Sudden Acceleration - One Fact That's Hard to Dismiss

I'm sorry but I think this is just a repeat of the Audi problems in the late 80s. Of course there a lot fewer complaints against Audi (5 deaths), but Audi hasn't sold nearly as many cars in the US as Toyota.

What is hard to ignore is that none of the claims against Audi held up in a court of law. So far, And that was in the civil courts where you just have to have a preponderance of the evidence.

I don't recall anyone mentioning a claim proven in court...

Lawyers, drivers, attorneys, insurers, congressmen, the media- all of them have an agenda whether they know it or not.

It reminds me of a favorite line from "Cabaret"- "Money makes the world go round..."

 

Some of the numbers are interesting and claims about them. Regardless,

Guess we have a week, 9 days, before the hearing.

Bob Wilson

 

If there are audio or video tapes, I sure hope there aren't any unexplained gaps.

 

"Since Jan. 27, NHTSA has received complaints of 13 more deaths and 10 injuries in U.S. crashes, since 2005, that allege sudden acceleration as the cause in Toyota vehicles. That brings to 34 the total number of deaths since 2000 allegedly related to unintended acceleration in Toyotas. "

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100215/AUTO01/2150382/1148/auto01/Toyota-complaints-surge-at-NHTSA#ixzz0fduleXtj

First, I doubt the reporting in The Detroit News is fair & accurate. Second, if it takes someone (or their estate) 5 YEARS to claim an acceleration problem what took them so long? Sounds like they waited for the bandwagon.
Third, how much detail & documentation does the NHTSA need for a claim? Will they take my claim seriously if I submit that I was driving a 2009 Ford Pinto that wouldn't stop?
Fourth, if there is anything beyond eyewitness accounts I'd like to see the evidence. These cases should go to The People's Court, Judge Judy or one of the other judge shows so there would be some intereting daytime TV.
​

 

NHTSA says they investigate every complaint. You do not have to submit any evidence.

You probably can't complain about the 09 Pinto however...

 

Anyone with a family member who died in a traffic accident in a Toyota model listed on the recall has called a lawyer by now and jumped on the bandwagen, no matter what the real cause of the crash, in hopes of collecting a million or two. I have been one of the most prolific critics on the board of how Toyota has handled this, but I can't buy into the validity of these statistics. I'm surprised people aren't out there smacking into the back of cars in traffic in their Corollas just to file a suit. Everyone smells big money in this - and, I agree, it remains to be seen if any of these claims are upheld in court. But bear in mind, when comparing with Audi - I don't believe Audi admitted they had a problem, whereas Toyota has. That makes Toyota's position in fighting even groundless claims difficult at best.

 

You can file a complaint; however, on the follow-up, the complaint will be determined to be unfounded if you can't provide some supporting documentation. Supporting documentation is generally things like hospital admission records, death certificates, etc. depending on what you are complaining of.

 

But bear in mind, when comparing with Audi - I don't believe Audi admitted they had a problem, whereas Toyota has.

Hopefully, the courts see the difference between admitting a problem and admitting negligence. Unfortunately...

 

Judges are quite aware of the difference. Juries OTOH are often clueless, even when given specific instructions by the presiding judge.

 

The insurance data is going to be extremely hard if not impossible to dismiss. The other indicators have a certain variability to them that can allow for different interpretations. The insurance data is another matter entirely.

If the congressional hearings focus on actuarial analysis and loss data, it is not going to be an easy hearing for Toyota - whoever appears on behalf of the company.

 

This remains a curious area. The NFB have been trying to "Bell the Hybrid" based upon the quietness of our cars. Yet we can't find accident data supporting their claim. Insurance claims would be a natural source of supporting data ... but it is absent. Now comes the hook.

An alternate hypothesis is the brakes were not stopping the hybrids. Personally I think this is weak but we've already seen one poster claim the brake pause caused them to almost hit a pedestrian.

With one exception, we are dealing with extremely small numbers at the margin of statistical reliability when looking at pedestrian risks as a function of vehicle. That one exception are SUVs and pickup trucks. When we all face a common, universal standard, not one bent by private bias, I think we'll be able to reach consensus but that day has not yet arrived.

Bob Wilson

 

But you can file a complaint about your 2010 Prius 'Service Brakes, Air.' 46 people have.

I haven't yet located the Air Brakes on my Prius.

 

I'm sorry, but insurance company reports are not "data." "Unintended acceleration" or braking problems caused by the manufacturer would save them millions both for the claims of their insured and the ones hit by their insured.

But I have to admit, I would have to do some research if State Farm told me that the earth was round.

Statistics are funny things- according to the insurers, Americans should continue to drive big cars and trucks because they are safer. Of course, if you got the big cars and trucks off the roads, eventually, the smaller cars would be just as safe.

 

The air brake on the Prius is the large rear hatch.

Tom

 

An insurance company's 1st concern is their med payouts to YOU the customer, in a typical accident ... not the other person, and not the 2nd most likely or 3rd most likley type of accident. So if 3rd is a rollover, as high cener vehicles do, that's less important then if you plow into a smaller car. If 2nd most common is plowing into a smaller car, well, that's better than YOU in a small car. Actuaries working for insurance companies often make over $100K ... so it's evident that the insurance industry puts a lot of stock in what ever the actuary's math shows ... whether it's good or bad.

The latest thing your personal insurance companies will do is a REAL hoot. Say plows into you so you (and maybe your significant other) have to go to the hospital ... maybe a moderate bunch of injuries ... a stay for maybe 3 or 4 days. That may cost your insurance company a couple hundred thousand or more. You sue the other driver. If you EVER get a settlement ... maybe 4 ... 5 ... 6 years down the road ... be preparred. Your insurance company (usually provided for by your employer) will come knocking at your door. Bam. They get the whole thing, to compensate for their payouts ... though YOU spent significant time doing depos, etc. Welcome to the 21st century.

.

.

 

I've already done a Prius fatality study, 2001-07. What you are suggesting is do a parallel study to a similar vehicle whose population we know over the same time interval, 2001-07. Although a smaller class of vehicle, the Echo/Yaris comes to mind or possibly Sicon xB. It would be nice if we could find a 3,000 lb., non-Toyota vehicle introduced in 2000 and sold through 2007-08. It should be a family sedan and one we can get annual sales figures.

Any suggestions?

I have to update my study to cover 2001-08 so adding a comparison, non-Toyota sedan would be a reasonable thing to do.

From the 2001-07 Prius, fatal accidents:

• 28 / 111 - single vehicle
• 59 / 111 - two vehicles
• 14 / 111 - three vehicles
• 4 / 111 - four vehicles
• 2 / 111 - five vehicles
• 1 / 111 - six vehicles
• 1 / 111 - eight vehicles
• 1 / 111 - 35 vehicles

So the testable hypothesis is a similar sized, non-Toyota vehicle should have a similar distribution or one that a braking pause has caused a significantly different distribution?

Bob Wilson

 

I stand corrected. I should have said proven data.

The number of alleged incidents and fatalities caused by unintended acceleration in Audis in the 80s is data. Not one case was proven by the preponderance of the evidence in court, so it's unproven data.

Time will tell if these incidents and fatalities are Toyota's fault. I do know that I trust Toyota more than the media, insurers, attorney and plaintiffs, who are out for a quick buck. Yes, Toyota has a financial interest too, but it has a longer term financial interest in making quality vehicles.

The good news is that I'm going to be looking for a Toyota before I plan to sell one.