silvrsvt Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Government-No-electronic-apf-3420619474.html?x=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Government: We don't have too much debt. Just because the government can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Whatever happened to that Apple guy that said he can prove it is software related? Remember that story during the peak of the sudden acceleration stories? Government: We don't have too much debt. Just because the government can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Whatever happened to that Apple guy that said he can prove it is software related? Remember that story during the peak of the sudden acceleration stories? paid off............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 He is one of the richest man in the world... I'm just curious what happened to that story. Did he demonstrate it and it failed? Did the investigators talk to him? Would he go on mythbusters? paid off............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 He is one of the richest man in the world... I'm just curious what happened to that story. Did he demonstrate it and it failed? Did the investigators talk to him? Would he go on mythbusters? I heard he bought an Island somewhere and Bill Gates is his butler.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I believe that the Apple guy was the chubby one who was on Dancing With the Stars. His claim was basically much ado about nothing. Based on what I saw at the Philadelphia Auto Show, I'd be more worried about falling asleep just looking at most Toyotas than having one veer out of control because of an electronic glitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKNSLS Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) I heard he bought an Island somewhere and Bill Gates is his butler.... I have always felt that Toyota would be vindicated. As I stated, if it were as prevalent as reported in the media, the Camrys in Southern California would have been clogging up the freeways with SUA accidents. But it didn't happen. I chalk it up to misapplication of pedals. And let's face it - the gray hair/blue hair crowd were involved in the bulk of the accidents..... BTW - don't flame me too bad, I have been talking to the guys over on the F150 forum about purchasing a F150 for towing my travel trailer! Edited February 8, 2011 by CKNSLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I have always felt that Toyota would be vindicated. Vindicated...as they prepare to announce another quarterly loss. The damage is done. :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 How much did the government spend in this case to tell us what we already knew? That any "flaws" here were not with Toyota vehicles, but with their drivers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 CNN's framing of the story is cracking me up... they're not telling a story of vindication at all, they're replaying the Saylor 911 tape and showing video from all the crashes, asking the question "if it's not the electronics, what is it?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I have always felt that Toyota would be vindicated. This happened so rarely that I have doubts the feds could duplicate it. However, it did happen under circumstances that made it difficult to credit pedal misapplication (Saylor case) or pedal entrapment (engine racing in a service bay *with* mats removed). Toyota's electronic throttle control system was bad in that it had lousy failsafes built into it. For that reason, a once in a billion fault that hasn't been duplicated in labs, IMO, could occur, simply because Toyota had no failsafe to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 My favorite part is Consumer Reports own quote: ...and go back to what they're good at: Building somewhat boring in some ways but very efficient and very reliable sedans that people want to buy," Oh yeah, people "want" to buy boring cars. Even if this does vindicate Toyota in respects to the SUA's, they still build boring cars. They need to change that. Which, for Ford's sake, I'm hoping they don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forddaughter Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGR Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Based on what I saw at the Philadelphia Auto Show, I'd be more worried about falling asleep just looking at most Toyotas than having one veer out of control because of an electronic glitch. LOL, if you think that they're boring to look at, try driving one! I rented a Corolla while out in SoCal last spring, it was a complete bore. Someone could easily fall asleep at the wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 our government would say anything for money.i dont believe this crap.those cars do have electrical issues.they cant say it was all the drivers fault.another sad day for our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The people who claim that Toyota's have some sort of defect bear the burden of proving it, and, so far, they haven't. The idea that there must be some defect, even though the government and everyone else couldn't find one, increasingly smacks of desperation. I'm not going to buy a Toyota for a variety of reasons, but fear of a runaway throttle isn't one of them. I would also note that Ford has the second highest number of complaints about this type of problem (based on one list I've seen). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The people who claim that Toyota's have some sort of defect bear the burden of proving it, and, so far, they haven't. The idea that there must be some defect, even though the government and everyone else couldn't find one, increasingly smacks of desperation. I'm not going to buy a Toyota for a variety of reasons, but fear of a runaway throttle isn't one of them. I would also note that Ford has the second highest number of complaints about this type of problem (based on one list I've seen). There are numerous verified occurences that cannot be explained by floor mats or pedal misapplication. Some were even reported by Toyota service technicians. These are probably extremely rare and might be next to impossible to reproduce but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. How do you explain those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The people who claim that Toyota's have some sort of defect Absence of failsafes and overrides may not qualify as a defect per se, but they are certainly not evidence of good system design. The 'backup' throttle position sensor functioned in the same manner as the primary TPS, and there was nothing the driver could do to override the sensor readings (there is now, but there wasn't then). You combine a backup sensor that is essentially a copy of the primary sensor and no way of manually overriding sensor input and you may not have a defect, but you certainly have one lousy system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 There are numerous verified occurences that cannot be explained by floor mats or pedal misapplication. Some were even reported by Toyota service technicians. These are probably extremely rare and might be next to impossible to reproduce but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. How do you explain those? There was a man in an Avalon with an engine that started racing. He made it to the Toyota dealer (he had the presence of mind to shift the car into neutral when this happened) and the techs looked at the car. This case was verified. That is one case out of millions of cars in daily use. Those "numerous verified" incidents tend to melt away when examined in the cold, hard light of day...much like the Audi unintended acceleration cases of the 1980s. What really happens is we have the old game of "whisper down the lane," where the message becomes progressively more distorted with each retelling, only here it is applied to a real-life situation. Do I like Toyotas? No, I find them extremely boring and rather homely to boot. But I want actual, verified proof (meaning, a real, identified cause, not "we can't find a problem, but we know there is one, so there must be a problem") of a defect. After all, who knows which company could be tarred with this sort of thing next...as I said, Ford has the second highest number of complaints of unintended acceleration of any car maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Those "numerous verified" incidents tend to melt away when examined in the cold, hard light of day...much like the Audi unintended acceleration cases of the 1980s. What really happens is we have the old game of "whisper down the lane," where the message becomes progressively more distorted with each retelling, only here it is applied to a real-life situation. But what would you consider as "hard proof"? Short of having a video showing it happen, the driver won't be able to show any hard evidence. And even a video can be faked. On top of that, even if Toyota had verification by a technician that the vehicle was racing, as posted earlier, I seriously doubt Toyota will ever admit that. Their past management culture has been bread to deny and obscure any details regarding the SUA's. I still think there is more to the story, but we'll probably never truly know why it happened. Too many instances with too many variables. Basically there are as many answers as to why it's happened, as there are cases of it happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) But what would you consider as "hard proof"? Short of having a video showing it happen, the driver won't be able to show any hard evidence. And even a video can be faked. On top of that, even if Toyota had verification by a technician that the vehicle was racing, as posted earlier, I seriously doubt Toyota will ever admit that. Their past management culture has been bread to deny and obscure any details regarding the SUA's. I still think there is more to the story, but we'll probably never truly know why it happened. Too many instances with too many variables. Basically there are as many answers as to why it's happened, as there are cases of it happening. An actual defect that is shown to directly cause the problem and can be replicated constitutes proof. Until then, we have a bunch of speculation. As I said, I'm not wild about Toyotas, but this sort of thing can happen to any car company, and the next time it could be Ford. I want more than speculation or a vague feeling that something is wrong before I pronounce Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda or anyone else "guilty." Edited February 9, 2011 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 An actual defect that is shown to directly cause the problem and can be replicated constitutes proof. Until then, we have a bunch of speculation. As I said, I'm not wild about Toyotas, but this sort of thing can happen to any car company, and the next time it could be Ford. I want more than speculation or a vague feeling that something is wrong before I pronounce Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda or anyone else "guilty." If you'd ever done complicated software development you would understand that there are some bugs that simply cannot be reproduced in the lab. They are caused by a rare combination of improbable events or by some external cause agent that simply doesn't exist in the lab. All the testing in the world won't uncover it. In that case you must gather data when it occurs in production to diagnose the problem. The fact that it couldn't be reproduced in the lab doesn't tell me anything. There are too many reports where people were able to stop successfully after shutting off the vehicle or by standing on the brake pedal and reports where witnesses reported seeing brake lights as a crash occurs to dismiss it as simply driver error - although I'm sure that was the case 99% of the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) If you'd ever done complicated software development you would understand that there are some bugs that simply cannot be reproduced in the lab. They are caused by a rare combination of improbable events or by some external cause agent that simply doesn't exist in the lab. All the testing in the world won't uncover it. In that case you must gather data when it occurs in production to diagnose the problem. The fact that it couldn't be reproduced in the lab doesn't tell me anything. There are too many reports where people were able to stop successfully after shutting off the vehicle or by standing on the brake pedal and reports where witnesses reported seeing brake lights as a crash occurs to dismiss it as simply driver error - although I'm sure that was the case 99% of the time. I remember people saying the same thing about Audi 5000s in the 1980s, too. "I had my foot on the brake pedal," "I saw that the brake lights were on," "The car just went crazy," etc. 60 Minutes even did a story where an "expert" supposedly replicated the mechanical conditions that could cause unintended acceleration in Audi 5000s...his "findings" were promptly debunked by reputable engineers. I wouldn't be surprised that the brake lights were on at the time of the crash - the driver finally stepped on the brakes. By then, it was too little, too late. The simple fact is that world-class scientists were specifically directed to figure out what the problem was, and performed all of tests that Toyota critics were calling for - electromagnetic radiation bombardment, a line-by-line software audit and a complete mechanical engineering review. They couldn't find anything, and it wasn't for lack of trying. After a certain point, it's time to say that there is nothing there and move on... I won't buy a Toyota because they bore me, not because I'm afraid that the vehicle will accelerate spontaneously while I'm driving to pick up some bread and milk. Edited February 9, 2011 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calypsocoral Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Dear Toyota, Please accept our sincerest apologies for absolutely shattering your hard-earned reputation as a maker of quality vehicles. Please understand that, having bought out GM and Chrysler with money we don't have, we kinda needed to ensure a return on that "investment." Now that most of this thing has blown over, and most people have forgotten about the whole thing (except for the folks laid off by the dealerships, due to vastly-reduced business), we're going to quietly say we were wrong, and that there is nothing wrong with your cars that don't at least occasionally show up in other brands' cars. We'd love to pay you the proper damages, but we kinda don't have any money, because turtle tunnels and astronomical pension promises that helped get us elected are far more important. So, please accept this as consolation: Our bad! Sincerely, The United States Congress Edited February 9, 2011 by calypsocoral 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.