Toyota Recall: Scandal, Media Circus, and Stupid Drivers - Editorial
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Cant find the Corolla I need - what else will work?
Next: Toyota's Lentz to say electronics not to blame for acceleration problems
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Feb 2010 13:07 Better do a bit more research it that is what you believe. The fact is only around eight percent of ALL the millions new vehicles sold every year will ever be in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS in their lifetime. "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9D286DB3E918tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in > news:hm0l31$9n2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > Statistics can be sorted an infinite number of ways, so his math could > make > sense depending on his methods. > > As a contrast, the book "True Odds" (Merritt, 1996), by James Walsh, has > the odds as about 1 in 4,000 if you drive 10,000 miles for one year. A > lifetime of 10K annual mileages increase your odds of being involved in a > fatal collision to about 1 in 60. > > There are some 40,000 US road deaths annually. These are overwhelmingly > due > to human error. > > In my province alone (with its horrid winters), the incidence of the > presence of mechanical malfunction in investigated crash vehicles is > officially 1.2%. And that only means that, upon after-the-fact > investigation, the defect was found to be present, not that the defect > caused the crash. Most of the same collisions where a defect was found > also > had their causes listed as "driver error". The actual number of crashes > that were specifically caused by a mechanical defect is likely a tiny > fraction of 1%. > > > > > -- > Tegger >
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 13:13 "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:NuWdnXSN5JuqZh7WnZ2dnUVZ_gz_fwAA(a)speakeasy.net... > ....how much would it cost me to have you do a hatchet job on frod > or gm? I assume that is your job. I couldn't possibley compete with the pack of lies you post. I still waiting for an explanation of how posting links to a bunch of trail lawyer sponored attack web sites that spread misinformation about domestic manufactuers makes Toyota look good. If you think Toyota doesn't have a problem, defend Toyota. Posting trumped up nonsense about Ford problems from a decade ago implies that you think Toyota is no better than Ford. Is that what you think? And did you even read the editiorial in this chain? It seemed pretty reasonable to me. I am tired you you trying to dismiss me as a shill. Here what I think about you - I sort of look at you as the Toyota equivalent of Mike Hunter. You don't know have enough interest in actual facts to be an engineer. No one who works directly for the Toyota corporation would post anything related to this problem on usenet, so you can't work directly for Toyota. Most good mechaics are too busy earning a living to waste time on usenet, so you can't be a Toyota mechanic (or at least not a good one). Your posts are too incoherent and hate filled to have been written by a paid shill, so I assume you are doing this for your own reasons and not as an agent for Toyota. So this leaves three possibilities - 1) you have an axe to grind with domestic manufacturers (particualrly Ford), so you are using your "defense" of Toyota as a smoke screen for attacking the domestic manufacturers, 2) you are a demented Toyota owner who feels the need to "protect" his brand no matter what the true facts are, or 3) you are a Toyota salesman. Which is it? I suppose it could be all three.... Ed
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Feb 2010 13:52 YA THINK? "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:hm15sb$7ic$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ss me as a shill. Here what I think > > I sort of look at you as the Toyota equivalent of Mike Hunter. You don't > know have enough interest in actual facts to be an engineer. No one who > works directly for the Toyota corporation would post anything related to > this problem on usenet, so you can't work directly for Toyota. Most good > mechaics are too busy earning a living to waste time on usenet, so you > can't be a Toyota mechanic (or at least not a good one). Your posts are > too incoherent and hate filled to have been written by a paid shill, so I > assume you are doing this for your own reasons and not as an agent for > Toyota. So this leaves three possibilities - 1) you have an axe to grind > with domestic manufacturers (particualrly Ford), so you are using your > "defense" of Toyota as a smoke screen for attacking the domestic > manufacturers, 2) you are a demented Toyota owner who feels the need to > "protect" his brand no matter what the true facts are, or 3) you are a > Toyota salesman. Which is it? I suppose it could be all three.... > > > Ed >
From: jim beam on 23 Feb 2010 23:22 On 02/23/2010 10:13 AM, C. E. White wrote: > "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:NuWdnXSN5JuqZh7WnZ2dnUVZ_gz_fwAA(a)speakeasy.net... > >> ....how much would it cost me to have you do a hatchet job on frod >> or gm? > > I assume that is your job. I couldn't possibley compete with the pack > of lies you post. so you really are a sociopath - you have no shame making allegations you know to be untrue. > > I still waiting for an explanation of how posting links to a bunch of > trail lawyer sponored attack web sites that spread misinformation > about domestic manufactuers makes Toyota look good. who said they make toyota look good? i didn't, so you can quit that red herring [see above]. i /did/ ask why you're operating the double standard of trying to paint toyota bad when frod are significantly worse. you still haven't answered that. > > If you think Toyota doesn't have a problem, defend Toyota. Posting > trumped up nonsense about Ford problems from a decade ago implies that > you think Toyota is no better than Ford. Is that what you think? no, i think frod are the very bottom of the ethics heap. and i think that, not because they sold defective vehicles, but because they sold defective vehicles they /knew/ to be defective before production, and decided to do so because the profit outweighed bereaved payouts. and not only that, but they also whitewashed the congress and public with a bunch of knowingly false bullshit about tires when the tires have nothing to do with it. > > And did you even read the editiorial in this chain? It seemed pretty > reasonable to me. "reasonable"??? translation: it supports the story you're shilling. sorry to break it to you big guy, but that's no definition of "reasonable". > > I am tired you you trying to dismiss me as a shill. Here what I think > about you - poor baby. > > I sort of look at you as the Toyota equivalent of Mike Hunter. You > don't know have enough interest in actual facts to be an engineer. then you'd be wrong. but you're here to bullshit and deceive, so no surprise. > No > one who works directly for the Toyota corporation would post anything > related to this problem on usenet, so you can't work directly for > Toyota. that is true, but it doesn't support your position, you're just trying to set up for the passive-aggressive switch. > Most good mechaics are too busy earning a living to waste time > on usenet, so you can't be a Toyota mechanic (or at least not a good > one). there's one. > Your posts are too incoherent and hate filled to have been > written by a paid shill, so I assume you are doing this for your own > reasons and not as an agent for Toyota. oooh, "hate", "incoherent", and vague hand waving about "own reasons". that's really substantive ed. that would stand in a court of law. > So this leaves three > possibilities - 1) you have an axe to grind with domestic > manufacturers (particualrly Ford), so you are using your "defense" of > Toyota as a smoke screen for attacking the domestic manufacturers, except that i've stated the opposite, explicitly, and for your benefit several times. see above. > 2) > you are a demented Toyota owner who feels the need to "protect" his > brand no matter what the true facts are, wrong, i'm a honda guy,. > or 3) you are a Toyota > salesman. nope, wrong again. disappointing isn't it. > Which is it? I suppose it could be all three.... > > > Ed so how much do you charge ed? seriously. you post in office hours, so either you're being paid to do it or you're doing it on your employer's time - another ethical issue. my money's on the former since none of what you write is either factual or original. and you steadfastly avoid the elephant in the room: why you can post bullshit about toyota while ignoring the much more substantial and ethical challenge of why frod can deliberately [and profitably] kill hundreds without your slightest censure. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Clive on 24 Feb 2010 11:31
In message <b_udneb-1N3iNBnWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> writes >false bullshit about tires when the tires have nothing to do with it. I don't know about America, but we had a problem with Explorers rolling and killing the occupants.In some cases, it was shown that the tyres of some of the cars had "delaminated" and each tyre was supposed to have a batch No. which could pin it down to which plant, which shift and therefore the operator, but all of the delaminated tyres had no such markings. I think the conclusion was that the tyres were possibly imitation, but I'm not sure, you'd have to go back over the records to find out. -- Clive |