
Really?
I thought that was Honda's marketing edge, the Japanese car built in America.
Acura is Honda's "American" brand. Likewise, my Kia is an "American" Hyundai.
Where do you get all your automotive facts? :huh:
The same place he gets many of his facts. ;)
Hmm... things may have taken quite a turn for the worse for Toyota.
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/03/03/drivers-complain-toyotas-fixes-didnt-work/
Drivers Complain That Toyota's Fixes Didn't Work
AP
The development raises questions about whether Toyota's repairs will bring an end to the cases of wild, uncontrolled acceleration or if there may be electronic causes behind the complaints that have dogged the automaker.
DETROIT -- At least 15 Toyota drivers have complained to U.S. safety officials that their cars sped up by themselves even after being fixed under recalls for sticky gas pedals or floor mat problems, according to an Associated Press analysis.
The development raises questions about whether Toyota's repairs will bring an end to the cases of wild, uncontrolled acceleration or if there may be electronic causes behind the complaints that have dogged the automaker.
Although the allegations were unverified by the agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Wednesday it was contacting people who have complained about acceleration problems even after repairs were done under two large recalls. The agency wants to hear from others who have had similar troubles, it said.
"If Toyota owners are still experiencing sudden acceleration incidents after taking their cars to the dealership, we want to know about it," agency administrator David Strickland said in a statement.
The new complaints raised eyebrows in Congress, which has held three hearings on the recalls in the past week and is investigating Toyota's safety problems.
"I am deeply concerned that NHTSA has received this many reports of possible sudden unanticipated acceleration even after these vehicles have received Toyota's recommended fix," said Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who serves on one of the committees investigating Toyota.
"It's critical that we get to the bottom of this problem as quickly as possible."
Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said Wednesday the company was investigating the complaints, though it remains confident in its recall fixes. Teams of engineers are being mobilized to check into the complaints, he said.
Toyota has recalled more than 8 million vehicles worldwide since October to fix floor mats that can snag gas pedals or faulty gas pedal assemblies that can stick.
NHTSA says 52 people have been killed in crashes linked to Toyota's acceleration problems. Toyota has blamed mechanical causes or drivers pressing the wrong pedal. However, some question whether the electronic throttle system or a software glitch may be at fault, rather than a mechanical issue involving pedals. Toyota says it is looking into electronics as a possible cause.
In the meantime, complaints keep coming in from drivers who say the fix has not solved the problem, including at least 15 filed with NHTSA in the last two weeks, according to an AP analysis of the agency database.
The owner of a 2009 Camry, Stewart Stogel, of Mount Vernon, N.Y., told the AP he narrowly missed driving over an embankment and hitting a wall when the mid-size sedan accelerated on its own last Saturday -- five days after being serviced as part of the recall.
Stogel, who has not filed a complaint with NHTSA, said the incident occurred near his home after a dealership trimmed the gas pedal and installed new brake control software as part of the floor mat recall.
"At first the brakes didn't engage at all," said the 49-year-old freelance journalist. "Just as I approached Terrace Avenue, the wheels were able to get some traction, and all of the sudden the engine did disengage."
Stogel said the car had accelerated two previous times before the recall fix, and both times he took it to dealerships to be checked. In one case it was inspected by a Toyota corporate technician who could find nothing wrong, he said.
After the latest incident, Stogel called his dealer, who told him to return with the car so Toyota engineers could inspect it. He did so on Wednesday and was given a loaner car. He also left a message with Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. President Jim Lentz.
Carolyn Kimbrell, 59, a retired office assistant in Whitesville, Ky., said her 2006 Toyota Avalon accelerated last weekend as she was returning with her 9-year-old granddaughter from a trip to the mall. The incident occurred a week after her dealer inserted a metal piece into the gas pedal mechanism on Feb. 20 to eliminate the friction blamed for the pedal problems.
The dealer said her car wasn't covered by the floor mat recall, but agreed to do that fix after she reported the latest incident, she said.
Now she wonders if the company's remedies will solve the problem. "It just scares you," Kimbrell said.
The recalls have hurt Toyota's safety and quality reputation and brought death and injury lawsuits. Federal prosecutors in New York are conducting a criminal investigation into the recalls and the Securities and Exchange Commission is probing what the automaker told investors.
Electronic causes have come under scrutiny because until now, Toyota and the government have done little to examine them. Most modern cars are essentially computers on wheels, with systems of sensors, wires and computer chips controlling the throttle, brakes, transmissions and other functions.
Software glitches can develop in the computers, electrical interference can cause sensors to send the wrong signals and there can be electrical shorts. Sometimes two or three glitches can happen at once.
Re-creating electronic problems is extremely difficult because often they leave no trace.
The latest complaints are further evidence that the automaker's repairs don't cover all possible causes, said Sean Kane, president of Safety Research and Strategies Inc., a Massachusetts-based car safety investigation and advocacy group who has studied Toyota.
"Anybody who has reviewed the complaints and reviewed what's going on here has to reach a conclusion that there's more going on than sticky pedals, floor mats and drivers," said Kane, whose firm has done research for trial lawyers suing Toyota.
Kane believes the problem has multiple electronic roots, perhaps in cruise-control mechanisms.
So far NHTSA, which has the power to force an automaker to recall vehicles, has gone along with the mechanical causes pinpointed by Toyota.
"What we need this agency to do is really question Toyota, look at the issues in a more thorough way," Kane said. "In the past they were quick to dismiss electronics."
[\quote]
I always thought it was a blunder for Toyota to claim with such a conviction that the gas pedal fix would absolutely, positively, 100% assuredly solve the problem. It was obvious that something more than mechanical was at work, so they were setting themselves up for an unavoidable follow-up PR disaster once the fixed cars start accelerating on their own. At least the fixed cars now have an engine cut-off that activates at 30 MPH, so the chances of the sticking throttle becoming fatal is reduced big time.
I still hope Prius owners burst into flame.
Still trying to get my &*%^&*^% Camry into the dealer for the "fix".
I also thought it was very premature of Toyota to be bringing out the fixes as the total cure. I thought they'd been saying that it wasn't a computer glitch, that the pedal mechanism needed shims (and at first the floor mats were the problem). But all along, from the reports of out of control vehicles, it seemed a nasty computer glitch was to blame since in at least some cases the drivers could do little or nothing to control the cars.
And the beat goes on. This poor guy's car wasn't even on the recall list, he says!
Has Toyota even come clean on the worst of this stuff yet? <_<
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/03/08/stuck-accelerator-reportedly-causes-toyota-speed-control-highway/opinion/2010/03/09/decide-americas-textbooks-frontline-culture-war
Officer Helps Save Driver in Runaway Prius
AP
A Prius driver calls 911 after accelerating to pass another vehicle on a California freeway and finding that he could not control his car.
EL CAJON, California -- A California highway police officer helped slow a runaway Toyota Prius from 94 mph to a safe stop on Monday after the car's accelerator became stuck on a freeway near San Diego, authorities said.
Prius driver James Sikes said that the incident Monday occurred just two weeks after he had taken the vehicle in to an El Cajon dealership for repairs after receiving a recall notice, but he was turned away.
"I gave them my recall notice and they handed it back and said I'm not on the recall list," Sikes said.
Sikes' 2008 Prius was not covered by the accelerator recall – only the floor mat recall, ABC News reported. His Prius model allegedly has a different accelerator than the ones with "sticky" pedals. Sikes said there didn't appear to be anything wrong with his floor mat, ABC reported.
In a statement, Toyota said it has dispatched a field technical specialist to San Diego to investigate the incident.
Toyota has recalled some 8.5 million vehicles worldwide -- more than 6 million in the United States -- since last fall because of acceleration problems in multiple models and braking issues in the Prius.
On Monday, Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he could not control his car, the California Highway Patrol said.
"I pushed the gas pedal to pass a car and it did something kind of funny ... it jumped and it just stuck there," the 61-year-old driver said at a news conference.
"As it was going, I was trying the brakes ... it wasn't stopping, it wasn't doing anything and it just kept speeding up," Sikes said, adding he could smell the brakes burning he was pressing the pedal so hard.
A patrol car pulled alongside the Prius and officers told Sikes over a loudspeaker to push the brake pedal to the floor and apply the emergency brake.
"They also got it going on a steep upgrade," said Officer Jesse Udovich. "Between those three things, they got it to slow down."
After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the engine and coasted to a halt.
The officer then maneuvered his car in front of the Prius as a precautionary block, Udovich said.
Toyota owners have complained of their vehicles speeding out of control despite efforts to slow down, sometimes resulting in deadly crashes. The government has received complaints of 34 deaths linked to sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles since 2000.
One of the crashes claimed the life of a CHP officer in August.
Off-duty CHP Officer Mark Saylor was killed along with his wife, her brother and the couple's daughter after their Lexus' accelerator got stuck in La Mesa.
The Toyota-manufactured loaner vehicle slammed into a sport utility vehicle at about 100 mph, careened off the freeway, hit an embankment, overturned and burst into flames.
The runaway Prius wasn't even the most scary part. The most scary part is that a police officer from a very reputable police agency told the driver to use the parking brake at 90 mph, and didn't tell him to put the car in neutral. It's time to rethink driver education if even professionals are so incredibly clueless about how cars work.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:40:27 AM
The runaway Prius wasn't even the most scary part. The most scary part is that a police officer from a very reputable police agency told the driver to use the parking brake at 90 mph, and didn't tell him to put the car in neutral. It's time to rethink driver education if even professionals are so incredibly clueless about how cars work.
Got a cite for the claim that the officer never told him to try to put the car in neutral?
Its time to rethink poster education if even professionally-educated posters are so incredibly clueless that they think lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
Guy's probably just looking for some publicity ala Balloon Boy.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 11:02:45 AM
Got a cite for the claim that the officer never told him to try to put the car in neutral?
Its time to rethink poster education if even professionally-educated posters are so incredibly clueless that they think lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
Sometimes lack of evidence is a pretty good indication of the lack. If someone says that they were told to apply the emergency brakes, and then they shut off the car and coasted after slowing down some, then it's a very good indication that shifting to neutral was not in the picture. The reason is that none of that would be necessary if the car were shifted to neutral.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 09, 2010, 11:07:29 AM
Guy's probably just looking for some publicity ala Balloon Boy.
There is something suspicious about this story.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 11:14:35 AM
Sometimes lack of evidence is a pretty good indication of the lack. If someone says that they were told to apply the emergency brakes, and then they shut off the car and coasted after slowing down some, then it's a very good indication that shifting to neutral was not in the picture. The reason is that none of that would be necessary if the car were shifted to neutral.
Could the car have been shifted into neutral, if the CHP officer had thought of it?
Is it not more likely that the officer told him to shift into neutral, turn off the engine, etc (ie all the easy, obvious stuff) before trying to do things the hard way?
I think your claim is an extraordinary one, and lacks even ordinary proof.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 11:14:35 AM
Sometimes lack of evidence is a pretty good indication of the lack. If someone says that they were told to apply the emergency brakes, and then they shut off the car and coasted after slowing down some, then it's a very good indication that shifting to neutral was not in the picture. The reason is that none of that would be necessary if the car were shifted to neutral.
Could the car have been shifted into neutral, if the CHP officer had thought of it?
Is it not more likely that the officer told him to shift into neutral, turn off the engine, etc (ie all the easy, obvious stuff) before trying to do things the hard way?
I think your claim is an extraordinary one, and lacks even ordinary proof.
According to this story the officer did in fact tell the driver to try to turn off the engine but it is uncertain whether the driver followed that direction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35775457#35775457
From the stories I've seen reported, putting one of these mad dog cars into neutral, park, reverse, or turning off the engine has no effect. The beast is on a tear and doing its own thing. I will assume that the cops and the 911 operator were talking to the driver who had likely gone through at least some or most of the above actions to try and corral this run away metal monster. That's what's so scary about some of these worst case run away cars.
Quote from: KRonn on March 09, 2010, 11:45:09 AM
From the stories I've seen reported, putting one of these mad dog cars into neutral, park, reverse, or turning off the engine has no effect. The beast is on a tear and doing its own thing. I will assume that the cops and the 911 operator were talking to the driver who had likely gone through at least some or most of the above actions to try and corral this run away metal monster. That's what's so scary about some of these worst case run away cars.
Plus, a CHP officer was killed in one of these runaways. DGullible may believe that a police officer wouldn't try to shift into neutral or turn off his engine, even to save his and his family's life, but I don't buy it. Frankly, the idea that DGullible knows anything more about "how cars work" than a typical CHiPer seems preposterous and would need some evidencing for me to believe it.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 11:55:04 AM
Frankly, the idea that DGullible knows anything more about "how cars work" than a typical CHiPer seems preposterous and would need some evidencing for me to believe it.
:yes: IMHO, Erik Estrada > DGuller. :)
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 11:55:04 AM
Plus, a CHP officer was killed in one of these runaways. DGullible may believe that a police officer wouldn't try to shift into neutral or turn off his engine, even to save his and his family's life, but I don't buy it. Frankly, the idea that DGullible knows anything more about "how cars work" than a typical CHiPer seems preposterous and would need some evidencing for me to believe it.
Nothing like name-calling to gain a higher ground.
Nevertheless, I'm actually fairly confident that I do know more about how cars work than a typical CHP officer, or the majority of people for that matter. For one, I was part of a group that built a racecar in college in the SAE club, so that required some intimate knowledge about the working of cars.
As for the CHP officer who got killed, he did do several things wrong, and that's not in dispute. He did try to shut off the car, but he did not know how to, as he was driving an unfamiliar loaner. Partly the fault of Toyota for making unintuitive controls, but also partly the fault of the driver for not being familiar with them.
He also wasted a golden opportunity to slow the car down. He did manage to keep the car under control for some time, but he failed to use the brakes fully to stop the car, and he rode them instead. Unfortunately for him, that boiled the brake fluid and killed the brakes eventually, and now he was SOL. All the mistakes are understandable, but not something that an educated driver would make, unless he lost his mind (which is also understandable).
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 12:21:24 PM
Nothing like name-calling to gain a higher ground.
Name-calling? Nonsense. Tweaking a user name is nothing on languish.
QuoteNevertheless, I'm actually fairly confident that I do know more about how cars work than a typical CHP officer, or the majority of people for that matter. For one, I was part of a group that built a racecar in college in the SAE club, so that required some intimate knowledge about the working of cars.
Unconvincing. Being "part of a group" conveys no special knowledge, and using "the majority of people" as a group even more knowledgeable about cars than the CHP just damages your case further.
QuoteAs for the CHP officer who got killed, he did do several things wrong, and that's not in dispute. He did try to shut off the car, but he did not know how to, as he was driving an unfamiliar loaner. Partly the fault of Toyota for making unintuitive controls, but also partly the fault of the driver for not being familiar with them.
The car would not shut off (which surprised me when I found out). I have never heard that there was an alternate method for shutting down the car that he (and the others who suffered this failure and survived) didn't know about. Link?
QuoteHe also wasted a golden opportunity to slow the car down. He did manage to keep the car under control for some time, but he failed to use the brakes fully to stop the car, and he rode them instead. Unfortunately for him, that boiled the brake fluid and killed the brakes eventually, and now he was SOL. All the mistakes are understandable, but not something that an educated driver would make, unless he lost his mind (which is also understandable).
He tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed. The engine was just too powerful. He was running out of highway when he, in desperation, rode the brakes to the breaking point. Having left over brake fluid with him in his funeral pyre would have availed him naught. His mistake, of course, was either (1) not pulling the floor mat back, or (2) getting into a vehicle who electronic control systems were subject to periodic failure. It is not 100% sure that (1) is true.
I just heard that Toyota will start putting ejection seats fitted with fast opening parachutes, so that drivers and passengers can have a decent chance of escaping these run away missile cars. ;)
I just *knew* that it DG would turn out to be a casual expert in automobile operation. He is an expert in almost very single field there is, I think.
Is the grumbler/DG spat over? The UST is getting thick.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 01:10:10 PM
Unconvincing. Being "part of a group" conveys no special knowledge, and using "the majority of people" as a group even more knowledgeable about cars than the CHP just damages your case further.
I have no intention of proving my resume to you. Suffice to say, I'm sure that majority of people did not diagram and screw on and off various parts such as steering rack, suspension arms, tie rods, wheel assemblies, brake lines, pedal assemblies, steering columns, steering wheels, and tires. I didn't weld the car frame, mount the engine, or otherwise work on the rear of the car besides some suspension bits, so you got me there.
As for me claiming that majority of people are more knowledgable than CHP, that was just sloppy wording on my part. I did not mean to imply that CHP is less knowledgable about cars than general public.
QuoteThe car would not shut off (which surprised me when I found out). I have never heard that there was an alternate method for shutting down the car that he (and the others who suffered this failure and survived) didn't know about. Link?
The particular Lexus that the CHP guy drove could shut off if you held the off button pressed for three seconds. He didn't hold it when he pressed it, and erroneously thought the button didn't work. I don't have any links, I read about it a long while ago.
QuoteHe tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed. The engine was just too powerful. He was running out of highway when he, in desperation, rode the brakes to the breaking point.
First of all, the engine is not more powerful than the brakes, that's just nonsense. Anyone with some knowledge of physics can come to this conclusion pretty quickly. How long does it take for a car to go from 0 to 60? About 6 seconds for a moderately expensive non-sports car. How long does it take to brake from 60 to 0? A lot less than 6 seconds, I hope. Unless the car's mechanical and aerodynamic drag is impossibly bad, that implies that the brakes are more powerful than the engine.
The problem with the brakes is that the normal car brakes are not designed for heavy duty. They'll work for some time, but not for long if you're working against the engine, or having a couple of heavy braking episodes in short succession. Pretty soon the brake fluid overheats, and no longer acts like an incompressible fluid, which is not a good thing in hydraulic systems.
That's why if you have to use the brake to stop the car with stuck throttle, you have to do it at first shot and not stop doing it until you're stopped, or go slow enough to just nudge the car into the steel barrier. The instinct is to at first ride the brakes to keep the car from accelerating, rather than just jamming them with both legs to stop the car no matter what and where. That wastes the one shot you have at bringing the car to a stop, and once the brakes fluid goes, so does your car.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 01:48:40 PM
I just *knew* that it DG would turn out to be a casual expert in automobile operation. He is an expert in almost very single field there is, I think.
Are Dgul and Carrot the same person? :o
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 01:48:40 PM
I just *knew* that it DG would turn out to be a casual expert in automobile operation. He is an expert in almost very single field there is, I think.
You got good instincts then, because I do in fact know a lot about how cars operate for a non-automotive engineer, especially from the mechanical perspective.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 01:48:40 PM
I just *knew* that it DG would turn out to be a casual expert in automobile operation. He is an expert in almost very single field there is, I think.
BTW, just curious, in what other fields did I claim to be an expert?
Toyota
struggling
hmmm
:cheers: :boff: :smoke: :beer: :punk: :yeah: :XD: ^_^ :w00t: :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 01:10:10 PM
Being "part of a group" conveys no special knowledge, and using "the majority of people" as a group even more knowledgeable about cars than the CHP just damages your case further.
In my experience, the typical police officer, though they spend much of their time in a patrol car, have no more idea how cars work than any other motorist. The CHP may have a higher standard of driver education and knowledge for their officers than most police forces; I somewhat suspect that they do, but I haven't checked.
Quote from: Popular Mechanics
Toyota Fires Back: Electronics Don't Rewire Themselves
After a college professor modified a Toyota Avalon to suddenly accelerate without pressing the gas pedal, Toyota held a briefing to explain what most media outlets don't get: Electronics don't rewire themselves.
By Mike Allen
Published on: March 8, 2010
I wrote here last week how improbable it was that electromagnetic interference (EMI) could fool the Hall-effect sensors that were the subject of the massive recall of 2.4 million late-model Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Specifically, I talked about how the sensors were redundant and isolated, and how it was extremely unlikely that random radio waves could induce spurious signals that trick the engine computer into commanding the engine to go full throttle.
Then professor of automotive technology Dave Gilbert, of Southern Illinois University's auto technology department, went ahead and modified a new Avalon to go to full throttle with the flip of a switch, by altering the same circuits I wrote about. Gilbert appeared on ABC news and testified before Congress that his manipulations demonstrate how easy it is for Toyotas to accelerate out of control. And there's more: He suggested that his analysis shows how all electronic throttles are inherently dangerous, because Toyota's throttle-pedal electronic architecture is similar to that used by almost every car manufacturer.
Whew. I must say the video footage that ABC aired is compelling. Gilbert demonstrates how a seemingly simple short in the throttle pedals' circuitry can make the car go to wide-open throttle (WOT) at whim. Hide the women and children.
Except he's wrong.
Let's get specific: The Toyota throttles (as well as a lot of others) use two Hall-effect sensors, which operate between 0 and 5 volts DC. The voltage increases by 2 to 2.5 volts between the pedal position representing idle and the position for WOT. There are two discrete sensors on separate circuits. The second circuit runs about 2 volts higher than the first. Both sensors have independent 5-volt supplies and independent 0-volt reference returns (meaning they don't share a ground), and they aren't grounded to the chassis. The engine control module (ECM) calibrates the sensors' idle position at every engine start. And if the two sensors don't agree fairly closely as to the percentage of engine throttle called for, the ECM goes into a low-power, limp-home mode, sets a trouble code, and turns on the "Check Engine" light. This means that a sticky pedal may cause the engine to return slowly to idle or not at all. This also means that a using a cell phone or driving under a power line isn't very likely to make you crash and burn.
Here's what Gilbert had to do to make his Avalon go rogue: He had to cut open three of the six wires that travel from the pedal assembly to the engine computer. Two of the wires send the accelerator-position signals—one for each Hall-effect sensor—and one is a 5-volt power supply. Next he had to insert a specific 200-ohm resistor between the two signal wires. Finally, he had to generate a direct short between the 5-volt supply lines and the signal leads. The new wiring essentially mimicked a size-12 mashing of the pedal to the carpet and the engine went to WOT. Also, the order of the modification is important. Apply the 5-volt power lead to the wires before inserting the resistor and the computer would instead throw a fault code and go into limp mode.
Gilbert has managed to prove that he can game the system. Let's examine what would have to happen for such a fault to occur in a real-world situation: Say that, maybe, water is getting into the pedal assembly, or the pedal's wire loom connector is shorting stuff out. First off, the only moving part in the pedal is the part you step on, which has a magnet mounted to the far end. The magnet sweeps inbetween a pair of Hall-effect sensors, which are potted in epoxy to keep them dry and safe. The wiring connector on the pedal has an 0-ring seal to keep out moisture. The individual wires that go into the mating end of the connector have individual seals on them that do the same, and the whole business has a mechanical latch to keep it nice and tight.
There's more. The two signal wires aren't adjacent inside the connector; they're separated by two other wires, one signal ground and one supply wire. So our theoretical 200-ohm, corrosion-induced electrical path would have to bypass two other conductors. That's another big hurdle. Typically, when you find corrosion inside wiring like this, the resistances are closer to 2000 or 2 million ohms, not as small a resistance as 200 ohms. And the resistance value is very specific: A 10 percent difference up or down would put the two sensors out of the acceptable voltage range and wouldn't call up WOT. Even if heavy corrosion were to bridge the connector, how likely is it to be exactly the resistance that's needed?
The next thing in the sequence is a dead short from either of the signal lines to a 5-volt power line. Again, the resistance path usually seen as a result of corrosion is customarily thousands of ohms or more, not the very low resistance needed to energize the signal lines. And, yes, it has to happen in that order. Shorting the power line to the signal line has to happen last.
One pertinent factoid: Not a single case of sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) has been attributed to bad wiring. None. Toyota has been harvesting parts from vehicles with documented SUA issues as part of the recall, and they're checking them all. None of them have shown any sign of corrosion or shorted wiring. Toyota also illustrated that Gilbert's modification works on cars from many different manufacturers. During a webcast explaining the modifications, Toyota had a half-dozen cars built by a half-dozen companies that were rewired in the same manner. All of them produced the same result as that Avalon. The question is: What would make an engineering professor stick his neck out so far?
We can't answer that, but we do know that Gilbert was paid $1800 for his engineering study by Sean Kane, a safety consultant. Kane's for-profit firm Safety Research & Strategies Inc. works with lawyers who are currently suing Toyota over the sudden acceleration issue. He blames Toyota for making the fail-safes and redundancies in the accelerator system too easy to circumvent, arguing that Toyota should have engineered the system to be more robust.
My take on it is this: You can engineer around any safety system if you try hard enough. I had a car come to my repair shop years ago with the throttle stuck open partway. The cause was easy to find—the driver had used a coat hanger to hold the carburetor throttle blades partway open, because the throttle cable had snapped and he had no way to drive the vehicle with the engine at idle. Sort of the same thing as Gilbert's demonstration.
Quote from: dps on March 09, 2010, 06:38:39 PM
In my experience, the typical police officer, though they spend much of their time in a patrol car, have no more idea how cars work than any other motorist. The CHP may have a higher standard of driver education and knowledge for their officers than most police forces; I somewhat suspect that they do, but I haven't checked.
In my experience, operating vehicles at high speeds, and dealing with other vehicles operating at high speeds, is part of the curriculum for highway patrolmen. May be different where you are, but i would need evidence that turning off the engine or dropping out of gear is entirely neglected as a means of slowing a vehicle to believe that a highway patrolman faced with a situation like this would not think of them. That is, of course, DGullible's claim (and yours, if you are supporting him).
I would argue common sense, in fact, if I didn't know Languish better than that.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 07:37:16 PM
Quote from: dps on March 09, 2010, 06:38:39 PM
In my experience, the typical police officer, though they spend much of their time in a patrol car, have no more idea how cars work than any other motorist. The CHP may have a higher standard of driver education and knowledge for their officers than most police forces; I somewhat suspect that they do, but I haven't checked.
In my experience, operating vehicles at high speeds, and dealing with other vehicles operating at high speeds, is part of the curriculum for highway patrolmen. May be different where you are, but i would need evidence that turning off the engine or dropping out of gear is entirely neglected as a means of slowing a vehicle to believe that a highway patrolman faced with a situation like this would not think of them. That is, of course, DGullible's claim (and yours, if you are supporting him).
I would argue common sense, in fact, if I didn't know Languish better than that.
I have no experience with the curriculum of highway patrolmen; exactly what experience with it do you have? Besides, knowing how to operate a device and actually knowing how it works are different things--for example, almost everyone knows how to operate a TV, but many people have no real idea how TVs work. On the other hand, I fail to see that any special training is needed to come up with the idea of trying to stop a runaway car by turning off the ignition or dropping it out of gear.
I'm certainly not supporting DGuller; I find his claims to expertise in automotive matters to be laughable, but I don't think that cops automatically have any special expertise in the matter either. And I did state that I suspect that the CHP may give its officers more training on the subject than the normal police force.
Quote from: dps on March 09, 2010, 08:58:16 PM
I'm certainly not supporting DGuller; I find his claims to expertise in automotive matters to be laughable,
Really? What do you find laughable about them? So far in this thread I've been the only one who displayed the knowledge of how brakes on a car actually work, and how they can stop working. Care to back up your dismissive attitude, or will everybody in this thread just not bother with the facts?
I find it funny how just on this page three posters found it fitting to dismiss my knowledge about the inner workings of cars, and none of them either disproved anything factual that I said, nor offered up much knowledge on their own (except for claiming that the engine can overpower the brakes, but nonsense doesn't count).
Ok, I have a question. In my experience, the brake always overrides the accelerator. Without exception. I've only driven Camrys before. So I really don't understand this unintended acceleration problem. Even if the pedal is stuck, can't you stop the car by braking?
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2010, 10:22:26 PM
Ok, I have a question. In my experience, the brake always overrides the accelerator. Without exception. I've only driven Camrys before. So I really don't understand this unintended acceleration problem. Even if the pedal is stuck, can't you stop the car by braking?
The Toyota cars in question did not have the electronic over-ride, if that's what you mean, so if you wanted to drive at full throttle and fully apply the brakes, with both of them working, you could. You would be slowly slowing down and possibly doing damage to your car, though.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
I find it funny how just on this page three posters found it fitting to dismiss my knowledge about the inner workings of cars, and none of them either disproved anything factual that I said, nor offered up much knowledge on their own (except for claiming that the engine can overpower the brakes, but nonsense doesn't count).
Nobody has disputed the facts about what you have said about how brakes operate - it isn't even under debate.
Mostly they just find it funny that you have held yourself up as some kind of automotive expert. I don't think anything you have said about how brakes work, for example, requires any kind of expertise to find out - I imagine a basic google search could tell one that - so trumpeting that you are correct about how brakes work doesn't actually say anything.
Indeed - even the basis of your claim to expertise is a bit spurious - how does working on a car prject in college tell you how to effectively stop a car that is suffering from this kind of problem? Seems unlikely to have come up, as opposed to simply googling on the problem, which would tell one as much or more.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:35:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
I find it funny how just on this page three posters found it fitting to dismiss my knowledge about the inner workings of cars, and none of them either disproved anything factual that I said, nor offered up much knowledge on their own (except for claiming that the engine can overpower the brakes, but nonsense doesn't count).
Nobody has disputed the facts about what you have said about how brakes operate - it isn't even under debate.
Mostly they just find it funny that you have held yourself up as some kind of automotive expert. I don't think anything you have said about how brakes work, for example, requires any kind of expertise to find out - I imagine a basic google search could tell one that - so trumpeting that you are correct about how brakes work doesn't actually say anything.
:yes:
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
I find it funny how just on this page three posters found it fitting to dismiss my knowledge about the inner workings of cars, and none of them either disproved anything factual that I said, nor offered up much knowledge on their own (except for claiming that the engine can overpower the brakes, but nonsense doesn't count).
I doubt you're referring to me because I haven't tried to dispute, or corroborate, what you say. I just don't know really. My main concern/issue is that these cars go out of control and in at least some or perhaps many of the instances, the drivers are unable to regain control even by taking what would seem correct actions.
I for one, just don't believe a Russian can be an expert. Unless it involves heavy drinking, launching pogroms or making beet soup.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:35:54 AM
Nobody has disputed the facts about what you have said about how brakes operate - it isn't even under debate.
The question is not how brakes operate, but how the brakes operated in specific situations. It is simply not credible to argue that, because one once fastened some lugs nuts on some wheels in a college club, one knows more about operating vehicles at high speed than people who have actually received training in operating vehicles at high speed and do so for a living. it is possible to know more than a CHP officer about how to operate vehicles at high speed, certainly; it just requires more qualifications than "I was in a car club in college."
Lack of evidence doesn't become evidence of lack merely because one declares one's self an expert. CHP training doesn't disappear because a newspaper reporter doesn't include every detail in a story. Being highly judgmental doesn't improve the quality of judgments.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:35:54 AM
Nobody has disputed the facts about what you have said about how brakes operate - it isn't even under debate.
It's not, but it's useful to have a correct understanding of them, given the subject.
QuoteMostly they just find it funny that you have held yourself up as some kind of automotive expert. I don't think anything you have said about how brakes work, for example, requires any kind of expertise to find out - I imagine a basic google search could tell one that - so trumpeting that you are correct about how brakes work doesn't actually say anything.
Several issues with that. First, is saying something that's not Google-able the standard now? In that case, I don't think even JR would measure up, I'm sure all the legal stuff he's talking about can be looked up.
Second, that's not even true. Looking up how brakes work is easy enough, but knowing what happens when you use your brakes in a stuck throttle situation is not. I didn't try Googling it, but I'm pretty confident that someone who doesn't know much about the subject wouldn't be able to find something useful, and be able to know it's useful.
And that brings me to the third point. Looking up stuff doesn't take understanding. Knowing what you need to look up, and knowing how to tell the good info from the garbage, takes understanding. Google didn't stop grumbler from making a pretty dumb statement about the brakes, for example.
QuoteIndeed - even the basis of your claim to expertise is a bit spurious - how does working on a car prject in college tell you how to effectively stop a car that is suffering from this kind of problem?
It doesn't, and it didn't mean to. That part was meant to establish that:
1) I do know how cars work in some detail, as I was one of the people designing and building one up from scratch.
2) That maybe I have an interest in knowing how cars work, and would therefore be the kind of person who actively makes himself familiar with all sorts of car topics.
3) That maybe, being a highly intelligent and intellectually curious person, I would know enough about how some systems of the car work to also understand in what circumstances they can stop working. Knowing that your typical passenger car brakes aren't designed for continuous heavy performance is very useful to know when your throttle sticks.
QuoteSeems unlikely to have come up, as opposed to simply googling on the problem, which would tell one as much or more.
So, by that standard, Joan Robinson can't opine on legal matters that he didn't encounter in practice? Please.
So let's compare our contributions. I provided analysis of the situation when stuck throttle happens, and what you should and shouldn't do. You merely said, and not very accurately, that "I could've Googled that". Which one of us in this thread made Languish a more informed place?
Quote from: KRonn on March 10, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
I doubt you're referring to me because I haven't tried to dispute, or corroborate, what you say. I just don't know really. My main concern/issue is that these cars go out of control and in at least some or perhaps many of the instances, the drivers are unable to regain control even by taking what would seem correct actions.
I'm not.
In the paper i read that there's a class action lawsuit in the works to sue toyota for the lost value on used cars. I just find that weird and i hope it gets thrown out of court before it goes too far.
Quote from: HVC on March 10, 2010, 10:32:28 AM
In the paper i read that there's a class action lawsuit in the works to sue toyota for the lost value on used cars. I just find that weird and i hope it gets thrown out of court before it goes too far.
Lost value is not easy to deal with. What if you crash your car, and insurance pays to have it fixed, but it still loses value nonetheless just because car history shows that it crashed.
Should insurance pay for that? No easy answer. The lost value happened for exactly the same reason the bent fender happened: somebody made a mistake and caused a crash. But on the other hand, it's an intangible loss.
The same applies to the lawsuit. People buy cars with a reasonable expectation of its resale value down the road. It makes sense to buy a more expensive car if its known to depreciate a lot more slowly. The lost resale value is a real loss to the Toyota owners, and something that was caused by Toyota. It's not clear to me that such losses should just be the risk that you take when you buy a car, although it's even less clearcut than the insurance example.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 10:06:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:35:54 AM
Nobody has disputed the facts about what you have said about how brakes operate - it isn't even under debate.
It's not, but it's useful to have a correct understanding of them, given the subject.
Of course.
Quote
QuoteMostly they just find it funny that you have held yourself up as some kind of automotive expert. I don't think anything you have said about how brakes work, for example, requires any kind of expertise to find out - I imagine a basic google search could tell one that - so trumpeting that you are correct about how brakes work doesn't actually say anything.
Several issues with that. First, is saying something that's not Google-able the standard now? In that case, I don't think even JR would measure up, I'm sure all the legal stuff he's talking about can be looked up.
If JR came along and said he was a elgal expert because he was in a club in college that sometimes held mock trials, and then when that was rightly dismissed as not impressive, responded with "Yeah, but I was totally right about knowing that you can't force someone to testify against themselves, so clearly I really AM an expert!" then in fact we would (and should) not find his ability to be right about a legal requires no expertise (and isn't even disputed) to not be very convincing that he is in fact some kind of expert - even to the extent that we should assume he is a GREATER expert than someone with actual legal training.
Quote
Second, that's not even true. Looking up how brakes work is easy enough, but knowing what happens when you use your brakes in a stuck throttle situation is not. I didn't try Googling it, but I'm pretty confident that someone who doesn't know much about the subject wouldn't be able to find something useful, and be able to know it's useful.
I disagree. I just did a google search, and there were lots of articles about how to stop a car in this situation. They pretty much all agree that stomping on the brakes is going to stop the car. Car and Driver even did testing on this, and in every single case, no matter what the throttle was doing, and at speeds up to 120mph, stomping on the brakes stopped the car.
Sounds like useful info to me, and not at all hard to find.
Quote
And that brings me to the third point. Looking up stuff doesn't take understanding. Knowing what you need to look up, and knowing how to tell the good info from the garbage, takes understanding.
No it doesn't. I can know NOTHING about cars, and read this article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
and know exacty what I need to know, AND know that the article is credible. I don't have to understand how brakes work at all to understand how to stop a runaway car.
So your claim that you understanding how brakes work makes you a more credible expert than some CHP guy is spurious. Indeed, one could know how brakes work, and NOT know how to stop a car in this situation, simply because their knowledge of how brakes work may not extent to unsual circumstances.
Hell, I am certainly an expert on the software system I helped write and maintain, but I can assure you it does shit all the time none of us expect, because we have not seen every possible combination of unusual or unanticipated circumstances.
Quote
So let's compare our contributions. I provided analysis of the situation when stuck throttle happens, and what you should and shouldn't do. You merely said, and not very accurately, that "I could've Googled that". Which one of us in this thread made Languish a more informed place?
Since when is anyone goal to make languish a more informed place? Your goal is to impress us all with yet another example of your incredible (and unique) intelligence.
mission: Failed.
As far as useful information is concerned, the practical use of info for the average languish poster as it relates to this issue can be summed up with:
If your car experiences an out of control throttle, stomp on the brakes. It will stop.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 10:42:48 AM
The same applies to the lawsuit. People buy cars with a reasonable expectation of its resale value down the road. It makes sense to buy a more expensive car if its known to depreciate a lot more slowly. The lost resale value is a real loss to the Toyota owners, and something that was caused by Toyota. It's not clear to me that such losses should just be the risk that you take when you buy a car, although it's even less clearcut than the insurance example.
Yeah, but isn't that the risk of buying with the intention of reselling? That the price might not be what you expected? If i buy shares of a company and the shares go down (say for a company mistake, like a bad acquisition) i can't go around and sue the company i bought shares from.
We'll see where this goes. I just heard it on the morning news today. Now this, along with on going news of the acceleration fiasco, how long it took to address, and still not fixed, and questions about what Toyota knew and when they knew it.
I don't have anything against Toyota; I like their cars and almost bought one last year, buying a Ford instead. But these actions from Toyota seem to me to be blowing up into a major scandal of many proportions.
Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/26/autos/congress_oversight_letter_biller/index.htm
Oversight chief says Toyota withheld documents
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A key lawmaker on Friday leveled new accusations that Toyota Motor hid evidence regarding vehicle rollover cases.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, headed by Edolphus "Ed" Towns, D-N.Y., held a hearing this week on complaints of uncontrolled acceleration problems in Toyota (TM) cars. Toyota President Akio Toyoda testified.
As part of its investigation of Toyota's handling of safety defects and recalls, the committee had subpoenaed documents from former Toyota attorney Dimitrios Biller.
Biller has been engaged in litigation with Toyota for years. He alleges that the documents in question prove the automaker was aware of and hid safety defects in its vehicles and that he was unjustly terminated.
"We have reviewed these documents and found evidence that Toyota deliberately withheld relevant electronic records that it was legally required to produce in response to discovery orders in litigation," Towns wrote in a letter Friday to Toyota North America President Yoshimi Inaba. "Many of these documents concern 'rollover' cases in which the plaintiff was injured."
Among the documents, the letter said, was a memo sent by Biller in September 2005. In the memo, Biller reminded his supervisor of the need to turn over information from an internal Toyota database regarding known design flaws and countermeasures to deal with them. Such sharing of information is required by law as part of the "discovery" process in a lawsuit.
"Clearly, this information should have been produced in litigation before today." Biller wrote in the memo, as quoted in Towns' letter, "[Toyota] is clearly not producing all of the relevant information/documents in it possession." Finally, Mr. Biller concludes, "We need to start preserving, collecting and producing e-mails and electronic discovery."
Some information from this database was kept in secret "Books of Knowledge" maintained by the company, Biller asserts, according to the letter.
Biller's documents indicated that Toyota entered into multimillion-dollar settlements with plaintiffs whenever the plaintiff's attorneys seemed to be close to uncovering the "Books of Knowledge."
The documents also indicated that Toyota had long known about problems with unintended acceleration, according to Towns' letter.
"Toyota takes its legal obligations seriously and works to uphold the highest professional and ethical standards," Toyota has said previously regarding Biller. "Mr. Biller continues to make inaccurate and misleading allegations about Toyota's conduct. Toyota believes it acted appropriately with respect to product liability litigation."
Toyota spokespeople were not immediately able to respond directly to Rep. Towns' letter.
In a separate action, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced it had purchased a Lexus ES350 once owned by Rhonda and Eddie Smith, a couple who testified at Wednesday's hearing regarding sudden acceleration.
Rhonda Smith said she experienced a frightening episode of unintended acceleration in the car in 2006, and that Toyota had failed to adequately respond to her complaints.
"The Smiths' former car is being taken to NHTSA's Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, OH, where it will be thoroughly studied," the auto safety agency said in its announcement.
Quote from: KRonn on March 10, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
I doubt you're referring to me because I haven't tried to dispute, or corroborate, what you say. I just don't know really. My main concern/issue is that these cars go out of control and in at least some or perhaps many of the instances, the drivers are unable to regain control even by taking what would seem correct actions.
DGullible's argument is that they cannot have taken the proper steps because the outcomes of those steps could not be different than what he would expect, based on his expertise with putting on lug nuts, or something. He then argues that the failure to take these steps that he alleges demonstrates a lack of knowledge/training in the CHP and police in general.
The proof he offers is the fact that the news stories don't say if the CHP types tried to turn off the engine first, and that this means that they didn't.
I am with you; it is far likelier that the normal corrective steps simply didn't work in these case, for reasons that are unclear. If I had to bet, I would bet that there is something wrong with the controllers in these cars, not the pedals and floor mats. Luckily, though, I don't have to bet.
It is entirely possible that the CHP officer was simply a dolt who panicked and did all the wrong things.
We really do not know. It seems spurious to simply make assumptions however, based on the "expert" testimony of someone who put a car together in college though, and avows an interest in cars and automobiles in general.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 10:51:08 AM
I disagree. I just did a google search, and there were lots of articles about how to stop a car in this situation. They pretty much all agree that stomping on the brakes is going to stop the car. Car and Driver even did testing on this, and in every single case, no matter what the throttle was doing, and at speeds up to 120mph, stomping on the brakes stopped the car.
Sounds like useful info to me, and not at all hard to find.
Nice switch, but I was actually talking about knowing how brakes can stop working. It was pertinent to the discussion about the CHP officer whose brakes eventually failed. Can you find this information on Google now that you know what to look for? Probably. Would you have it on the tip of your tongue, and know to look for it? Doubtful.
QuoteSince when is anyone goal to make languish a more informed place?
Mine, for one. There are a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people on Languish. I come to Languish to learn from them, debate with them, and contribute on my own when it is me who knows something. I can understand why your goal would be different, we all try to play to our strengths.
Quote
As far as useful information is concerned, the practical use of info for the average languish poster as it relates to this issue can be summed up with:
If your car experiences an out of control throttle, stomp on the brakes. It will stop.
Oh, God, where the hell is the :facepalm: smiley? If you car experiences out of control throttle, for fuck's sake, SHIFT TO NEUTRAL. SHIFT TO NEUTRAL, then brake. Wow. Only if for whatever reason you cannot do that should you try stomping on the brakes. See, that's a perfect example of how Google alone will not prevent you from saying dangerously stupid things.
But, that's not all. Let's for a moment assume that you can't find a neutral. It's useful to know that you should stomp on the brakes. It's also useful to know that it's dangerous to not follow this advice fully and immediately, because it can cost you the brakes. See, even with Google, your lack of understanding is causing you to miss some key points, and to give dangerously incomplete information.
Now, you might say, who cares? If you follow the advice to stomp on the brakes, you don't need to know what happens if you don't. Well, you should care, because when you know why you're doing something, you're going to do it more effectively. You're also going to be able to better deal with slightly different situations if you don't just remember the information by rote. Understanding matters. That's why people who just attack instead of helping other people understand annoy me.
Quote from: HVC on March 10, 2010, 10:51:38 AM
Yeah, but isn't that the risk of buying with the intention of reselling? That the price might not be what you expected? If i buy shares of a company and the shares go down (say for a company mistake, like a bad acquisition) i can't go around and sue the company i bought shares from.
Yes, that's the argument, although shareholders do sometimes sue for lost value when the company is horribly mismanaged. I don't know how that works out in the end, though.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 10:51:08 AM
I disagree. I just did a google search, and there were lots of articles about how to stop a car in this situation. They pretty much all agree that stomping on the brakes is going to stop the car. Car and Driver even did testing on this, and in every single case, no matter what the throttle was doing, and at speeds up to 120mph, stomping on the brakes stopped the car.
Sounds like useful info to me, and not at all hard to find.
Nice switch, but I was actually talking about knowing how brakes can stop working. It was pertinent to the discussion about the CHP officer whose brakes eventually failed.
But not pertient to your claim that the officer could not ahve known as much as you because you are an expert due to your being in a car club in college.
Quote
Can you find this information on Google now that you know what to look for? Probably. Would you have it on the tip of your tongue, and know to look for it? Doubtful.
That isn't the point. Of course, I made my point rather clearly using your own supplied analogy of JR and legal matters, and you over so carefully cut it all out of your response. Interesting.
Quote
QuoteSince when is anyone goal to make languish a more informed place?
Mine, for one.
Nah, don't believe you.
Quote
There are a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people on Languish. I come to Languish to learn from them, debate with them, and contribute on my own when it is me who knows something.
This is not the same thing at all, but you keep stanind gup there on your imaginary pedestal. We are all super impressed. Really.
Quote
I can understand why your goal would be different, we all try to play to our strengths.
Ahh, the personal attack - another fine example of DG drive to inform Languish. Your nobility is impressive.
Quote
Quote
As far as useful information is concerned, the practical use of info for the average languish poster as it relates to this issue can be summed up with:
If your car experiences an out of control throttle, stomp on the brakes. It will stop.
Oh, God, where the hell is the :facepalm: smiley? If you car experiences out of control throttle, for fuck's sake, SHIFT TO NEUTRAL. SHIFT TO NEUTRAL, then brake.
Nope, that is not the standard advice, because some cars ahve a gated shifter that cannot be shifted to neutral.
Quote
Wow. Only if for whatever reason you cannot do that should you try stomping on the brakes. See, that's a perfect example of how Google alone will not prevent you from saying dangerously stupid things.
Except that the advice to "stomp on the brakes" is not stupid, or dangerous. In fact, it is the standard and actual expert advice for what to do. It is simple, straightforward, and it works.
Quote
But, that's not all. Let's for a moment assume that you can't find a neutral. It's useful to know that you should stomp on the brakes.
No shit?
You can't have MY argument, get your own.
Quote
It's also useful to know that it's dangerous to not follow this advice fully and immediately, because it can cost you the brakes. See, even with Google, your lack of understanding is causing you to miss some key points, and to give dangerously incomplete information.
Nope, my information is compelte, and not remotely dangerous. The proper response is to stomp on the brakes. Period. understanding the properties of brake fluid under high heat is not at all necessary, which is a good thing, since in fact few people actually know what, or will ever know that.
Quote
Now, you might say, who cares? If you follow the advice to stomp on the brakes, you don't need to know what happens if you don't. Well, you should care, because when you know why you're doing something, you're going to do it more effectively. You're also going to be able to better deal with slightly different situations if you don't just remember the information by rote. Understanding matters. That's why people who just attack instead of helping other people understand annoy me.
You can't know everything about everything though - at least us mortals cannot. So there is always a limit to peoples knowledge. Most people don't know how brakes operate under extreme conditions, and even if you tell them, they will likely just forget anyway. In fact, half assed knowledge that someone once told you is probably MORE dangerous, since it may cause you to do something other than just "STOMP ON THE DAMN BRAKES" because you once heard some blowhard on languish talk about how brakes stop working if they heat up too much, so maybe I should just hit them, then ease up to let them cool down a bit???
Anyway, for us simple mortals who lack your expertise on everything, we will just remember that in teh incredibly unlikely event that our cars throttle sticks, we will just hit the damn brakes.
Of coruse, if this happens to you, you once assembled a car in college, so you can probably just figure out what is wrong with the throttle and repair it anyway - in fact, with your perfect knowledge, you could probably tell it was going to fail ahead of time anyway and fix it before it even happens. Can't get that kind of safety from google!
DGs hysteria over the danger involved in not knowing exactly how hydraulic brakes work, which will lead to your likely death if ever in a situation where
A)Your car experiences uncontrolled acceleration, and
B)You did not put together a car yourself in college
is kind of illustrative of the danger involved in having too much information.
I could easily imagine someone who knows as much as DG does about cars getting themselves killed because they ignore the simple and basic "rules" in favor of their perceived expertise.
Example: The guy who got ate by a bear. He was probably an expert on bears and their habits, and thought that made him safe, because he knew all this information about how bears operate. But he likely forgot the basic admonition that we all know about bears: they might eat you anyway.
I wonder if DG spends all his time (bit NOT using the internet, since that is "dangerous and incomplete") looking up how to react to every possible emergency, so he can be safe? I mean, sure, he is an automative expert far beyond the abilities of anyone who rights for car and driver and has actually conducted actual tests on stopping cars in emergencies, but what if he is in a thunderstorm, or there is a tornado around?
Absent being in a meteorological club in college, it is likely that his knowledge is "dangerous and incomplete", since it only has basic info, so will he actually stay away from a tree, or look for a depression?
I honestly don't think we should regard anyone's opinion as expert.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 11:43:08 AM
I honestly don't think we should regard anyone's opinion as expert.
I'm an expert at being lazy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 10, 2010, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 11:43:08 AM
I honestly don't think we should regard anyone's opinion as expert.
I'm an expert at being lazy.
But do you have relevant degree in being lazy? Or are you just an amateur who was lazy in college?
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 11:29:45 AM
QuoteQuoteSince when is anyone goal to make languish a more informed place?
Mine, for one.
Nah, don't believe you.
Don't care.
Quote
Nope, that is not the standard advice, because some cars ahve a gated shifter that cannot be shifted to neutral.
The standard advice is to try to shift to neutral if you can, before all else. Move on to more dangerous options only if you cannot do that for whatever reason. Don't say dangerously stupid stuff just to contradict what I said.
QuoteExcept that the advice to "stomp on the brakes" is not stupid, or dangerous. In fact, it is the standard and actual expert advice for what to do. It is simple, straightforward, and it works.
No, it's not. If you think that this is what the actual experts recommend, then you either misunderstood the entirety of what they said, or you managed to find a stupid expert. Stomping on the brakes is not stupid if you can't shift to neutral, but it is dangerous. You don't have as much control of your car when you're heavily braking, and you may not be in the best place on the road to stop suddenly.
Quote
No shit?
You can't have MY argument, get your own.
That was one of my arguments before it was your own, so I'm not sure what you're yapping about.
Quote
Nope, my information is compelte, and not remotely dangerous. The proper response is to stomp on the brakes.
As established earlier, that's neither proper as a first action, complete, nor entirely safe. Also, when people's instincts tell them to do something incorrect, just saying what the correct action is would be incomplete. You have to also make them understand why they need to do it, to make them better counter-act the wrong instinct. Maybe it's just a philosophical difference, but I do value understanding over rote.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 11:43:08 AM
I honestly don't think we should regard anyone's opinion as expert.
I don't think that is the case - I accept some languish posters as being "expert" in their fields, which to me means that I will take their factual knowledge about their expertise at face value, and generally find them to be credible on those subjects.
That doesn't mean they are always right in their conclusions, of course. Being expert sometimes just means you know enough to know how to present your position in the most convincing manner possible. It doesn't mean you are at all objective - you see this with our legal experts all the time, in fact.
Hell, I even think DG wualifies as an expert in his particular field - I accept what he states as far as factual knowledge of statistics at face value, while knowing that he is perfectly capable and willing to leave out the complete picture if it suits his conclusions to do so.
But expertise based on his being in a car club in college? Yeah, not so much.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
DGs hysteria over the danger involved in not knowing exactly how hydraulic brakes work, which will lead to your likely death if ever in a situation where
A)Your car experiences uncontrolled acceleration, and
B)You did not put together a car yourself in college
is kind of illustrative of the danger involved in having too much information.
I could easily imagine someone who knows as much as DG does about cars getting themselves killed because they ignore the simple and basic "rules" in favor of their perceived expertise.
Example: The guy who got ate by a bear. He was probably an expert on bears and their habits, and thought that made him safe, because he knew all this information about how bears operate. But he likely forgot the basic admonition that we all know about bears: they might eat you anyway.
I wonder if DG spends all his time (bit NOT using the internet, since that is "dangerous and incomplete") looking up how to react to every possible emergency, so he can be safe? I mean, sure, he is an automative expert far beyond the abilities of anyone who rights for car and driver and has actually conducted actual tests on stopping cars in emergencies, but what if he is in a thunderstorm, or there is a tornado around?
Absent being in a meteorological club in college, it is likely that his knowledge is "dangerous and incomplete", since it only has basic info, so will he actually stay away from a tree, or look for a depression?
Wow, you really get ass-hurt when you're caught saying stupid things, aren't you? For your information, a lot of my car information comes from actual car engineers, people who actually work as car designers or racing engineers. The beauty of the Internet is that not only does it have Google, but it also has forums with people whose credentials are proven. I've been a member of one such forum for ten years, for example, as part of my interest in knowing how cars work.
That's why I can be confident that what I'm saying is correct, and that I'm not just have "a little knowledge" that is dangerous. That's why I'm also confident that you're full of shit when you say that stomping on the brakes is the standard response to a stuck throttle.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 11:51:40 AM
The standard advice is to try to shift to neutral if you can, before all else. Move on to more dangerous options only if you cannot do that for whatever reason. Don't say dangerously stupid stuff just to contradict what I said.
Uhh, you said that your special advice based on your knowledge obtained while building cars in college was NOT readily available on the internet? So how can it be the 'standard' advice, if in fact it IS readily attainable?
So which is it? Is the standard advice to shift into neutral (which the article I linked to mentioned as one thing to try)? Because if so, your claim that this knowledge is not readily available via google is wrong, and in fact college car club membership is not required in order to survive such a emergency. Reading car and driver magazine, in fact, is perfectly adequate.
Frankly, I don't care whether the standard advice is "Put the car in neutral - if that doesn't work, stomp on the brakes" or simply "Stomp on the brakes". In either case, your claim that your special knowledge about brake fluid compression under corner cases is not needed to react to the problem, and your argument that this is evidence of your 'expertise' that is not attainable via google fails.
Which is, after all, the point of your latest tantrum when people giggled at your self-proclaimed automotive expertise.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 11:53:50 AM
Hell, I even think DG wualifies as an expert in his particular field - I accept what he states as far as factual knowledge of statistics at face value, while knowing that he is perfectly capable and willing to leave out the complete picture if it suits his conclusions to do so.
I can assure everyone that when I speak as an expert on Languish, I'm giving my full knowledge to the best of my abilities. Berkut's casual implication that I'm intellectually dishonest is just his typical attempt to discredit people who have more to contribute than he does.
Well, I suppose I could just trust the opinions of people I like and completely disregard opinions that I happen to disagree with. But really, what expert opinions does anyone on languish have? You hear things like "I was in the army", "I'm a computer programmer", and "you aren't me. You don't know what I'm thinking". None of those give you any real ground to have an opinion on anything. It's just as good as "I was in a car club in college".
QuoteWow, you really get ass-hurt when you're caught saying stupid things, aren't you?
Ahh, more examples of how DG is here at Languish to enlighten and inform via personal attack and tantrums. Very intellectual of you.
Quote
For your information, a lot of my car information comes from actual car engineers, people who actually work as car designers or racing engineers.
My information comes from this guy on Languish who assures me he is a automative expert. I take everything he says as gospel, because he put a car together in college once, and he REALLY likes cars.
Quote
The beauty of the Internet is that not only does it have Google, but it also has forums with people whose credentials are proven. I've been a member of one such forum for ten years, for example, as part of my interest in knowing how cars work.
So now your claim to expertise is based on membership of a forum where there are actual experts? Cool. That is even more convincing than you building a car in college!
Quote
That's why I can be confident that what I'm saying is correct, and that I'm not just have "a little knowledge" that is dangerous.
I bet. joining a forum is certainly the best way to become an expert in nearly any subject.
Quote
That's why I'm also confident that you're full of shit when you say that stomping on the brakes is the standard response to a stuck throttle.
Meh, I am not the one claiming to be an expert though. I am perfectly content knowing that I am not an expert in everything, and that I actually have things I could learn from others.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:01:13 PM
Which is, after all, the point of your latest tantrum when people giggled at your self-proclaimed automotive expertise.
No, the reason for my annoyance is that people who contribute nothing see fit to attack people who do, and for doing it. It's related to my larger frustration, that loudmouths who don't know anything are typically more prominent than people who actually have understanding.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
It's just as good as "I was in a car club in college".
For the record, I brought that up to show that I know how cars work. I would be quite useless in the club that was building a race car from scratch if I didn't. For some reason I thought mentioning that I was one of the people building a car would be a valid defense of my claim that I do know in considerably detail how cars work. Silly me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:07:29 PM
QuoteWow, you really get ass-hurt when you're caught saying stupid things, aren't you?
Ahh, more examples of how DG is here at Languish to enlighten and inform via personal attack and tantrums. Very intellectual of you.
Quote
For your information, a lot of my car information comes from actual car engineers, people who actually work as car designers or racing engineers.
My information comes from this guy on Languish who assures me he is a automative expert. I take everything he says as gospel, because he put a car together in college once, and he REALLY likes cars.
Quote
The beauty of the Internet is that not only does it have Google, but it also has forums with people whose credentials are proven. I've been a member of one such forum for ten years, for example, as part of my interest in knowing how cars work.
So now your claim to expertise is based on membership of a forum where there are actual experts? Cool. That is even more convincing than you building a car in college!
Quote
That's why I can be confident that what I'm saying is correct, and that I'm not just have "a little knowledge" that is dangerous.
I bet. joining a forum is certainly the best way to become an expert in nearly any subject.
Quote
That's why I'm also confident that you're full of shit when you say that stomping on the brakes is the standard response to a stuck throttle.
Meh, I am not the one claiming to be an expert though. I am perfectly content knowing that I am not an expert in everything, and that I actually have things I could learn from others.
Perfect example of your ability to contribute to the forum. No actual knowledge to offer, just multiple attempts to discredit people who do have it. Maybe if you spent some time being intellectually curious yourself, instead of practicing your skills discrediting other people, then you might have something to offer on your own.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
It's just as good as "I was in a car club in college".
For the record, I brought that up to show that I know how cars work. I would be quite useless in the club that was building a race car from scratch if I didn't. For some reason I thought mentioning that I was one of the people building a car would be a valid defense of my claim that I do know in considerably detail how cars work. Silly me.
Just to clarify did your race car actually work? I mean I tried using the
race card, but it never worked. On account of the fact I'm white. And I that I thought it was the Ace of Spades.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 12:17:08 PM
Perfect example of your ability to contribute to the forum. No actual knowledge to offer, just multiple attempts to discredit people who do have it. Maybe if you spent some time being intellectually curious yourself, instead of practicing your skills discrediting other people, then you might have something to offer on your own.
Funny, you asked why people thought it was amusing that you were preening about what an automotive expert you are, and yet the discussion ends up about me somehow. *I* am not making any claim to expertise, so no matter what I bring or do not bring, it has no bearing on you and your constantly repeated assertions of your own briliiance and expertise.
I don't bring any special knowledge that I picked up in college clubs - just my considered opinion about a variety of topics that I find interesting, and take the time to become informed on - albeit often imperfectly. I kind of like that though - I can enter into discussions without the weight of my own self-assured "expertise" so I can actually listen to what others have to say, instead of beating everyone else up with my college club gained expertise on all things. You might try it sometime.
If you don't like the answer DG, don't ask the question to begin with.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 12:24:27 PM
Just to clarify did your race car actually work? I mean I tried using the race card, but it never worked. On account of the fact I'm white. And I that I thought it was the Ace of Spades.
It did work well as a car, although it wasn't competetive as a race car. Our club was severely under-funded. Ironically enough, it did have a sticky throttle, due to some binding in the pedal assembly.
I worked for a radio station in college. I'm a radio "expert". :)
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2010, 12:37:59 PM
I worked for a radio station in college. I'm a radio "expert". :)
Would you find it unreasonable for me to believe that you know more about radio than most lay people?
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 12:10:04 PM
No, the reason for my annoyance is that people who contribute nothing see fit to attack people who do, and for doing it. It's related to my larger frustration, that loudmouths who don't know anything are typically more prominent than people who actually have understanding.
Truly ironic, given that the loudmouth here who was making these judgmental pronouncements was you. People with little or no expertise but big egos really have no business trying to sell the line that the absence of evidence is evidence that CHP officers don't know anything about cars. The larger frustration here is that people who actually have understandings are being drowned out by people who merely loudly
claim expertise because, it turns out, they were in a college club, or read a newsgroup.
Questions are more interesting than judgments, anyway - even if those judgments were based on real, rather than asserted, authority.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 12:45:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2010, 12:37:59 PM
I worked for a radio station in college. I'm a radio "expert". :)
Would you find it unreasonable for me to believe that you know more about radio than most lay people?
Nobody finds it unreasonable to believe that you might know more about cars than your average person though.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:27:07 PM
If you don't like the answer DG, don't ask the question to begin with.
It's not that I don't like the answer, it's that I find the answer unjustified, and basically motivated by personal feelings.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2010, 12:47:01 PM
Nobody finds it unreasonable to believe that you might know more about cars than your average person though.
Ok, let's bid up. How about more than 75th percentile?
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2010, 12:45:50 PM
Would you find it unreasonable for me to believe that you know more about radio than most lay people?
I know more about many things than the average person. :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
Well, I suppose I could just trust the opinions of people I like and completely disregard opinions that I happen to disagree with. But really, what expert opinions does anyone on languish have? You hear things like "I was in the army", "I'm a computer programmer", and "you aren't me. You don't know what I'm thinking". None of those give you any real ground to have an opinion on anything. It's just as good as "I was in a car club in college".
Gully certainly seems to know insurance well. Most of us probably qualify as an expert in something or other---at least those in skilled professions.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2010, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
Well, I suppose I could just trust the opinions of people I like and completely disregard opinions that I happen to disagree with. But really, what expert opinions does anyone on languish have? You hear things like "I was in the army", "I'm a computer programmer", and "you aren't me. You don't know what I'm thinking". None of those give you any real ground to have an opinion on anything. It's just as good as "I was in a car club in college".
Gully certainly seems to know insurance well. Most of us probably qualify as an expert in something or other---at least those in skilled professions.
Oh I suppose we could do that. We could all have our our specialties. Dguller could be insurance, JR could be economic lawyering, Barrister could be Crown persecuting, Siege could be war crimes, and Grumbler be Napoleonic wars. Since you know, he knew all the participants.
ba-zing.
Maybe some questions on the guy who had the runaway Prius this week? Was it faked? Though there have been some other reports of similar issues on Prius.
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589090,00.html
Man at Wheel of 'Out-of-Control' Prius Has Troubled Financial Past
he man who became the face of the Toyota gas pedal scandal this week has a troubled financial past that is leading some to question whether he was wholly truthful in his story.
On Monday, James Sikes called 911 to report that he was behind the wheel of an out-of-control Toyota Prius going 94 mph on a freeway near San Diego. Twenty-three minutes later, a California Highway Patrol officer helped guide him to a stop, a rescue that was captured on videotape.
Since then, it's been learned that:
— Sikes filed for bankruptcy in San Diego in 2008. According to documents, he was more than $700,000 in debt and roughly five months behind in payments on his Prius;
— In 2001, Sikes filed a police report with the Merced County Sheriff's Department for $58,000 in stolen property, including jewelry, a digital video camera and equipment and $24,000 in cash;
— Sikes has hired a law firm, though it has indicated he has no plans to sue Toyota;
— Sikes won $55,000 on television's "The Big Spin" in 2006, Fox40.com reports, and the real estate agent has boasted of celebrity clients such as Constance Ramos of "Extreme Home Makeover."
While authorities say they don't doubt Sikes' account, several bloggers and a man who bought a home from Sikes in 2007 question whether the 61-year-old entrepreneur may have concocted the incident for publicity or for monetary gain.
A man who bought a house in the San Diego area from Sikes in 2007 told FoxNews.com he immediately questioned the circumstances surrounding Monday's incident.
"Immediately I thought this guy has an angle here," the man said on Friday. "But I don't know what the angle is here."
The man, who asked not to be identified, said the home he purchased from Sikes had undisclosed problems that eventually cost him $20,000. He tried to sue in civil court, but Sikes had filed for bankruptcy during the process.
"It got to the point where it wasn't worth me paying legal fees to go after a guy who was broke," he said. "I ate the 20,000 bucks."
The man said Sikes came off as a dishonest businessman who was difficult to work with during the transaction.
"It didn't surprise me," he said of Sikes' recent troubles with his Prius. "I thought this guy is trying to pull a scam here."
Toyota executives, who have talked extensively with Sikes, have said they're "mystified" by Sikes' account.
"It's tough for us to say if we're skeptical," Don Esmond, senior vice president of automotive operations for Toyota Motor Sales, said Thursday. "I'm mystified in how it could happen with the brake override system."
Esmond said all Priuses are equipped with a computer system that cuts power to the wheels if the brake and gas pedals are depressed at the same time — something Sikes was doing.
Sikes' reputation apparently precedes him in Northern California, as well.
"I've been warned that he used to do business here," Jim Pernetti of AAA California Document Services told Fox40.com, "and that I should be very wary of anything with him."
Sikes called 911 on Monday to report that his gas pedal was stuck and his blue 2008 Prius was speeding at 94 mph down a freeway near San Diego. A CHP officer helped bring the car to a stop, but not before two calls to police dispatchers that spanned 23 minutes.
Asked why he didn't simply put his car in neutral, Sikes said: "You had to be there. I might go into reverse. I didn't know if the care would flip. I had no idea how it would react."
Sikes, who did not return several calls and e-mail messages, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the incident was no hoax.
"I've had things happen in my life, but I'm not making up this story," he told the newspaper.
Roughly 8.5 million vehicles worldwide have been recalled by Toyota, including more than 6 million in the United States, due to acceleration and braking problems in several models. Regulators have linked at least 52 deaths to crashes allegedly caused by accelerator problems.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has sent experts to a New York City suburb where a 56-year-old woman said her 2005 Prius sped up on its own as she was leaving a driveway.
That would explain his refusal to shift to neutral (which, it turns out, the 911 dispatcher did ask him to do repeatedly).
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2010, 03:51:53 PM
That would explain his refusal to shift to neutral (which, it turns out, the 911 dispatcher did ask him to do repeatedly).
Yeah, you had to be there. If you were there, then you would understand why he didn't take the simple action he was instructed to take that would have ended the problem quickly, even though he was told exactly what to do.
And perhaps if we were there, we would understand why the car didn't stop as it was designed to do when he pressed on the brake and gas pedal at the same time - I suspect it might have been because he wasn't stepping on the brake and gas pedal at the same time.
Scam.
This is a media frenzy with very, very little substance to back it up.
Here's a story:
QuoteA mother and her 14-year-old daughter were returning from a shopping trip and were turning onto an exit ramp from an Interstate highway. Both were secured in their seat belts, and the vehicle's cruise control was engaged. As the driver stepped on the brake to slow down, the cruise control actuator cable stuck in the open throttle position and would not allow the engine to return to idle. Instead of responding to the driver's frantic braking, car left the road at a high rate of speed and crashed into a rock embankment. The mother received severe, permanent injuries and her daughter was killed.
I've only changed a few parts of that story, the parts I removed were references to the vehicle make and model.
The car was a Lincoln Town Car, made by Ford Motor Company.
This passage is from the Wall Street Journal:
QuoteToyota is getting a lot of attention for sudden unintended acceleration, but Ford Motor Co. has been the subject of more complaints with federal regulators in the recent past. From 2004 to 2009, based on NHTSA data, Ford had 2,806 complaints, compared with Toyota's 2,515. General Motors Co. had 1,192. A study by Edmunds.com, an independent market-research Web site, found that based on the number of vehicles on the road, Toyota ranked 17th in recalls, with Land Rover, recently acquired by India's Tata Motors Ltd., having the most..
Now, what might seem important is that Ford has had more reported cases of SUA (sudden unintended acceleration) than any other automaker, what is actually important is that even they only had 2,806 complaints over 6 years. Back during the Audi fiasco of the 1980s, the NHTSA released a report on SUA and found that it was mostly attributable to simple driver error. In a moment of panic, drivers can convince themselves of a lot of things (like, for example, that they are pushing their brake with all their strength and not their gas pedal.)
Let's assume that every single one of these SUA complaints is attributable to a mechanical defect. Well, both Ford and Toyota pump out well in excess of one million cars per year (15,503,271 in American sales by Ford from 2004-2009, and you can assume close numbers from Toyota), and out of all those cars we're talking 2806 complaints for Ford and 2515 for Toyota. Less than 2
ten thousandths of a percent of the American sales of these companies.
Let's go back to the story of the mother and daughter, in which the daughter was tragically killed. Why aren't similar stories about Ford hitting the front pages of all the newspapers? Basically it is because for a variety of reasons Ford isn't the current victim of the "media frenzy." Throughout the years, news programs like 60 Minutes have made it their bread and butter to expose "problems" and "frauds" committed on the American people. Sometimes it's good stuff, but sometimes they make vast mountains out of very tiny molehills, and often times they do it without putting it in context. Usually these things are like a snowball, something gets them on the front page (I don't know what, that's probably worthy of academic study as to why some things become a media frenzy but identical issues don't) and then all of a sudden all those stories that only make the local news start to make the national news. The story snow balls, once Toyota had to issue the recall it was guaranteed that the snowball would turn into an avalanche, as every person in America who had any problem at all with a Toyota car was suddenly going to end up on the national news. There is also of course the profit motivation, we have to assume that a non-negative number of people are now going to be intentionally claiming their Toyota has gone amok just so they can get money out of a class action lawsuit.
Finally, we can't expect perfect cars, period. Cars are too complicated and they will always have faults that increase danger to passengers, sometimes faults that kill passengers. In my opinion, if you get into a car you should essentially accept that risk. It's the same thing with a train or an airplane, mechanical faults can happen. Faults in the system happen, be they mechanical or electrical, and it's hard for me to put the blame on the company that designed the conveyance. As long as the design is sound, as long as there are no signs that the company knew of a problem and refused to do anything about it because it was
cheaper to sit on their hands, I think we mostly have to treat automobile mess ups as a price to pay for the convenience of a personal conveyance.
It is hypocritical of us to demand personal conveyance such as a car, which is intrinsically more dangerous than more "natural" forms of transportation (like walking, but then again walking has many environmental dangers associated with it), and then bitch and moan when 2 ten thousandths of a percent of the cars have a problem that causes SUA.
Agreed (partially because I made the same point a couple of pages back). It's also cases like the Audi scam that makes you appreciate just how crooked programs like 60 Minutes can be. I don't know why VW/Audi didn't sue them for what was later admitted to be a deliberate smear.
If Congress doesn't begin to back off at this point, I think we're going to have to assume the show trials hearings are being done for reasons of misguided economic nationalism and not public safety.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2010, 08:23:56 PM
If Congress doesn't begin to back off at this point, I think we're going to have to assume the show trials hearings are being done for reasons of misguided economic nationalism and not public safety.
For some time I've been wondering about what gave US Congress the right to publicly berate a foreign national running a foreign company. That seems like a diplomatic insult to me at the very least.
I'd like to know more about the Transportation Secretary's conversation with Toyota in which he apparently insisted they had to issue a recall. From what I can tell, the basis of the demanded recall was all the reports of SUA made against Toyota. If more such reports had been made against Ford, then why wasn't Ford also essentially ordered to issue a recall ala Toyota?
I truly hope Congress isn't trying to torpedo Toyota just because it is Japanese owned. Not because of any strenuous loyalty towards Toyota, but because it makes no sense from an economic perspective. Toyota has created thousands and thousands of jobs here in the United States, admittedly (and wonderfully) these aren't UAW jobs, maybe that is why Democrats are going after Toyota. With GM and Chrysler laying off so many people it's very bad politics indeed to go after one of the remaining major auto manufacturers that employs a large number of people in America.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2010, 05:56:00 PM
Most of us probably qualify as an expert in something or other---at least those in skilled professions.
What the fuck are you insinuating?
Quote from: The Brain on March 13, 2010, 10:52:40 AM
What the fuck are you insinuating?
That your taste in livestock is impeccable.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2010, 08:16:35 PM
Agreed (partially because I made the same point a couple of pages back). It's also cases like the Audi scam that makes you appreciate just how crooked programs like 60 Minutes can be. I don't know why VW/Audi didn't sue them for what was later admitted to be a deliberate smear.
What was the Audi scam?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2010, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2010, 08:16:35 PM
Agreed (partially because I made the same point a couple of pages back). It's also cases like the Audi scam that makes you appreciate just how crooked programs like 60 Minutes can be. I don't know why VW/Audi didn't sue them for what was later admitted to be a deliberate smear.
What was the Audi scam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_100#Reported_sudden_unintended_acceleration
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2010, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2010, 08:16:35 PM
Agreed (partially because I made the same point a couple of pages back). It's also cases like the Audi scam that makes you appreciate just how crooked programs like 60 Minutes can be. I don't know why VW/Audi didn't sue them for what was later admitted to be a deliberate smear.
What was the Audi scam?
I swear one of these days you are going to ask us "What was the Apollo program".
I do so love me a good witch hunt. :cool:
I wish I needed a new car. This would be an excellent time to buy.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 14, 2010, 07:15:25 AM
I wish I needed a new car. This would be an excellent time to buy.
Princesca needs a new one. We were going to get her a Ford Explorer over the summer, but maybe we should look at a Toyota Highlander or something...