Toyota Runaway Cause: Electronic Throttle/Cruise Control?
in [Toyota Prius]
|
Prev: ABC News Video: What to do if your car runs out of control
Next: U.S. criticizes Toyota for 'misleading' public in recall
From: Steve on 12 Nov 2009 12:03 Al Falfa wrote: > > "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message > news:6_qdnVUeDo8Xd2fXnZ2dnUVZ_qpi4p2d(a)texas.net... >> >>>> >>>> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running >>>> and the Parking Brake not engaged? >>> The parking brake was engaged. >>> >> >> Not if the car moved, it wasn't. "Engaged" doesn't mean "one click," >> it means ENGAGED enough to hold. Still operator error. >> > What do you know about this? Nothing. > I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle against the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear. Kinda like the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the railroad engineer testifying at a trial. "The locomotive then struck the illegally parked car...." The lawyer said, "AHA, you can't possibly KNOW the car was illegaly parked!" "Of course I can," the engineer said, "because the locomotive hit it."
From: Gary L. Burnore on 12 Nov 2009 12:08 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:03:09 -0600, Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote: >Al Falfa wrote: >> >> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message >> news:6_qdnVUeDo8Xd2fXnZ2dnUVZ_qpi4p2d(a)texas.net... >>> >>>>> >>>>> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running >>>>> and the Parking Brake not engaged? >>>> The parking brake was engaged. >>>> >>> >>> Not if the car moved, it wasn't. "Engaged" doesn't mean "one click," >>> it means ENGAGED enough to hold. Still operator error. >>> >> What do you know about this? Nothing. >> > >I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle against >the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear. In fact, a properly engaged and adjusted brake will hold the engine when a load is applied FROM idle. > >Kinda like the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the railroad engineer >testifying at a trial. "The locomotive then struck the illegally parked >car...." The lawyer said, "AHA, you can't possibly KNOW the car was >illegaly parked!" "Of course I can," the engineer said, "because the >locomotive hit it." :)
From: jim on 12 Nov 2009 12:10 "C. E. White" wrote: > > > > The facts are clear - Pinto were no more likely to catch on fire > > than other vehicles from that era of the same size. Many cars of > > that era had gas tank mounted in the same location in the same > > manner (for instance my 280Z had a similar tank location). Even more > > modern vehicles have gas tanks mounted in this manner. Late 90's > > Jeeps are now being investigated becasue the Ditlow gang is fishing > > for new clients. That's all true, but mis-leading. Lots of cars rupture gas tanks on rear end collisions and some of them catch fire. The thing that made a relatively minor rear end collision bad with the Pinto was that the ruptured gas tank broke through the floor and spilled gas into the passenger compartment. Plus the rear end impact had a tendency to jam the doors so the passengers were trapped inside with the burning fuel. It also didn't help that it came out in court that Ford had discovered all of this in crash tests and had made a cost benefit calculation that predicted that 100's of people would be burned alive and 1000's of cars would burned but the calculated cost of settling those lawsuits that this would produce would be less than the cost of fixing the problem. Of course this turned out to be a huge miscalculation on their part because that bit of information sent the jury awards through the roof and if I recall there even were homicide charges filed. -jim
From: Al Falfa on 12 Nov 2009 18:50 "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message news:HfSdnWcKZKtTomHXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)texas.net... > Al Falfa wrote: >> >> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message >> news:6_qdnVUeDo8Xd2fXnZ2dnUVZ_qpi4p2d(a)texas.net... >>> >>>>> >>>>> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running and >>>>> the Parking Brake not engaged? >>>> The parking brake was engaged. >>>> >>> >>> Not if the car moved, it wasn't. "Engaged" doesn't mean "one click," it >>> means ENGAGED enough to hold. Still operator error. >>> >> What do you know about this? Nothing. >> > > I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle against > the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear. > > Kinda like the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the railroad engineer > testifying at a trial. "The locomotive then struck the illegally parked > car...." The lawyer said, "AHA, you can't possibly KNOW the car was > illegaly parked!" "Of course I can," the engineer said, "because the > locomotive hit it." The engine wasn't running. You know nothing of this accident. Why pretend that you do?
From: hls on 12 Nov 2009 19:59
"Al Falfa" <crop(a)eastforty.fld> wrote in message news:4afc9f67(a)newsgate.x-privat.org... > > > The engine wasn't running. You know nothing of this accident. Why > pretend that you do? How did the car back over the guy if the engine were not running? Please enlighten us. |