Toyota acknowledges bug in 'black box' reader

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I also think it's very interesting, and like to stay plugged into the technical side of the discussion. But when the discussion goes to "they're lying" or "he said, she said", that's when I turn off. I think that's when the discussion loses its productiveness, and often gets emotional, accusatory, etc.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
.... The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question ....


Really? How exactly did you determine that to be a fact? Because Toyota said so?

If Toyota told me it was raining, I would look out the window to see for myself.

 

[brianl703]

Trust, but verify.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
.... The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question ....


Really? How exactly did you determine that to be a fact?

It's "not in question" because no credible, relevant authority is questioning it.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Win
Really? How exactly did you determine that to be a fact? Because Toyota said so?


I go back to my reply at 10:55am this morning (previous page on my screen):

"The first issue is can the EDR be trusted? Given the intense scrutiny of this whole situation over the past few months, by NASA, the NHTSA, and whomever else has been looking at these things, if there was an obvious error in the way the EDR is reporting the relevant data, I fully believe that these multiple agencies would have reported that."

Agreeing with d00df00d, if a relevant authority questions the data, I’d go along with it. Importantly, and to the contrary, NHTSA has allegedly spent days and weeks and months with these EDRs and if they’ve had questions about inconsistencies, they’ve sure been quiet about it.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I also think it's very interesting, and like to stay plugged into the technical side of the discussion. But when the discussion goes to "they're lying" or "he said, she said", that's when I turn off. I think that's when the discussion loses its productiveness, and often gets emotional, accusatory, etc.

Agreed 100%.


When a Company takes acertain stance in scores of court cases spread over a number of years and then completely reverses that same stance.....THAT is not she said, he said at all to point that fact out.

It's not my fault that many find stories about drawn out litigation as irrelevant or too boring to be bothered with, is it? It doesn't change the fact that Toyota has claimed in court for years that the data was unreliable...this isn't my opinion, the court cases are out there, the lawyers who have to fight Toyotas endless obfuscation are out there.


Again, this isn't just about UA and our idiot press' inability to convey the facts as they are. It's about whether you accept at face value a statement from a Company that has turned their story around on a dime...to suit their current situation. Also, it bugs me that nobody is bothered by the fact that Toyota alone writes this program....we have no clue what they are downloading, I think it's silly to take their word at face value, simple as that.

And to the poster who refered to Toyota and their inability(unwillingness) to provide third party readers so outside parties can DL the data.....Well, it's not at all about what I think you or anyone else should drive. I merely believe that Toyota should do what the other manufacturers have been doing for years. That is provide the readers and data to third parties with cause to review the data without it going through Toyotas hands first. I ask you this, why is it that Ford and GM have done this for years and Toyota hasn't? It's not about "new laws" or "new legislation", it's about stepping up to the plate....And Toyota clearly hasn't.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Well, there it is, isn't it? "I dont know, and I dont want to know".


Part of life is understanding what you can control, what you can influence, and what you truly have knowledge of. I don't know what Toyota knows and what they don't. So I won't pretend to. And I also won't waste my time trying to figure it out.

I guess part of your notion is true, "don't want to know", in that I choose to focus my attention on more important things in life. I suppose I could, if I were so inclined, devote much more of my waking moments digging up documents and court papers and trying to separate fact from fiction. But again, I go back to what I said earlier. I’m not in an emotional relationship with the automaker from whom I might purchase a car. In other words: it doesn’t matter to me. If I were to set out to never purchase anything from any company who ever had a questionable moment in public, both of these two things would happen: I wouldn’t be able to buy anything, and I’d spend so much time trying to “investigate” that over which I have no real knowledge anyway. I have more pressing and desirable things to do in life, quite frankly. Those into conspiracy theories might see that as "plausible deniability". Others will acknowledge that as as person prioritizing his or her resources to matters most important to them.

Have a great day!

Great points!
As you can probably see, there are a few Toyota bashers out there and no matter what Toyota does it is WRONG!
You hit the nail on the head - "If I were to set out to never purchase anything from any company who ever had a questionable moment in public, both of these two things would happen: I wouldn’t be able to buy anything . . . " From my personal experience this includes GM and Ford!

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Oh yeah, a "bug". That's gotta be it!

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
.... I merely believe that Toyota should do what the other manufacturers have been doing for years. That is provide the readers and data to third parties with cause to review the data without it going through Toyotas hands first. I ask you this, why is it that Ford and GM have done this for years and Toyota hasn't?


Hey oldmaninsc, just curious. What is "bashing" about expecting, or imploring Toyota to do the exact same thing as GM and Ford have been doing for years? What is "bashing" about pointing out how Toyota has fought releasing this data for years? Why do I get the sense you feel this is ALL about UA, when in fact that is merely a slice of reality....an aside to what the real problem is? Read what I quoted above, is that an unreasonable request of Toyota?

If you want to know the facts, then do some research. Look into Toyotas continual court battles over the EDR data(going back for years, long before UA was ever mentioned here in the US). I'm not making this stuff up, if you cant do the research yourself, let me know and I'll provide you some links.

If you think I'm bashing, report me.

No surprises here from any of the usual apologists....lol....why should I expect otherwise? After all, this is the board where certain Mods make fun of the fact that Toyota could even possibly be stupid enough to only have one EDR reader here stateside....refusing to belive it even when shown links to executives who said it under oath. Or how about the posters around here who still claim Toyota never had any UA concerns in other continents, only here where "stupid" Americans roam.....EVEN THOUGH, it is undeniable fact that Toyota was recalling cars in the EU for UA LONG before the North American recalls even began. If you dont believe me, read the NHTSA report and learn for yourself WHY they fined them so heavily. The facts ARE out there despite our useless media(and misinformation/misdirection posted on internet boards).

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Oh yeah, a "bug". That's gotta be it!

We prefer the term "undocumented feature".

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
When a Company takes acertain stance in scores of court cases spread over a number of years and then completely reverses that same stance.....THAT is not she said, he said at all to point that fact out.

Correct.

404 relation to current topic not found.



Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
It's not my fault that many find stories about drawn out litigation as irrelevant or too boring to be bothered with, is it? It doesn't change the fact that Toyota has claimed in court for years that the data was unreliable...this isn't my opinion, the court cases are out there, the lawyers who have to fight Toyotas endless obfuscation are out there.

No one said anything about court cases being boring. It's about the tone of the conversation and the claims being made.

Is the EDR data reliable enough to exonerate Toyota? What are the implications of this newly found software bug? These are questions that could lead to fruitful conversation.

Was Toyota lying? Does the incoherence of their statements mean they are evil? These questions are unanswerable, unproductive, and largely meaningless in and of themselves.


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Again, this isn't just about UA and our idiot press' inability to convey the facts as they are. It's about whether you accept at face value a statement from a Company that has turned their story around on a dime...to suit their current situation.

1. ALL companies turn their stories around on a dime to suit their current situations.

2. Who ever said anything about taking anything at face value? All that was said was, "I don't see enough evidence to think this is a problem." Toyota's statement in THIS matter is completely in line with what the NHTSA is finding. That doesn't mean it's true; just that there's no reason to flip out just yet.


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Also, it bugs me that nobody is bothered by the fact that Toyota alone writes this program....we have no clue what they are downloading, I think it's silly to take their word at face value, simple as that.

I agree that it's silly to take their word at face value, but I don't get your point. The NHTSA has been provided with the equipment and software to read Toyota's EDRs. Evidently they see no reason to worry. Why do you?


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I merely believe that Toyota should do what the other manufacturers have been doing for years. That is provide the readers and data to third parties with cause to review the data without it going through Toyotas hands first.

I believe that all cars should have manual transmissions, RWD with LSD, fully independent suspension, and no more than 50% of their weight on the front axle.


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I ask you this, why is it that Ford and GM have done this for years and Toyota hasn't? It's not about "new laws" or "new legislation", it's about stepping up to the plate....And Toyota clearly hasn't.

In other words, your main beef with Toyota is not that they're in violation of the law; it's that you don't like how they roll. Once again, I agree.

 

[LS2JSTS]

What you and I believe should be the "features" on a car and Toyota providing data to those who have a right(owners, court officers, professional peer review groups) to review it are two completely different issues.

As I said before, it's not how I "feel" about anything....it's, why does Toyota have to operate in this manner when other companies clearly make the data available without first reviewing(editing) it?

On a side note, do you think NHTSA reviewed the program that Toyota wrote or did they just trust the data that the program provided them. I don't know whats in that program or how it is written, or how it is designed....and neither does NHTSA I'm willing to bet.

I'm not worried....honest....think Alfred E Neuman saying "What, ME drive a Toyota?" No worries here friend.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
When a Company takes acertain stance in scores of court cases spread over a number of years and then completely reverses that same stance.....THAT is not she said, he said at all to point that fact out.

Correct.

404 relation to current topic not found.


You really dont see a relationship between a company that alleged in sworn testimony and court documents for years that their EDR data was unreliable, and now that same company claiming that the same EDR data absolves them of blame in the UA incidents?

If people want to discuss only "this" minute issue within the pile of issues involved here then I guess I see your point. But taken in context of the last ten years and Toyotas litigation practices it takes on a different light. I'm sorry if my tone in imparting that point of view rubbed you the wrong way. But to be honest, I dont see anyone posting links to court cases where Toyota has been forthcoming with EDR data or refuting my claims that they historically obfuscate to no end in this arena. To the contrary all I see are defenses and excuses that basically amount to "well, the gubmint said it's so, so it must be so". I don't know about you, but I trust the gubmint even LESS than I trust Toyota...if that gives you some perspective on my faith in NHTSA to get to the bottom of this.

The st

 

[LS2JSTS]

"Sometimes they've claimed it's unreliable, other times they say they can't even access the data, and now they're holding it up as proof that they're innocent," said Steve Van Gaasbeck, a Texas attorney who has been stymied by Toyota in several attempts to get EDR data admitted in trials. "They want it both ways."

In late 2008, Toyota posted a Q-and-A on black boxes on its website noting that its readout tool was not scientifically validated and that the company "does not have confidence that the readout reports it generates are accurate." Because of that, and the fact that the automaker had only one such tool in the U.S., the site said, "Toyota will not honor EDR readout requests from private individuals or their attorneys."

 

[LS2JSTS]

"Toyota has for years blocked access to its EDR data that could explain automobile crashes blamed on sudden unintended acceleration. An Associated Press investigation found that Toyota has frequently refused to provide key information sought by crash victims; uses proprietary software in it EDRs (until this week there was reportedly only one laptop in the country loaded with the software needed to read the data); and settles lawsuits when pressed to produce EDR data or provides paper printouts with key columns blanked out.

This chicanery is not news to product liability lawyers who have for decades battled Toyota’s abusive discovery tactics. However, the tactics are emerging as a major public relations problem for Toyota amid the recall of 8 million vehicles."

 

[LS2JSTS]

"That statement contradicts information obtained by plaintiffs attorneys in litigation following a deadly crash last year in Texas and in a fatal 2004 crash in Indiana. In the Texas crash, which killed four people, a 2008 Avalon crashed through a fence, hit a tree, and flipped into a pond. The EDR information provided to police listed as “off” any information on acceleration or braking. In the Indiana crash, the Toyota technician from Toyota Motors in California traveled to Indiana to download the EDR data. Before she died, the victim in the Indiana crash told relatives she was standing with both feet on the brake of her 2003 Camry but could not get it to stop. Emergency personnel confirmed that they found her with both feet on the brake pedal. The victim’s family was told by Toyota that there was ”no sensor that would have preserved information regarding the accelerator and brake positions at the time of impact.”

What is the explanation for this contradiction? An attorney in the Texas case believes that Toyota may have deliberately stopped allowing its EDRs to collect critical information so the information could not be discovered in court cases. This would explain the “off” message in the Texas case. Despite the fact that its EDR system has been in use since 2001, Toyota is taking the position that it is an experimental device and is not reliable for accident reconstruction. Its policy is reportedly to download data only at the direction of law enforcement, NHTSA, or a court order."

 

[LS2JSTS]

Sometimes, if you are lucky enough to have a Senator help you out you might get data....



"When this April the driver's parents and a U.S. senator finally prevailed upon Toyota to examine the contents of the truck's crash data recorder, the electronic readings suggested a collision that was far from ordinary"

 

[LS2JSTS]

"In 2008, Toyota questioned the reliability of the devices in an effort to prevent the driver of a Toyota Echo from using data from the crash recorder in a lawsuit against the automaker."

"The Toyota EDRs are so unreliable that even Toyota has challenged their reliability in court," said Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety. "Given the demonstrated errors, NHTSA can't rely upon them in its investigation."

 

[Spyder7]

"Its policy is reportedly to download data only at the direction of law enforcement, NHTSA, or a court order."

I don't see a problem with that. To allow the data to be viewed otherwise would seem to conflict with property rights and right to privacy.

-Spyder

 

[LS2JSTS]

"Though the Eves are not suing Toyota, attorney Michael Kelly and Forensic Engineer Bill Rosenbluth agreed to monitor the process to ensure its accuracy. From the beginning, the two found problems.

They tell me that, without warning, Toyota used brand new software and then refused to test its accuracy on Rosenbluth's sample EDR. But the real disappointment is the data provided by Toyota. Rosenbluth says "some" of the raw data on the EDR were never downloaded, and the rest simply doesn't make sense."

"In spite of repeated requests, Toyota won't answer any of the Problem Solvers' questions about this download.

The Eves are asking Toyota for all of the data on their son's EDR, and for the codes to allow their own engineer to decipher the information so they can learn once and for all what happened.

So far, Toyota is refusing, saying the data are as complete and as accurate as their readout tool allows."