GM Ignition Recall Snowballing

[Byteme]

The question I will asking about the Toyota thing though is whether or not we will see any sort of technical or regulatory fallout from this; could perhaps failsafe mechanical throttles be required in addition to modern fly by wire throttles?

The NHTSA study said they were evaluatiog ways to make the systems more fool proof.

[MX793]

The question I will asking about the Toyota thing though is whether or not we will see any sort of technical or regulatory fallout from this; could perhaps failsafe mechanical throttles be required in addition to modern fly by wire throttles?

How do you make a failsafe mechanical throttle?  I've had mechanical throttles stick wide open on more than one occasion.

[Soup DeVille]

How do you make a failsafe mechanical throttle?  I've had mechanical throttles stick wide open on more than one occasion.

Do you want me to guarantee 100% that an asteroid won't strike the earth and end all life as we know it too?

Failsafe doesn't mean it's impossible to fail; it means there's a redundant system in place as a safety in case the first one does. The odds of both systems failing simultaneously are pretty damn low.

[Byteme]

Do you want me to guarantee 100% that an asteroid won't strike the earth and end all life as we know it too?

Yeah, if you don't mind.   

[Soup DeVille]

Yeah, if you don't mind.   

Ok.

If we all die, you can sue me.

[FoMoJo]

The question I will asking about the Toyota thing though is whether or not we will see any sort of technical or regulatory fallout from this; could perhaps failsafe mechanical throttles be required in addition to modern fly by wire throttles?

More specific to the earlier cases, but the importance of brake override systems were brought to light.  Some manufacturers, including Chrysler, BMW, VW, Audi and Mercedes, had been utilizing this software/hardware process for a number of years...BMW, apparently, since the late '80s.

[FoMoJo]

I can't really find the details to the case because none of the news articles actually says anything useful.  It's just regurgitating the same thing with Toyota denying they did anything wrong and the plaintiff's attorney saying Toyota was shameful in their actions.  Honestly though, seeing the age of the driver, still think it's driver error more than anything. 

Some more information that may or may not be revealing to you...http://www.safetyresearch.net/2013/11/07/toyota-unintended-acceleration-and-the-big-bowl-of-spaghetti-code/

An overview of some other cases...http://www.safetyresearch.net/2014/01/02/toyota-lawsuits-wrapped/...many of the imbedded links provide useful information as well.

[AutobahnSHO]

As well, it was Toyota's contention that the driver "misapplied" the pedals...meaning she applied the gas instead of the break pedal.  Eyewitnesses, as well as skid marks proved otherwise.

Link???  I never read this.

I have however read of hundreds of cases where people hit cars in parking lots or rammed through buildings or plowed through pedestrians or went off crazy on the interstate- and the driver "thought" they were on the brakes but were on the accelerator.

And anyone dumb enough to not shut the car off, or put it into neutral, as it speeds out of control- is dumb enough to hit the wrong pedal.

[FoMoJo]

Link???  I never read this.

I have however read of hundreds of cases where people hit cars in parking lots or rammed through buildings or plowed through pedestrians or went off crazy on the interstate- and the driver "thought" they were on the brakes but were on the accelerator.

And anyone dumb enough to not shut the car off, or put it into neutral, as it speeds out of control- is dumb enough to hit the wrong pedal.

Lots of links in previous posts.

[MX793]

Do you want me to guarantee 100% that an asteroid won't strike the earth and end all life as we know it too?

Failsafe doesn't mean it's impossible to fail; it means there's a redundant system in place as a safety in case the first one does. The odds of both systems failing simultaneously are pretty damn low.

Fail safe doesn't require redundant systems.  Fail safe can also mean that, in the event of failure, the failure mode is "safe" (minimizes potential for damage or injury).  ABS systems, for example, are fail safe in that if a fault occurs, the brakes default to a non-ABS state rather than the brakes being completely disabled.  Most automotive thermostats fail such that the thermostat fails open, preventing an overheat condition that would severely damage the engine.  Etc...

[AltinD]

Link???  I never read this.

I have however read of hundreds of cases where people hit cars in parking lots or rammed through buildings or plowed through pedestrians or went off crazy on the interstate- and the driver "thought" they were on the brakes but were on the accelerator.

And anyone dumb enough to not shut the car off, or put it into neutral, as it speeds out of control- is dumb enough to hit the wrong pedal.

I have heard (on the press) of a number of cases here in Dubai where the cars have accelerated by their own and couldn't be slowed down, even if put on neutral or braking. The common denominator that I've noticed has been the cruise control. Has it ever come up in the US investigation to check the cruise control as the possible culprit?

One story was interesting: The police employed an ambulance in front of an out of control vehicle so it can ram into the back of it and the ambulance would brake and try to slow the vehicle stack at the rear down. However, once the vehicle was approaching the back of the ambulance, the Adaptive/Active cruise control kicked in and the vehicle tried to maintain a distance from the Ambulance in the front, automatically slowing down and finally coming to a a full stop.

[FoMoJo]

I have heard (on the press) of a number of cases here in Dubai where the cars have accelerated by their own and couldn't be slowed down, even if put on neutral or braking. The common denominator that I've noticed has been the cruise control. Has it ever come up in the US investigation to check the cruise control as the possible culprit?

One story was interesting: The police employed an ambulance in front of an out of control vehicle so it can ram into the back of it and the ambulance would brake and try to slow the vehicle stack at the rear down. However, once the vehicle was approaching the back of the ambulance, the Adaptive/Active cruise control kicked in and the vehicle tried to maintain a distance from the Ambulance in the front, automatically slowing down and finally coming to a a full stop.

That's really pretty interesting.  The cruise control software has been mentioned in some of the research and even in a test done on a dynamometer where a suspect bit was forced.

[FoMoJo]

In the meantime, more GMs on the recall list...GM adding 971,000 vehicles to ignition switch recall; separate callback targets 500,000 pickups, SUVS.

Deep doodoo.

[AutobahnSHO]

Lots of links in previous posts.

Car didn't skid until the parking brake was employed (right almost at crash time). If the car skidded when they threw on the parking brake means the regular brakes were not being used AT. ALL. at the moment the parking brake was employed.

Means the rear brakes were still functioning. Means the first time the person even braked was when they yanked the parking brake.

[GoCougs]

Car didn't skid until the parking brake was employed (right almost at crash time). If the car skidded when they threw on the parking brake means the regular brakes were not being used AT. ALL. at the moment the parking brake was employed.

Means the rear brakes were still functioning. Means the first time the person even braked was when they yanked the parking brake.

This entire discussion about the Toyota non-issue is just insane. Now blaming cruise control, adaptive or otherwise? Brakes easily stop a car at WOT and shifting to N is mechanical (for vast majority of cars).

[MX793]

This entire discussion about the Toyota non-issue is just insane. Now blaming cruise control, adaptive or otherwise? Brakes easily stop a car at WOT and shifting to N is mechanical (for vast majority of cars).

Most cars made in the past 10+ years with auto gearboxes have no mechanical connection between the gear selector and the transmission itself.  The gear selectors are simply multi-position switches.

[FoMoJo]

Car didn't skid until the parking brake was employed (right almost at crash time). If the car skidded when they threw on the parking brake means the regular brakes were not being used AT. ALL. at the moment the parking brake was employed.

Means the rear brakes were still functioning. Means the first time the person even braked was when they yanked the parking brake.

You can take that view.  With Toyota confessing their sins and paying enormous fines and settling cases out-of-court, we may never know for sure.

[GoCougs]

You can take that view.  With Toyota confessing their sins and paying enormous fines and settling cases out-of-court, we may never know for sure.

lol - Toyota has confessed no such thing. Audi also settled lawsuits and had recalls and as we all know, that was a myth too.

Settling lawsuits has nothing to do with admitting responsibility. Toyota, like Audi, knows the scoop when selling to the general public, which by definition means a certain % of your customers will lie, cheat, steal, and are in general, morons.

[FoMoJo]

lol - Toyota has confessed no such thing. Audi also settled lawsuits and had recalls and as we all know, that was a myth too.

Of course they didn't confess to coding defects however, they did admit problems with "floor mats" and when there were no floor mats, they admitted problems with "sticky gas pedals".  Their primary course was to blame the drivers.  However, after the coding defects were revealed, they suddenly agreed to settle the cases and admit to the Justice Department that it misled American consumers about two different problems that caused cars to accelerate even as drivers tried to slow them down...as previously mentioned...and pay a big fine.  Along the way there were documentations of lying to investigation committees, bragging emails, employees saying they shouldn't lie about this, etc.

Having settled with the Justice Department may well mean that the issues with bad coding will be left lying unless various safely advocates pursue it.  Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Toyota has spent the last four years furiously resolving the issues with their bad code and corrupted ECMs will no longer be propelling horrified families to their doom.  Interestingly, they've just issued a recall of some vehicles for the airbag control module (ACM)...The Japanese automaker said late on Thursday the 2003 and 2004 model-year cars are being recalled because certain circuits in the airbag control module may be damaged by exposure to electrical noise from other electrical components. In addition to the airbags, the seatbelt pretensioners could inadvertently deploy as well.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[GoCougs]

"Propelling horrified families to their doom"? Jesus. Sakes alive you must hate Toyota something fierce.

[FoMoJo]

"Propelling horrified families to their doom"? Jesus. Sakes alive you must hate Toyota something fierce.

Why don't you stick to the conversation rather than make slighting remarks about my observations.  If you have nothing to support your view either do a bit of research or look to other topics.  That a study by experts has revealed that the code in specific Toyota ECMs are "spaghetti code" and "a house of cards" and have given a number of specific examples of such, indicates further evaluation in this area is called for, imo.

[GoCougs]

I am sticking to the conversation. I am not making slighting remarks save for those directed at those supposed "experts" and their ridiculous "just because it might" justification. The day it's proven I'm all ears.

[MrH]

"Propelling horrified families to their doom"? Jesus. Sakes alive you must hate Toyota something fierce.

Wow.

[FoMoJo]

I am sticking to the conversation. I am not making slighting remarks save for those directed at those supposed "experts" and their ridiculous "just because it might" justification. The day it's proven I'm all ears.

Well then, just to be clear, I don't "hate" any car manufacturer.  In fact, there is very little that I hate...other than pedophiles and others who would harm children and other defensive primates and mammals.

That aside, Toyota has a habit of, immediately, blaming their customers for problems with their vehicles.  This first became obvious during the 'engine sludge' episode of a dozen or so years ago.  They said the customers didn't maintain either vehicles properly in spite of some engines crapping out at, relatively, low mileage as well as the fact that some customers had invoices identifying that they had maintained their vehicles as per schedule.  Toyota, finally in 2007, agreed to, maybe, settle the claims through a third party mediator.  With that history, it's not wise to take their word for matters relating to potential vehicle problems, especially when experts have found serious flaws in their ECM software.  There is no doubt, as well, that some have tried to take advantage of the UA situation but, certainly, not all.  In some cases, there was the potential of a 'floor mat' problem as well as the potential of a 'sticky gas pedal (tin whiskers)'.  Now it's proven that there's the potential of corrupt software causing the ECM to freeze. 

Of course, other manufacturers have also ignored or tried to cover up their vehicle problems.  Case in point is GM with it's ignition switch problem which it has known of for many years.  Though Dephi made the switches, GM knew they did not meet spec but still accepted them.  This dates back to 2002.  There are other serious infractions related to other manufacturers as well.  The Pinto gas tank.  Ford was quite callous of that.  There was the faulty tire situation as well.  The lesson we should learn is to hold these manufacturers to the fire until they learn to take responsibility for problems that effect the safety of their vehicles.  Technology needs to be as foolproof as humanly possible.

[FoMoJo]

Wow.

Pretty impressive language, eh.

[Byteme]

At the rate GM is recalling cars this year they might as well just recall everything manufactured in the past ten years and run them all through the refurb shop.  With the lataest recall for failing power steering they are up to what?  Close to 7 million recalled since the first of the year. 

[Onslaught]

And just when I was thinking I could do the impossible and look at a domestic car with the new GMC Canyon coming out and I hear all about this.

[GoCougs]

Well then, just to be clear, I don't "hate" any car manufacturer.  In fact, there is very little that I hate...other than pedophiles and others who would harm children and other defensive primates and mammals.

That aside, Toyota has a habit of, immediately, blaming their customers for problems with their vehicles.  This first became obvious during the 'engine sludge' episode of a dozen or so years ago.  They said the customers didn't maintain either vehicles properly in spite of some engines crapping out at, relatively, low mileage as well as the fact that some customers had invoices identifying that they had maintained their vehicles as per schedule.  Toyota, finally in 2007, agreed to, maybe, settle the claims through a third party mediator.  With that history, it's not wise to take their word for matters relating to potential vehicle problems, especially when experts have found serious flaws in their ECM software.  There is no doubt, as well, that some have tried to take advantage of the UA situation but, certainly, not all.  In some cases, there was the potential of a 'floor mat' problem as well as the potential of a 'sticky gas pedal (tin whiskers)'.  Now it's proven that there's the potential of corrupt software causing the ECM to freeze. 

Of course, other manufacturers have also ignored or tried to cover up their vehicle problems.  Case in point is GM with it's ignition switch problem which it has known of for many years.  Though Dephi made the switches, GM knew they did not meet spec but still accepted them.  This dates back to 2002.  There are other serious infractions related to other manufacturers as well.  The Pinto gas tank.  Ford was quite callous of that.  There was the faulty tire situation as well.  The lesson we should learn is to hold these manufacturers to the fire until they learn to take responsibility for problems that effect the safety of their vehicles.  Technology needs to be as foolproof as humanly possible.

Nah, you have it out for Toyota.

Toyota sludge problem was a problem with owners not maintaining their cars properly just as UA is a problem with owners not knowing how to drive their cars.

The lesson we should learn is that we demand fascist government act in our stead, which of course history has proven it never does, and make things worse (in this case, = cars less safe).

[Byteme]

The lesson we should learn is that we demand fascist government act in our stead, which of course history has proven it never does, and make things worse (in this case, = cars less safe).

Well, don't let the facts confuse you.  The death rate using any reasonable metric you care to name has decreased substantially since the advent of the FMVSS safety regs. 

Would you rather be in a head on collsion in a 57 Chevy Belaire or a 2013 Chevy, assuming the 2013 model has a functioning power steering system and ingition switch? 

[FoMoJo]

Nah, you have it out for Toyota.

Toyota sludge problem was a problem with owners not maintaining their cars properly just as UA is a problem with owners not knowing how to drive their cars.

The lesson we should learn is that we demand fascist government act in our stead, which of course history has proven it never does, and make things worse (in this case, = cars less safe).

I'm sure many others share your view.  After all, vehicle manufacturers spend billions on marketing aimed at convincing the gullible public that their vehicles are as close to perfection as possible.