The REAL STORY??????

[dullpain]

Gear Shift

Don't want to add to the flame war here , just quietly sitting to the side waiting to see the real outcome. As a new member I am unfamiliar with many mechanical / electrical aspects of my 08 4runner.

As some have said when unintended acceleration occurs selecting Neutral / Park / Reverse and other gears does not do anything to abate the situation .

Just wonder if the gearshift selector is a by wire /electrical device , or is it selected mechanically ??

thanks

 

[Maz]

I can't argue about advertising dollars spent, because I'm sure that they have received a lot of money. That still doesn't make me think that they would intentionally rig a test to make Toyota good. Personally, I have more faith in their credibilty than that. Of course your opinion may not be the same.

As for the test, I think you are COMPLETELY missing the point. The test wasn't conducted at all to even consider the human variable. It was simply to test the machine itself.

Toyotas are machines...driven by humans on public streets. That's the only variable that matters here. Running a test on a closed course with professional drivers prepared for a set up problem, and comparing it to real people on the street in a panic situation is nonsensical. Jed you vehemently argue the ABC test was flawed and done by a suspect person connected to plantiff's lawyers. You also make a pretty serious charge: "ABC news wasn't responsible to get both sides of the story...and I think that in itself is irresponsible journalism." Yet when it's pointed out the journalists at Car and Driver have far more money on the line to be suspicious about, you pledge faith in Car and Driver as credible.

For good measure you threw in something to back up the Car and Driver story, which I'm still trying to understand. "I've actually done my own tests to see if I could stop two of our company cars under full throttle (from admittedly lower speeds) and both cars had absolutely no problem whatsoever overpowering their engines and stopping the car. So my own unscientific test supports Car and Driver's findings."

You were under full throttle.....at lower speeds? How exactly does one go full throttle at a lower speed?? Better question, the people experiencing this problem aren't going at lower speeds. Their engines suddenly start racing, wasn't the CHP officer going in excess of 90? So what's your point? The word moron has been thrown around rather extensively in this thread. Full throttle and lower speeds combined in the same sentence is the very definition of the word OXYMORON.

In conclusion we have the ABC guy with money on the line and using a single car, driven by a newscaster. On the other side we have Car and Driver with a whole lot more money on the line setting up a single car test, driven by a professional driver. Jed about one you say "I don't believe that ABC news story at all. I think it was completely biased." About Car and Driver you say "the article seemed very unbiased and truthful. It is the only actual test that I've read thus far that I believe is completely honest."

Yes someone here is "COMPLETELY missing the point." Jed if you happen to walk by any mirrors today you'll see who it is.

 

[RickC]

Something I read in the paper this morning was someone from my area who was testifying to Congress about what happened to her. Now, she was driving a Lexus, not a Toyota, which tells me the problem is more widespread. But, in her case, the car accelerated to past 100mph, she tried to stop the car using the brakes and tried putting the car in neutral and it STILL kept going. She also tried putting the car in reverse which didn't work.

Now I have been saying all along that the run away car could be stopped by putting it in neutral. If putting the car in neutral doesn't work, then that is by all means an electrical problem or a computer programming problem.

I find her comments very interesting.

 

[Uneek]

The bottom line is that you have 2 groups of people...one group will side with Toyota and the other will side with what the rest of the population thinks.

I couldn't agree more. Siding with Toyota makes you a fanboy. Siding with the media makes you a Toyota hater.

I like Toyotas, but I'm taking a step back and looking at everything that has been presented voicing MY opinion. I don't hate Toyota, but they're not handling the situation any better.

 

[Thai]

I couldn't agree more. Siding with Toyota makes you a fanboy. Siding with the media makes you a Toyota hater.

I like Toyotas, but I'm taking a step back and looking at everything that has been presented voicing MY opinion. I don't hate Toyota, but they're not handling the situation any better.

x2

I like Toyota a lot...i have own quite a few in a short period of time. But, at the same time, i am not blinded by enthusiasm for the brand. It doesn't take a genius to see that something is wrong with Toyota in this whole debacle. Blind enthusiasm is a bad thing.

 

[Jed]

Toyotas are machines...driven by humans on public streets. That's the only variable that matters here. Running a test on a closed course with professional drivers prepared for a set up problem, and comparing it to real people on the street in a panic situation is nonsensical. Jed you vehemently argue the ABC test was flawed and done by a suspect person connected to plantiff's lawyers. You also make a pretty serious charge: "ABC news wasn't responsible to get both sides of the story...and I think that in itself is irresponsible journalism." Yet when it's pointed out the journalists at Car and Driver have far more money on the line to be suspicious about, you pledge faith in Car and Driver as credible.

For good measure you threw in something to back up the Car and Driver story, which I'm still trying to understand. "I've actually done my own tests to see if I could stop two of our company cars under full throttle (from admittedly lower speeds) and both cars had absolutely no problem whatsoever overpowering their engines and stopping the car. So my own unscientific test supports Car and Driver's findings."

You were under full throttle.....at lower speeds? How exactly does one go full throttle at a lower speed?? Better question, the people experiencing this problem aren't going at lower speeds. Their engines suddenly start racing, wasn't the CHP officer going in excess of 90? So what's your point? The word moron has been thrown around rather extensively in this thread. Full throttle and lower speeds combined in the same sentence is the very definition of the word OXYMORON.

In conclusion we have the ABC guy with money on the line and using a single car, driven by a newscaster. On the other side we have Car and Driver with a whole lot more money on the line setting up a single car test, driven by a professional driver. Jed about one you say "I don't believe that ABC news story at all. I think it was completely biased." About Car and Driver you say "the article seemed very unbiased and truthful. It is the only actual test that I've read thus far that I believe is completely honest."

Yes someone here is "COMPLETELY missing the point." Jed if you happen to walk by any mirrors today you'll see who it is.

Okay, where to start? First, the point is that the human variable MUST be taken out of the equation when we are trying to determine if something is possible or not possible, for that matter. To determine if it is possible to stop a car under wide open throttle, it doesn't matter how people react (or their lack of reaction). All that matters is if the braking system is capable of stopping the vehicle. That's exactly what Car and Driver tested when they rigged a car to run wide open throttle and then applied the brakes to stop the vehicle. There's nothing wrong with conducting a test like that. And yes, it is valuable information.

Secondly, I'm not sure if you understand what "wide open throttle" means. Yes, I basically abused two different work vehicles (both V6 engines, one was front wheel drive and the other was rear wheel drive) just to see if they would stop under wide open throttle. You need to understand that wide open throttle has absolutely nothing to do with actual speed. If you floor your gas pedal from a deal stop, the engine is at wide open throttle. In fact, whenever your foot presses the acclerator pedal to the floor, the engine is at wide open throttle. Wide open throttle means exactly it's literal meaning---the throttle plate is fully open and the engine is under maximum acceleration. So when I did my own tests, I did it in a very large parking lot, not on public roads. I was only able to get up to about 40 MPH BEFORE going to wide open throttle. The cars both accelerated to about 50 MPH before I had to start applying the brake pedal, otherwise I would have run out of room. So at 50 MPH with the throttle held wide open and the car still acclerating, the brakes were still able to stop the vehicle without any problem at all. So yes, this supports Car and Driver's own results, in which they had no problem stopping their Camry with the throttle wide open.

 

[Jed]

Full throttle and lower speeds combined in the same sentence is the very definition of the word OXYMORON.

\.

Not at all. Any time an engine's throttle plate is fully open, the vehicle is at wide open throttle and is accelerating as fast as it can. It doesn't matter if the vehicle starts out at 10 mph or 100 mph, wide open throttle is possible at any speed.

Therefore, anyone who thinks that a vehicle can only go wide open throttle as a specific speed is 100% wrong.

 

[Uneek]

There's so many things mentioned here, it'll be hard to quote everything.

All modern cars have brakes that will out power the engine and stop the car under WOT. What's being neglected is brake fade, if you let the car reaccelerate and attempt subsequent stops. You lose your brakes then. In a controlled environment, it's easy to run through the steps, throw it in neutral, stomp the brakes, steering over to the shoulder, shut off the engine, etc. But when you're traveling in excessive speeds unexpectedly, panic sets in. It's easy for us to sit here and Monday morning quarterback this. It's like preventing a fall, if I said, I'm going to push you, you probably won't fall. If it's it done unexpectedly, the outcome might not be the same, would it.

Lexus not being recalled. Let's remember, that most Lexus models ARE based on a Toyota. The RX is the Highlander, ES350 is the Camry, HS250 is the Prius, etc. So just because the ES350 isn't recalled, the ES isn't immune. It shares many components with the Camry. Toyota right now claims it only affects North American made vehicles. If the problem is deeper than floormats and gas pedal assemblies and comes downs to electronics, we will see Lexus on the recall list. I have other suspicions, but I'll reserve them for now.

If I were Toyota, this is how I would propose fixing this situation. If the ECU is reflashable, flash all of Toyotas, Lexus'es and Scions with software that the brakes will override the throttle. If they're not flashable, then replace the ECU with one that contains the override parameters for any vehicle that has drive by wire and there have been a report of sudden unintended accleration. Is it cheap? Heck no. But this is the only way to eliminate finger pointing and preventing another death.

Production shut down was forced on by the government. Toyota did not voluntarily stop production. Their marketing team is glamoring it up.

And lastly, calling the drivers who have been in a SUA incidents idiots, morons, not knowing what they're doing, etc. is fanboyish behavior. Toyota has a problem, can't deny that. Now if it was your loved one that was involved in a SUA incident, I bet you would toot that tune a little differently. Time to step back for a moment. Yeah, it sucks getting looks from other drivers we behind the wheel of a vehicle we might end up having no control of.

 

[Jed]

There's so many things mentioned here, it'll be hard to quote everything.

All modern cars have brakes that will out power the engine and stop the car under WOT.

I agree. And that's a very important point. Without going any further and saying what someone should have done in such a situation, the fact remains that even a car travelling 100 MPH under wide open throttle will still be stopped with steady application of its brakes.

What's being neglected is brake fade, if you let the car reaccelerate and attempt subsequent stops. You lose your brakes then. In a controlled environment, it's easy to run through the steps, throw it in neutral, stomp the brakes, steering over to the shoulder, shut off the engine, etc. But when you're traveling in excessive speeds unexpectedly, panic sets in.

I agree again. This is where the human factor comes into the equation. Unfortunately, some people will always panic in this type of situation. And panicking can cause the brakes to fade. Any time heat is repeatedly introduced into the brake pads/rotors, the brakes will eventually fade and stopping power will be greatly reduced. Once that happens, you're in trouble for sure. I've been saying all along that people who manage to stay calm and react properly are the people who are likely to live through this type of situation. The people who panic and/or overreact are the people who tend to crash into the lake at 100 mph and end up dead. I think the news media should spend a little time educating people on how to react if they find themselves in a runaway vehicle. The top two things they need to do? Simple-- firmly apply the brakes (do not pump them) and shift into neutral. The brakes alone will stop the vehicle, but shifting into neutral will make it stop even faster because the brakes won't be working against the engine at wide open throttle. That's the message that needs to get out there...

 

[Jed]

If I were Toyota, this is how I would propose fixing this situation. If the ECU is reflashable, flash all of Toyotas, Lexus'es and Scions with software that the brakes will override the throttle. If they're not flashable, then replace the ECU with one that contains the override parameters for any vehicle that has drive by wire and there have been a report of sudden unintended accleration. Is it cheap? Heck no. But this is the only way to eliminate finger pointing and preventing another death.

.

I can guarantee you that all future Toyota vehicle will be built with brakes that disable the accelerator. Once the brake switch is sensed, the throttle will be shut down completely. The real question here is how Toyota will handle the vehicles already on the road. Will they modify them all with a mandatory recall? Will they offer the reflash (or new ECU) to owners who want it? Will they offer it at all for those who already own a Toyota?

 

[Jed]

And lastly, calling the drivers who have been in a SUA incidents idiots, morons, not knowing what they're doing, etc. is fanboyish behavior. Toyota has a problem, can't deny that. Now if it was your loved one that was involved in a SUA incident, I bet you would toot that tune a little differently. Time to step back for a moment. Yeah, it sucks getting looks from other drivers we behind the wheel of a vehicle we might end up having no control of.

I don't think anyone is denying that there's a problem. But at the same time, there WILL be morons who take advantage of the media firestorm. If someone crashes through his garage door due to his own stupidity, imagine how convenient it would be right now if he just happens to drive a Toyota. He can call ABC news and say, "look guys, another case of unintended acceleration! I started my car and it accelerated right through my garage door!". Those are the morons I'm referring to when I call someone a moron. The lady with the Lexus claims that not only did the brakes not stop her car, but that the car wouldn't go into neutral either. Think about that for a moment....Is it possible? Sure, but is it probable for two complete failures occurring at the same time on the same vehicle? Actually, for her story to be true, it would have been 3 problems happening simultaneously. 1- throttle goes wide open and stays that way 2- brakes fail and the car will not stop 3-transmission selector fails and will not come out of drive. Come on now....who's really going to believe that? The more likely answer here is that the lady is a moron and is blaming the vehicle for her own stupidity. Sorry, but that's the way I see it and I'm sure other people agree with me.

 

[inscarguy]

I think some of you are missing something here.

what i fail to understand after reading all this is how is a car running WOT going to be able to stop at all. Most power braking systems run on vacuum unless it has an electrical operating system or hydroboost. the higher the RPM the less vacuum in the engine, so if the engine is running WOT there is "0" vacuum hence no power brakes.

if the woman at congress was running 100mph at WOT and she shifted in neutral the engine would still be reving because the electrical computer running the drive by wire sysytem is still activated(possible toyota problem) and again no vacuum to run the power brakes because the engine is at WOT.

i fail to see how anyone running at WOT weather it is the drive by wire or cable system can stop a car, truck, suv. with the engine at WOT trying to stop a vehicle with no vacuum to the brake booster is not possible. its like trying to steer a car with power steering that has no belt.

this is why buick grand nationals, t-types, some oldsmobile and cadillac models used a powermaster brake system(electric over hydraulic) brake system. mainly because the engine could not make enough vacuum to operate the brakes safely. (granted people have changed to a full vacuum system in those models but they are not the same).

please if i am wrong i will eat my words.

this would explain why some who have tried to stop the car can't, who try to shift to neutral and the car won't stop and now the car becomes uncontrolable.

 

[Jed]

I think some of you are missing something here.

what i fail to understand after reading all this is how is a car running WOT going to be able to stop at all. Most power braking systems run on vacuum unless it has an electrical operating system or hydroboost. the higher the RPM the less vacuum in the engine, so if the engine is running WOT there is "0" vacuum hence no power brakes.

if the woman at congress was running 100mph at WOT and she shifted in neutral the engine would still be reving because the electrical computer running the drive by wire sysytem is still activated(possible toyota problem) and again no vacuum to run the power brakes because the engine is at WOT.

i fail to see how anyone running at WOT weather it is the drive by wire or cable system can stop a car, truck, suv. with the engine at WOT trying to stop a vehicle with no vacuum to the brake booster is not possible. its like trying to steer a car with power steering that has no belt.

this is why buick grand nationals, t-types, some oldsmobile and cadillac models used a powermaster brake system(electric over hydraulic) brake system. mainly because the engine could not make enough vacuum to operate the brakes safely. (granted people have changed to a full vacuum system in those models but they are not the same).

please if i am wrong i will eat my words.

this would explain why some who have tried to stop the car can't, who try to shift to neutral and the car won't stop and now the car becomes uncontrolable.

Did you ever notice that big thing on the firewall that's attached to the master cylinder resevoir? That the brake booster. That's what it is there for... But also keep in mind that the brakes are a mechanical system. Even without power assist, they will still function 100%.

BTW, most modern Toyotas have done away with brake boosters and instead use a pump for vacuum assist.

 

[Maz]

:bravo::bravo:

The lady with the Lexus claims that not only did the brakes not stop her car, but that the car wouldn't go into neutral either. Think about that for a moment....Is it possible? Sure, but is it probable for two complete failures occurring at the same time on the same vehicle? Actually, for her story to be true, it would have been 3 problems happening simultaneously. 1- throttle goes wide open and stays that way 2- brakes fail and the car will not stop 3-transmission selector fails and will not come out of drive. Come on now....who's really going to believe that? The more likely answer here is that the lady is a moron and is blaming the vehicle for her own stupidity. Sorry, but that's the way I see it and I'm sure other people agree with me.

More misdirection:

1. ABC is trashing Toyota because a testor is biased. Car & Driver uses the same single car controlled test, and they receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads.

2. Jed drives a car a whopping 40 MPH in an empty parking lot and knows before hand he's going to attempt overpowering the engine with the brakes. This "validates" Car and Driver which essentially does the same controlled no traffic bit, using professional drivers on a closed course.

Next we have some gigantic leaps of faith. Car & Driver is perfectly unbiased and these so called tests "prove" an everyday driver with a racing engine pushing them upwards of 100 MPH IN TRAFFIC should be able to stop a car within a few feet of where they could had the engine been in idle. Not a word about traffic or brake fade, but anyone who can't perform this skill worthy of a stunt driver must be "a moron."

3. Now we have more misdiretion where the lady driving the Lexus could only have had three things going on at the same time. Oh by the way we're assured that couldn't possibly happen. Therefore she is "a moron blaming the vehicle for her own stupidity."

Actually those three things could happen very easily if the electronics went sideways. In fact her husband couldn't get the transmission to work when the car was by the side of the road, and he reported it tried to self start. Another sign of a what looks to be an electronics problem. In addition Toyota didn't put in the obvious.....a fail safe system where touching the brakes would automatically cut off the acceleration. However it must the media's fault, since "the news media should spend a little time educating people on how to react if they find themselves in a runaway vehicle's." (You just can't make this stuff up!) Say Jed has Toyota bought even one ad, say in Car and Driver, to educate peole on how to react in a runaway vehicle? Or is this the media's fault because they won't sell ad space to them?

Here's the solution we'll hear next. Toyota will now hire a company that previously testified the sun actually rises in the West, and our friend Jed will come up with an auto magazine test where they shifted gears on a treadmill in idle and didn't experience a single problem!

P.S. Anybody who has a problem with a Toyota.........is a moron.

Keep on tap dancing. :dancin::dancin::dancin:

 

[Jed]

:bravo::bravo:

More misdirection:

1. ABC is trashing Toyota because a testor is biased. Car & Driver uses the same single car controlled test, and they receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads.

2. Jed drives a car a whopping 40 MPH in an empty parking lot and knows before hand he's going to attempt overpowering the engine with the brakes. This "validates" Car and Driver which essentially does the same controlled no traffic bit, using professional drivers on a closed course.

Next we have some gigantic leaps of faith. Car & Driver is perfectly unbiased and these so called tests "prove" an everyday driver with a racing engine pushing them upwards of 100 MPH IN TRAFFIC should be able to stop a car within a few feet of where they could is the engine was idle. No a word about traffic or brake fade, and anyone who can't perform this skill worthy of a stunt driver must be "a moron."

3. Now we have more misdiretion where the lady driving the Lexus could only have had three things going on at the same time. Oh by the way we're assured that couldn't possibly happen. Therefore she is "a moron blaming the vehicle for her own stupidity."

Actually those three things could happen very easily if the electronics fail. In fact her husband had transmission problem when the car was by the side of the road, and he reported it tried to self start. Another sign of a sure electronics problem. In addition Toyota didn't put in the obvious.....a fail safe system where touching the brakes would automatically cut off the acceleration. However in Jed's world that's the media's fault, because they should have been educating the public what to do in an emergency. (You just can't make this stuff up!)

Here's the solution we'll hear next. Toyota will now hire a company that previously testified the sun actually rises in the West, and our friend Jed will come up with an auto magazine test where they shifted gears on a treadmill in idle and didn't experience a single problem!

P.S. Anybody who has a problem with a Toyota.........is a moron.

Keep on tap dancing. :dancin::dancin::dancin:

You're free to disagree with me. But don't tell me what I should think or believe. BTW, if you're going to try and post facts, then make sure you get your "facts" straight. I said the cars got up to 50 MPH, not 40 MPH. I also said that I was limited in space so I couldn't go any faster. I also said that my own tests were admittedly slower, but they still support the same findings that Car and Driver got, even though they were going much faster. Don't look too far into that statement, because it's just not that complicated. Maybe you should do you own test and tell us all the results instead of trying to pick apart everything I said. That would be useful, right? You might even learn something.

Oh, and by the way I never tried to prove what A DRIVER can do. You fail to comprehend the basic premise that I've repeated over and over again----if you take the human variable out of the equation, it has been proven that brakes will overpower a WOT engine. Nothing more, nothing less, yet you still continue to bring up the human variable again and again. Give it a rest already...

And finally, I already stated many times that Toyota needs to put in more failsafe to prevent acceleration when the brake pedal is applied. But SINCE THAT HASN'T YET HAPPENED, THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A RUNAWAY VEHICLE, JUST IN CASE THEY FIND THEMSELVES HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT TYPE OF SITUATION. Jeez, you must have an incredibly thick skull.

 

[jpintx]

I'll readily admit that I have no special knowledge about this situation, what I do have is a couple of questions/observations.

1) How prevalent is the electronics problem? How many documented cases of sudden uncontrollable acceleration have there been? Yes, one death is to many, but a fair number of folks die every year from lightning strikes. What I am trying to understand the real risk level, not the level ambulance chasers or corporate "spokesmen" would have us believe.

2) Regardless of the answer to 1, Toyota has mismanaged the whole affair, perhaps in large part due to cultural behavior patterns. Still, denial and defensiveness is a human trait across all(?) cultures.

3) Is there anyone who believes the congressional circus we saw today will lead to truth? Can there be any doubt that a significant portion of the political class is rubbing its hands with glee at a good crisis? Cheered on no doubt by the UAW, and tort lawyers, and NBC et al.

4) Based on what is known, would you still buy a used 4Runner? a new 4Runner?

 

[Jed]

Hey Maz,

I've come to realize that you and I can't possibly have an intelligent debate about this issue. I think the reason is mostly due to the fact that I have a strong mechanical and engineering background on vehicles and their subsystems, and you obviously do not. Don't take offense, I'm not saying that you're an idiot or a moron or anything like that. I'm just saying that you're not well versed in the inner workings of a modern automobile. I mean, seriously, you couldn't even comprehend how a vehicle could be at low speed and still be at wide open throttle. So again, no offense to you, but lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. This would be a much more interesting debate if it was between two people who truly understand how cars operate. I'd rather just end the debate now instead of watching things degrade any further. Thanks.

 

[Jed]

I'll readily admit that I have no special knowledge about this situation, what I do have is a couple of questions/observations.

1) How prevalent is the electronics problem? How many documented cases of sudden uncontrollable acceleration have there been? Yes, one death is to many, but a fair number of folks die every year from lightning strikes. What I am trying to understand the real risk level, not the level ambulance chasers or corporate "spokesmen" would have us believe.

2) Regardless of the answer to 1, Toyota has mismanaged the whole affair, perhaps in large part due to cultural behavior patterns. Still, denial and defensiveness is a human trait across all(?) cultures.

3) Is there anyone who believes the congressional circus we saw today will lead to truth? Can there be any doubt that a significant portion of the political class is rubbing its hands with glee at a good crisis? Cheered on no doubt by the UAW, and tort lawyers, and NBC et al.

4) Based on what is known, would you still buy a used 4Runner? a new 4Runner?

1 - I don't know the actual numbers, but I can guarantee you they are very low. If I had to guess, I'd say far less than 1%. Probably even less than 1/2%

2- Agreed completely. Toyota apparently screwed the pooch on this one. They should have handled the whole mess much better. When this is all over, it will be a case study for business schools all around the world on how NOT to handle a corporate disaster.

3- I think the truth will eventually come out, but there will always be some question as to how and/or why it happened in the first place. More importantly, how much did Toyota know and when did they know it. That's the big question.

4- I'd absolutely buy another 4Runner. Any year, new or old. In fact, nothing that I've heard so far would even make he hesitate to purchase any Toyota vehicle.

 

[Maz]

You're free to disagree with me. But don't tell me what I should think or believe. BTW, if you're going to try and post facts, then make sure you get your "facts" straight. I said the cars got up to 50 MPH, not 40 MPH. I also said that I was limited in space so I couldn't go any faster. I also said that my own tests were admittedly slower, but they still support the same findings that Car and Driver got, even though they were going much faster. Don't look too far into that statement, because it's just not that complicated. Maybe you should do you own test and tell us all the results instead of trying to pick apart everything I said. That would be useful, right? You might even learn something.

Oh, and by the way I never tried to prove what A DRIVER can do. You fail to comprehend the basic premise that I've repeated over and over again----if you take the human variable out of the equation, it has been proven that brakes will overpower a WOT engine. Nothing more, nothing less, yet you still continue to bring up the human variable again and again. Give it a rest already...

And finally, I already stated many times that Toyota needs to put in more failsafe to prevent acceleration when the brake pedal is applied. But SINCE THAT HASN'T YET HAPPENED, THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A RUNAWAY VEHICLE, JUST IN CASE THEY FIND THEMSELVES HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT TYPE OF SITUATION. Jeez, you must have an incredibly thick skull.

OK let's get the facts straight: So you weren't going 40, you were going...hand on to that grabhandle...50! Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world to the people who were going 90 or 100. And you couldn't go any faster because....you had limited space. OK, well that makes all the difference in the world too, the people going twice as fast as you on the street IN TRAFFIC, must have had lots of space.

Furthermore it has been proven that brakes can overpower a racing engine. Oh wait I forgot the classic Jed's disclaimer; "if you take the human variable out of the equation." Too bad only humans drive Toyotas.

Now on the subject of thick skulls: How thick is a skull that says Toyota should put in fail safe systems one minute, and people who can't control their racing engines are morons the next?

 

[Jed]

OK let's get the facts straight: So you weren't going 40, you were going...hand on to that grabhandle...50! Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world to the people who were going 90 or 100. And you couldn't go any faster because....you had limited space. OK, well that makes all the difference in the world too, the people going twice as fast as you on the street IN TRAFFIC, must have had lots of space.

Furthermore it has been proven that brakes can overpower a racing engine. Oh wait I forgot the classic Jed's disclaimer; "if you take the human variable out of the equation." Too bad only humans drive Toyotas.

Now on the subject of thick skulls: How thick is a skull that says Toyota should put in fail safe systems one minute, and people who can't control their racing engines are morons the next?

Okay, since you continue with this, I'll answer your questions one last time: My test had limitations. If I could have gone faster I would have. But 50 MPH is faster than 40 MPH last time I checked, so like I said...get it right if you're going to try and pick apart what I said.

Yes, only humans drive Toyotas. And some humans obviously react differently than others. So it is fair to say that some people will crash due to panicking and other will be able to safely control their vehicles in such a situation. The fact that brakes will overpower the engine and stop the vehicle only proves that those humans who are able to safely control their vehicles will be able to do so. Pretty simple, huh?

As for thick skulls....yours must be pretty thick if you can't understand why someone would say that Toyota should build more failsafes into their vehicles for those people who would otherwise fail to control a defective vehicle. If everyone who experience a runaway car had the state of mind to control it successfully, then there would be no big news story and we wouldn't even be debating this. Pretty simple again, huh?

Okay, I'm done talking about this with you. Feel free to get the last word or post whatever else you would like to say. I've made my point several times already and there's no sense in repeating it again.