Prev: Highway Patrol officer helped slow a runaway Toyota Prius from 94 mph to a safe stop
Next: Highway Patrol officer helped slow a runaway Toyota Prius from94 mph to a safe stop
From: Mike Hunter on 9 Mar 2010 14:20 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$2(a)news.albasani.net... > On 2010-03-09 08:35:32 -0800, Michael <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Mar 9, 8:35 am, Michael <mrdarr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 9, 7:51 am, Conscience <nobama@g v.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-03-09 07:36:51 -0800, TheTibetanMonkey >>>> <comandante.ban...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> >>>>> Another of these little MOWING MACHINES runs out of control. My take >>>>> on the issue is that Toyota sends the engineers with the highest IQ t >> o >>>>> work at Lexus, while those with very low IQ are assigned to Toyota. >>> >>>> It's looking like an even lower IQ is required to purchase a Prius. >>> >>>> It "jumps" to 94 mph before this idiot figures out how to stop it, >>>> instead wasting his time on the phone. >>> >>>> Jumps, indeed. Incredible. >>> >>> From the article: >>> >>> "After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the >>> engine and coasted to a halt." >>> >>> Any reason he couldn't turn the engine off below 50 mph? >> >> correction... any reason he couldn't turn the engine off ABOVE 50 mph? > > Same answer. Before he crested that speed, he was too busy dialing 911, > or thinking about logical steps to take. >
From: Mike Hunter on 9 Mar 2010 14:23 You mean like Toyota? "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message news:hn5tti$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 10 Mar 2010 18:16 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 10 Mar 2010 19:02 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 12 Mar 2010 09:26
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? |