4d4evr-1 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 http://www.freep.com/article/20101028/BUSINESS01/101028065/1210/business01/Toyota-accused-of-forcing-auto-owners-to-keep-quiet If true Toyota may not recover. I know this is not directly about Ford but can have a big impact on Ford, however move if you must. 4D4EVR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) Just seen the news break in the UK. Wow!! A car company buys back dodgy Toyota's with dangerous serious known problems in a bid to try to hide the problem from its other owners, how could you ever trust such a car company ever again, they put the companies image before its customer safety. Just how LOooow can you get. How would anybody ever want to buy a car from a car company sooooooooooh deceitful as Toyota ever again. Toyota are untrustworthy and can't be trusted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJB7IU3mFs Edited October 29, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 It's a sad day when I have to agree with FJ. But forget the vehicles - how could you ever trust Toyota again for anything? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weiweishen Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) http://www.freep.com/article/20101028/BUSINESS01/101028065/1210/business01/Toyota-accused-of-forcing-auto-owners-to-keep-quiet If true Toyota may not recover. I know this is not directly about Ford but can have a big impact on Ford, however move if you must. 4D4EVR For me, this is not news at all. I am the only one person who drive non-Toyota car in my family. My family was in east coast. Since the first day I went to Toyota dealer with my relatives, I have been told by Toyota sales person that "if you report problem of your car, your car's resale value will be lower and that is your lost, not toyota's" My Ford dealer never told me that. Sometimes brain wash really works and works very well. Edited October 29, 2010 by weiweishen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 An interesting comment (and theory) from a reader on the usatoday website: There were reports in the L.A. Times and other sources nearly a year ago that Toyota had paid a number of drivers to remain silent about their safety issues, but the new reports actually indicate that Toyota secretly bought vehicles back to keep the safety issues quiet. In addition, part of the newest lawsuits by hundreds of drivers is the claim that some local Toyota garages WERE able to reproduce the sudden acceleration problem. The company has consistently claimed that it could not reproduce the problem. Taken together, these two points may link to another Toyota issue of which I'm personally aware. A number of Toyota drivers that I know were offered free or highly discounted oil changes or other service about a year ago, and some of these drivers were asked to leave the car in the shop while they were serviced. One has to wonder what else was done to their Toyota while it was in the Toyota garage. If they find techs or company documents that show Toyota secretly fixed vehicles under the guise of a free oil change they'll be in even deeper do-do than they already are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) Isn't it pretty common for companies to require owners to sign a non-disclosure agreement when they agreed to buy back a vehicle...? I thought that all companies did this. Edited October 29, 2010 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Isn't it pretty common for companies to require owners to sign a non-disclosure agreement when they agreed to buy back a vehicle...? I thought that all companies did this. Yes it is - and such a policy is not limited to the automotive industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtion Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Isn't it pretty common for companies to require owners to sign a non-disclosure agreement when they agreed to buy back a vehicle...? I thought that all companies did this. I never signed anything but the title transfer with 2 buy backs from Ford..This all happened back when The 5.4L motor in the F-150's (piston slap and #8 cylinder problem).Most all Ford buyers of these trucks were aware of the problems, All Ford needed was a non-disclosure agreement issue to raise its ugly head back then to add to their problems.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Isn't it pretty common for companies to require owners to sign a non-disclosure agreement when they agreed to buy back a vehicle...? I thought that all companies did this. I think the issue is whether Toyota sought, by these measures, to conceal safety defects which it also failed to act upon. For instance, Ford buys back an F150 that caught fire due to the cruise control switch defect. Ford requires the customer to sign an NDA that not only precludes them from disclosing the settlement, but also from discussing what happened to the vehicle. Now, say that Ford also refuses to disclose this information to the NHTSA and refuses to recall similar vehicles, in effect concealing all information about this defect. The question, IMO, is whether Toyota was merely acting to preserve their reputation, or if they were taking steps to hide a safety defect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) The question, IMO, is whether Toyota was merely acting to preserve their reputation, or if they were taking steps to hide a safety defect. And that's going to be very hard to prove without first hand evidence from Techs or their reports. Toyota have only themselves to blame here, they should have taken much more positive steps right at the start of this mess and avoided any lingering doubts....but they didn't. Edited October 29, 2010 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 And that's going to be very hard to prove without first hand evidence from Techs or their reports. Toyota have only themselves to blame here, they should have taken much more positive steps right at the start of this mess and avoided any lingering doubts....but they didn't. "What did Toyota know and when did they know it?" Plus "What did they do with that knowledge?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 "What did Toyota know and when did they know it?" Plus "What did they do with that knowledge?" answer...they started an Ad campaign with the theme "Piece of Mind"............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 And that's going to be very hard to prove without first hand evidence from Techs or their reports. Toyota have only themselves to blame here, they should have taken much more positive steps right at the start of this mess and avoided any lingering doubts....but they didn't. But that's only part of the problem. If Toyota techs reproduced unintended acceleration and reported it to Toyota while Toyota continued to claim that they were unable to reproduce it - that's the smoking gun IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted October 30, 2010 Author Share Posted October 30, 2010 But that's only part of the problem. If Toyota techs reproduced unintended acceleration and reported it to Toyota while Toyota continued to claim that they were unable to reproduce it - that's the smoking gun IMO. There could be folks going to jail. Also in Asian countries the CEO typically falls on his sword, but this will be the grandson of the founder. I was impressed with the grandsons response to the congressional hearings. I thought that was handled well, we will see going forward. One more thing to keep in mind, innocent till proven guilty, lets hope for the company they are. I want Ford to stomp them, I just want it to be because we are better, not because Toyota is worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Bear in mind you're only hearing the plaintiff's side of things as well. However, Toyota's culture is corrupt, as corrupt as Ford's was in the 70s. I do not doubt that information that should have been acted on was ignored because the culture of the company was rewarding results, not transparency. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 (edited) Bear in mind you're only hearing the plaintiff's side of things as well. However, Toyota's culture is corrupt, as corrupt as Ford's was in the 70s. I do not doubt that information that should have been acted on was ignored because the culture of the company was rewarding results, not transparency. I think we're going to find that Toyota's arrogance is at the root of all of this. even if they did not know about the unexplained acceleration events before hand, it was their arrogant denial that such events were possible that puts them in the soup. It looks like Toyota started with the "not possible" premise and gathered evidence to prove that point rather than properly investigating with an open mind. So while I doubt they deliberately concealed evidence, I think they just plain refused to accept that any such evidence was there to collect. If anything Toyota is guilty of culpable ignorance and stupidity.I will keep an open mind on this as some Toyota techs may have collect evidence and sent it off bunched with the rest without telling head office..... Could there be a depth charge sitting in the bowels of Toyota ready to rain shit on everyone? Edited October 30, 2010 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Could there be a depth charge sitting in the bowels of Toyota ready to rain shit on everyone? Quote of the week right there! :fan: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Is there a Pinto memo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 answer...they started an Ad campaign with the theme "Piece of Mind"............. And T.V. commercials galore stating they are investing a million dollars an hour for you safety............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateX Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 There could be folks going to jail. Also in Asian countries the CEO typically falls on his sword, but this will be the grandson of the founder. I was impressed with the grandsons response to the congressional hearings. I thought that was handled well, we will see going forward. One more thing to keep in mind, innocent till proven guilty, lets hope for the company they are. I want Ford to stomp them, I just want it to be because we are better, not because Toyota is worse. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the criminal court system. In the civil court system you are basically guilty until proven innocent. Once a lawsuit has been filed the defendant must prove their innocents, while the plaintiff has a much lower standard called a "Preponderance of evidence" instead of "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted November 1, 2010 Author Share Posted November 1, 2010 Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the criminal court system. In the civil court system you are basically guilty until proven innocent. Once a lawsuit has been filed the defendant must prove their innocents, while the plaintiff has a much lower standard called a "Preponderance of evidence" instead of "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Yes in civil court, but there could be people going to jail, at least if this applies to Japan. I know leaders of companies in Japan have gone to jail over similar issues. I just hope this turns out to be not true or else we will have more liberals asking for more regulation to stop the tyrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateX Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Yes in civil court, but there could be people going to jail, at least if this applies to Japan. I know leaders of companies in Japan have gone to jail over similar issues. I just hope this turns out to be not true or else we will have more liberals asking for more regulation to stop the tyrants. A criminal case can be initiated against individuals within the company who are criminal culpable, but not the company itself. Companies can only subject to civil actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 In the civil court system you are basically guilty until proven innocent. Once a lawsuit has been filed the defendant must prove their innocents, while the plaintiff has a much lower standard called a "Preponderance of evidence" instead of "Beyond a reasonable doubt". The first part isn't correct - you are still innocent until proven guilty even in a civil proceeding. The only difference is the amount of proof required as you stated. If someone accuses you of slashing their tires but they have no evidence then they lose. It's not up to the defendant to prove their innocence any more than a criminal trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted November 1, 2010 Author Share Posted November 1, 2010 A criminal case can be initiated against individuals within the company who are criminal culpable, but not the company itself. Companies can only subject to civil actions. What about Japan. I am certain I have heard/read of Japanese corp. officials sent to jail for product liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What about Japan. I am certain I have heard/read of Japanese corp. officials sent to jail for product liability. Yes - that's what UltimateX said. People can go to jail - companies can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.