Anybody following the Toyota unintended acceleration lawsuits?

-
M

MOPARoldtimer

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
20
Location
California
I find these suits very interesting on a technical basis.

I think Toyota/Lexus settled, or is in the process of settling, all the suits where the wrong size floor mat was installed and may have prevented the accelerator pedal from returning to the idle position. I think the only suits that are going to trial are ones where the floor mat could not have played a role. I believe the first state court case is going to trial this week.

Apparently Toyota's defense is that something about the design of its electronic throttle position system makes it impossible for unintended acceleration to occur. (Note: these are cars that did not contain an interlock that returns the engine to idle when the gas and brake pedals are depressed at the same time. Although some of its cars sold in Europe had such an interlock, the cars involved in the U.S. suits did not, so discussion of interlock-equipped cars is not relevant.)

Would anybody know the details of Toyota's defense claims, or am I just going to have to await the trial evidence to find out?
 
I haven't heard of this issue for several years. I do find Toyota's claim that "it's impossible" to be somewhat ludicrous.

ANYTIME you have a "fly by wire" type control, IT CAN FAIL. In aircraft this is done by very rigid design criteria, and by redundancy, something cars "don't get."

There's "lots of " electronics between your foot and the actuator that moves the throttle. I realize that modern electronics are generally pretty reliable, but they DO fail.
 
That depends on the failure mode. If expert testimony were to the effect that the only possible failure mode (for example, TPS potentiometer getting dirty) would increase the resistance of the TPS pot and return the car to idle, Toyota could easily win. (Unless, of course, the jury was overly-sympathetic to the plaintiff rather than doing its job properly by evaluating the evidence dispassionately).

Remember all the U.A. lawsuits against Audi? It was proven that in all of those cases the driver confused the accelerator pedal with the brake pedal. The same thing could have occurred in the case of Toyota. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

What failure mode are the plaintiff's attorneys trying to prove?

What failure mode(s) is the defense claiming could have occurred?
 
As I said there's a lot of stuff between the foot pedal and the actuator motor on the throttle. There's a lot more that can fail besides some pot getting dirty. Of course in reality, no one can find out, because Toyota is not gonna release the schematic diagrams anytime soon.

I'm not saying yea or nay here. One thing that is NOT clear to me yet today concerns one accident involving death, as to why the engine could simply not be stopped? Some of these fancy new cars with the start/ stop button that can be started with the fob in your pockets? Just how fast can the engine be shut down?

Me? I prefer a hard switch.

Not some "software driven" "Hold the heater outside air knob down with the small finger of your right hand while pulling up on the brake release with your left thumb, then hold the horn ring with your head for 2.5 seconds"

Anybody that's ever effed or been effed by modern amateur radio gear knows exactly what I'm talking about
 
"There's a lot more that can fail besides some pot getting dirty. Of course in reality, no one can find out, because Toyota is not gonna release the schematic diagrams anytime soon."

I was just using the "dirty pot" scenario as a possible example, so I think you're setting up a straw man by focusing on that example.

You may rest assured that the schematics of Toyota's throttle control system were made available to to the Plaintiff's attorneys during discovery. The plaintiffs have retained expert software engineers as witnesses, and the plaintiff's attorneys have deposed the Toyota engineers who designed the software, so they definitely understand exactly how it works. If they didn't, they couldn't support their burden of proof and the judge would probably grant a directed verdict in favor of the defense.

A schematic diagram is not likely to be of much help to a jury because they probably wouldn't understand it. A good trial lawyer only introduces evidence that is going to be helpful to the jury, not evidence that is going to confuse the jury. Besides, we're talking about microcode, not a schematic.

Both parties will most definitely have an expert witness or witnesses testify about how the throttle position circuit works, explaining it in layman's language. Toyota's experts will testify about all the failure modes that they think are possible, and why each one should be ruled out. Then the plaintiff's experts will have the opportunity on rebuttal to prove that there were other possible failure modes, and which failure mode likely caused the alleged U.A.
 
MOPARoldtimer said:
That depends on the failure mode. If expert testimony were to the effect that the only possible failure mode (for example, TPS potentiometer getting dirty) would increase the resistance of the TPS pot and return the car to idle, Toyota could easily win. (Unless, of course, the jury was overly-sympathetic to the plaintiff rather than doing its job properly by evaluating the evidence dispassionately).

Remember all the U.A. lawsuits against Audi? It was proven that in all of those cases the driver confused the accelerator pedal with the brake pedal. The same thing could have occurred in the case of Toyota. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

in the audi cases , it later became mandate that any electronic/drive by wire using a TPS pot also have an IVS in the same component. If at any time the pedal returns to idle, the values from the TPS are ignored and the machine return to idle. The only time the IVS is ignored is when cruise control is engaged. This was problem for Navistar in the 90's when a ComEd truck tried to power through the brakes exiting the highway. Ultimately what had happened was the fuse for the brake light switch had failed, the ECU was looking for the feed to the brake light to cancel the cruise. since it want there the computer thought he was climbing a hill and just kept pouring the coals too it. At least the operator had the sense to manually cancel cruise. . There should have been a redundancy, now there is , for ComEd, that is
Click to expand...
 
I remember there was talk in each case of high power electric wires in the same area and that was being looked into as a possible cause. Whether that's possible or not is beyond my small brain's power but it seems plausible.
 
MOPARoldtimer said:
" so I think you're setting up a straw man by focusing on that example..
Click to expand...

The thing is I'm NOT focusing on that example. I'm saying that there is so much circuitry BETWEEN the actuator and whatever is "on the pedal" that it's conceivable THAT YOU COULD UNHOOK THE PEDAL device completely and still have an intermittent problem.

I think you're living in a dream world, here. There is a long sordid track record of big corps NOT disclosing pertinent info whether we are talking about pollution, tobacco, health, or mechanical/ electrical failure.

I know enough about electronic devices to know that "stuff happens." MAYbe Toyota DID design these with absolute "fail safe" all I'm SAYING is that it very well could be "NOT."

The one thing that bugs me about this is "it seems to me" that one case of death involved an active or retired highway patrol cop and you would have thought that HE of all people would have been able to control a car in such a situation.
 
When our dealership bitched about the discovery in the International harvester with ComEd as one of our biggest vocational end user, they asked ,"who has died as a result of the shortcoming?" "Nobody, right, pound sand we ain't issuing a recall“ Fix the comed trucks and shut-up.
 
How many times do you have to replace a controller on a X-box or Playstation???


That's why I don't like drive by wire in steering and accelerators....
 
67Dart273 said:
The thing is I'm NOT focusing on that example. I'm saying that there is so much circuitry BETWEEN the actuator and whatever is "on the pedal" that it's conceivable THAT YOU COULD UNHOOK THE PEDAL device completely and still have an intermittent problem.

I think you're living in a dream world, here. There is a long sordid track record of big corps NOT disclosing pertinent info whether we are talking about pollution, tobacco, health, or mechanical/ electrical failure.

I know enough about electronic devices to know that "stuff happens." MAYbe Toyota DID design these with absolute "fail safe" all I'm SAYING is that it very well could be "NOT."

The one thing that bugs me about this is "it seems to me" that one case of death involved an active or retired highway patrol cop and you would have thought that HE of all people would have been able to control a car in such a situation.
Click to expand...

I remember the same thing and it was San Diego CHP officer Mark Saylor.
 
I think you're living in a dream world, here. There is a long sordid track record of big corps NOT disclosing pertinent info....

I know enough about electronic devices to know that "stuff happens." MAYbe Toyota DID design these with absolute "fail safe" all I'm SAYING is that it very well could be "NOT."

I have a couple of problems with your argument. First, I never said that Toyota wasn't liable, as you seem to imply. They could well be liable, but that finding will have to await the evidence and the results of trial.

Second, the very idea that Toyota could avoid disclosing anything to the Plaintiffs' attorneys about its throttle control system is ludicrous. If they did that by refusing to provide discovery, the judge would enter a judgment against them without trial. Furthermore, presumably the Plaintiffs' attorneys and their experts are too smart to be fooled by anything Toyota might try to omit.

Third, your argument that "stuff happens" seems tantamount to saying that "the way it works is magic that is beyond human understanding". Of course that is nothing but an intellectual crutch that serves as an excuse for not learning how the system works.

Last, I fail to understand how the technical and intellectual backwater that is amateur radio can possibly help us understand any aspect of this issue.
 
krazykuda said:
How many times do you have to replace a controller on a X-box or Playstation???


That's why I don't like drive by wire in steering and accelerators....
Click to expand...

Not often. My xbox(8-10yrs old at this point) still works fine and my DD truck has throttle by wire. Nearly 10yrs of ownership now with no issues on the throttle.
 
krazykuda said:
How many times do you have to replace a controller on a X-box or Playstation???


That's why I don't like drive by wire in steering and accelerators....
Click to expand...

Never since I don't own any video games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top