From: Mike Hunter on
Are you not concerned WHY was the car out of control, making it necessary to
take logical steps?


"Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message
news:hn5tv8$akd$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> On 2010-03-09 08:35:32 -0800, Michael <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mar 9, 8:35 am, Michael <mrdarr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 7:51 am, Conscience <nobama@g v.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-03-09 07:36:51 -0800, TheTibetanMonkey
>>>> <comandante.ban...(a)yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>>>> Another of these little MOWING MACHINES runs out of control. My take
>>>>> on the issue is that Toyota sends the engineers with the highest IQ t
>> o
>>>>> work at Lexus, while those with very low IQ are assigned to Toyota.
>>>
>>>> It's looking like an even lower IQ is required to purchase a Prius.
>>>
>>>> It "jumps" to 94 mph before this idiot figures out how to stop it,
>>>> instead wasting his time on the phone.
>>>
>>>> Jumps, indeed. Incredible.
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> "After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the
>>> engine and coasted to a halt."
>>>
>>> Any reason he couldn't turn the engine off below 50 mph?
>>
>> correction... any reason he couldn't turn the engine off ABOVE 50 mph?
>
> Same answer. Before he crested that speed, he was too busy dialing 911,
> or thinking about logical steps to take.
>


From: Mike Hunter on
You mean like Toyota?


"Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message
news:hn5tti$akd$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> On 2010-03-09 08:35:01 -0800, Michael <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mar 9, 7:51 am, Conscience <nobama@g v.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-09 07:36:51 -0800, TheTibetanMonkey
>>> <comandante.ban...(a)yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Another of these little MOWING MACHINES runs out of control. My take
>>>> on the issue is that Toyota sends the engineers with the highest IQ to
>>>> work at Lexus, while those with very low IQ are assigned to Toyota.
>>>
>>> It's looking like an even lower IQ is required to purchase a Prius.
>>>
>>> It "jumps" to 94 mph before this idiot figures out how to stop it,
>>> instead wasting his time on the phone.
>>>
>>> Jumps, indeed. Incredible.
>>
>>
>> From the article:
>>
>> "After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the
>> engine and coasted to a halt."
>>
>> Any reason he couldn't turn the engine off below 50 mph?
>
> Sure. He was dialing 911 looking for anyone other than himself to take
> responsibility.
>


From: clare on
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:01:28 -0800 (PST), jr92
<coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> e"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4b96a406$0$2645$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net...
>>
>> > The press always takes notice when people are killed, especially 54 of
>> > them. When water leaks into the trunk, not so much
>>
>> 30,000+ people died in car accidents last year.  Feel free to post a
>> breakdown by car manufacturer if you think Toyota is killing people.
>> Otherwise, your focus on these particular 54 vs. the hundreds/thousands of
>> others that died due to steering problems, airbag failures, poor crash
>> protection, inability to operate the vehicle, blind spots, etc... seems a
>> bit agenda based.
>
>There are a lot of drivers and passengers killed every year in
>automobile accidents. That is very sad. Drunk drivers kill a lot of
>people. Road conidtions are factors in fatal accidents, Excessive
>speed causes wrecks that kill people. Weather is a factor, as well.
>
>However, none of the above reasons I stated can be attributed to
>Toyota's lack of concern of safety.
>
>Any of the above reasons I listed, Toyota could NOT have any control
>over.
>
>
>BUT, the 54 people who died due to Toyota's lack of safety concerns
>can be pinned right on Toyota, the "King of Quality"!
>
>
>These guys have major issues to deal with.
This is assuming there WAS a safety problem involved with all 54
deaths..
Even if it was only 24, it is too many - but even if it WAS 54, likely
at least 50 could have been prevented if drivers knew how to drive .
From: Mike Hunter on
DUH how about not have ones car run away in the first place?



<clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:ru9gp515t9tf2h3g0ao78k3fa59aarqog5(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:01:28 -0800 (PST), jr92
> <coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>> e"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:4b96a406$0$2645$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net...
>>>
>>> > The press always takes notice when people are killed, especially 54 of
>>> > them. When water leaks into the trunk, not so much
>>>
>>> 30,000+ people died in car accidents last year. Feel free to post a
>>> breakdown by car manufacturer if you think Toyota is killing people.
>>> Otherwise, your focus on these particular 54 vs. the hundreds/thousands
>>> of
>>> others that died due to steering problems, airbag failures, poor crash
>>> protection, inability to operate the vehicle, blind spots, etc... seems
>>> a
>>> bit agenda based.
>>
>>There are a lot of drivers and passengers killed every year in
>>automobile accidents. That is very sad. Drunk drivers kill a lot of
>>people. Road conidtions are factors in fatal accidents, Excessive
>>speed causes wrecks that kill people. Weather is a factor, as well.
>>
>>However, none of the above reasons I stated can be attributed to
>>Toyota's lack of concern of safety.
>>
>>Any of the above reasons I listed, Toyota could NOT have any control
>>over.
>>
>>
>>BUT, the 54 people who died due to Toyota's lack of safety concerns
>>can be pinned right on Toyota, the "King of Quality"!
>>
>>
>>These guys have major issues to deal with.
> This is assuming there WAS a safety problem involved with all 54
> deaths..
> Even if it was only 24, it is too many - but even if it WAS 54, likely
> at least 50 could have been prevented if drivers knew how to drive .


From: PeterD on
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:46:28 -0800 (PST), TheTibetanMonkey
showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<nolionnoproblem(a)yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>Few people know that they should shift into neutral if that occurs.
>Most likely they'll jump out the window. ;)

Uh, and the problem with that is?