Prev: 55 Degrees with a low of 40.
Next: WE HAVE CONSPIRACY! was: {BS} Sarah Palin has her notes in her palm again
From: C. E. White on 25 Apr 2010 19:50 I was listening to the BBC Radio last night. They BBC ran a segment on the recent Toyota problems. During the segment they interviewed Joan Claybrook. For those that don't recognize the name, she was the head of NHTSA during the Carter administration and in recent years she has been a prominent spokesperson for the trial lawyer funded (i.e., auto manufacturer attack agency) Center for Auto Safety. She is a Ralph Nader / Clarence Ditlow disciple. They were asking her about the Center for Auto Safety's claim that the Toyota unintended acceleration concerns were related to a problem with the electronics / firmware / programming. She made a comment that sort of said the fact that Toyota was updating the programming proved that the problem was in the software. I thought this was total BS and illustrated either her lack of knowledge, or was a deliberate attempt to add fire to the public's perception that their is something wrong with the programming.Toyota has said they were working on an update to the software (where possible) to implement a function that would combat pedal confusions (cases where both the brake and accelerator pedal are pressed together). This in no way "proves" that the current software is a cause of some UA incidents. Such a change is a pro-active change to make cars safer. I thought Ms. Claybrook's statement did more than show a lack of understanding, it actually needlessly increased the level of FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) related to Toyotas. As an example, when I asked my SO if you was going to take Her RAV4 in for a software update (if available),she said she would not. Ms. Claybrook's statement also may have the effect of making companies (not just Toyota) reluctant to make improvements to existing products, since some people may use these as "proof" that something was wrong. Ed
From: Mike Hunter on 26 Apr 2010 10:26
That would be interesting, except for the fact other manufacturers already have an override programmed into their microprocessors. "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Eb-dnbwe1cWpSEnWnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >I was listening to the BBC Radio last night. They BBC ran a segment on the >recent Toyota problems. During the segment they interviewed Joan Claybrook. >For those that don't recognize the name, she was the head of NHTSA during >the Carter administration and in recent years she has been a prominent >spokesperson for the trial lawyer funded (i.e., auto manufacturer attack >agency) Center for Auto Safety. She is a Ralph Nader / Clarence Ditlow >disciple. They were asking her about the Center for Auto Safety's claim >that the Toyota unintended acceleration concerns were related to a problem >with the electronics / firmware / programming. She made a comment that sort >of said the fact that Toyota was updating the programming proved that the >problem was in the software. I thought this was total BS and illustrated >either her lack of knowledge, or was a deliberate attempt to add fire to >the public's perception that their is something wrong with the >programming.Toyota has said they were working on an update to the software >(where possible) to implement a function that would combat pedal confusions >(cases where both the brake and accelerator pedal are pressed together). >This in no way "proves" that the current software is a cause of some UA >incidents. Such a change is a pro-active change to make cars safer. I >thought Ms. Claybrook's statement did more than show a lack of >understanding, it actually needlessly increased the level of FUD (fear >uncertainty and doubt) related to Toyotas. As an example, when I asked my >SO if you was going to take Her RAV4 in for a software update (if >available),she said she would not. Ms. Claybrook's statement also may have >the effect of making companies (not just Toyota) reluctant to make >improvements to existing products, since some people may use these as >"proof" that something was wrong. > > Ed |