The Professor Who Battled Toyota And Survived

The Professor Who Battled Toyota And Survived

older article, but interesting

formatting link

Reply to
bob urz
Loading thread data ...

What would you have done if you ran Toyota? It seems to me that if you were with Toyota and you thought this guy was using junk science to smear Toyota you probably would have reacted in a similar manner.

It seems to me that the media often treats anything utter by someone claiming to be a scientist as if it was a fact. In this case the guy may or may not have had a valid point. I do know that if I had been with Toyota and thought he was a wacko, I would have gone after him. Once the media promotes junk science as fact, it is hard to undo the damage.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

bob urz wrote in news:iipde0$a1$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

David Gilbert's assertions were discredited long ago.

Excerpt: "Toyota Statement: As revealed in their testimony before Congress, Professor Gilbert's Preliminary Report was commissioned by Sean Kane, a paid advocate for trial lawyers involved in litigation against Toyota and other automakers. Mr. Kane also appeared on the ABC News broadcast in support of the claim that Professor Gilbert's demonstration revealed a flaw in the electronic throttle control system that could lead to "runaway" Toyota and Lexus vehicles. The relationship between Mr. Kane, Professor Gilbert and the trial lawyers who support Mr. Kane's advocacy was not revealed by ABC News during the newscast, nor was Toyota offered an opportunity to view the demonstration or given time to respond."

Reply to
Tegger

Of course, between scientists there are always differences of opinion, and a good bit of "one up"manship. And the trial lawyers are happy to have a boffin on their side who will either support their point of view or muddy the waters even more. There can be a great deal of similarity between a boffin and a buffoon.

I wish that the protection for whistleblowers were even stronger than it is. We are taught from youth not to "tattle" or "snitch", but when something really devious is going on, I hope there are people with the fortitude to go to authorities with the down and dirty.

In much of business nowadays, there may be little in the way of personal ethics, and unethical people lead corporations into unethical business practices.

I still have two Toyotas, by the way, and they are perhaps the best cars I ever owned.

Reply to
hls

The best we can hope for in this country is free exchange of ideas and opinion. And let the public make there own calls.

This professor had nothing to gain and everthing to lose by going against the system. I think he thought it was his moral responisbility to bring the infgormation out for further investigation.

Automakers for years have been lieing to the public. Non are immune. I had a case a number of years back on my Ford Taurus. there was a limited recall for broken sub-frame mounts. I called Ford and they said it did not exist when i had the information from the internet that it did. Eventually, they boned up to it. But not when i first called them. Trying to cover up a problem only damages you more latter.

I don't think Toyota is any better or worse than anyone else. They have just been on the radar more in recent history for these kind of issues

when fly by wire airplanes were first being developed they were not perfect either.

bob

Reply to
bob urz

bob urz wrote in news:iipv0s$bje$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Gilbert got PAID by the plaintiff's lawyers.

That's a lot to "gain", buddy.

Reply to
Tegger

Actually, it isn't. The little you normally gain in a case like this will come back to haunt you. You will be seen as a turncoat, a snitch, a traitor, and your opportunities in the future will be prejudiced.

Reply to
hls

"hls" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Flat out: There was, and is, absolutely nothing wrong with Toyota's electronic throttle.

Reply to
Tegger

Would you bet your life on that statement? I think not. Does it work OK 99.9% of the time? probably. When ever your dealing with a complex piece of computer code and hardware, there is NO way to test for every possible scenario it can run across. Hardware, software, EMI interference, anything is possible to go wrong

Look at airbus flight 445 that went down. Somehow, its redundant computer system and sensors failed and killed all aboard. And you can bet systems like these are tested to much more stringent standards that an automotive control system.

as we get further into the computer controls all brain control, issues like this will continue to happen. Shit happens. Look at Intel, they could lose up to 1 Billion dollars on faulty chip sets it had already shipped to computer makers. Lucky, they found the problem before many finished units were shipped and in consumer hands. Imagine if this was an automotive part?

The best thing that could have happened in this whole issue is Toyota behind the scenes is madly testing for the unexpected. even the WOZ said he had an issue. i hope the whole issue was a learning experience for Toyota on both damage control and quality control.

Reply to
bob urz

No actually the Professor rather conclusively proved there was a great deal wrong with Toyota's system.

He demonstrated that a short in the wire from the foot pedal to the computer would make the computer think that the driver was trying to floor the accelerator. He also proved there as no mechanism in the system to detect this fault and the computer would leave no record of this event. He also demonstrated that even if the driver stomped on the brake pedal, if there was a short in that wire the computer would continue to behave as if the driver was asking for maximum acceleration.

That doesn't prove that those were the causes of any particular accident, but it certainly indicates that there were design flaws in the Toyota electronic accelerator. The fact that Toyota has taken steps to remedy all of these flaws is additional evidence that they existed.

Reply to
jim

bob urz wrote in news:iiqfmc$b7o$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Millions do, every day. Millions are, right at this very moment.

Life is risky. One day you might die from it.

If you want to be 100% free from risk (instead of your unacceptable 99.9%), then you'd better kill yourself now; it's the /only/ way.

Sheesh. This modern "safety" mania is absolutely insane: Vollkommenheit oder nichts!

Reply to
Tegger

Now your position is most of the time it works fine As if everybody didn't already know that.

That makes it possible it wasn't people pushing the wrong pedal It may be the electronic throttle that once in a while messes up

You just don't think people have a right to be compensated for injury caused by design flaws. It is this belief that makes you think it is OK to lie about design flaws.

Reply to
jim

The fact that this "unintended acceleration" issue appeared only briefly would tend to support that since the incidents mysteriously stopped, right around the time one scammer was caught trying to fake an incident.

The fact is that there are a huge number of vehicles of all brands with electronic accelerators and have been for quite a few years. Virtually every medium duty diesel vehicle such as busses and hotel shuttles has had electronic throttle for years. Nearly all light duty trucks have had electronic throttles for 5 years or more. Many cars have ET as well.

What you have here is a case of a couple drivers who hit the wrong pedal or dropped something that jammed the pedal who decided to try to blame Toyota, followed by some more opportunists who tried to get in on the scam. Once one of those scammers was exposed the problem suddenly disappeared.

Reply to
Pete C.

Since the article referenced does not provide any schematics for the Toyota accelerator pedal, I can't be positive, but every vehicle of any brand with electronic throttle that I have seen a schematic for used a two or three track potentiometer in the pedal and any discrepancy between the two or three redundant signals is readily detected and will set a diagnostic code.

I find it all but impossible that Toyota would have used a single track potentiometer in it's electronic throttles when no other manufacturer does and such a non redundant signal would be a blindingly obvious flaw that would never make it out of the engineering department.

Reply to
Pete C.

I don't think this is actually true. Although Toyota UA incidentsonly got significant attention in the press after the California incident with the Lexus, the fact is that NHTSA had recieved an unusually large number of complaints related to UA incidents involving Toyotas starting in the middle part of the last decade (~2005). And the volume is still high, although I'd agree a significant percentage of these were generated as a result of the recent publicity. I beleive the problem is realted to pedal design and floor mat interference rather than any electronic flaw.

We had two cases of Toyota drivers crashing into building in my home town in the last year supposedly becasue of unintended acceleration. Neither has sued anyone. An older friend crash her Buick into a tree in a parking lot last month, but we know it was pedal confusion in her case since there were witness who noted that the brake light never came on and she even admits the mistake.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I also haven't seen anything definitive on where the short circuit needs to be for this to occur, but Toyota claimed in its defense that the same short circuit would also cause the same runaway acceleration in other electronic throttles made by other manufacturers. Toyota also claimed that they found no physical evidence that this short had occurred in their investigations of crashed Toyotas suspected of runaway acceleration.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Anybody that can make that statement shows an obvious bias and can't be trusted to make judgments.

If you were a juror you would be disqualified. Flat out.

Reply to
tnom

It isnt bias if it is true, and the cited report says that there was no problem. Now, if you ignore the results of a "scientific" evaluation by a disinterested third party, then you REALLY should be disqualified. That is truly bias.

Reply to
hls

The verdict is still out. Any DIFINITIVE judgment at this point is still biased regardless of what report you can cite, or what side you lean toward.

Reply to
tnom

Ah, well. I guess NASA and the NTHSA kinda kill this story, eh?

I wonder how much money the "professor" made off all those appearances?

Reply to
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.