Sudden Acceleration Verdict Is in - its not a electronic issue

Pay attention 32kcolors, it shouldn't be that difficult to answer the entire question:

...then what should be done? Nothing?

 

No you wouldn't. You would be concerned enough about the possibility of UA to dispose of the car at a loss before the voluntary video camera is installed, probably without having experienced any UA.

I find great irony that you gave credit to Audi for developing a brake overrride system to help prevent UA problems, which apparently helped knock down their UA complaint rate, but gave the Prius no credit for having a similar system, and then disposed of it over alleged UA concerns.

It would be even more ironic if your replacement car lacks such a system. Does it? You know the answer, but will probably avoid telling us.

Another irony is complaining bitterly about NHTSA / NASA not testing Prius specifically for UA, then replacing it with another car they also did not test.

So you know you would refute the EDR before the event has even occurred? Yes, I know how this will play out in court.

I am studying the movements of a master.

===========================

Based upon first-hand UA experience, I now look for certain details in the complaints to help separate machine-induced incidents from driver induced incidents. This is a statistical argument because, due to differing driving styles, I expect less than half of UA drivers to respond in a way that allows these to be noted at all. But of the samples you reposted, none of them noticed. That strongly hints that nearly all drivers who do notice such detail, don't blame the machine.

Based upon your mention of the Haggerty incident, I'm sure you'll mention my desired detail if it is reported. His problem -- not in a Prius -- was cured by replacing some parts. I have not yet found any failure analysis to determine whether it was a systematic or a single failure. And a single poorly documented failure in a different type of car is not even close to rising above my noise floor of automobile safety concern.

 

We can evaluate that bridge after we find it, regardless of the means of discovering it.

 

Seriously fuzzy, is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question?

 

And you?

 

I've given you my answer, don't put words in my mouth.

Actually Audi changed the size, shape and spacing of their pedals. They also introduced the brake lock-out system which requires your foot to be on the brake before you can start the car. Brake override systems came much later, many cars do not have them today, including all 4 cars that I own. The only reason Toyota recalled millions of cars to install brake overrides is because they were under fire from the government to solve their unintended acceleration problems. I think all cars should have the system. (learn from the master, that's how to give an intelligent and honest answer)

The NASA test was on Camry's. That's it. No Prius, nothing else. You want to draw a sweeping conclusion that testing Camry's means all Toyota cars are suddenly problem free. Which is, of course, nonsense.

There are several studies that show the EDR doesn't always record events, and the black box doesn't record anything unless the airbags deploy. But you guys dismiss everything as junk science if it doesn't glorify the Prius. All I'm asking for is a video system to record what's really going on. A simple system would solve the problem.

See answers above. Learn.

===========================

And in all of those cases a footwell video camera would have rendered all of these arguments unnecessary. If it showed a foot on the gas I would have no problem admitting it was driver error. If it showed a foot on the brake would you admit it was a machine error?

 

Not that tough for me, see above.

What would you do if unintended acceleration caused you to crash your Prius?

Would you put a footwell video camera in your car if you thought you had experienced unintended acceleration, if it was available for free through the manufacturer?

 

I think many of us don't disagree that a footwell camera could be a good tool. Hmmm, I think insurance companies would be interested in this to prove who is at fault in an accident. Anyway, there are two problems with your suggestion; first you're assuming current data-recording mechanisms are faulty and second, is that you're asking the manufacturer to pay for the footwell camera. In the absence of evidence that current data recording mechanisms are faulty, why should the manfacturer provide it? I think the onus should be on the vehicle owner to pay for it if they feel that strongly about it. There is nothing stopping the owner from doing it so why not go ahead and just do it. Think of it as a "whistleblower" for UA if it proves their point.

 

The government wouldn't have got NASA involved in UA if they had total confidence in the EDR data. A camera is a cheap and reliable way of showing what the feet are doing in problem situations. There is really no way of refuting a video showing your feet on the gas. You can refute EDR data if there is concern about system glitches.

Look at how much Toyota has lost in revenue over this issue. At some point it would have been far less costly for them to install inexpensive cameras in any car that involved a complaint.

I actually bought an infrared camera and a Scanguage II to install in my Prius ( Plan B ), but I sold the car before they arrived ( Plan C ). My "Plan A" was to hope NASA and Toyota found a problem and applied a solution. The NASA test on a few Camry's shot down any hope of that, so I moved on. I'm either going to install them in one of my other cars, or install them in my friend's Prius.

 

The reality is going to be that NONE !!!!!!!! of the UA is the cars fault aside from the mats.

 

and the pedals made in indiana.

 

That would be a great result. Toyota could use the videos in customer complaint cases, in court, submit them to the government to prevent expensive recalls and huge fines.

But what if the videos show a handful of cases where the foot is firmly on the brake but the car is accelerating, and the EDR data only shows the throttle being applied? Then what do you do?

 

punt?

 

Sue the camera maker, of course.

 

The more telling question would be:

If Toyota found confirmed cases of electronic glitches that caused unintended acceleration, do you think they should keep them secret?

 

oh, is that a trick question?

 

[evpv]Seriously, bisco, is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question?[/evpv]

 

i can't think of a good come backer at the moment.

 

Oh no, you guys are still at it ;-) Go check out the Jeopardy games on Tivo, it was awesome! It'll help get your minds off evpv haha

 

Should they? No. Could they? Yes. Have they? probably.
Sometimes it is easier to pay for a lawsuit then revamp an entire process. Remember, all corporations are inherently evil.

I don't think the camera alone would suffice. I would imagine it would need to be sncyronized (time-wise) with the EDR to be effective,. Just saying.