Toyota planted false NHTSA info

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I don't doubt it, but could you be more specific?

One example would be that many say that Toyota should be fined more than the $16 million, however the law stated that this was the maximum fine and no more could be charged. It was said that $18 Billion should have been the correct amount.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

We should make this a starting point for ridding the country of all this corruption from the top to the bottom and everywhere in between. No more lobbies, no more earmarks, no more quid pro quo, none of it!

HA!! Man, I WISH.....The work and concensus necessary for that to happen boggles the mind. Never give up the fight, though -- and I'm right there with you.

Originally Posted by a_Username

One example would be that many say that Toyota should be fined more than the $16 million, however the law stated that this was the maximum fine and no more could be charged. It was said that $18 Billion should have been the correct amount.

Ah -- that's where I missed it. They didn't really "use" the law in that case...it just benefited them...a misunderstanding on my part.

A note on this highlight, though -- that law must be decades old. Back when a dollar had a greater impact...intended to prevent the gov't from fining a company into bankruptcy, but that limit is outdated.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

HA!! Man, I WISH.....The work and concensus necessary for that to happen boggles the mind. Never give up the fight, though -- and I'm right there with you.


Ah -- that's where I missed it. They didn't really "use" the law in that case...it just benefited them...a misunderstanding on my part.

A note on this highlight, though -- that law must be decades old. Back when a dollar had a greater impact...intended to prevent the gov't from fining a company into bankruptcy, but that limit is outdated.

The point of protecting the "criminal" instead of the consumer still stands as you can see. Use and benefiting in this case is really the same course of action.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by a_Username

You're citing a article that's nearly two weeks older than my own, and that's the type of article that my own has "debunked." The source of WSJ is being questioned, considering that NTHSA is supposed to not have released any information to Toyota just yet. (2)

It seems that other, i.e. not specifically these Toyota reports, sudden acceleration complaints have been typically driver error. Also, as you've said, the investigations are still not done meaning some problem related to the mechanics/electronics of the vehicles may be discovered before then. The report saying that "NHTSA has not been able to find a defect," is a result of the already done investigations and not the ones to come. (1)

Regarding the comments by the spokesperson, it seems that Toyota is getting inside information from a certain NHTSA employee. NHTSA commented saying that "The WSJ report was news to us." (2)

So far, it definitely seems this was a marketing attempt by Toyota to save some face.

(1)- http://www.freep.com/article/2010071...no-conclusions

(2)- http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/15/r...ted-by-toyota/



It is up to the consumer on rather or not Toyota pays.

Here's the problem with what you have here. Autoblog is just quoting just-autos. Just-auto's source is unnamed.

Now I'm going to ask you all a favor before you go on this path. Just simply read:

http://www.trb.org/main/uastudy.aspx


Particularly the powerpoint by Daniel C Smith. All of the meeting info is public record and has been out for weeks. This is not an "article". It is the guy in charge of enforcement of the NHTSA saying:

1) The investigation is not complete, the official report won't be ready until next summer.
2) To date, NHTSA has not found anything with the electronics.

To say that the NHTSA hasn't released any information is clearly not true. And the WSJ basically stated precisely what was presented in this meeting.

As any history major will tell you, go to the original source whenever possible.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Here's the problem with what you have here. Autoblog is just quoting just-autos. Just-auto's source is unnamed.

Now I'm going to ask you all a favor before you go on this path. Just simply read:

http://www.trb.org/main/uastudy.aspx


Particularly the powerpoint by Daniel C Smith. All of the meeting info is public record and has been out for weeks. This is not an "article". It is the guy in charge of enforcement of the NHTSA saying:

1) The investigation is not complete, the official report won't be ready until next summer.
2) To date, NHTSA has not found anything with the electronics.

To say that the NHTSA hasn't released any information is clearly not true. And the WSJ basically stated precisely what was presented in this meeting.

As any history major will tell you, go to the original source whenever possible.

The information problem isn't about the already concluded investigations, it is about the current ones. The slideshow was simply a plea for help. The TRB is being asked to help NHTSA further their investigations of the causes and remedies of UA. The reason why they are being asked to help NHTSA is that apparently Congress is doubting "NHTSA's expertise in electronics and its resources to address possible electronic issues." (1) This leads to the possibility that NHTSA's concluded investigations were "not up to par."

The Wall Street Journal accused the accidents are occurring because of Driver Error, based on the analyzation of data recorders. The information from the data recorders HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED, where the WSJ article even says it hasn't. (2)

(1) - Slide 13 of Smith's powerpoint.
(2) - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...stryCollection ; Paragraph 5.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by a_Username

The information problem isn't about the already concluded investigations, it is about the current ones. The slideshow was simply a plea for help. The TRB is being asked to help NHTSA further their investigations of the causes and remedies of UA. The reason why they are being asked to help NHTSA is that apparently Congress is doubting "NHTSA's expertise in electronics and its resources to address possible electronic issues." (1) This leads to the possibility that NHTSA's concluded investigations were "not up to par."

The Wall Street Journal accused the accidents are occurring because of Driver Error, based on the analyzation of data recorders. The information from the data recorders HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED, where the WSJ article even says it hasn't. (2)

Sort of, the final conclusion from the data recorders hasn't been released. However- the points I'm bolding before are the preliminary findings based on the black box information (except the age part).

(1) - Slide 13 of Smith's powerpoint.
(2) - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...stryCollection ; Paragraph 5.

I'm not sure that we aren't agreeing on most of this, but drawing a different conclusion. A "person" is stating this is some Toyota planted article based on an unknown source to some 'internet journalism' source. They can't even document the source. That appears to be patently untrue. I think everyone is in agreement-me, you, the WSJ, that the investigation isn't complete. However everything the WSJ said is 100% backed up by the TRB presentation.

If you go further to the presentation of Mr. Boyd, he states "Evidence suggested that most SAI probably involve the driver unintentionally pressing he accelerator when braking was intended". He also states "Drivers: older drivers over represented". (page 22).

On page 24 he states: "No defect conditions have been identified that: Resulted in sudden WOT; and simultaneous loss of brake effectiveness"

You are absolutely right that the NHTSA has not completed their investigation, and they have asked the TRB as well as NASA for assistance. Good for them for being as thorough as possible. But for anyone to anyone to say there is no official source for this information is wrong at best and maybe has an agenda of their own.

Anyway- I'm done with this, this is my final say on the matter. Even if Toyota did point others to (not invent) these preliminary findings- they weren't a big secret that Toyota shouldn't have known about. I would have done the same if people were looking to burn my company at the stake before the trial was over. The assumption here is that Toyota must have faulty equipment because Toyota is inherently evil. My assumption is that a lot of y'all have rushed to a judgment as quickly as possible and you are using anything you can get to back up your view of Toyota. Would you sit back quietly and not point this public information out if it were your company on public trial?

[Revo1]

Meh. Seems like an exaggeration at the very least...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

One example would be that many say that Toyota should be fined more than the $16 million, however the law stated that this was the maximum fine and no more could be charged. It was said that $18 Billion should have been the correct amount.

Not specifically responding to your quote...just using it to lead into another question.

Why are there any fines/limits coming from Congress? Isn't that the purpose of the judical branch...to determine the actual monetary damage done by one party based on evidence presented in a case brought by a plaintiff with legal standing to sue (i.e. someone who has suffered a loss due to the actions of former said party). Wouldn't that be a better way to ensure that an offending party pays no more and no less than the actual damages it caused than an arbitrary number set by legislation? (With that money actually going to compensate those who suffered the loss, and not to the Treasury).

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I'm not sure that we aren't agreeing on most of this, but drawing a different conclusion. A "person" is stating this is some Toyota planted article based on an unknown source to some 'internet journalism' source. They can't even document the source. That appears to be patently untrue. I think everyone is in agreement-me, you, the WSJ, that the investigation isn't complete. However everything the WSJ said is 100% backed up by the TRB presentation.

The person that this is Toyota marketing attempt was a NHTSA spokeswoman, and it seems that someone is giving inside information to Toyota before it's released. You seem to be a decently smart guy, however it seems you're being confused here. The information given from NHTSA to TRB/NASA is already known characteristics of UA that are not necessarily tied to these current Toyota investigations.

If you go further to the presentation of Mr. Boyd, he states "Evidence suggested that most SAI probably involve the driver unintentionally pressing he accelerator when braking was intended". He also states "Drivers: older drivers over represented". (page 22).

On page 24 he states: "No defect conditions have been identified that: Resulted in sudden WOT; and simultaneous loss of brake effectiveness"

These statistics that are present in this presentation is one of the cases where the information is in general about UA, i.e. not strictly pertaining to Toyota's latest incidents. In these reports, they are talking about known causes of UA until you reach the end of page 26 on Boyd's presentation. Here they begin to start talking about specifically the Toyota incidents, where the incidents are being labeled "rare." An example of one of these "rare" incidents is given by the report: the San Diego, CA Sheriff case. The general statistics can not be applied to the Toyota incidents due to the presence of "multiple conditions," which is labeled "rare" occurrences.

You are absolutely right that the NHTSA has not completed their investigation, and they have asked the TRB as well as NASA for assistance. Good for them for being as thorough as possible. But for anyone to anyone to say there is no official source for this information is wrong at best and maybe has an agenda of their own.

Anyway- I'm done with this, this is my final say on the matter. Even if Toyota did point others to (not invent) these preliminary findings- they weren't a big secret that Toyota shouldn't have known about. I would have done the same if people were looking to burn my company at the stake before the trial was over. The assumption here is that Toyota must have faulty equipment because Toyota is inherently evil. My assumption is that a lot of y'all have rushed to a judgment as quickly as possible and you are using anything you can get to back up your view of Toyota. Would you sit back quietly and not point this public information out if it were your company on public trial?

Again, it seems you are confused about what information needs to be applied to whom. The data recorders from the Toyota incidents were not supposed to be released just yet, and there is no mentioning of these specific recorders in these reports. What is being talked about in these reports are general causes of UA, and NHTSA is asking these independent panels rather or not there are other possible causes that aren't known at this time. I thought this was obvious given the last slide on Boyd's presentation, "Are there practical ways to improve NHTSA’s ability to find defects that may be based in electronic systems, particularly rare events where physical evidence is not apparent?" This statement implies they have no idea what is causing these "rare events" that are present in Toyota's vehicles.

[bigearl]

I guess I'm reading part of this differently than you are, but since this goes back to 1998 this is relevant:

However, despite several investigations of Toyota’s ETC system, NHTSA has not been able to find a defect

If you go further on, you see that Volvo has as many reports of UA as Toyota does (12 out of 100,000). You also see prior to the 10/09 report which started this whole investigation, Ford had more reports of UA then Toyota did. Then the investigation starts and suddenly Toyota's report rate triples (strong media effect appears to be showing, since the 6th generation Camry had more reports than the 7th, but not until after the investigation)-see page 18.


I could be wrong. If I am- I'll buy you a Thirstbuster. But the whole thing strikes me as a witchhunt. Considering the way to <10/2009 vs >10/2009 statistics all stack up vs the way the report got to this point...my tinfoil hat theory still goes back to the UAW targeting Toyota. Ford doesn't get a Congressional shakedown but Toyota does. Google "UAW targets Toyota".

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I guess I'm reading part of this differently than you are, but since this goes back to 1998 this is relevant:

However, despite several investigations of Toyota’s ETC system, NHTSA has not been able to find a defect

I believe this is where you get confused. This is where they applied the investigations for general, known causes of UA. After these showed no conclusion, then this is the point where they grouped Toyota's incidents into "rare" events, where the general, known causes of UA hold no relevance. This is due to the fact that these are usually caused by one condition, where the "rare" events are caused by multiple conditions. NHTSA has no method for discovering defects in these "rare" events, which is why they are asking help from independent panels.

If you go further on, you see that Volvo has as many reports of UA as Toyota does (12 out of 100,000). You also see prior to the 10/09 report which started this whole investigation, Ford had more reports of UA then Toyota did. Then the investigation starts and suddenly Toyota's report rate triples (strong media effect appears to be showing, since the 6th generation Camry had more reports than the 7th, but not until after the investigation)-see page 18.


I could be wrong. If I am- I'll buy you a Thirstbuster. But the whole thing strikes me as a witchhunt. Considering the way to <10/2009 vs >10/2009 statistics all stack up vs the way the report got to this point...my tinfoil hat theory still goes back to the UAW targeting Toyota. Ford doesn't get a Congressional shakedown but Toyota does. Google "UAW targets Toyota".

It's possible that UAW is targeting Toyota. But I believe the major reason why Toyota is having a congressional intervention is not the UA, but why they waited 5 years to report the instances of UA. But I see your point here, and I'd agree with you if what I'm thinking is what you're thinking. I'm assuming this would be either Congress is acting in a very protectionist way, or that they're severely abusing their power. I'll take that thirstbuster (whatever that is) lol.