Last post on Feb 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM
You are in the Toyota Sienna
What is this discussion about?
#230 of 244 I didn't know!
Jan 25, 2011 (11:42 am)
Boy, this news is just great! I just purchased a used 2005 Toyota Sienna thinking I was buying a pretty good vehicle - guess not????
I just sold a Honda Odyssey due to transmission issues Honda has had for what appears to be a decade and they refuse to address their transmission problems. Looks like the 2 supposedly premier vans out on the market (Siennas and Odysseys) are flops.
#231 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [eflorida]
Jan 25, 2011 (12:15 pm)
Your van is no different than it was yesterday.
#232 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [eflorida]
Jan 25, 2011 (3:22 pm)
You are fortunate. A guy driving a Toyota Sienna 30 miles South of me was killed two days ago when he slammed into a tractortrailer on an exit ramp near Lisbon Indiana. It will probably go down as driver error although the police said the driver was not on drugs and had not been drinking. The exit ramp was dry, so weather has been factored out. The guys was 37 years old. His sienna dash was lodged under the back of the tractortrailer which killed him instantly. Although it will never be known for sure, this appears to be another case of unexpected acceleration.
#233 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [billwh87]
Jan 25, 2011 (4:07 pm)
Although it will never be known for sure, this appears to be another case of unexpected acceleration
What you really mean to say is that YOU think its another case of UA.
Nothing like an objective opinion....
Possible driver error?
NAH.... No way!
I'll never understand why some people feel the need to incite fear in others...
#234 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [billwh87]
Jan 25, 2011 (4:52 pm)
That's only about 30 minutes into Indiana on I-70 from us. That article doesn't mention an exit ramp but just suggests it was on a straight away, and that section of road is straight and relatively level.
"Williams said Scott was traveling westbound in his Toyota minivan near the New Lisbon exit when he reportedly rear-ended the truck. When Williams arrived on the scene around 9:21 p.m., he observed the van's dashboard was smashed completely under the rear of the semi."link title
>Although it will never be known for sure, this appears to be another case of unexpected acceleration.
And you are exactly right, unless there's more investigation going on by the police looking at the data recorder (which toyota probably doesn't have a reader for, grin) and other witnesses. No witnesses were mentioned in the article.
Of course no one knows it was NOT uncontrolled acceleration.
To analyze what ifs: the speed limit is 70 mph on that part of the road. Most trucks are going 70 and above. So to impact the rear of a truck thus the car would have been going 15 or more mph about 70-75, i.e., 90 mph. Not a likely speed for the auto to crash with that much damage.
Furthermore, if it were uncontrolled acceleration the driver might have had an option to go around on the shoulder. But there was likely snow on the shoulder or part of it. The driver possibly could have passed on the left (assuming the truck is in the right hand lane).
If the driver were going at an unusually high rate for a period of time, a witness should have stopped to tell the authorities that the driver had been driving excessively fast. However, if SUA just started, that might not have been the case of having a witness.
Another possibility is that the truck taillights were not illuminated, so the driver hit it without realizing he was approaching it.
In other words, no one knows, but it certainly is suspicious.
#235 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [imidazol97]
Jan 25, 2011 (6:23 pm)
In other words, no one knows, but it certainly is suspicious.
There simply isn't enough information available to come to a conclusion, one way or the other. There are far too many variables in play.
So, to imply UA is certainly unwarranted. To do so is simply a type of "scare tactic".
I wonder if anyone thinks that accident was UA. Also, I wonder how many would think it was UA if it had been a Toyota product .vs. a BMW.
#236 of 244 Re: I didn't know! [busiris]
Jan 26, 2011 (8:05 am)
I doubt the van could have been doing much more than the posted speed, and truckers never go the speed limit.
Even if the van was doing 100, I can't imagine there would be that much damage if the truck was doing 80. The 20mph difference is not enough to cause that much damage.
More likely the truck was stopping or slowing when the van rear ended him, inattentive driver didn't notice, perhaps?
In other words, it's more likely the truck's slow speed vs. the van's high speed. The Sienna has the aerodynamics of a barn door.
#237 of 244 Speed Differential
Jan 26, 2011 (8:23 am)
the van's dashboard was smashed completely under the rear of the semi
OK, just read the full article. That's a serious collision. Massive amounts of energy to absorb.
We know from the IIHS 40mph front offset collision, the passenger area stays intact.
So for that much damage to occur, it's safe to assume there was MUCH more than 40mph difference in speed.
Time for some detective work...
OK, from C&D's last minivan comparo, the top speed of that Sienna is 110mph. So even if the truck was doing the speed limit, and not over like they always do, the difference in speed, worst case scenario, would be:
Top Speed of 110 - Truck at Speed Limit of 70 mph = 40 mph difference.
So the crash would have been similar to the IIHS test, which is done at exactly the same speed!
So now let's look at those:
Frontal offset test results Frontal offset test results
Good 2011 models
Good 2004-10 models
Good 1998-2003 models
So SUA can be ruled out - it had to be that the truck was going MUCH, MUCH less than 70mph, else the driver would have had Good protection, and that was clearly not the case.
That pretty much proves this was NOT a case of SUA.
#238 of 244 Re: Speed Differential [ateixeira]
Jan 26, 2011 (9:54 am)
>We know from the IIHS 40mph front offset collision, the passenger area stays intact.
>So for that much damage to occur, it's safe to assume there was MUCH more than 40mph difference in speed.
Many trailers don't have very good bars that extend lower to keep cars from going under. Some of the bars I see look like welded angle iron which wouldn't stop a SmartForTwo let alone a van like Odyssey or Sienna.
I wonder if the bars that are supposed to keep cars from going under didn't absorb or resist and the back of the higher trailer ledge hit higher on the Sienna's front end. That would explain the heavy crushing into the passenger compartment.
I didn't find a picture of the vehicle.
Also the possibility that the trucker was slowing down would explain a driver on the that stretch of straight road not realizing it unless the emergency lights were flashing.
Nothing was said about the driver claiming a high speed on the van's part.
Nothing was said in the article about any witnesses of higher speeds than typical.
Doesn't look like a pattern for SUA.
Only odd thing for forensics on this with the given information is that the truck driver was upset. Perhaps he had slowed down without proper lights and felt some responsibility, but I'm just guessing on his reason for concern.
Also he didn't say the car came up on him at high speed, nor did any other truck drivers. At 9 pm that road has a good density of traffic and probably lots of truckers who would have noticed.
Nothing here in the report suggests SUA. Maybe hypnotized van driver after miles of boring mostly straight I-70.
#239 of 244 Re: Speed Differential [imidazol97]
Jan 26, 2011 (10:12 am)
Vehicle crash compatibility is crucial. Example:
URL if you cannot see the image:
In this case, though, they did mention the dash was destroyed, so a lot of energy was absorbed. Not enough, sadly.
Toyota added brake overrides to the throttle in 2010 for Siennas, and ironically it's the competition that has yet to add that feature. Nissan has on the Quest, an exception.