LA Times: Congressional Committees Gearing Up for Toyota Hearings

I wish I could look forward to the Congressional hearings producing
some meaningful outcome.

Years ago, in a different lifetime it seems, I had reason to attend
Congressional hearings, and even had responsibilities connected with
preparing senior staff to give testimony.

Congressional hearings are pure theater. All the significant work is
done behind the scenes by the member's/committee's staff... which
inevitably involves much input from special interest groups and
lobbyists who have often given substantial support to the member's
election/reelection. Guess what that means...

Typically a hearing like this one, allegedly for "fact finding," is marred
by grandstanding, breast beating, scapegoating on behalf of unnamed
factions, egoism, and political considerations based on member's
reelection status. For the most part, the congress members will be
fundamentally unfamiliar with the complexities and realities of the
matter being "investigated." No real surprise: their staff's background
briefing was based on easily obtainable material from recent printed
and broadcast media. (You should be getting an unpleasant feeling due
a self-reinforcing circular input --> analysis --> output mechanism.)

Finally, the outcome, meaningful or not, will be buried in the
Congressional Record many months later after a period for receipt of
written comments and submissions and the staffer's work to analyze
the "data." It will take a conscientious and persistent reporter to stay
on the story and objectively report the final outcome.

So, save up some munchies and beer from your Super Bowl party,
then in the spirt of the current spate of tawdry "reality" shows, enjoy
the hearings for what they are, an impressive theatrical production.

 

Well if the hearings end up focusing mostly on the failings of the NHTSA or the need for NHTSA to update standards and procedures, then I think good for Toyota.

I have to admit it's going to be interesting.

I also don't see how not adopting a brake override system could be a key issue. Having a brake override system is not a federal standard, at this point it's an option that manufacturers can either offer or not offer. Unless the standard is changed, it's totally up to Toyota whether they want to offer it or not.

How can a committee have anything to do or say about what optional features or equipment a automaker offers on their products. Even the article itself refers to the brake override system as "an additional safety measure"?

If in the future Toyota decides they want to start offering that as a feature? Great for Toyota. Great for future consumers. If in the future the Federal Government wants to make brake override systems a federal standard applied to all future automobiles? Fine...but then it must apply to all automakers, not just Toyota.

But as far as a hearing goes, I don't see how it is an issue. Toyota could say they were looking into it, debating it's application in the future, but there are no standards in place that would force Toyota to implement such a system.

Yes, some automakers, with some models do offer it. But it is not a requirement, at this point it's an option.

 

Like I said, it's going to be interesting. I'm just wondering if this is going to become projected as more of a failure of the NHTSA and a need for that organization to improve or more of a continued skewer Toyota campaign.

I guess a committee could make a statement about Toyota not offering a brake override system. But the committees doesn't build cars. The fact that Toyota doesn't offer a brake override system really didn't seem to negatively affect Toyotas sales, which have been industry leading in recent years. The absence of a brake override system also in the past didn't hurt Toyota's reputation, with Toyota usually garnering industry leading accolades for many of their vehicles.

If the committee wants to bring it up? Fine. If Toyota decides for numerous reasons they want to offer it in the future? Also fine. But I just don't see how it's a major issue in a political hearing.

Unless Toyota made a promise to the NHTSA that they were going to retro-actively install Brake Override systems, then to me, a brake override system is a useful, maybe important additional safety feature. But if you are going to scold Toyota for not offering it, then you have to scold all automakers that don't offer it. It's not an industry standard.

 

I agree, especially concerning Prius.

I guess what bothers me most is this statement:

"The company plans to put the feature (brake override) on its new vehicles starting late this year, but it has not indicated a plan to install it on most of the millions of Toyotas that are already on the road." -LA Times

Well why should Toyota indicate a plan to install it on most of the millions of Toyotas that are already on the road? Unless their cars are directly unsafe without it, why should they be expected to?

To me it's like any evolution. There was a time when cars transitioned from no seatbelts, to lap belts, to shoulder lapbelts. There was a time and process where the standard went from most cars did NOT have airbags...to today when almost all cars do offer airbags.

I owned a 94 Nissan Pickup....no airbags...two years later Nissan added airbags. Did I expect Nissan to put airbags into my Nissan? No, the standard had changed, and changed for the better but do we expect automakers to retrofit (as the article says) Millions of cars everytime a new standard is introduced and reached?

If the standard going forward becomes automatic Brake override systems then great, I'm all for safer and better....but we have to allow automakers to evolve and not expect them to recall every single auto they have produced that might be on the road every time a new standard is introduced or reached.

It's impossible and stupid. It's different if something is discovered to be an undeniable immediate safety risk, but not if something is simply an evolution of safety options. That's what I don't like about the LA Times statement. They make it sound like Toyota should be creating a plan to recall every vehicle they have on the road to implement what I perceive as a optional evolution or improvement. You wouldn't expect or ask that of any automaker.

 

Right now as it stands the NA market is behind the German market.

Right now...the brake override technology is brand spanking new in this market. Most if not all the German cars have it and some Chrysler ( ex-Daimler ) vehicles have it along with one Infiniti model.

Otherwise ZERO N American vehicles has the brake override. Toyota will be the first of the major ones to install it widely in new vehicles as they come out and more importantly retro-flash it into those vehicles on the road which can accept it.

We can count on this being one of Waxman's attack points being from California and all ( LA Times ). In addition he and the Cali Congressional group had begged Toyota to keep NUMMI open and were turned down.. Payback time coming next week, methinks.

 

Unfortunately true. It's sold in almost every case just like the Matrix or Corolla.

This has its benefits in that it makes it approachable by the general public. However as we've seen recently the media and the scum-sucking lawyers that feed off discontent can make this 'approachability' riddled with thorns. It can force the design to be made to fit the lowest common denominator.

This can sell more units but it does an injustice to the technology and to the advancement of fuel efficient vehicles across the board. Imagine what bullets the GM designers of the Volt are going through now. 'OMG if the press can tear the beloved Prius apart like this ..... OMG, we won't sleep for 5 yrs.'

 

Yep, precisely. The warranty question/issue on the Li-Ion battery is the key point in how successful the Volt will be. No one including GM has come out and said anything positive on the Li-Ion longevity beyond 5 yrs, maybe 7 yrs.

Forget not being able to go 10+ yrs with few if any warranty issues such as the Prius, FFH, HCH can do. $40,000 less ( maybe $7500 ) is going to be a stretch for the anyone but the very comfortable, but if the owner wants to keep it longer than 5+ yrs he's going to have to plan for a $10,000-ish replacement cost. Oops there goes the tax credit and more.

 

The key will be what did toyota know and when. and then who covered up what and why and at whose instruction.

 

Congres? They'll fix it? . . . . . HA! Is that laughable, or what?

Let's see:
Screwed up budget ~ trillion doller debt.
AIG paid by you and I.
GM bailed out, which includes dumping all their toxic sites on us the taxpayer.
Health care debacle.
Afganistan
Iraq
NO Public transportation / high speed rail like Asian / European Countries
Highway Infrastructure crumbling benieth us

When they're done diddling their interns they fix things. Oh yea, THEY'LL fix things alright.


.