Last post on Nov 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Toyota, Hyundai, Lexus, Ford, Audi, Automotive News, Legislation
#2235 of 2264 Re: some lawsuits winding down [srs_49]
Feb 24, 2013 (2:23 pm)
BUT... the livelock scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the code.(bad coding aside, of course)
Nobody ever has tested the thing for abuse. As in literally hit the thing with a stun gun or physical shock and crash(software/hardware, not THE car) the thing while the car is running. What happens?
Think of is as closer to the power supply on your PC. how often has it crashed where doing the three second reset hasn't worked? I bet it has happened to you at least once in your lifetime where you had to unplug the computer from the wall and restart it manually. The biggest tip-off is the start button not working to turn off the car. I suspect that the start button is really a power supply switch and it simply froze up.
I do know that if a car was having UA, unplugging the battery lead would kill the engine as it would physically disable the injectors and coil packs regardless of whatever the computer might be trying to tell it to do.
Is this Toyota's fault, though? Likely not. Computers crash for all sorts of non-code related reasons and none of them are covered under any warranty or service plan that I know of. So why does this matter to me, then? Because I see the same idiot designs in multiple cars and UA isn't confined to just a few Toyotas, either. The vehicles have to be designed to be fail-safe when it comes to the computers freezing while the car is running.
#2236 of 2264 Re: some lawsuits winding down [plekto]
Feb 24, 2013 (3:04 pm)
Computers crash for all sorts of non-code related reasons
Maybe, but i bet the large majority of PC crashes/hangups/BSDs are cause by software problems. Improper garbage collection, errant pointers accessing memory it shouldn't, etc are probably at the root of most crashes.
none of them are covered under any warranty or service plan that I know of
The typical shrink-wrap disclosure you're probably thinking of I don't think applies here. Did your car come with a lengthy EUA (End User Agreement) that says that none of the software on the vehicle is guaranteed to do anything correctly, and that if it does something wrong that causes loss of property or life that the SW vendor is not responsible?
#2237 of 2264 Re: some lawsuits winding down [srs_49]
Feb 26, 2013 (12:36 am)
No, but hardware faults such as bad memory modules are simply covered under the basic warranty. That you lose your data, well, it's never covered.
Toyota can't really be sued because of outside influences, corroded wiring harnesses, vibration and shock, and so on. At most, they would be forced to change their design, though, which would be a good thing. But there's no money in that, really, so the lawyers don't bother.
ie - what this entire "challenge" was about was not about finding the overall cause (no proper fail-safe designs in any of the drive-by-wire systems), but finding a cause that could end up in Toyota being sued for damages.
#2238 of 2264 Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case
Oct 11, 2013 (9:42 am)
In the first big case to come to trial, Toyota was found not liable in a 20 million dollar unintended acceleration lawsuit. Looks like the cause all along was poor drivers and greedy lawyers. At least that is what the jury said in this bell weather case.
#2239 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [houdini1]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 11, 2013 (11:33 am)
Here's a blurb with some other details. Be curious to see how many of the remaining ~300 or so cases wind up in trial.
#2240 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [houdini1]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 11, 2013 (1:36 pm)
I always thought the scenario of a car going full throttle while loosing its brakes completely and negating the ignition shut-off completely and THEN coming completely back to normal by the time it gets to the dealer was simply UN-credible.
#2241 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [MrShift@Edmunds]
Oct 11, 2013 (2:02 pm)
Also throw not being able to shift into neutral in the mix.
I can see where a loose floor mat or other loose object might interfere with the gas pedal, but even in that unlikely event you would still have a lot of options.
#2242 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [houdini1]
Nov 26, 2013 (9:40 am)
you guys must somehow be missing all the reports of toyota settling some of these cases and paying out big $ . such as to the estate of the cop & his family who died.
hence the idea that 'cause was poor drivers and greedy lawyers' does not seem consistent with the court results!
#2243 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [elias]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 26, 2013 (10:11 am)
You don't go to court for the truth or for justice. You go to court to outmaneuver the other guy. Whoever can best work the system and is clever enough, wins.
So the settlement has nothing to do with presuming that electronics caused the UA. The two have no direct relationship, only a correlation in the lawsuit.
#2244 of 2264 Re: Toyota Not Liable in Unintended Acceleration Case [elias]
Nov 26, 2013 (11:05 am)
Or it was cheaper than paying an overpaid legal team to work for months on a case decided by a jury of rubes.
The cop case doesn't seem connected to the usually over-50 "drivers" of runaway Camrys and Prius.