Toyota sued in carbon monoxide tragedy

Call me old fashioned, but to me smart key is a gimmick that adds nothing to the functionality of the car, but adds additional risk to people not familiar with the smart key/push-in on/off, etc as Bob mentioned above.

Wait, there is one added value: the owner doesn't need to reach for key, great for lazy people.

Now, I'm not agreeing with the lawyers in the case above, but I bet we will hear more stories lite the one above as the smart keys penetration increases in our aging population.

 

we're talking 7+ years of smart key. in the scheme of things automotive safety wise, this is nothing. except for the family of course. nothing a few bucks won't help. what'd the eagles say? get over it.

 

This is tragic to be sure. But based upon the facts presented, another example of a merit-less lawsuit. It's just as easy to leave a car running with keys in the ignition. I've done it. Where are their smoke/CO detectors? Anyone with a shred of common sense has to acknowledge that the responsibility for shutting the car down lies with the operator. No different than if you forget to put the parking brake on and it rolls down the hill and injures someone. Car manufacturers fault? If you ask me, just another unscrupulous lawyer looking for a quick payday. And we all end up paying for it. I can only hope it gets thrown out.

 

I am kind of ambivalent. On one hand it is kind of cool, and I do like it. No worse than many other conveniences we have. On the other hand, I would NOT have got it if were optional once I found out that the BLOODY FOBS COST UPWARDS OF $500.

 

The real question here is whether or not there exists a better case whereby the casual observer can feel some sort of empathy. A 79yr old attorney and his "companion" dying from their Lexus being improperly operated? Oy veh!

I am not a big Lexus fan anyway- I have always looked at them as a BMW knock-off, but chalk this one up to operator error.

 

i loved the coolness of the sks when i first got it. and now, after 7 years, it would be a real pain if i had to dig in my pocket for it everytime i get in the car. like any convenience, once you get used to it, it's hard to give up.

 

In my opinion this is the key...no pun intended to whether the suit is winnable or not.

"The suit contends a keyless ignition violates federal safety standards because the engine can continue to run indefinitely even after a driver walks away with the key fob that communicates with the car's computer."

Without knowing exactly what federal safety standards they are siting or exactly how those standards are written and worded I can't really offer an opinion on how viable the case might be.

But that is the difference between "keyless" ignition and standard keyed ignition. With a standard key iginition you cannot leave the vehicle running if you remove the key (assuming the system is operating correctly). With a "keyless" ignition you evidently can leave the vehicle, with the operating fob on your person and the vehicle can still be running. Does this violate federal safety standards? I think we shall soon find out.

I think those with Keyless systems should strive to separate themselves from the initial reaction of defensiveness about a benefit or system they enjoy.

IMO at least one tragedy has occured as a result of rather specific and rare events...there has perhaps been more.

Whatever the outcome of this singular legal case, I don't think fixing this problem would be that daunting of a task.

I think as Keyless Systems become less and less the rare perk, and more and more the standard...scenarios for tragedy based on accidently miss use will increase. Instead of becoming defensive about the system as it exists today, looking to improve safeguards will be beneficial for everyone.

I'm thinking enclosed garages...push button starts...small children...

This seems to me to be more of a problem not so much with the convience of keyless or push button ignition but over the vagueness of keyless de-ignition.

There is a line, with any tool or machine where you say the manufacturer has done enough and the user must accept the inherent risks involved in operation. But have we reached this line? Could we make the system safer or easier to use? Strive to avoid defensiveness in asking these questions. One death...is one too many.

It was an accident. Regardless of how you feel about the legal case, or even the reality of the system as it exists today, I'd rather it or a similar tragedy like it, never happen again.

 

Sorry, but as one of those the probably comes across as defensive, I really have considered all this. And yes, I am somewhat predisposed to the operator of any piece of equipment taking responsibility for the consequences of doing so negligently. Like you, I do not know what federal safety standard they think is being violated, but once again common sense dictates that one could as easily leave a normal key in the ignition with the engine running. In the meantime, we all pay the price associated with the far-too-many frivolous lawsuits that get filed every day.

 

But again, that's the difference...to leave a "standard" engine running, you have to leave the key and the fob..in the ignition and the vehicle running.

To leave a keyless ignition running, all one has to do is not turn it off...which has no connection to removal of a key or presence of the fob in the vehicle.

Whether this violates federal safety standards I believe probably should be debated, and defined.

I will admit to my own personal prejudice, and that is that I think there is a damaging mythology surrounding the idea of "frivolous" lawsuits....

If the system is improved, and a failsafe that keeps similar tragedies such as this from happening in the future would you call this lawsuit frivolous?

I think large corporations and companies have done a good job of implanting into the public psyche that any and all cases brought against them are "frivolous" and simply not warranted.

I don't agree with this, as I see the reality that it's important regardless of the occasional unwarranted lawsuit to maintain the publics ability to hold large corporations accountable for the safety and quality of the products they create.

IMO the Corporations...as much as they like in these incidences to play the "victim" role are The Goliath...and the suers...are almost always the David.

Corporations have done an excellent job of flipping the roles.

Not that I believe that frivolous or unwarrented lawsuits don't happen...but more that I believe we are better served accepting the percentage of occasional frivolous lawsuits...that ultimately will usually be thrown out...and perserving the common mans ability to seek compensation if companies are found liable.

Regardless of what I think are carefully groomed and promoted individual cases of the "poor" company being hurt by the ridiculously frivolous lawsuit....the truth is Corporations win....

Ultimately...like I said, regardless of how you feel about Keyless Ignition and/or The Lawsuit...if the system can or does become improved and simplified why should anyone have a problem with that outcome?

 

I would suggest that some of the "defensiveness" has something to do with a suspicion that if this were a BMW or an Acura, we would never have heard of it.

 

Okay, you are old fashioned. How far back do you want to take this line of reasoning? Are you willing to eliminate automobiles entirely because they are unfamiliar to to those who have only driven horses? How about cell phones, since they don't always stay in the same place? The new elevators are a real risk too, for without an operator it is very easy to find yourself trapped by the unfamiliar control buttons.



Tom

 

It is a sad incident indeed. However, I believe all this conversation is beyond the point.
I quote from the article: "accusing Lexus maker Toyota of failing to install a "shutdown" switch on the cars - which can be turned on or off at the touch of a button".
I do not own a Lexus, but the Prius has an ON/OFF button named "Power". I take for granted that Lexus also has a similar button. If yes here is the end of the story! The user failed to use this button. Why Toyota is to be blamed?

 

Well, sure. We all get the mechanics involved. But to me these are completely analogous. In either case he would have to forget to do something (push stop button, or remove keys). Didn't he hear the engine running? On the odd occasion I have done this it is because I left the engine running, walked away, and then forgot about it. Completely my responsibility and the outcome would have been the same whether a keyed or keyless ignition (I say I have too much on my mind, my kids say it is incipient senility)

I guess I don't buy into the sympathy thing. I think most people are suspicious of large corporations and I'd be the first one to jump on the bandwagon if there is evidence they are being negligent.

I'm sure this is not exactly what you mean, but it is dangerously close to "the end justifies the means". How about "justice for all". Not all corporations are large and evil. And not all frivolous lawsuits target corporations.

 

Well when it comes to improvement of systems and making a product safer...I am pretty Machiavellian.

And I never said all corporations are large and evil and I never said all frivolous lawsuits target corporations.

But I do believe the public has been manipulated purposely to believe almost any damage or negligence case brought against a major corporation by an individual IS frivolous.

Talking specifics? Like I said in my original post, without knowing what federal standards they are siting and/or how they are worded I have no idea how tangible a case this specific case may or may not be.

But in general. 1 person is dead and the other severely injured. If a legal case leads to debate either within the legal system or within the Automotive Manufacturing world and that debate can lead to improvement? I have no qualms with it.

PS.

Also it's NOT a "sympathy" thing for me on either side of the ledger. I did say: "There is a line, with any tool or machine where you say the manufacturer has done enough and the user must accept the inherent risks involved in operation. But have we reached this line?"

I would accept either answer to this question...but the debate happening in light of personal tragedy IMO means we need to have the investigation, the debate, and perhaps the inevitable lawsuit....

 

I disagree with your portrayal of the first case having to take a specific action. Instead I see it as identical to the your description of second case -- the operator does not do something.

Fixing this addresses only a tiny portion of the problem of poisoning building occupants from inadvertent automobile operation. It ignores the more common causes of garage-sourced poisoning of dwellers -- intentional automobile operation, grills and portable generator operated during power failures, and stored toxic volatile products. These must be solved by the building and its ventilation scheme, not by a Toyota ignition system.

 

There's another interesting side to the tragedy- the ICE is too quiet? And we have to bell the hybrid and EV?

 

One less lawyer, yet another frivolous lawsuit. How ironic lol.

 

I am no fan of the smartkey:

• My wife hates it - she seriously considers the smartkey fob to be an unnecessary confusion to the point that she asked if we could "get the 2001 Echo back."
• San Diego fatality - this led to Congressonal hearing and an NHTSA safety act to which "Bell the Hybrid" was added.
• Carbon monoxide poisioning - same model as the San Diego, fatal crash that might have been avoided if a KEY were used instead of the "press the Power button for 3 seconds" had been followed. BS about automatic power off not withstanding.

How many screw-ups, how many deaths must occur before someone in Toyota engineering, quality, and marketing realized the "Smart Key" is screwed up?

This week I drained the 12 V battery of my wife's 2010 Prius by leaving the overhead switch in the wrong position and stepping out of the car with the Smart Key. I don't mind, I'm OK with learning new technology and techniques. But how frigging 'smart' is a key that lets a car over two days run the 12 V battery down? Ordinarily I look for some benefit, some advantage, some great savings. What is it?

What is the advantage, the cost or safety savings of the "Smart Key?" Whose human life has been saved? Whose cost of ownership has been improved?

Justify the SmartKey.

Look, I've gone so far as to try and figure out how I can "after market" fix this neat but flawed system. I don't post this to be mean but answer the question:

What value added engineering does the Smart Key provide?​

Bob Wilson

 

I like it. That is the justification. I think it might be the best feature of the car. I think it is a huge improvement in convenience.

If you don't like it, on a Gen 2 Prius you can disable the system and use the fob as the "key". I don't know if this is true of the Gen 3 since I don't own one.

 

I don't think this should be settled with a lawsuit; however, I do think there is room for improvement in the system.

With a hybrid and the SKS, the chance of leaving the car in the garage, with it on, is more likely.

Do I feel comfortable with my grandparents having a SKS hybrid. ehhh I think it would be much better for them to have one without it (because of the current risks/chance of it being left on)

For 85% of the population, the SKS may work, but really it should be designed so 99.9% of the population can competently use it.