NHTSA slams Toyota for 'inaccurate, misleading' recall statements

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by eaton53

Well, an HHR is basically a Cobalt wagon.

With a floormat under the gas pedal (not tied down in any way... it's not necessary on a proper design) you can put your whole foot under the gas pedal on a Cobalt SS.

No need to worry about what you use for mats on these things.

You can also put your whole foot under the gas pedal in a Camry or Highlander or Tacoma even with the mat correctly in place. Try it. I have, with pics. Nothing new to see here.

However you can't do it if there are All Weather mats on top of the carpetted OEM mats and the AWMs have slipped forward. Then you can't slide your foot underneath the pedal.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

Sure there is - NHTSA kicks some of their things up based on 'reported' complaint - incident - rates.

- and then .......



From my earlier post in this thread -


Find another one with these kind of numbers - which are basically all but guaranteed to be low - especially the complaints w/o fatalities and or serious injuries.

In the 80s, there were hundreds of complaints about the Audi 5000 alone -- all of which unsubstantiated -- and there are a heck of a lot more Toyotas on the road -- millions and millions -- than Audi 5000s.

Without conclusive proof to the contrary, which would be NHTSA or Toyota saying "here is a defect with the cars," the only thing holding up this issue on this board is a rabid hope that the company that dared take market share from GM is in trouble.

[Dana_15]

Every Toyota I have ever owned (four) has a real touchy gas pedal, literally you barely touch the pedal and you accelerate, where as the brakes are just the opposite. Once you are used to it, it is normal. I've owned two Silverados in the past and both you had to really put your foot into it to get it going, once again just the design of vehicle.

First time my wife drove her 4Runner (4.0 V6, auto) she was very surprised how it took off, very similar weight and drivetrain compared to those aforementioned Tacomas.

It wouldn't surprise me if all of this came down to driver error.

[plane]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

In the 80s, there were hundreds of complaints about the Audi 5000 alone -- all of which unsubstantiated -- and there are a heck of a lot more Toyotas on the road -- millions and millions -- than Audi 5000s.

Without conclusive proof to the contrary, which would be NHTSA or Toyota saying "here is a defect with the cars," the only thing holding up this issue on this board is a rabid hope that the company that dared take market share from GM is in trouble.

And four people that were mercilessly immolated in a Lexus.
Crashing at over 100 mph while on the phone with emergency personnel,
Trying in vain to stop the vehicle.

No, Mr. Holt, despite your protestations, you would be better served by waiting for the NHTSA report before passing judgment. You have neither the resources or the expertise to state anything definitive in this area.

You clearly indicated in your post that there are no comparable numbers, that it is impossible to tell whether Toyota complaints are arriving at a higher frequency than from other makes.

You are incorrect. And it took only 5 seconds to prove you wrong.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by plane

And four people that were mercilessly immolated in a Lexus.
Crashing at over 100 mph while on the phone with emergency personnel,
Trying in vain to stop the vehicle.

No, Mr. Holt, despite your protestations, you would be better served by waiting for the NHTSA report before passing judgment. You have neither the resources or the expertise to state anything definitive in this area.

You clearly indicated in your post that there are no comparable numbers, that it is impossible to tell whether Toyota complaints are arriving at a higher frequency than from other makes.

You are incorrect. And it took only 5 seconds to prove you wrong.

There are more complaints about pickup trucks, which NHTSA isn't even investigating, and which don't number anything like the hundreds that make headlines. And there's nothing saying whether those complaints are legitimate, and past examples that suggest bandwagoning with higher levels of reporting on a high-profile case.

[plane]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

There are more complaints about pickup trucks, which NHTSA isn't even investigating, and which don't number anything like the hundreds that make headlines. And there's nothing saying whether those complaints are legitimate, and past examples that suggest bandwagoning with higher levels of reporting on a high-profile case.

That's not true either.
The NHTSA did investigate the hundreds of complaints lodged against Tacomas and it closed the case.

Your earlier assumption is also incorrect. We are not rabid fans seeking the demise of Toyota, although I might do a Toyota jump kick and shout out "Oh what a feeling" if Toyota bit the dust. But I digress.

If you look closely and read carefully, you will discover a concerted effort by certain dubious members of this forum to hand-wave, pontificate, distort and provide untruths when it comes to anything related to Toyota and to a lesser extent other import brands. And do so without any humor or grace.

And in response, other posters who have an appreciation for domestic vehicles and the truth, will respond with humor and as many contravening facts as are available in the media.

It's easy to hand-wave and much more difficult to argue with a picture of a Prius on it's side or a Tundra with a rumble strip transmission and bent tailgate.

[bradyholt]

Originally Posted by plane

That's not true either.
The NHTSA did investigate the hundreds of complaints lodged against Tacomas and it closed the case.

Your earlier assumption is also incorrect. We are not rabid fans seeking the demise of Toyota, although I might do a Toyota jump kick and shout out "Oh what a feeling" if Toyota bit the dust. But I digress.

If you look closely and read carefully, you will discover a concerted effort by certain dubious members of this forum to hand-wave, pontificate, distort and provide untruths when it comes to anything related to Toyota and to a lesser extent other import brands. And do so without any humor or grace.

And in response, other posters who have an appreciation for domestic vehicles and the truth, will respond with humor and as many contravening facts as are available in the media.

It's easy to hand-wave and much more difficult to argue with a picture of a Prius on it's side or a Tundra with a rumble strip transmission and bent tailgate.

Pictures can indeed be very powerful, as they can be used to say anything. A photo of a crashed Toyota isn't any evidence at all that the car was defective, and the fact that NHTSA investigated and rejected an unintended acceleration issue with the Tacoma speaks far more to what I'm saying than what you are.

I'm not a Toyota fan. I frequently criticize the researchless buying that Toyota (and Honda) have come to exemplify. However, someone who reaches at straws like this issue undermines any legitimate criticism with Toyotas, as it makes it appear that these dubious allegations are all that they've got.

[AMERICA 123]

Relevant background - originally published for June 2009 -

Btw, although flawed in some sections a very long and useful article from a useful site.

Excerpts follow.

Sudden Unintended Acceleration can be rooted in a variety of vehicle defects including ergonomic design flaws, mechanical or electro-mechanical failures, or electronic failures.

The article below, republished from Safety Research & Strategies bi-monthly publication, The Safety Record, is an overview of SUA.

Sudden Unintended Acceleration Redux: The Unresolved Issue

The Safety Record, Vol. 6, I3, June – July 2009

Copyright © Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA – On February 5, 2007, Bulent and Anne Ezal were headed to lunch at the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach, California. The restaurant is nestled on the edge of a cliff, affording dramatic views of the Pacific Ocean below.

The parking lot was downhill of the restaurant, so Ezal rode the brakes of his 2005 Camry as he approached a parking space.

He was at a complete stop, when the Camry suddenly accelerated, jumping a small curb, crashing through a fence and over the bluff. The vehicle fell 70 feet to the rocks below, and turned over once, coming to rest in the surf.

Anne Ezal died of her injuries in the crash. Bulent Ezal later recovered.

___


Seven months later, Jean Bookout and her friend Barbara Schwarz were exiting Interstate Highway 69 in Oklahoma – also in a 2005 Camry.

As she sped down the ramp, Bookout, the driver, realized that she could not stop her car.

She pulled the parking brake, leaving a 100-foot skid mark from right rear tire, and a 50-foot skid mark from the left.

The Camry, however, continued speeding down the ramp, across the road at the bottom, and finally came to rest with its nose in an embankment.

Schwarz died of her injuries;

Bookout spent two months recovering from head and back injuries.

___

Same make; same model; same problem.

Two severe crashes; two deaths; two cases of serious injury.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, however, the Toyota Camry doesn’t have a problem with sudden unintended acceleration (SUA).

In between these horrific crashes, the agency denied a petition requesting a defect investigation from the owner of a 2006 Camry, who complained that the engine of his current car and the 2005 Camry that he previously owned repeatedly surged.

NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation briefly looked into the complaint, but came up empty.

“ODI has not identified a vehicle-based defect that would have produced the alleged engine surge in the petitioner’s vehicle, nor was it able to witness such an event when road testing the petitioner’s vehicle.

Evaluation of a suspect throttle actuator removed from the petitioner’s vehicle did not reveal a component problem, warranty and parts sales of the actuator are unremarkable.

These data do not support the existence of a wide-spread defect or ongoing concern,” the agency said in its April 2007 decision.

Another SUA inquiry closed with a whimper, and without a satisfactory explanation for a phenomenon that has plagued various makes and models for nearly 30 years.

________


Since 1999, the agency has received seven defect petitions to investigate sudden unintended acceleration and launched eight SUA investigations into GMs, Fords, Toyotas and Volkswagen models. < ???? There have been eight - for Toyota alone >

In the last decade, manufacturers have launched 31 recalls.

More typically, manufacturers deny a mechanical problem and blame the problem on driver error.

If the complaint numbers are high, they blame that on a media-induced frenzy. < Toyota only >

NHTSA, for the most part, has thrown up its hands, opening – and then closing – multiple investigations without finding a defect.

This has led some to conclude that SUA is solely the province of pedal misapplication and stuck floor mats.

Attorney Graham Esdale of the Beasley Allen law firm in Montgomery, Alabama, represents the victims of the Oklahoma crash.

He says it’s frustrating that the agency cannot or will not tease out the causes of SUA.

“We know this is happening out there,” he says.

“Unfortunately, if the person is elderly they are going to certainly going to blame them for causing the accident, when we know that’s not the case.

Instead of trying to fix the problem, they blame the driver.”

Indeed, the history of sudden unintended acceleration is studded with poor research, regulatory omissions and industry success in holding off any serious outside examination of malfunctions within a vehicle’s electronic systems.

_________


Sudden unintended acceleration is a complex problem.

There are multiple causes when a vehicle shoots forward or back in apparent contradiction to the driver’s commands: design defects which induce driver error – such as poor pedal placement, the lack of a shift interlock, floor mat interference, mechanical or electromechanical defects and electronic defects.

The latter –which is the most difficult to pinpoint – is nonetheless a more likely possibility as vehicle systems rely more heavily on sophisticated computer-driven electronics.

And yet, automakers and NHTSA behave as though it is perfectly rational to assume that electronics housed in the hostile automotive environment – including the fault detection system – will always function as intended, and that malfunctions will be easily reproduced in a laboratory setting < Big mistake >

Elsewhere, however, the case has been persuasively made that NHTSA and automakers have ignored the real possibility of intermittent and other faults in the electronic systems of today’s automobiles.

The 2003 reference book, Sudden Acceleration, by Carl E. Nash, of the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University, Clarence Ditlow, of the Center for Auto Safety, James Castelli and Michael Pecht, Professor and Director CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center at the University of Maryland, argue that the auto manufacturers lag behind those in other industries whose products rely on electronic systems in understanding the myriad ways their microprocessors and electronics components can fail.

NHTSA, the authors conclude, has also failed miserably in its attempts to find a cause other than a floor mat or driver error, because the agency employs an arbitrarily narrow definition of SUA – that it must occur from a standstill –and has conducted its investigations on incorrect assumptions and illogical reasoning.

Drivers have been complaining about sudden unintended acceleration events for a quarter of a century and continue to lodge these complaints with manufacturers and NHTSA.

Yet, NHTSA has made virtually no substantive progress toward understanding how electronic systems housed in an environment subject to heat, vibration, sudden shocks, various levels of electromagnetic interference, moisture, and other corrosive conditions could fail; or how they could be detected; or what appropriate countermeasures must be instituted other than expecting drivers to somehow overcome an open throttle on a runaway vehicle.

They slumber, while vehicles grow ever more stuffed with electronics that control the vehicle’s braking, stability and speed.

Attorney (and engineer) Don Slavik, who represents Ezal, is hoping that NHTSA will take a second look at the problems of the 2005 Camry – although he isn’t sanguine about the outcome.

“It’s clear the NHTSA lacks the resources to fully investigate this.< deliberately so >

NHTSA does not have special staff with experience in electronic control systems – and their small staff is tasked with a wide range of responsibilities,” says Slavik of the Milwaukee firm, Habush, Habush & Rottier.

“That’s where the tort system comes in to assist more fully in investigating this problem, which affects millions of vehicles.” Sean Kane, president of SRS agrees.

“SUA presents unique and resource intensive investigation that can quickly overwhelm the NHTSA defects office.

Further, the agency has a history of dismissing SUA unless there are mechanical or driver error issues, which only complicates matters.”

- NHTSA also received a significant number of complaints in the 1980s alleging SUA in Nissan 280/300ZX and Maxima, Acura Legend, Honda Accord, and various Ford, GM and Mercedes models.

NHTSA opened a number of defect investigations into SUA, and closed many of them without finding a defect trend.

But some NHTSA investigations did prod manufacturers into initiating recalls.

For example, Nissan recalled 1979-1987 280/300ZXs to retrofit brake-shift interlocks. Other recalls have involved the replacement or modification of mechanical and electronic components that cause the throttle to stick or open unintentionally.

Some of these components are related to the vehicles’ cruise control.

In 1989 NHTSA published “An Examination of Sudden Acceleration.”

This report was intended to end all debates on SUA.

Its primary conclusion was that only the driver’s foot or the cruise control could move the throttle to the wide-open position.

The study also noted that SUA could be caused by simple mechanical failures of the throttle cable or floor mat interference.

Under these conditions, a significant increase in the driver’s ability to stop the vehicle was also noted.

However, the general spin was that NHTSA could not find any vehicle defects causing SUA.

The condition, the agency concluded was the result of driver error, although the agency noted that it could be induced by poor vehicle design (i.e., brake, accelerator pedal placement and offset).

The study recommended the installation of automatic shift-locks (ASL), which require the driver to depress the brake pedal before the vehicle can be shifted out of Park to prevent the driver from depressing the accelerator instead of the brake.

Dr. Antony Anderson, an electrical engineering consultant in the UK who has examined numerous SUA crashes, says that NHTSA’s definitive research report is neither definitive nor research.

The agency based its report on nine underlying assumptions, but did not provide the basis for those assumptions.

The agency defined sudden unintended acceleration as only instances where the vehicle lurches suddenly forward or in reverse from a standstill.

This automatically discounted many other situations in which a vehicle’s throttle is wide open in direct contradiction to the driver’s demands, be it at full speed, a slow speed or in a cruise control mode.

Further, he says, the systems that NHTSA examined in the late 1980s bear no resemblance to fully electronic throttle systems of today.

“It’s a travesty,” Anderson said. “That report has no relevance whatsoever, but manufacturers have sheltered themselves behind it for years.”

Nonetheless, the 1989 report and the significant numbers of reported SUA incidents did prompt manufacturers to adopt shift-interlocks in their vehicles in the late 1980s. -

- Today’s Unintended Acceleration: Can This Many Drivers be Confused?

In January 2008, the agency weighed a formal investigation into SUA in Toyota Tacomas, and it demonstrates how little has changed since 1985 and the Audi 5000.

This time, the petitioner was William Kronholm, a journalist from Helena, Montana who alleged that his 2006 Toyota Tacoma suddenly accelerated twice in as many hours.

According to his defect investigation request, in attempting to learn more, Kronholm went rifling through NHTSA’s complaints database and found that consumers had made 32 such complaints against Tacoma pick-up trucks, while other similar vehicles had only one or no complaints in a comparable two-year period.

< Watch this - Toyota essentially BLAMEs THE INTERNET >

Toyota responded by maintaining that there was nothing wrong with the Tacoma and that the spate of complaints had been ginned up by press attention and Internet virulence—a claim right out of the Audi playbook:< Yea, but AUDI was right and Toyota is..... well, Toyota >

< Toyota said cont. >

“The Tacoma has been the subject of extensive media coverage related to the possibility of sudden acceleration".

"In addition, there has been a high level of Internet activity going as far back as early 2007, including reports by members of Tacoma user groups detailing conversations with ODI staff and providing ODI contact information". < Does this mean GMI coverage helped cause a spike in Tacoma reporting ? >

"Such exposure tends to generate consumer interest and complaints.

Thus, the petitioner’s assertion that the Tacoma stands out from its peers based on a relatively high number of complaints in the NHTSA database is not a valid argument, since the other vehicles listed by the petitioner have simply not had the same media and Internet exposure.”

< Lie like a rug - if you let 'em don't they ? I think they were too aware of their own Internet spin activities. BTW, go look at how CR treated AUDI - and compare that to how they have treated Toyota. >


Two months later, NHTSA denied the defect petition, saying – in effect- that they wouldn’t be able to devote the resources to finding out why Toyota Tacomas were plagued by sudden unintended acceleration – despite 271 reported instances, resulting in 24 crashes and four injuries. < Now much larger >

Manufacturers may deny SUA exists, NHTSA may declare that it isn’t worth its time to thoroughly investigate these incidents, but consumers continue to lodge complaints about sudden unintended acceleration – and they can’t all be little old ladies in the first stages of dementia.


The complaints data show clearly that some manufacturers and some vehicles are outliers, with significantly more complaints than their peers.

In the last 10 years, the agency has collected some 24,000 consumer complaints (source: www.VSIRC.com). When these complaints are sorted by manufacturer and vehicle and charted, the vast majority of automakers flat-line at the bottom.

The trendline of complaints for four manufacturers—Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota, however, float above their peers with occasional spikes, < At this point hugely dominated by - guess who and guess who because of historical issues is in number 2 - it ain't GM or Chrysler > leading one to conclude that either these manufacturers have a problem, or the most confused consumers gravitate to their vehicles.

In the 2003 book Sudden Acceleration, the authors offer many scenarios in which an automotive electronic system or the electrical contacts may fail intermittently and defy easy detection: Physical traces on a microscopic scale due to “a poor connector contact, a dry joint, or a cracked PCB track that behaves as a good connection for 99.999 percent of the time” could be overlooked.

Anderson notes:

“A control system adopting a different, anomalous and perhaps dangerous state once in a blue moon when there is an intermittent fault.

The moment the fault disappears, the control system goes back to its normal state.

It is hardly surprising that subsequent testing fails to reveal any fault.

There are plenty of examples of physical systems having normal and faulty states and a small change may move the system from one state to the other.

The manufacturers know this perfectly well.

Their prescription of “wiggle tests” on connecting cables to identify poor connections and make them better is indicative of the vulnerability of car electrics to intermittent contacts.”

And in denying that this problem even occurs, manufacturers have foregone countermeasures altogether, Anderson said.

“The problem really is: these systems are designed so if they do fail there is nothing the driver can do about it.”

See also Toyota Sudden Acceleration

More on SUA:

http://www.safetyresearch.net/2009/0...-acceleration/

[plane]

Originally Posted by bradyholt

However, someone who reaches at straws like this issue undermines any legitimate criticism with Toyotas, as it makes it appear that these dubious allegations are all that they've got.

I strongly disagree.
A 3.8 million vehicle recall is not grasping at straws.
A public rebuke by the NHTSA is not grasping at straws.
Blithe ignorance doesn't cut it in this case.

I've had a floor mat bunch up, cause an acceleration issue, and I quickly dealt with it.

A police officer, is by training and inclination, able to handle tense situations, and in my estimation would quickly identify possible causes; bunched floor mats, place the transmission in neutral, press the start button for 3 seconds (it works on computers, why not here?).

And yet, despite relatives in the back seat to suggest action
despite relatives in the back seat calling emergency personnel,
the Lexus accelerated to over 100 mph, crashed, burned and killed all four occupants in a fiery massacre.

None of that is in doubt. It's horrific. It's documented. For you to blindly dismiss this out of hand, without any technical background is ludicrous. I personally have hands-on experience programming logic controllers for use in life and death situations, and I'm telling you, that there is a real possibility that this is a controller issue.

We've seen controller issues on airplanes. We've seen controller issues at nuclear power plants. I have personally witnessed lethal equipment that was correctly programmed, move without human input, due to faulty grounding. Yes, transient electrical currents can defeat drive by wire.

Just a little piece of advice. Wait for the NHTSA to rule on this. It may be the mats, it may be the floor pan, and it could be something much worse.

But don't support untruth and blithe dismissals by inaction, or worse, a callous indifference to human life. Let the truth come forth.

[bradyholt]

NHTSA, in the article above:

“ODI has not identified a vehicle-based defect that would have produced the alleged engine surge in the petitioner’s vehicle, nor was it able to witness such an event when road testing the petitioner’s vehicle.

Evaluation of a suspect throttle actuator removed from the petitioner’s vehicle did not reveal a component problem, warranty and parts sales of the actuator are unremarkable. These data do not support the existence of a wide-spread defect or ongoing concern."


Emotional appeals about anecdotal evidence are the tools of someone who is fanning the flames of a non-issue. If there were facts, they would be used. There aren't. Merely anecdotes. The fact that an accident that occurred included a tragic outcome doesn't say anything at all about the cause of the accident.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

You can also put your whole foot under the gas pedal in a Camry or Highlander or Tacoma even with the mat correctly in place. Try it. I have, with pics. Nothing new to see here.

However you can't do it if there are All Weather mats on top of the carpetted OEM mats and the AWMs have slipped forward. Then you can't slide your foot underneath the pedal.

You can put mats on mats in a Cobalt and still get your foot under it.... there's lots of room.
No need for approved mats, hooks or a correct placement. You can put a piece of shag carpet if you like.

Only flawed designs make such mandates necessary.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by eaton53

You can put mats on mats in a Cobalt and still get your foot under it.... there's lots of room.
No need for approved mats, hooks or a correct placement. You can put a piece of shag carpet if you like.

Only flawed designs make such mandates necessary.

You can't however put your foot under the pedal of a Cobalt when it's all the forward in the WOT position. I've tried it. That's the problem here too. If something was blocking the pedal and had it stuck all the way forward and you were doing 100 mph on the freeway watching cars blur by you you can't reach the pedal by hand and you can't get your foot underneath the pedal.

You've gotta try to dislodge whatever's blocking the pedal with your foot while steering and avoiding other vehicles.

[plane]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

You've gotta try to dislodge whatever's blocking the pedal with your foot while steering and avoiding other vehicles.

No thanks needed. Just glad to lend a hand.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by 1G6

愚かなアメリカの人々は運転する方法を知らない。

Behold, the business world's favorite crutch when design flaws are exposed.



Priceless.

I won't stoop to your level but you do realize that you're a gruesome pig by posting pics of a tragedy like that with your inappropriate gleeful gloating about a family's death pictures.

I don't know if anyone here has stooped to your level.

Mods, close this thread please.

[1G6]

Main Entry: con·text

Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave

Date: circa 1568

1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning