C0nsumer Reports helps Trial Lawyers again

[woodturner]

I agree Toyota could have been more forthcoming about their floor mat and slow to rise gas pedals. But the whole idea of unintended acceleration is a myth.

Unintended acceleration is neither new nor myth. Some years ago, other automakers went through similar issues with conventional accelerators. In that case, it was ultimately traced to control loop design issues.

My suspicion is that the root cause this time around will be the same. To save money, companies tend to higher less experienced, less expensive engineers. Unlike more experienced engineers, these engineers don't have the experience to anticipate "unforseeable" issues. As a result, they design systems that are subject to these issues.

In a nutshell, it's a direct result of not understanding the value of experience.

[Hoover]

I think everybody should read this article first, before shovelling the s**t on Consumer Reports. http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/14/auto...Top+Stories%29

[germdoc]

You got 140K miles on a Windstar??? that's amazing!!!!

I only drove it downhill!

[cabinetman]

I only drove it downhill!

Did your mileage improve?
.

[JimD]

radhak,

You are correct that it was a sweeping statement but I continue to believe that unintended acceleration is a myth but perhaps it deserves more of an explanation. I believe that cars sometimes accelerate when the driver did not intend for that to happen. In the vast majority of these cases, what happened is the driver stepped on the accelerator when they meant to step on the brake. In the well publicized Audi case, that was the conclusion reached by the governmental investigation.

The myth part for me is when someone claims that their car ran away from them and there was nothing they could do about it. If the brake system if functional, that is not a true statement. Car and Driver recently tested several vehicles, including a Camry V6, from high legal to illegal speeds and was always able to stop the vehicle with the accelerator and brake fully depressed. Braking distance from 70 mph in the Camry was extended less than 20 feet. Even from 100 mph, the Camry stopped.

There are only two things that a driver needs to do to stop a car. First and most important is fully apply the brakes (push until the ABS is functioning) as soon as the car is not doing what you want. Braking partially or half-heartedly can cause the brakes to get too hot to stop the car when you give up and apply them fully. If you apply them fully initially, the car will always stop. Second, put the car in neutral. This may not be possible in all cases but usually is. People are reluctant because the engine will scream up to red line. Modern vehicles have a rev limiter that will prevent damage but even if you blow up the engine, it is preferable to having the car wreck.

What happens in cases labeled unintended acceleration is something goes wrong during operation of the vehicle. It could be as simple as the driver pushes the wrong pedal. It could also be a floor mat jambed up under the accelerator locking it on. It may be possible for cruise controls to refuse to turn off. But once that happens, the driver can still maintain control IF THEY DO THE RIGHT THING. When the wrecks happen, the driver did not handle the challenging situation as well as is possible. I might mess up too someday like this but I hope not. If I do, I really hope I don't try to say all the blame should go to the car manufacturer.

Toyota could secure their mats better and hinge their accelerators off the floor so mats cannot go up under them. But soon Toyota will have a circuit to disable the accelerometer after you hit the brake. Infinities, BMWs, and Chryslers have it now. The government will probably require it.

But it is just not possible for the engine to overpower the brakes if the operator applies them properly. In that sense, unintended acceleration is a myth.

Jim

[woodturner]

In the well publicized Audi case, that was the conclusion reached by the governmental investigation.

In the Audi case, the government investigation by the NHTSA concluded that most BUT NOT ALL sudden acceleration was caused by driver error. Audi did make changes to address the design problems cited by the government report that caused SOME of the cases of sudden acceleration.

"The NHTSA study also found but failed to highlight that faulty cruise control systems can cause wide open throttle acceleration, and that cars with full acceleration take an average of 65 feet to stop. This report was released March 7, 1989. NHTSA officially closed its investigation of sudden acceleration in the Audi 5000 on July 11, 1989. (Investigative Report ODI Case No. C86-01.) In closing the investigation, one factor NHTSA relied upon was the fact that there had been three recalls and a service campaign attempting to correct the human factors design errors; 87V-008, 87V-009, and 87V-170. None of these recalls eliminated sudden acceleration in the Audi 5000."
http://www.autosafety.org/audi-sudden-acceleration

But it is just not possible for the engine to overpower the brakes if the operator applies them properly.

IF the braking HP were greater than the engine HP, I would agree with that statement. While that is the case in some cars, it is not the case in every car - there are vehicles where the engine can overpower the brakes. Couple that with the reality that the brake systems in many or most cars are not operating at full capacity and it becomes apparent that the inability to stop in cases of sudden acceleration is a real danger.

In any event, it's a myth to think that sudden acceleration is a myth. NHTSA would not be citing automakers if it were just a myth. Our own testing has also confirmed this problem (a couple of my students decided to investigate this for their senior design class).

[herb fellows]

Jimd: If I'm reading this correctly, you're not really saying unintended acceleration is a myth, but that there is always a way to deal with it? I think we're talking semantics more than having an argument here.
The first thing that struck me when they had the story of that guy on the freeway in California (what ever happened to him, I think they decided it was fraud?), is that he never used his brakes or put the car into neutral.
Granted, in an ideal world we would never have to do that, but if your car is doing 100 mph, why in the world would you not do it?!
Yes, the airplane motor can die, but that's why we have parachutes?

[LCHIEN]

I tend to trust Consumer Reports. They don't accept advertising, they don't accept test vehicles from manufacturers, they buy every car or item they test at a store posing as regular customers. Their general approach is to be fairly objective and they use scientific test methods. I can accept that all people have certain biases but I believe as far as objective testing goes, CR is the best you'll find.

They also do scientific polling - I just filled out this years questionaire - on products. I do believe their reliability data, although you have to accept its historical and you extrapolate forwards. Like Germdoc's experience they could like a car and recommend it only to have its reliaility take a dive in succeding years. Historical data is often but can't be relied upon to predict the future. In germdocs case the relibility data that they accumulated following his purchase did in fact correspond to the data he got.

One year I bought a VHS HiFi stereo deck by Emerson. After two compete failures and trips for warranty repair I told the shop to keep it. I looked at CR's reliability data and they were like second from the bottom with a line (representing incidents of repair) about 8 times as long as the top one, Magnavox. So I replaced it with a low incidence of repair Magnavox... which about 20 years later is still working...

I honestly believe that CR has the consumer's best interests in mind. They may not have the same criteria as you. However, if you read the article it usually spells out what they were looking for and you can decide how much weight you want to give to their advice.

[JimD]

Woodturner,

I challenge you to find a test, conducted by a reputable outfit, where an unmodified vehicle overpowered their brakes. This link will get you to a test result for 3 vehicles, including a very powerful Mustand, 540hp, which could not overpower it's brakes.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tion-tech_dept

The question is not whether the brakes can exert more force than the engine, they can. The only question is how long they can do it. They get hot in the process and begin to get less effective. So C&D tested at higher and higher speeds trying to get the brakes too hot to stop the car. The Roush Mustang seemed like it was on the path to not stopping up around 100 mph initial speed. The more typical Camry didn't quite stop from 120 mph but it got down to a pretty safe 10mph.

I would agree with the point that how you define things helps to decide what is "myth". I also will accept that cars challenge their drivers occasionally by wanting to accelerate when that is not what the driver wants to happen. If you want to call that "unintended acceleration" then I will agree the event itself is not a myth. But I remain convinced that associated statements like "there was nothing I could do" and "the engine overpowered the brakes" are essentially myths. Overheated brakes may be unable to overpower the engine but the driver can stop the car under these circumstances as long as they do the right things. The accidents are either totally driver error (pushing the wrong pedal) or partially driver error (not braking hard initally and not shifting to neutral). IMHO it is myth that driver error is not at least part of the problem in all unintended acceleration incidents.

I also am not attempting to imply that CR puts out no useful information. I will use them for a reference on applicances. I just get frustrated with them on cars because of these occasional attempts to incrase their readership or help their buddies the trial lawyers by what I think are phonied up safety issues. They made some sort of claim about being unable to stop a Camry early in the Toyota woes and now claim a Lexus is unsafe because it's stability control is not quite as quick to take action as they think is appropriate. CR has a nasty habit of blurring the line between data they have and their opinions that makes their input on cars pretty useless IMHO.

Jim

[Alex Franke]

They made some sort of claim about being unable to stop a Camry early in the Toyota woes and now claim a Lexus is unsafe because it's stability control is not quite as quick to take action as they think is appropriate.

Apparently not quite as fast as the NHTSA thinks is appropriate, either: (AP Article at Yahoo! News - http://bit.ly/djqqou)

Julia Piscitelli, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokeswoman, said in a statement the agency was testing the GX 460 to ensure it complies with federal safety standards on electronic stability control and to understand how Consumer Reports reached its conclusions.

"It is our belief that ESC should prevent the kind of fishtail event described in CU's tests," Piscitelli said.

[JimD]

I have two vehicles, both with stability control. My Suzuki SUV will not let me spin a tire or otherwise even begin to get out of control. My BMW convertible will let me squeak a tire either accelerating or on a corner but will not let the rear end drift as much as the Lexus SUV did. It is also important, I think, to recognize that the test was to go into a corner too fast and then lift off the throttle. Not something that would never happen but not something really normal either.

Anyway, my BMW lets me switch the stability control off partially (quick push of the button) or totally (hold the button down for several seconds). I haven't used this control yet but one reason they do this is sometimes you may need to spin the tires some. Like in snow with a little traction but not enough to move with the DSC fully engaged. The Suzuki will allow this too but switches itself back on at about 10 mph.

The point I am getting to (I swear this is one coming) is that how you want the stability protection to work is something that there is some room for discussion. It is not a black and white should always work the way my Suzuki works. There are driving situations where that would not allow you to move when less heavy handed control by the electronic nanny would be more helpful. I think it is a significant overstatement to state that there is a safety issue when all that happened is the stability control worked, it just allowed more tire slippage than some people want. I think BMW sets theirs up the way they do because some drivers want to race around a track and you can get a faster time, if you are really good, by switching the traction conrol off. The only time I was on a track with mine I left it on because I am not that good a driver where I thought it would help me and also because I was reluctant to risking the fenders of my new toy. But again, there is a point that the driver might not need full electronic nanny control all the time.

The NHTSA will investigate nearly 100% of the time somebody like CR says a vehicle is unsafe. And spokespeople for the NHTSA are apparently allowed to express opinions without having any results from their investigation. But that does not mean they will agree with CR in the end. Maybe they will, but that is why we are getting more and more electronic nannies. I kind of like them but I also like to have the ability to turn them off.

I will try and make this my last point but I am a little surprised the Lexus DSC did not kick in a little sooner too. I'd like to know how much of the time and on how many vehicles they found this. But I wouldn't call a car without DSC unsafe so I for sure wouldn't call a car with DSC that kicks in a little late unsafe.

Jim

[phi1l]

the Lexus is such a great car anything short of perfection is considered a defect

[cabinetman]

The only time I was on a track with mine I left it on because I am not that good a driver where I thought it would help me and also because I was reluctant to risking the fenders of my new toy. But again, there is a point that the driver might not need full electronic nanny control all the time.

Jim

Was the track event a BMWCCA Driver's School, local autocross, or a lapping day?
.

[Alex Franke]

It is also important, I think, to recognize that the test was to go into a corner too fast and then lift off the throttle. Not something that would never happen but not something really normal either.

This actually seems like a good test to me. I'm thinking of a scenario with a too-sharp turn at the end of a deceleration lane. If what's going through your head is "I can handle this but I'm just going a little too fast" then you might just lift off the gas for the turn.

There are driving situations where that would not allow you to move when less heavy handed control by the electronic nanny would be more helpful. I think it is a significant overstatement to state that there is a safety issue when all that happened is the stability control worked, it just allowed more tire slippage than some people want. I think BMW sets theirs up the way they do because some drivers want to race around a track and you can get a faster time, if you are really good, by switching the traction conrol off. The only time I was on a track with mine I left it on because I am not that good a driver where I thought it would help me and also because I was reluctant to risking the fenders of my new toy. But again, there is a point that the driver might not need full electronic nanny control all the time.

Yeah, that's a good point. I guess the idea is that if it has stability control, then there's an expectation that it will work well in all conditions, and that's just not reasonable or even possible. (Is it snowing? Is the driver trying to have fun and slide a bit?)

It also reminds me of my main gripe about car electronics in the first place. They create an even greater buffer between you and the road -- every year helping us forget more and more about how to really drive. Heck they're even parallel parking the cars for us now! In 50 years you can probably take someone who's only ever driven a BMW and they'd probably wreck the '72 Camaro in 5 minutes -- if they could even figure out what that third pedal was for.

[pelligrini]

In 50 years you can probably take someone who's only ever driven a BMW and they'd probably wreck the '72 Camaro in 5 minutes -- if they could even figure out what that third pedal was for.

You ought to see the looks of consternation I find now when anyone tries to drive my '69 Camaro and they see the Vertical Gate shifter on top of my 4 speed tranny.