What's the consensus: If Toyota-prius guy is lying, should he get away with it

[apples and oranges]

for the simple fact that Toyota is an abusive automaker that has destroyed the Big 3 and several people have died from their faulty software? From the threads I've noticed a split with some people saying the guy is lying and other people getting mad at those people for seeming pro-Toyota... If that makes sense. My take is that he probably did lie, but I don't feel any outrage towards him and I think it's unfortunate that Toyota now has the upper hand on this situation. I guess you could say I'm torn.

[Common Sense Party]

1. Can you list for me all of the "several people" who have definitely died

due to Toyota's "faulty software"? Proven, verifiable cases?

[apples and oranges]

3. Did you hear about the runaway Lexus? I think that's what started this whole thing

[Common Sense Party]

8. Nope, but what I "heard about" is irrelevant. Anecdotes and media hysteria

don't mean much. I want actual, verifiable proof of the number of people that have definitively died "due to Toyota's faulty software."

I'd like to see how widespread the actual epidemic is.

[Mopar151]

41. 56 so far

One sensor fault (which is what the stuck gas pedal is) should not send the system into runaway. and HARD brake application should cut off fuel, ignition, or both. Toyota would not be able to put these cars into theit own plants here, because OSHA requires an "emergency stop"(E-stop) function, and the 3-second delay in the button (keyless ignition cars) fails.

[Common Sense Party]

54. "56 so far" I'm sorry...56 what?

Verified, proven, undisputed cases of malfunctioning software? 56 confirmed deaths? 56 what? Who are they? What are the names and ages of the drivers?

[Romulox]

67. Is your argument that these people aren't dead? Or that they weren't driving Toyotas?

Because both arguments are ridiculous. All you can argue is that we can't confirm the cause of these accidents. They happened.

And, perhaps more importantly, Toyota has admitted to a sudden acceleration problem with its cars. It's hard for you to argue away Mr. Toyoda's testimony to Congress.

[Common Sense Party]

126. So far, if you've read what I have written, I have no argument.

I'm simply asking for clarification and information.

Someone posts "56" as if a number means anything.

Now I see that it's 56 deaths. 56 deaths caused by what? By malfunctioning Toyota equipment? Has that been proven? Or did some of them die due to driver error, road conditions or something else, but it's more convenient and remunerative to say that "Toyota killed them"?

If people are going to throw around figures like "56 deaths" then we should at least know if ALL those deaths are definitively caused by a car malfunction.

[Romulox]

141. Forgive me for smelling the whiff of advocacy in your "objective" questions

just as you've smelled the same whiff in my perfectly "objective" answer.

"If people are going to throw around figures like "56 deaths" then we should at least know if ALL those deaths are definitively caused by a car malfunction."

Here's a thought that I haven't shared up until now for fear of exploding heads (not yours in particular, of course):

The logical cause and the legal cause of these accidents are necessarily the same thing. Nor does a plaintiff need to show that a defect "definitely" cause malfunction--he just has to show that it is more likely than not that it did. A much lower threshold. Just another bite to chew on! :)

[Common Sense Party]

147. So, no probable cause? No presumption of innocence?

The burden of proof is now on the defendant?

Interesting.

[Romulox]

153. Neither of those concepts has application in the *CIVIL* law.

The burden in a civil court (which is where a tort lawsuit is filed) is a "preponderance of the evidence"--more simply put, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that his version of events is more likely than not.

"Innocence" isn't a factor in civil lawsuits.

[Common Sense Party]

158. Still, the "preponderance of evidence" should be dealing with

CONFIRMED cases where Toyota was negligent.

Last month Reuters reported "NHTSA says it has confirmed that five people -- in two separate accidents -- died in Toyota vehicles because the accelerator was trapped by a floormat. The U.S. regulatory agency said it has not confirmed any injuries or deaths because of the sticky accelerator issue."

I'm still highly doubtful that the NHTSA has "confirmed" that these 56 deaths were definitely caused by some malfunction. 56 deaths in one month?

[Romulox]

159. No, it doesn't work that way. A jury decides legal culpability in these cases, not the NHTSA.

Which is why I mentioned that the logical cause and the legal cause need not be the same thing.

"I'm still highly doubtful that the NHTSA has "confirmed" that these 56 deaths were definitely caused by some malfunction. 56 deaths in one month?"

You've got some of your facts jumbled. :shrug:

[Common Sense Party]

161. I'm still asking for facts. No one seems to have them.

What caused these 56 deaths?

And in civil cases, isn't it more likely that a judge will decide, rather than a jury?

[Romulox]

162. We just don't have all the answers at the moment.

"And in civil cases, isn't it more likely that a judge will decide, rather than a jury?"

It varies from state to state (and situation to situation), but tort cases are usually heard by juries.

[Common Sense Party]

167. Precisely - we DON'T have all the facts at the moment, which is why

it's irresponsible for the OP and others to be stating "several people have died from their faulty software."

That has not been shown to be true. It may at some point, after much research and many trials. But why so many are eager to jump on the "Toyota kills people" bandwagon is perplexing.

[Romulox]

171. "Irresponsible" in what way, precisely? I'd say the responsible thing to do would be to err

on the side of caution, and on the side of the consumer over the multinational corp, until facts show me otherwise.

That's because that's my bias. Bet let's not pretend that Toyota defender's aren't also acting on their biases. And, unfortunately, those biases seem to have to do with reflexive defense of multinational corporations. :shrug:

[Common Sense Party]

174. Or reflexive distrust of media corporations.

That's my bias.

Caution is one thing. Unhinged, disproportionate panic is quite another.

On edit--You HONESTLY don't think it's irresponsible to claim that 56 deaths were caused by something, when it has not been proven that even ONE death has been caused by that something?

Wow.

[Romulox]

175. You don't know the first thing about civil vs. criminal law, and you're "wowing" *my* analysis?

And after I patiently spent all that time explaining that "innocence" has nothing to do with the civil law, for example, you have the gall to hold yourself as having any specific knowledge of the legal process?

:silly:

[Common Sense Party]

176. Nice subject change there. Care to address my points, or no?

And all of your spouting about the "emotional investment" that people have in this issue regarding their Toyotas...

You wouldn't happen to have a wee bit of "emotional investment" or "bias" in this issue due to the fact that you live in the Detroit area, would you?

[Romulox]

177. No. I don't care to address the legal analysis of someone to whom I've just explain "preponderance"

and the jury system. :silly:

I was gracious and patient with you. But at some point, it's enough.

[Common Sense Party]

178. Gracious? Condescending, you mean...especially since we were not discussing

this in terms of legal proceedings, but public perception and discourse.

That's fine. You have your agenda, and you are not interested in honest discourse. Good day.

[Romulox]

179. Your feelings notwithstanding, some things are simply not subject to opinion.

:shrug:

[CLANG]

165. What 56 deaths? Where do you get that number from?

[Common Sense Party]

168. Read the subthread. Someone above claimed this number.

[Mopar151]

105. Deaths n/t

[Pathwalker]

121. Here's a few links to some of the DEATHS:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100315/BUSINESS01/3150350/2047/Deaths+in+Toyotas+leave+questions

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/85952282.html

These are people who DIED while driving the Toyotas under investigation. The first link tells some of their stories, the second link shows an earlier report by the government stating 52 deaths.

[Common Sense Party]

160. The report does not "state" 52 deaths.

It says that there were "complaints" involving the 52 deaths where someone was blaming the accelerator.

The government has NOT confirmed 52 deaths due to Toyota malfunctions.

Reuters reported last month: "NHTSA says it has confirmed that five people -- in two separate accidents -- died in Toyota vehicles because the accelerator was trapped by a floormat. The U.S. regulatory agency said it has not confirmed ANY injuries or deaths because of the sticky accelerator issue."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61104S20100202

The media hysteria about this is astonishing.

[Pathwalker]

163. The media is just doing what they always do:

1: beat a horse until it is dead.
2: continue beating until all resemblance to it's previous existence is gone.

This story is not going to go away any time soon, as there is yet no sign of a definitive answer to what's causing these problems. The lawsuits will add years of waiting for a final resolution. Meanwhile, the media will continue to club away.

[Common Sense Party]

169. You've got that right.

And so many "thinking people" are willing to buy into the media hysteria. It's sad.

[olegramps]

191. Welcome to DU Mr. Toyoda.

[olegramps]

192. Welcome to DU Mr. Toyoda.

[greyl]

2. No, he shouldn't, and I'd hope the CHP would press charges for a false report,

reckless endangerment, etc.
Frauds and hoaxers make things more difficult for honest people who may have real problems.

[Birthmark]

4. Why shouldn't he get away with it?

Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. lied us into a war. Republicans on TV lie their asses off every day. These are huge lies that cost lives and immense amount of money. None of them are held in the slightest accountable for their demonstrable lies. So why go hardass on this silly sap...assuming he IS lying?

[greyl]

7. Same reason THEY shouldn't get away with it.

Holy crap.

[Birthmark]

12. So...

...we enforce the rules on the little guys, but let the big guys get away with what can reasonably argued is murder? I'll pass. Believe me, about now if you are accused of a crime, you really, really want me on the jury.

[MrModerate]

9. Riiiiight. Bush got away scot-free with lying so now lying is OK?

I'd prefer that one of the main pillars of social stability not be discarded willy-nilly, if it's all the same to you.

[Birthmark]

14. Good. Be a pillar...or "sap" as it's known...

...among the untouchables. Take it out on the little guy and let the big guys torture, start wars for no reason, lie under oath, pillage the economy, etc. You can live with the satisfaction that a nobody who lied about a car got his! Seems pointless, but hey, we're all entitled to our opinion.

[blondeatlast]

164. And you are going to do what about it, again? Apples still don't equal buildings..

And your analogy is ridiculously moot.

[Birthmark]

184. You should probably look up "moot" before you use it again.

Just tryin' to help.

[MrModerate]

193. Lots of words in your response. I weep for the wasted electrons. n/t

[apples and oranges]

10. I understand that POV but where does it end?

Which crimes should be OK in light of GWB's crimes?

[Birthmark]

11. It ends at the top.

If there's no rules for the government, there's no rules for the people. Right now, there appear to be no rules at all (in addition to W, see: Wall Street). So why should some nobody be held accountable for doing something that caused little harm and no lives? It simply doesn't make sense.

[apples and oranges]

15. I'm intrigued...

[Psephos]

18. That's called anarchy, and it doesn't have a history of ending well for the little guy...ever.

Which moots your thought experiment.

[Birthmark]

23. And the current situation is oligarchy

At least with anarchy I'm fighting people my own size for the most part. IOW, I stand a fair chance. I'm probably pretty easily dispensed with by an oligarchy.

But one need not go to extremes, and shouldn't, imo. For instance, I wouldn't let a violent person who I felt was guilty go free. If I did, then I would be partially responsible for any future violent acts that that person perpetrated.

However, if I let non-violent criminals go free then I am dispensing justice...on society. I am telling them, "when you do your job, I'll assist you."

So I guess my point is un-mooted.

[Psephos]

180. I agree about oligarchy, but don't see anarchy as a viable alternative.

"For instance, I wouldn't let a violent person who I felt was guilty go free."

Vigilantism is a nightmare. Each person interprets "who I felt was guilty" as a license to do whatever they want to others. When emotions replace reason and impartial evaluation of evidence, then the brutal forces of human nature take over.

The rule of law is imperfect but it is better than the law of the jungle.

[NoPasaran]

119. I say the Prius guy gets to invade the country of his choice

But then we call it even and go back to enforcing the laws.

[paulsby]

24. do people REALLY think this way?

if so, that is sad.

[Birthmark]

138. Well, at least it qualifies as thought.

I don't do disconnected feelings.

And who you calling "people?" :)

[timtom]

35. Now, THERE'S a model to emulate...

[Ozymanithrax]

5. If there is evidence that he committed fraud he should be charged...

and tried by a jury of his peers. And, if convicted, be given the maximum sentence under law.

[paulsby]

25. just for the record

very few people get the MAXIMUM sentence under the law.

that sounds a bit harsh to me, and i put people in jail for a livin' (among other things)

[PBS Poll-435]

6. Wow. I think Detroit should have a year-long festival

Celebrating Toyota. And, in spirit of shenanigans, a parade!

[depakid]

13. Toyota destroyed the big 3?

Reality check- The big 3 did that well enough on their own, and their behavior with these sorts of matters over the years hasn't exactly been exemplary, either.

And if they could get away with it down the line- won't be again.

[Liberty Belle]

19. True, remember those Ford Exploders...er Explorers?

Top-heavy, rollovers, plus tires that blew apart.

[depakid]

21. Apparently, there's a report on a sudden accelleration issue on an Explorer in Oz

that a DUer found and posted on another thread, though it's hard to know what to make of it.

Bottom line: we need more accountability from all of the corporations and from the people in US administrative agencies whose duty it is to oversee them.

[divideandconquer]

42. Toyota SUV's rolled over even easier than Explorers

Toyota Accused of Hiding Evidence
Former Lawyer at Automaker Charges Evidence in Rollover Cases Was Concealed, Destroyed

(CBS) By CBS News Investigative Unit Contributor Myron Levin

A former attorney for Toyota has accused the automaker of illegally withholding evidence in hundreds of rollover death and injury cases, in a "ruthless conspiracy" to keep evidence "of its vehicles' structural shortcomings from becoming known."

The explosive allegations are contained in a federal racketeering suit filed in Los Angeles by Dimitrios P. Biller, former managing counsel for Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., who claims his complaints about the company's legal misconduct cost him his job.

Toyota, which is second to General Motors in car and truck sales in the U.S., called Biller's charges "inaccurate and misleading," in a statement issued late Friday to CBS News. "Toyota takes its legal obligations seriously and works to uphold the highest professional and ethical standards," the company said.

Company lawyers have not filed an answer to Biller's lawsuit, but have brought a motion to seal the complaint, claiming it is "rife with privileged and confidential information" that Biller, as a former Toyota lawyer, has no right to divulge.
-------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/29/cbsnews_investigates/main5273636.shtml

[PBS Poll-435]

52. Mr. Biller is crazy. Certifiably. (And wanted a payout...) nt

:eyes:

[divideandconquer]

61. That's why Toyota retained Biller for all those years, cause he's crazy

Toyota zapped twice in lawsuit by former in-house attorney alleging evidence destruction affecting 300 rollover accident cases

Toyota hit a couple of road bumps this week in the case involving the lawyer who represented it in rollover accident cases. That former in-house lawyer, Dimitrios Biller, alleges that the automaker destroyed evidence that had direct bearing on 300 rollover accidents, many involving old Toyota 4Runners, and failed to turn over required documents to opposing attorneys.

The lawsuit - and the two new developments - are potentially a big deal. Not only has the lawsuit prompted the reopening of rollover lawsuits around the country that Toyota thought it had already settled, but it potentially could grow into a black eye for the automaker's integrity reputation. Toyota calls Biller's allegations "inaccurate and misleading." This week didn't go well for Toyota:
---------------------------
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/09/68499394/1

[PBS Poll-435]

Thanks for the 7 month old "article"

:rofl:


Biller is a fraud and an extortionist. (And a little nuts)

[divideandconquer]

91. Toyota thought Biller was good enough to be their lawyer

[Romulox]

92. Now you know the merits of this other guy's case, too? Like I said--emotional investment

Taking all comers in defense of his favorite corp!

[Mopar151]

43. Just like a Toyota 4-runner! n/t

[divideandconquer]

64. Check out this picture of a 4Runner

http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e20120a5d8acbe970c-popup

This picture also begs the question about consumer reports "testing"

[PBS Poll-435]

71. You are aware that NHTSA does rollover testing on nearly all vehicles sold in the US

Right?

Obviously a vehicle with a higher center of gravity like a light truck, minivan or SUV is going to have a higher propensity to rollover.

This is like the Bermuda Triangle of Stupid.

[Romulox]

84. Did CR give THIS Toyota its "automatic recommendation"?

2000 Toyota Tundra

[NoGOPZone]

87. Automatic Recommend? Now I remember, you're the one

who didn't know CR did road tests. :rofl:

[Romulox]

89. Correction--didn't CARE that CR did road tests. So...did CR automatically recommend this Toyota?

I bet they did. :hi:

[NoGOPZone]

94. Got it. Your willful ignorance allows you to change their definition

of a 'recommended' model, and then to demand answers that correspond to the new definition.

[Romulox]

95. Get off the hobby horse. Nobody cares about CR's road tests.

We're talking about CR's "automatic recommendations" as to reliability. You're trying to win an argument based on semantics from last week. I say a third (perhaps fourth?) time--emotional investment.

[NoGOPZone]

97. Emotional Investment? From someone whose calm, reasoned response

to being corrected was "I don't care" and the unsupported insistence that no one else does either? :rofl:

[Romulox]

99. What is the appropriate response to inanity? How about more pix of rusty Toyota chassis?

Automatically Recommended (for "reliability)?



Automatically Recommended (for "reliability)?




Automatically Recommended (for "reliability)?

[NoGOPZone]

102. The actual question is

what qualifies as 'inanity', but I wouldn't ask it of someone who admits he doesn't care what the definiton of recommended is.

[Romulox]

103. Mentioning road tests in situations in which nobody cares would be one instance of inanity. nt

[NoGOPZone]

108. Not as inane as the emotional insistence that no one cares about road tests! nt

[Romulox]

110. Oh boy. More word games.

[Mopar151]

113. Where did you find pix of a Tundra in that good a shape?

The one I posted here a while ago had the whole bottom of the frame rail missing.

[Romulox]

116. Is it worth asking if CR did any *road tests* of automatically recommended Toyotas in that shape?

Because I would think structural damage like that would hurt the stability of the vehicle.

[Mopar151]

129. As I posted in another thread

"Would you trust a steakhouse review from a vegatarain?" Toyota's have been notorious rust buckets since the 60's - Bit CR only reports on new cars, and sure as hell aren't out prowling the junkyards and back lots looking for a $500 "beater". There are other ways of subtly affecting the CR rating, too. One of them is to build soulless, underperforming, cheap feeling cars to drive enthusiasts away!

[Romulox]

139. Along the same lines, the ads with the Honda from the '70s backfire.

When's the last time you saw one of those "groovy" 1970s circa Hondas on the road? 1982? :wtf:

[Gaedel]

187. Without regard to the merits of other arguments

How many cars did Honda sell in the US in the 70s?? As I recall (and I could be wrong), Honda trailed Toyota and Nissan by quite a few years in their penetration of the US auto market.

[blue_onyx]

104. So you think it is ok to automatically recommend vehicles?

"Typically, Consumer Reports will recommend a vehicle only if it has at least one year of reliability data. New and redesigned Toyota models had been exempted from that standard because of the company's record. The magazine said today it no longer will recommend any new or redesigned Toyota-built models without reliability data on a specific design."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/Advice/ToyotaIsSlippingConsumerReportsSays.aspx

Recommending a vehicle because it had performed well in the past makes no sense. Past reliability does not guarantee present reliability.

[NoGOPZone]

107. The reliability data is only one criterion

Road test and crash test are the others. Vehicles were never recommended without those other two tests. Is it OK to repeat the phrase 'automatic recommendation' without the acknowledgement that the vehicle still had to do well in the other tests?

[blue_onyx]

114. lol....and that comment reminded me who you are

I don't care what other tests the vehicles had to go through. Exempting any vehicle from any part of the methodology invalidates their research.

[NoGOPZone]

115. That's the second person who has admitted they don't care

Interesting reaction to being corrected.

[blue_onyx]

118. You apparently don't care...

about Consumer Reports exempting vehicles from a completely examination.

BTW, you didn't correct anything. I'm well aware of what Consumer Reports does....which is why I don't bother looking at their magazine when planning to make a purchase.

How much does Consumers Reports pay you?

[NoGOPZone]

124. That's the best you can do? The 'paid poster' red herring?

Am I supposed to reply "How much is Ford paying you at this point"? I'm asking because I don't know, that's not my debating technique.

Here's a suggestion. If you actually think I'm being paid and you didn't simply pull that out of your ass, hit the alert button. I think the mods might like to know. At minimum, I think they'd prefer the alert to asking the poster directly. Those inconvenient rules of civility and all that, you know.

[blue_onyx]

130. Did I say anything abou Ford?

"I'm asking because I don't know, that's not my debating technique."

Yes, your technique is to ignore the information the other person provides and keep repeating the same thing: "they do road tests!!"

I don't understand why people are so blindly loyal to companies, whether it's Consumer Reports or Toyota.

[NoGOPZone]

132. Did I say you said anything about Ford?

Did I say I worked for Consumer Reports? Do you even understand the point I was making? Do I actually have to explain it to you?

It seems there is at least one thing I have to explain to you. I keep repeating that they do road tests because I keep hearing they automatically recommend vehicles, without any explanation of what that means. Now which side is repeating themselves? How many times has the 'automatic recommend' been mentioned?

You don't understand why people are so blind to companies? I don't understand why keeping things straight qualifies as 'blindly loyal'. Now, is this the point where I turn you question around and ask if you are blindly loyal to Ford?. Wait, you didn't say anything Ford. Why are you blindly loyal to GM? You see how easy it is to ask a question without foundation? Now do you get the initial question about Ford.

[blue_onyx]

135. You are here...

defending Consumer Reports as if it's your child. Why are you defensive of Consumer Reports' crappy research techniques? If I had been here defending Ford, then the comment about you questioning my loyalty to Ford would have made sense. You are trying to distract from the fact that you can't bring yourself to admitted that there are flaws in their methodology.

I LOVE DUers who think they are smarter and more informed than those with whom they disagree. So you can direct your "It seems there is at least one thing I have to explain to you" comments elsewhere. I don't need you to explain anything to me.

[NoGOPZone]

149. Another extreme interpretation.

I mention that automatic recommendations only apply to the first model year reliability test and that it’s not the only criteria and suddenly I’m reacting like my child is attacked.
Ever think someone simply detests inexactitude? Or is concerned about certain things being misinterpreted? No, it has to be that they're paid.

No, you haven’t defended Ford, but you’ve attacked CR and their ‘crappy’, was that the word, research methods. So using your logic that someone defending an organization must be involved with them. Should I then conclude that since you attack them you must work for someone they’ve criticized? That has to be the only explanation. So it must be Ford. Or GM. Or Suzuki. Yes, CR has criticized Japanese manufacturers.

You see? I really do have to explain things to you. Now you can explain to me how that alert on a paid poster like me is working out.

[blue_onyx]

152. Thank you for explaining it to me.

Your genius speak for itself. :eyes:

:sarcasm:

[Romulox]

122. It's worth noting that "Automatic Recommendation" is Consumer Report's terminology.

It doesn't originate with their detractors--it's the phrase they themselves use.

[NoGOPZone]

125. It's also worth noting that their detractors use that terminology

with a different definiton than CR does, and then acknowledge that they don't care when it's indicated to them.

[Romulox]

128. File your objection in the "Everything looks bad when you remember it" bin.

"with a different definiton than CR does, and then acknowledge that they don't care when it's indicated to them."

No, it's that your point does not change anyone's analysis of the situation. You'd do well to spend some time refining your arguments before posting further.

[NoGOPZone]

131. More projections of your 'don't care' attitude on to others.

I would think people would want to know exactly what the 'automatic recommendation' means, so they can judge for themselves whether its warranted it or not. Not everyone wants to dismiss things as eagerly as you. As for posting futher, the only you've put up so far was a Futurama image, but don't allow that to stop you from bumping up that post count.

[Romulox]

133. What I "care" about has bearing only in your emotive arguments.

"I would think people would want to know exactly what the 'automatic recommendation' means, so they can judge for themselves whether its warranted it or not."

Sure. Absolutely. But you can't explain away our objections--to whit, the CR gave "automatic recommendations" (CR's terminology, not mine!) to cars for which it had insufficient reliability data with which to form an opinion.

And some of those self-same cars are involved in the present recall fiasco.

So, you're left with the unenviable task of trying to frame the above into a message that is logically coherent, let alone persuasive, when considered alongside your promotion of Toyota and CR.

[NoGOPZone]

136. Correction. I haven't even TRIED to 'explain away' your objection

to CR's exempting certain first year model Toyota cars from reliability tests, because it hasn't gotten to the point in the discussion yet. I've got enough trouble getting you to concede that testing involves more than the reliability survey, and when you do concede it you simply admit you don't care. I will notify you that one other user DID, in another thread, offer an explanation for CR actions.

THe unenviable task I have is dealing with someone like you who interprets corrections about CR methods as promoting the organization. As for Toyota, you want to tell me where I've promoted them? I've hardly even mentioned them, certainly not much regarding this recent event. I await you specific posts I've made indicating my support.

[Romulox]

137. Tedious. nt

[NoGOPZone]

143. You in fact are best when you're brief, but a one word reply

isn't going to deliver those links I asked for where I defend Toyota. Certainly, I've been kinder than Forbes, which labeled the incident something like a 'hoax horror' and the jalopnik (sp?) website
But since those media outlets aren't CR, we won't use what they've published to make statements about bias.

[divideandconquer]

109. CR recommend cars based on reliability of other cars made by the same manufacturer

[NoGOPZone]

112. See above, reliability was only one criteria for recommendation

a

[FSogol]

28. +1. The Big 3 were there own worst enemy. They didn't need help from Toyota. n/t

[divideandconquer]

45. The Japanese Ministry of International trade targeted our middleclass prosperity

Middleclass americans buying Japanese cars is like the Native americans selling land for beads and blankets. We run a huge trade deficit in cars and ultimately that comes out of our standard of living, the so called "jobless recovery" is but one symptom.

[Romulox]

56. This guy chearlead for the bankster bailouts until his pom poms were bloody.

He's now a "free market" expert.

[Romulox]

38. Oh, Thank GAWD it passed, Mr. Efficiency expert.

You're a hard nosed "progressive" (when you're not out doomsaying on behalf of multinational corps)!

[depakid]

183. It's pretty obvious where your shallow and visceral hatred comes from

Transparent- and in your case petty, though we've many things like this from Michiganders re: the big 3's own failures over the years.

[Romulox]

190. Don't worry, you may still have a future as the economist to amnesiacs...

Because anybody who remembers your "thank GAWD it passed!" period cannot take your economic pronouncements seriously.

Especially when you have so assiduously ignored any threads about the aftermath of the bankster bailouts. But you can still hold yourself out as an expert to the stupid/forgetful. :hi:

[PinkFloyd]

16. I give him the benefit of the doubt

They can't prove he's lying, nor can they prove he's not. All they've said is they can't re-create it. Because cars are now so computerized and computer problems can be so random they may never be able to recreate the event. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Liberty Belle]

17. Our latest story on the guy casts a lot of doubt on his claim:

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/2925


Okay....I defended the guy's story at first, but I admit, he is sounding flakey. In debt despite winning a lottery awhile back, and accordng to 10News, he runs a website for swingers.

Not the most credible credentials. Though also not proof that he faked it.

Toyota says they can't confirm sudden acceleration (no surprise there, they generally can't), but Toyota also claims the guy went back and forth between brake and accelerator 250 times! If true, that would make no sense if he really wanted to stop the car, and would seem to suggest some other motive at work.


Feds are still investigating, meanwhile.

[greyl]

20. Cool. :)

I was wondering how you'd handle your next article on it, if you'd do it at all.
Well done.

[Liberty Belle]

26. We had an obligation to update this one, with all the new info coming out.

At first I thought the guy was on the level, but may have been snowed.

San Diego, however, has a history of producing serious landmark cases in consumer/auto litigation. The first major lawsuit won against Ford involved an Explorer rollover here (and we all know how many years Ford pretended there was nothing wrong with their vehicles or tires). Then the CHP guy who got killed when the floormat got stuck under the gas pedal of his Lexus, right here in Santee(East San Diego County). There were naysayers in that case, too, who didn't believe this could happen.

So I'm inclined to take such stories seriously unless there is solid evidence to suggest otherwise, which there clearly is now in the runaway Prius case.

[yodoobo]

22. No he should be criminally charged

Under the assumption that he is lying, he should be criminally charged.

I say that not because I care about Toyota, I don't. Frankly I think that Toyota is Karma challenged at the moment and if they have to pay a few millions bucks, I don't care.

The problem is that if he is found to by lying, he will be held up as the example for ALL victims of Toyota engineering.

Real victims will have a more difficult time getting justice, and in some cases real victims will be denied justice because this example of fraud will be used to discredit anyone who challenges Toyota. (Nevermind all the people on the highway that were endangered by this wreckless driving.)

In effect, real victims will be victimized by Toyota, as well as by scammers attempting to take advantage of the situation.

Once again. this all falls under the assumption that he is guilty of fraud. Clearly if it is proven that this is a legitimate incident, Mr Sikes should receive full and just compensation.

[Skidmore]

27. If he is lying, he is committing fraud, which is a criminal act.

That should be all that is needed to be said.

And as for Toyota destroying the Big 3, that is complete and utter BS. Had the Big 3 been producing quality vehicles which held up over the years and had not been in bed with the oil industry, their market share would not have eroded. The Big 3 tanked themselves. Toyota is simply a competitor, as are many other foreign makes of automobile.

[Statistical]

49. Exactly look at Ford now.

Ford making products people want, margins are going up, stock going up, they are regaining marketshare.

[blondeatlast]

166. Remember Who Killed the Electric Car? It wasn't Toyota... nt

[WVRICK13]

29. If It Was A Planned Scam

then he should be held liable for the costs incurred by the state and is open to liability from Toyota.

[sendero]

30. First..

... I think Toyota has a subtle problem in their control systems ON SOME CARS. The Prius is not one of those cars, and in fact is has a built-in override that shuts down the engine when the gas and brake are pressed simultaneously. That COULD have failed but that is highly unlikely.

So, on balance while the inability of the various players to reproduce the problem mean NOTHING, I highly doubt this was a real incident of unintended accelleration.

That said, I reiterate that I do believe that Toyota has a real problem and blaming it on floor mats and pedal assemblies is getting them not only nowhere but backwards.

I drive a Toyota, but not one affected with this issue.

[marions ghost]

31. balloon boy...

I said from the beginning

It'll be interesting to see what his ulterior motives are...

[Rebubula]

32. Sometimes...

...it feels like this is a Bizarro World site.

WRONG IS WRONG!

Just because someone gets away with one crime or you do not like a participant in situation (Toyota in this case) does not mean that you can look the other way or excuse another crime.

Yes...Toyota may have been slow to accept blame
Yes...Bush is likely guilty of war crimes
Yes...a lot of people commit crimes and get off scot-free.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE ELSE GETS A PASS!

I could not really care less about this one possible attempt to scam money - look at the big picture and see what you are advocating.

[CBGLuthier]

33. if he lied he should be punished. Period.

Situational ethics? The guy may be an opportunistic asshole. I don't applaud opportunistic assholes.

Nothing to be torn about.

[raccoon]

34. If he's lying, I hope he doesn't get a red cent.

People like that make it harder for the people who ARE injured by faulty products.

[Odin2005]

36. Me thinks there are a lot of paid Toyota shills here.

[Mopar151]

48. I don't know how they're payin' em

But they sure are shilling! Toyota has REALLY big problems (with models other than Prius), some of which they have already acknowledged. Maybe this nitwit in his Prius was piling on, or smelled a settlement

[MindPilot]

37. Give him a speeding ticket and let him show sudden acceleration in court

And one for talking on the cell phone too.

[Romulox]

39. People are willing to latch onto ANYTHING to defend their vehicle choice, it would seem. nt

[divideandconquer]

51. Toyotabots think they're smarter because they read "Consumer distorts"

The Toyota myth and the Consumer reports myth are simultaneously under attack. Also it's a national sport for smug yuppies to ridicule UAW workers.

[Romulox]

69. I honestly do believe a lot of this has to do with ego deflation--Toyotas thought of themselves

as "savvy consumers"--now that that image is damaged, you better believe some feelings are hurt. When they start trotting out 1976 Pintos to "prove" (to whom?) that their 2007 Carolas are safe, you know you're dealing with an emotive, not a rational argument. No question in my mind.

[Dappleganger]

40. Have we seen proof that he's lying?

NHTSA and Toyota are hardly reliable, independent resources.

[Fumesucker]

46. NHTSA is a government agency..

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

[Romulox]

50. A url isn't proof that the guy is lying. Neither is the NHTSA report. Try again.

Maybe another thread is required? :hi:

[Fumesucker]

57. Here's what I responded to..

"NHTSA and Toyota are hardly reliable, independent resources."

The NHTSA is a reliable and independent source..

Or as reliable and independent as you are likely to find..

[Romulox]

59. Oh brother. Your remarks will always be read in the context of the OP.

"The NHTSA is a reliable and independent source.."

I thought the analysis in question was performed by Toyota in conjunction with the NHTSA, at any rate.

[Fumesucker]

70. Do you have an organization in mind then that is independent and reliable

That could investigate this?

JD Powers?

[Romulox]

79. Toyota is, by definition, not "independent" when investigating its own cars.

I would hire a private lab, where possible. When arguing that Toyota is unimpeachable, I would not neglect to mention that they spearheaded this investigation, while touting the independence of same. Would not. :hi:

[Fumesucker]

83. So you don't have a specific organization in mind?

I've had some professional dealings with the Underwriters Labs (a private lab) and they are anything *but* "unbiased"..

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/

[Romulox]

86. I repeat, there are numerous private firms who do this sort of work.

"I've had some professional dealings with the Underwriters Labs (a private lab) and they are anything *but* "unbiased".."

I'd still rather have a piece of electronics with the UL mark than not. Harbor Freight :scared:

[Fumesucker]

90. But somone has to pay the private lab..

And that's where the bias comes in..

Harbor Freight. :rofl:

[Romulox]

93. NHTSA. nt

[Fumesucker]

96. But they're biased..

So the private lab will be trying to please them..

[Romulox]

98. Is that your argument? Or one you'd like me to defend?

Because I think you're having a hard time getting together a reasonable objection to my assertion that any study conducted by Toyota and the NHTSA is tainted primarily by Toyota's involvement, not by the NHTSA.

This is just basic common sense, and it behooves a reasonable person to concede reasonable points such as the above.

[Fumesucker]

100. I thought the objection to NHTSA was that they are biased?

But then I'm easily confused.. :crazy:

[Romulox]

101. I think it's too much responsiblity for me to have to defend statements I haven't made

simply because they originate from "my side". For example, a couple of the pro-Toyota posters to this thread are either trolling or are mentally unstable. I won't make you account for everything they've argued here.

[Fumesucker]

117. If NHTSA is not biased then why can't they do the investigation?

Like I said, I'm easily confused. :crazy:

[Romulox]

120. That's not a Rom question. That's a Toyota + NHTSA question.

Why ask me why they conduct themselves in a way that leaves open the door to suspicion? I have no clout with these people! :hi:

[Fumesucker]

123. You apppear not to think the NHTSA is biased..

I was asking your opinion since you said a fourth party private testing lab was necessary.

Did you see the OP about the emergency landing plane on the beach killing a jogger?

[Romulox]

127. I think an "investigation" into Toyota conducted by Toyota + the Pope would be compromised.

Toyota's involvement is the fly in the ointment.

"I was asking your opinion since you said a fourth party private testing lab was necessary."

An independent lab would actually be a third party. Toyota doesn't become both a principal and a third party by putting on white lab coats, at any rate.

[Fumesucker]

140. Nope, fourth party..

Prius driver(s), Toyota, NHTSA, independent lab..

[Romulox]

142. It doesn't work like that. Anybody other than the principals is a "third party"

I hate arguing semantics, at any rate.

[Fumesucker]

144. Who are the "principals" then?

Some people seem to think that NHTSA is a principal..

If they are then an independent lab would be a fourth party..

If they aren't then there is no need for an independent lab.

If the NHTSA is "captured" by one automaker it is captured by all of them, they all play the same game(s).

[Romulox]

145. Toyota and its customer.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of the technical use of these terms. Lay persons can count up all the Toyota recall customers and label them the first party through the eight-millionth party, if it floats their boat.

"If they are then an independent lab would be a fourth party.."

I'm trying to explain to you that "fourth party" is either a colloquialism or a MBA-speak corruption. You don't just count up the number of potential persons potentially affected by something and label them "the xth through xth parties." But whatever. Count 'em up if you want. I'm not interested in arguments about semantics, as I mentioned (though I admit I've just been drawn into one.)

[Dappleganger]

63. Read post #62.

I'd hardly call NHTSA reliable OR independent.

[divideandconquer]

65. We should trust Toyota to investigate it's own 'black boxs"?

With their history of covering up and obstruction that's absurd.

[Romulox]

66. The "little guy" always has a financial motive to lie. Not so with Toyota.

I think that's the argument. :shrug:

[Dappleganger]

73. They're no more reliable than NHTSA

for investigating the information. NHTSA findings are suspect now because of their conflict of interests. Another party needs to investigate.

[Gaedel]

188. Toyota needs to be involved

My experience (testing military equipment) is that when you are investigating a failure mode, you have to have the prime contractor (and any involved subcontractor) present to provide design insight. The caveat is that the designing contractor has to show up with engineers and not with lawyers. If they just show up with lawyers, you exclude them.

[Dappleganger]

62. Jesus, do you really think that someone can be that stupid...

to not know?? NHTSA is hardly independent and has been helping to cover up for Toyota for a very long time. Read up on their conflict of interests...both of Toyota's top lobbyists in DC worked for NHTSA.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atXvi2msqPOM

[Fumesucker]

68. Lobbyists that worked for the agency they now lobby is the way things are done in DC..

I'm sure that no one who ever worked for NHTSB has *ever* lobbied for GM, Ford or Chrysler. :eyes:

[Dappleganger]

74. "The way things are done in DC"

and that's why our government is the way it is...it STINKS!

[Fumesucker]

78. Who has clean hands?

The problem is so old there is a Latin phrase about it.. And it was far from new when Juvenal coined the phrase either..

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. Who will watch the watchers?

Do you have a recommendation as to a neutral organization that can investigate the unintended acceleration problem?

[spanone]

44. 'if' he's lying he should be prosecuted. if not, he should get a national apology.

[Statistical]

47. Why should anyone get away with any crime.

The man wasted CA taxpayer dollars pulling a stunt that could have gotten people killed.

[Romulox]

53. And the prosecution's main evidence will be...the Corvette jacket?

:silly:

[divideandconquer]

55. There's no actual proof he committed fraud

There's a hell of lot more proof Toyota has serious problems with their software.

[Statistical]

58. The premise of the OP was "IF THE GUY IS LYING SHOULD HE GET AWAY WITH IT".

To which I answered why should anyone get away with any crime.

Two wrong don't make a right. I think govt should fine Toyota so heavily and massively that is ends up costing them 100x what a prompt recall would have. Not just for Toyota but for all companies. A message "do the wrong thing and get caught and it will destroy your bottom line for a decade".

[harun]

60. He's not lying.

[PBS Poll-435]

72. All signs point to him lying his ass off.

But believe what you want to believe. I hope he spends a few days in jail for his fraudulent 911 call. Really no different that calling 911 because your Big Mac wasn't made how you wanted it.

[Dappleganger]

76. All signs point to Toyota lying their asses off, too.

And NHTSA enabling them to do so, in MULTIPLE cases. There's a man in prison because of it, multiple dead people and injuries.

Once again, just who is the innocent party here??

[Romulox]

77. I think anybody who claims to "know" probably is motivated by an emotional investment.

Neither you nor I know what happened with that car. The man may well be lying. But to assert, with such certainty, that he is suggests a motivation beyond a mere analysis of what's in the public record.

[PBS Poll-435]

80. Nah. A casual familiarity of how that vehicle operates and the man's flimsy story

Point to bullshit.


Not to mention 250 alternations between the accelerator and the brakes...

[Romulox]

81. An *emotional investment* in how that vehicle operates is probably required to inspire hundreds

of posts on the subject, either pro or con. :hi:

[harun]

82. The sign's from Toyota and the Corporate Media?

Think about the scenario, what motivation would he have to do this stunt? Why would he try to pull off a stunt more likely to kill him than accomplish anything else?

[PBS Poll-435]

85. The man loves attention. And swinging. And his story is far different than other stories of SUA.

He is a fraud.

[Gaedel]

189. Well, maybe

If a very profitable store catches fire, you are pretty sure it wasn't arson on the part of the owner.
If a store in deep financial difficulty catches fire, you immediately start looking for signs of arson and insurance fraud.

[Iggo]

75. What if he's not lying?

Step out of line once in awhile.

[NoGOPZone]

88. A consensus? On DU? About Toyota? nt

[tammywammy]

106. If he's lying then no he shouldn't get away with it

But there's no solid evidence either way if he is or isn't.

[Barack_America]

111. So is this the new "balloon boy"?

Haven't been watching the news much lately.

Are we really that surprised that someone might lie for 15 min. of fame?

[Statistical]

134. or 15 million dollars.

:)

[Romulox]

146. Explain how (if this guy is NOT lying, say,) this guy could collect $15 million. Thanks! nt

[Statistical]

148. Sue Toyota for reckless endangerment, failure to warn, hazardous product?

Still the exact amount is not material.

The 15 million was tongue in cheek.

"15 minutes of fame" "15 million dollars". I wasn't doing a detailed analysis on the exact settlement he could reach with Toyota.

Get it?

[Romulox]

150. Basic elements of tort: Duty, Breach, Cause, ***Injury***

"Still the exact amount is not material."

Indeed not. My point is that you appear to a bit nebulous as to the basis for this man to recover any monies whatever... :shrug:

[Statistical]

154. Injury doesn't require physical injury.

So nobody in the history of the United States has even won a lawsuit without physical injury? :rofl:

You don't think his high stakes lawyers isn't smart enough to argue that he was "emotionally injured". He has suffered emotional distress, PTSD. That he has been financially damaged because he can't drive to work anymore?

Nope. Guess he has a pretty stupid lawyer then.

[Romulox]

155. "Injury" means "legally cognizable injury". It could be a broken Ming vase, e.g. nt

[Statistical]

170. Which means nothing.

Emotional distress has always been recognized by the courts as an injury.
Financial injury due to "inability to work" because of his fear of high speed collision is also provable.

Of course if it is proved he faked this then that multi-million dollar payday goes away for this huckster.

[Romulox]

172. You're really reaching, at this point. nt

[Romulox]

173. And not for nothing, but I don't want a legal lecture from a guy who doesn't know Civ from Crim.

:hi:

[Romulox]

151. "reckless endangerment" is a criminal offense, not a COA in tort, fwiw. nt

[taught_me_patience]

156. GM destroyed itself with crappy products

and lack of foresight into the direction of the market.

[divideandconquer]

181. So you have magic insight into what the price of gas will be next year

Here in metro Atlanta, it's varied from $2.20 to $5.00, no auto manufacturer can operate under an energy policy like that. Toyota was having a crisis due to this before their software disaster.

[LostInAnomie]

157. I'll believe him over the word of a company that was knowingly killing people...

... and trying to cover it up any day.

[Touchdown]

182. Get away with it? It's a fucking CAR!!!!!

It's a company, not your boyfriend!:eyes:

[jakefrep]

185. No he shouldn't get away with it.

But busting this guy shouldn't absolve Toyota of anything, either.

[madokie]

186. TOYota is grasping at straws here

They've apparently seen someone who may, you notice I say 'may', have something to hide and are going to use this to the max. You couldn't run fast enough to give me one of those pieces of shit vehicles in the first place, never could and now for sure, never would. I'd walk first.

TOYota is not long for this world as a car company. If I was a bett'n man I'd bet on that.