From: C. E. White on
http://www.carloversmagazine.com/index.php/2010/02/04/toyota-recall-scandal-media-circus-and-stupid-drivers-%E2%80%93-editorial/

"We're no Toyota apologists, but if you look past the media circus,
the numbers don't reveal a meaningful problem. Every man, woman, and
child in the U.S. has approximately a one-in-8000 chance of perishing
in a car accident every year. Over a decade, that's about one in 800.
Given the millions of cars included in the Toyota recalls and the
fewer than 20 alleged deaths over the past decade, the alleged
fatality rate is about one death per 200,000 recalled Toyotas. Even if
all the alleged deaths really are resultant from vehicle
defects-highly unlikely-and even if all the worst things people are
speculating about Toyotas are true, and you're driving one, and you
aren't smart or calm enough to shift to neutral if the thing surges,
you're still approximately 250 times likelier to die in one of these
cars for reasons having nothing to do with unintended acceleration. So
if you can muster the courage to get into a car and drive, the
additional alleged risk of driving a Toyota is virtually negligible."

I don't think his math works (a 1 in 8000 chance per year does not
necessarily equate to a 1 in 800 chance in a decade). I am not sure
about the other math either. Assuming that every death in a Toyota as
a result of a UA incident is reported as such is a stretch. Of course
it is also true they might be over reported. But if the driver died,
how would we know it was a UA incident? Seems to me that deaths in a
Toyota becasue of UA events are more likely to be underreported than
over reported.

Ed


From: Tegger on
"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in
news:hm0l31$9n2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:

> http://www.carloversmagazine.com/index.php/2010/02/04/toyota-recall-sca
> ndal-media-circus-and-stupid-drivers-%E2%80%93-editorial/
>
> "We're no Toyota apologists, but if you look past the media circus,
> the numbers don't reveal a meaningful problem. Every man, woman, and
> child in the U.S. has approximately a one-in-8000 chance of perishing
> in a car accident every year. Over a decade, that's about one in 800.
> Given the millions of cars included in the Toyota recalls and the
> fewer than 20 alleged deaths over the past decade, the alleged
> fatality rate is about one death per 200,000 recalled Toyotas. Even if
> all the alleged deaths really are resultant from vehicle
> defects-highly unlikely-and even if all the worst things people are
> speculating about Toyotas are true, and you're driving one, and you
> aren't smart or calm enough to shift to neutral if the thing surges,
> you're still approximately 250 times likelier to die in one of these
> cars for reasons having nothing to do with unintended acceleration. So
> if you can muster the courage to get into a car and drive, the
> additional alleged risk of driving a Toyota is virtually negligible."
>
> I don't think his math works (a 1 in 8000 chance per year does not
> necessarily equate to a 1 in 800 chance in a decade). I am not sure
> about the other math either. Assuming that every death in a Toyota as
> a result of a UA incident is reported as such is a stretch. Of course
> it is also true they might be over reported. But if the driver died,
> how would we know it was a UA incident? Seems to me that deaths in a
> Toyota becasue of UA events are more likely to be underreported than
> over reported.
>


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: Tegger on
Hachiroku <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in
news:hm0ogc$6dc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:16:41 -0500, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> I don't think his math works (a 1 in 8000 chance per year does not
>> necessarily equate to a 1 in 800 chance in a decade). I am not sure
>> about the other math either. Assuming that every death in a Toyota as
>> a result of a UA incident is reported as such is a stretch. Of course
>> it is also true they might be over reported. But if the driver died,
>> how would we know it was a UA incident?
>
> Something that no one seems to be doing: get the data from the ECU.
> The ECU will store the conditions the car was operating under prior to
> the accident and can be retrieved, showing speed, throttle position,
> attempts at braking, etc.
>
> So far the people claiming accidents caused by UA have not mentioned
> the ECU. I'm willing to bet once the data is pulled from the units the
> amount of claims will drop substantially.
>
>



The deaths in question go back to the year 2000. Not all the cars involved
had PCMs that had data-recorder capabilities.

And a good chunk of the older cars had mechanical throttles, not electronic
ones. I think electronic throttles started coming in about 2002.

--
Tegger

From: jim beam on
On 02/23/2010 05:16 AM, C. E. White wrote:
<snip propaganda>

back in the office this morning ed?

http://www.mombu.com/ford/brakes/t-stuck-throttlecruise-control-2296499.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/showthread.php?s=151d7fc4f05641159df14c090069e35e&p=8540776
http://www.fordf150.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=73480
http://www.pr.com/press-release/46864
http://www.safetyforum.com/fordsua/
[etc.]

how much do you get paid to post propaganda while suspending your
ethical interest in stuff like this? how much would it cost me to have
you do a hatchet job on frod or gm?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 02/23/2010 07:47 AM, Tegger wrote:
> "C. E. White"<cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:hm0l31$9n2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> http://www.carloversmagazine.com/index.php/2010/02/04/toyota-recall-sca
>> ndal-media-circus-and-stupid-drivers-%E2%80%93-editorial/
>>
>> "We're no Toyota apologists, but if you look past the media circus,
>> the numbers don't reveal a meaningful problem. Every man, woman, and
>> child in the U.S. has approximately a one-in-8000 chance of perishing
>> in a car accident every year. Over a decade, that's about one in 800.
>> Given the millions of cars included in the Toyota recalls and the
>> fewer than 20 alleged deaths over the past decade, the alleged
>> fatality rate is about one death per 200,000 recalled Toyotas. Even if
>> all the alleged deaths really are resultant from vehicle
>> defects-highly unlikely-and even if all the worst things people are
>> speculating about Toyotas are true, and you're driving one, and you
>> aren't smart or calm enough to shift to neutral if the thing surges,
>> you're still approximately 250 times likelier to die in one of these
>> cars for reasons having nothing to do with unintended acceleration. So
>> if you can muster the courage to get into a car and drive, the
>> additional alleged risk of driving a Toyota is virtually negligible."
>>
>> I don't think his math works (a 1 in 8000 chance per year does not
>> necessarily equate to a 1 in 800 chance in a decade). I am not sure
>> about the other math either. Assuming that every death in a Toyota as
>> a result of a UA incident is reported as such is a stretch. Of course
>> it is also true they might be over reported. But if the driver died,
>> how would we know it was a UA incident? Seems to me that deaths in a
>> Toyota becasue of UA events are more likely to be underreported than
>> over reported.
>>
>
>
> 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%.

c'mon dude - ed's not interested in facts otherwise he'd answer to his
double standards and hypocrisy.

reality is, he works office hours on this stuff and is simply paid to
present propaganda - facts are irrelevant.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum