Electronic Throttle Control Safety Issues

So you are saying that I have to potential to use my 1,900 watt stereo system to act as an EMP generator and sabotage vehicles on the highway?

I'm putting the EMP switch next to the EV button on my dash! So long tailgaters and "bird" wavers!

 

Someone needs to switch to decaf.

 

It should be a standard fail-safe feature in any mission critical electronics system. Not unlike the fly-by-wire systems used in most modern aircraft.

In the nut-shell, it is a digital redundancy check feature. Kinda like an insurance within the system to validate the data being received had not been corrupted.

In fact, the very nature to the Internet itself also depends on the self-checking and validating algorithms in order to reject corrupted data packets.

Having said that, we still have physical protections in the form of cable shielding and adequate grounding against EMI or any form of EM pollutions..

 

Someone needs to study physics a little more. If EMPs could shut down cars don't you think some entrepreneur would have designed and built thousands of units for the police?

Yet more FUD/BS.

 

That explains some things for me. We were recently working on a radio receiver chip. The customer was asking us to meet what I thought were outrageous specs. However, what you describe explains some of them.

 

I'm going to install a similar system, but I will use mine to disable other drivers cell phones. If I see someone texting while driving, I'll turn the amp up to 11. :madgrin:

 

It seems like there are many pilots on this forum who also drive Prius (wonder what the association is) so they will understand what I'm trying to say.

All these fears and new found concerns regarding unintended acceleration, braking, etc. is like the mad frenzy of a public who demands 100% perfection from man-made machines. As pilots, we know that the odds of an engine failure are extremely low (unless you run out of gas) but do we sit by complacently and yell at the manufacturer whenever a mechanical failure occurs? Do we expect that all mission-critical items work perfectly?

Hell no! As pilots, we have very limited options in the air should something go wrong, are always practicing how to handle emergencies, and most importantly, are always asking ourselves as we fly along uneventfully - "What should I do now IF...."

In a car, you have plenty more room for decision making. You can pull over and then figure things out. Drivers should come to realize that they are just as dependent on the whims of physics and nature as pilots, and that perfection is not going to happen. They should _expect_ the unexpected, anticipate failures, and know how to handle them appropriately.

Anything can go wrong. It's just a simple matter of having a backup plan on what to do when it does.

 

I agree with much of what you are saying. As a whole I applaud the auto industry. Despite occasionally what becomes high profile failures, overall the quality and the safety of vehicles on the road and produced today is amazing, imo.

However there is a difference between Pilots who are trained and skilled and the sea of humanity as a whole that perceive it as a genetic right to be able to hop into any vehicle and drive. In most states you can get a licence in your teens and as long as you keep paying the renewal fee's that same licence can be valid into your senior years.

So even though I agree that it is unfair or unrealistic to expect perfection from man made machines, that is the goal automakers must strive to reach, even in falling short. Just sit in a parking lot sometime and look at the diversity of not only vehicles but driver skills. You have 10-20 year old vehicles that appear to be held together with duct tape and bubble gum and you have drivers that seem to have the attention span of sugar crazed toddlers. Sometimes it amazes me that we don't have more wrecks or more problems than we do have.

But imo, it's the fact that the majority of the driving public aren't really well trained. They aren't thinking like pilots that makes it important that automakers strive to produce the safest "idiot proof" product.

I think the tech package on the new Prius V is a good example. I don't want to upset defenders of The Tech package but does any alert, skilled driver really need lane keep assist? Keeping in your lane and driving straight used to be just called....driving...

We now have camera's that reveal if objects/vehicles are in our blind spot, warning buzzers and emergency dynamic force braking. It's all good, and I think it makes the product better and safer. But like any technology it is slowly divorcing us from using our own skills in operation. Since I think the "standards" for legally operating a vehicle in the USA are actually very, very low, I guess I have to be thankful for all the safety equipment and devices. They save lives, because unfortunately many cars on the road aren't maintained to aircraft standards and many drivers aren't as skilled and trained as pilots.

 

Yes and no. Yes, in that you can't pull over and stop in an aircraft. On the other hand, aircraft seldom fly in close formation or close to obstacles. Generally you have room and more time in an aircraft, unless you are unlucky enough to have an emergency during takeoff or landing.

I'm not trying to diminish the risks associated with flying, but I am trying to point out that driving is inherently a close quarters situation, where even a minor blip can smash you head-on into oncoming traffic.

With flying you have three dimensions, wide separation, and mostly well trained pilots. With driving you have near zero separation and distracted idiot drivers.

Tom

 

All true points (not to get too far off topic), however as you point out in landing/take-off (where the majority of accidents occur) and over specific points (VOR, intersections, etc) there is quite a close concentration. The idea of "one big sky" clearly has not worked (hence the "see and be seen" regulation as well as air traffic control).

All I'm saying is that drivers should come to have a more realistic expectation of their vehicles. Although not held to such "high standards" as pilots (which, is also lacking if you look at the regulatory requirements versus those which a safe pilot should have), they should have basic knowledge of how their vehicle operates, how to use the available equipment and safety features (such as airbag disable, etc.), and when driving, keep an appropriate level of situational awareness.

The main edge drivers have over pilots is the ability to simply pull over, slow things down, and then think. Not familiar with the operation of the car? Pull over and read the manual. Drive slowly, keep a safe distance, etc.

The cars have been getting safer and better, but no car is idiot proof. Brakes can and do fail (and not just on Toyota's) - drivers have to know how to react should a brake failure occur. More likely than brake failure is tire rupture - it can be disastrous at high speeds, but the solution is often intuitive enough. Common sense thinking, e.g. when driving once on a highway and I saw the sign "No shoulder" immediately I began thinking what would I do if a disabled car were to appear in front of me, and lo and behold, there was car with its hazards on and I had to move over to the other lane! If I were not paying attention, I could have easily rear-ended him (this was on an interstate), and had I not purposely kept my left side open as an "out", I may not have had an opportunity to avoid the crash (braking was not going to provide a solution).

Anything can go wrong, and as drivers we have to fight the complacency that's invaded most of American drivers. Pilots stay vigilant because we have to - we know that even tiny mistakes can end up costing your life. As drivers, we need to understand everytime we get behind that wheel, we face many of the same risks, and while it's been severely mitigated with the advanced safety features we have available, we cannot come to rely on them.

If you were mountain climbing and you have a safety harness and a safety rope - do you just blindly accept that they are your "backups" and that you can ignore everything else because should anything happen the safety rope will hold? Are you sure that safety rope will hold?

Life is full of risks - and we must take calculated risks judiciously, and that means being aware of the risks, taking steps to mitigate it, and constantly looking out for the unexpected situations where the risk may suddenly intensify.

We can have backups for backups, but if there is anything the tragedies of NASA have to teach us, it's that the unexpected will occur, and accidents will happen, sometimes with cruel consequences, no matter how careful. Our best defense then, is to remain vigilant at all times.

 

here is one that just blames drive by wire in general

The Real Cause Of Toyota's Problems - Forbes.com

 

there has actually been a device that does exactly that...well, actually, its supposed to do that.

problem is, all cars are different. so the same device proved to work on only a small range of cars, had to be very very close, much too close to use effectively in a high speed chase, and even when close enough, it did not always work.

 

my bet would be with bluetooth cellphones and cell towers

 

I vote for Darwin

Subaru installed a system where if it senses foot on the brake while you are on the gas, it will either drop power output or cut power completely.

 

Until that system fails from EMF. Each system has strengths and risks. I used to work with an IBM 1800 computer (no comments about how old I am). The 1800 was designed for real-time control, so it had an emergency shutoff switch. Not trusting electronic devices, IBM used a spring loaded guillotine that would sever the power cord if you pulled the E-Stop.

Cutting a power cord is crude but effective. The issue becomes which is more likely to fail: the mechanical device or the electronic device. No one answer is correct for all situations. You can use multiple safety systems, but at some point the extra complexity introduces more risk and cost than it is worth. That's why people do risk analysis.

Tom