Unintended Acceleration -- While Parking

This thread is almost as amusing as it is tiresome. lol

 

While patterns of memory problems are becoming increasingly well documented in legal cases, I wouldn't even characterize all of it as fallible memory.

The brain can misunderstand where the unseen limb (in this case, the right foot) really is. In my case, the train of actions produced several contradictory results and sensations. In hindsight, as the adrenaline rush wore down, the most sensible interpretation was that the foot initially was someplace different than the brain expected. Other interpretations required mechanical magic or evil quantum mechanics at macroscopic levels.

Many drivers who have a different but very common reflexive response to this situation would never trigger the specific contradictions that convinced me of operator error. They could file their NHTSA report with a clear conscience and a perfect memory -- of a misperception.

evpv's suggestion of footwell cameras is too easily defeated, and will be defeated by many folks who don't like Orwellian surveillance.

 

Police, taxis, etc. are not exactly private. It'll be as difficult to implement as requiring a camera in your own house.

No, my point is more that NHTSA findings can be valid. In our case, they found nothing to support the SUA claims.

 

No doubt. evpv posted solely for the sake or arguing, and has no interest in what anyone else has to say. That much is very clear. But, I must say I am looking forward to his next brilliant suggestion like the camera by your feet. I'm expecting a manually deployed parachute when your Toyota takes off uncontrollably!

 

I don't know. I would support investigation of brake failure or unintended acceleration in every case. I think it's encumbent upon Toyota as a manufacturer and the NHTSA as an organization to continue investigating as long as cases are reported.

Toyota has already offered a software calibration update on the 2010 Gen 3, so exclamations that anything/everything might be "normal" and can't or shouldn't be made better, seem unfounded. If everyone, including Toyota took that attitude, the update would of never been applied mid-production stream and retro-actively to purchasers that bought before Toyota applied the change in software and brake calibration.

That being said, unless you have had a specific incident, with a specific failure here's how I approach the BIG picture.

Driving is dangerous. Driving inherently comes with risk. It doesn't matter what you are driving, Prius, Land Rover, or Smart Car....every vehicle has differences in design, size, weight, available safety options, and feel and handling.

If you accept this as true, then the big picture question becomes: Is The Prius inherently more dangerous than driving any other vehicle?

All I can say, is over my lifetime I have driven an assortment of different vehicles. All I thought had different strengths and weaknesses as applied to driving and safety. I drove a Pre-Airbag, early 1990's small pick-up. I loved it as a vehicle. But I knew going in, that the crash ratings were incredibly poor. At that time in my life I was willing to drive it, knowing that if I was involved in a major crash, my chances of being injured or killed were increased in comparison to many other vehicles I could of chosen.

Today, I'm currently driving a 2010 Honda Fit. It has all the disadvantages of being a sub-compact on the streets in a world dominated by SUV's and trucks. It does have plenty of airbags and modern frame design....

It handles like a Go-Cart on rails. Very agile and quick, which encourages conciously or subconciouly some degree of agressive driving. But I feel the way the vehicle is weighted and designed...that it performs relatively safely in this arena...

My point being, is The Prius has a unique brake design. In comparison to almost everything else that isn't a hybrid. By design, that makes it handle and feel differently than other braking systems. Does that make it "more dangerous"?

I think the only way to really determine this is long term statistics. If there is a disproportionate number of accidents that seem to stem from the characteristics that exist in the design of regenerative brakes, then perhaps Toyota and other manufacturers will need to look at improving design. But, and this IMO is highly significant...we drive vehicles with various and differing strengths and weaknesses of design all the time...My Fit is more agile than my 1991 Accord...but the Accord was bigger....Pick-Up's I drove in my youth, had no airbags and structurally were very dangerous if you were involved in a crash...

We choose the tools and machines we wish to own and operate and we should be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. If these machines and tools operate at a standard that is deemed below that acceptable by society? Then manufacturers must improve to meet or exceed these standards.

I haven't owned or driven a Prius long term. So I can't really offer an opinion on whether "If" I felt this phenemon, would I as an operator feel that this reaction made driving the vehicle unsafe.

But I do think that is at this point, a personal decision. I drove vehicles with known and inherent safety flaws...and no vehicle is perfect, regardless of what manufacturers would want you to think.

I guess my advice would be, if you experience this loss of braking power, or feel, regularly and feel it is too great a risk? Then a change in vehicles might be in order. If you have experienced it and feel it is simply a characteristic of design inwhich you can adjust and accept? Then drive on- with this knowledge. At this point, we haven't reached a point where Toyota or the NHTSA deem it problem worthy of recall or censure...

I don't fault those happy with their vehicles...and I don't fault those that are unhappy with this evident experience. But at this point how you react and accept the reality of regenrative brakes on a Prius, is the decision of the individual owning the vehicle.

 

There are examples from other posters, but you've apparently ignored them. You've already made up your mind that the SUA claims are true until NASA releases its report so there's no point.

 

Funny no one mentioned this. The first complaint is by VWB
volks wagon beetle?
Or am I crazy.

 

BTW, I was on a hill today and as soon as I let go off the brakes...the car moves back a couple of feet. This has happened several times. Why isn't the HILL ASSIST technology working???
It works fine 90% of the time but occasionally, the car WILL go backwards. Again, this might be a miscommunication between the logic chip and the sensors OR it might be a gear that does not engage due to a delay or miscalculation by the logic chip.

 

What did you do to engage it?

 

I believe this is a miscommunication between the manual and the owner.

If you push the brake pedal to the floor, the car will beep, some yellow light will show up and the Prius holds the brake for about two seconds. In this time any capable driver is able to step on the accelerator and push it far enough to provide the power to at least slowly go up a hill.

Hope this helps.

 

This is speculation.

To the extent that there is real evidence in the matter of possible
unintended acceleration-- the result of investigations, not unverified
allegations -- there is reason to believe that the cameras would instead
record hundreds of cases of operator error/confusion.

 

why do you need hsa on the gen III and not on the II?

 

I submit that this statement is an "argument from ignorance" in that in
essence it would have Toyota try to disprove something that has not
yet been shown to exist.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad
ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It
asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been
proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy
in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and
the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In
debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden
of proof.

Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as
"impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence". This should not, however, be taken to mean
that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an
idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot.

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the
veracity of the proposition is not known, or is undetected, to arrive at a
definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of
one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. This
fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a
special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail
to consider perfectly valid alternatives. A false dilemma may take the
form:
- If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered
false and must therefore be considered true.
- If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered
true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that
(a) true things can never be disproven and
(b) false things can never be proven.
In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these
facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).

To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some
true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be
disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the
second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely
proven and is therefore certainly false.). Most often it is directed at any
conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-
detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say
their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher
might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for
other reasons.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance]Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]