A thoughtful op-ed on recent Toyota issues in the LATimes

great article.

 

That was a good article. My favorite quote:

 

Yes. Really good and interesting article. A few quotes and comments:
Quote 1:
"
And although Toyota had almost 17% of total U.S. car sales in 2008, it accounted for merely 8% of total claims for deaths and injuries in the first quarter of that year, according to NHTSA. . . . Thus, even if every sudden-acceleration complaint proved valid, Toyotas are among the safest cars made."

The above is the key point when looking overall at Toyotas and safety. The total lower death and injury rate ought to be what it is [mostly] all about. This one statistic is not the absolute be-all, end-all, since I suspect Toyota drivers tend to be a bit more safety-oriented than, say, Corvette drivers, but it's vital.

Quote 2:
"
U.S. makers set the standard in safe vehicle design, according to the London-based FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society. In 1970, the U.S. had the lowest fatality rate per miles driven. By 2005, it had fallen to 11th among industrialized countries. So why the emphasis on mechanical defects above all else? Evans says it began with Ralph Nader and his 1965 book, "Unsafe at Any Speed." Today it's perpetuated by trial lawyers seeking the deepest pockets and a media that know it's sexier to crusade against corporations than emphasize individual responsibility."

Here I disagree on three points:

A. America pioneering auto design safety is not how I remember it. It was the Europeans, particularly Volvo and Mercedes Benz, who led the way in the 50s and 60s.

B. America was the safest place to drive because, despite our reputation as cowboys, we seem to be the ones who took "defensive driving" to heart first. We also emphasized safe highway design first. It helped that, as a physically big place, we have the room to build safer roads.

C. "Unsafe at Any Speed"--along with Carson's "Silent Spring" (on environmental issues, not safe cars)--was in my view vital to changing corporate attitudes. Nader and Carson made it clear that there was "individual responsibility" for putting things in the world that had very bad effects. It's one thing to say that the driver was partly responsible when, driving badly, a Corvair crashed and burned and killed the driver (though if a differently designed car would not have killed the driver, I understand the reaction of the grieving families . . .). But those crashes killed a lot of other people who weren't the drivers driving badly. "Individual responsibility" there cannot be passed off solely to the driver.
Cars around the world--and other products as well--are considerably safer today because of what Nader did (even if I disagree virulently with what he's done since 1999 . . .).
I can't wholly blame the plaintiff's lawyers, either. If there were cheaper, easier ways to get remedies for wrongs, you probably wouldn't have the chase after the astronomical verdict, because the astronomical verdict wouldn't be necessary to keep everyone honest--but that's another whole, long, complicated story and I will shut up.

 

Where's Malorn?

 

It's sad, but level headed non sensationalist journalism just isn't inflammatory enough to be noticed by the public anymore...

 

says who? This piece got put in the LA TImes, which is a pretty good outlet for an op-ed piece. We noticed it.

 

Here's another thoughtful Op-Ed piece from the NYTimes today

Toyotas Are Safe (Enough) - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

A cogent analogy I agree with in full is this one...

Personally I am in full agreement with this analysis he made. Since I too have an 04 Highlander and an 05 Prius his points resonate with me.

 

This is an interesting piece too: Who is Sean Kane, the Man Behind the Bogus Gilbert/ABC Toyota Tests?
According to the writer, a February 2010 SR & S report said that SUA had not been proven to be Toyota's fault. There was a link to that report. Although the date of the report changed, the conclusions sure have. I wonder how the writer could have been so wrong.

 

It is funny, this is an editorial piece in the LA times. Prius chatters seem to love it. But they accuse the LA times news articles of being biased. I noticed the same thing in the on line commentary from bw, while most here deride the news in the same publication.

 

We are not the general public, we are a forum for Prius enthusiasts... And while there are those whose interest may not lie directly in line with Priuschat's main focus, it is not by any stretch the general public.

And yes this means we are biased here...

 

This editorial does not represent the opinions of the editors of the LA Times. The Times gave the first opportunity to beat up Toyota to Ralph Nader, whose Center for Auto Safety brought up the electronics issue some time ago.

 

I stand corrected. Don't usually read editorials, which like most free advice are worth what you pay for them. I take it you did not agree with Mr. Nader.

 

A reference to Evans' book is here. With sample chapters.
.
_H*