On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:20:02 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote:



"mm" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:44:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Now, of the millions of people in the US who have Toyatas, and the 100
million+ other car owners in the US, and many millions elsewhere who
have heard about this, how many do you think know what you just said,
and how many think they are still talking about the actual pedal? Both
because of the word and because they were talking about that before,
since it actually might have caught on a floor mat (but didn't).

On the news today they were still talking about the pedal "sticking".
If they were referring to the computer not failing in safe, closed
mode, or anything remotely like that, I would think they would say the
pedal "malfunctioned". That makes their language even more
confusing.

motorbikes now have throttle by ware too. And pretty soon most automatic
transmissions will be getting rid of the shifter to select or change gears
and will have a dial or buttons to select gears.

Hey, like the '55 DeSoto, with the push button transmission.

Many high end cars already
have electronic transmissions.

Interesting.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:19:52 -0500, mm
wrote:




Is this true of diesels too? There was a case on the People's Court
where 3 said and no one disagreed, that if for some reason the fuel
pump doesn't turn off, and let's assume the car is in neutral, the
engine will just run faster and faster until it breaks up.

Two said that the only way to stop it is to pinch the fuel line
closed.

I don't know if the car was new or old.

Cutting off the air supply would kill the engine also. Stuffing a rag
or your shirt in the air inlet may be faster than finding something to
pinch a line fully closed.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:38:33 -0800 (PST), RickH
wrote:



A good driver would slam it in neutral and be reaching for the parking
brake and be braking with regular brakes, a good driver would be
reaching for the key to shut off the engine, a good driver would also
not hesitate to use the Parking gear if all else failed. A good
driver would make all these decisions in about 5 seconds time. The
case where the guy called 911 because he was accelerating was crazy,
he was a lame-ass driver, what the hell is a phone operator supposed
to do? (The car was later T-boned in an intersection and all died I
think).


A good driver also thinks about what can happen. Every once in a
while, I'll be driving and think to myself, "what would I do if xxx
happened"? Play it out in your head and if that time ever comes,
you'll be able to react faster. It is the same type of exercise top
athletes use to enhance their performance. It trains the brain.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:43:49 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


A good driver also thinks about what can happen. Every once in a
while, I'll be driving and think to myself, "what would I do if xxx
happened"?

That seems to be a good way to teach your kid to drive. And something
one can start when he's 14 or 15.


Play it out in your head and if that time ever comes,
you'll be able to react faster. It is the same type of exercise top
athletes use to enhance their performance. It trains the brain.

mm wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:20:02 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote:



"mm" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:44:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Now, of the millions of people in the US who have Toyatas, and the 100
million+ other car owners in the US, and many millions elsewhere who
have heard about this, how many do you think know what you just said,
and how many think they are still talking about the actual pedal? Both
because of the word and because they were talking about that before,
since it actually might have caught on a floor mat (but didn't).

On the news today they were still talking about the pedal "sticking".
If they were referring to the computer not failing in safe, closed
mode, or anything remotely like that, I would think they would say the
pedal "malfunctioned". That makes their language even more
confusing.

I don't know whether they are suffering from 'we never had this
problem before' syndrome, or if it is a culture or language thing--
but Toyota has certainly blown the PR end of this whole fiasco.


motorbikes now have throttle by ware too. And pretty soon most automatic
transmissions will be getting rid of the shifter to select or change gears
and will have a dial or buttons to select gears.

Hey, like the '55 DeSoto, with the push button transmission.

Mid 60s dodge's had that too. When I was 16 my girlfriend's dad
said 'take my car' one day. At about 50, I went to downshift to
pass a car [because I was that cool] and hit the reverse button by
mistake. We came to a rather abrupt halt & the car stalled. After I
cleaned the crap out of my pants I got the nerve up to see what the
damages were. It started up & was none the worse for wear.

Jim

"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 5:36 pm, mm wrote:
OT Toyota

If it's not the carpet that's causing Toyatas to speed up, then how
can replacing the gas pedal help?

How many of you are still driving your Toyota?

Would you have thought to put the car in neutral if it's speeding up?

The case where the guy called 911 because he was accelerating was crazy,
he was a lame-ass driver, what the hell is a phone operator supposed
to do? (The car was later T-boned in an intersection and all died I
think).

Here's a quote from today's NY Times

"The Lexus ES 350 sedan, made by Toyota, had hit a sport utility vehicle,
careened through a fence, rolled over and burst into flames. All four people
inside were killed: the driver, Mark Saylor, an off-duty California Highway
Patrol officer, and his wife, daughter and brother-in-law."

Not exactly lame-ass.

Charlie

On Jan 31, 7:54*pm, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:14 PM, aemeijers wrote:





Van Chocstraw wrote:
(snip)
Nobody knows for sure how they will react till they are in a situation
like that. Sitting here right now, I can say I would calmly run through
all the steps (including pumping the brakes), and if none of them
worked, look for a guardrail to ease into to scrub off speed. Yeah, I'll
trash the car to avoid a head-on, or t-boning somebody at an
intersection. But the only time I had a runaway, it turned out to be
just a sticking aftermarket cruise control, and turning it off solved
the problem. (noticed the sound was funny when I passed a car, looked
down, and saw I was doing 85...) But if it happens again, in a strange
car, and not on a mostly-empty interstate late at night like the time
before, who knows? My brain might blue-screen too.

--
aem, who doesn't drive much or very far any more, sends....

They specifically say 'DO NOT PUMP THE BRAKES'. Apply steady pressure.
How about turning the ****king key off stupid.

Watch ypur mouth. Not everybody has antilock brakes. Absent antilock
brakes, ones the tires start skidding, no point steering. And on modern
fancy cars, not all of them have keys. Even on cars that do, if you
accidentally turn the key all the way back (which would be the reflex
most people have), the steering wheel locks.

--
aem sends...

I don't think it locks the wheel until you REMOVE the key.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe you are correct. At least that's how the cars I've had
worked.

On Jan 30, 11:51*pm, mm wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:00:51 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:





Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:33:25 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Can you imagine what would happen if, while you're driving along Route
101 enjoying the scenery, your girlfriend squirmed around with an
urgent need to put her face in your lap and in so doing hit the shift
lever?

True story. *A big lawsuit was being reported on a regular basis in
the Hartford Courant. *A couple left a bar, probably inebriated, in
his Mercedes SL. Hit a tree, both were ejected, he was killed. *She
says he was driving, pay my medical bills. His family says she was
driving, pay for our loss. *

Her defense? *Your honor, I could not have been driving. *I was giving
him a BJ at the time. *At "the moment" he hit the gas.

if they were ejected,then they were not wearing their seatbelts.
Probably against the law.
Sorry,no payment;operating the vehicle in an illegal manner.

That's between each of them and the government. *But between a driver
and a passenger, the question is who is negligent in a manner that
caused the accident.

There is the concept in the law of comparative negligence. In Jim's
example, if the defense can show that it's very likely that crash
injuries were significantly worse because someone was not wearing a
seat belt, which is a violation of law in many states, I would not be
surprised to see the judgement reduced.



Failing to wear a seatbelt is negligence but it doesn't cause the
accident. *

No, but it could turn an accident that would have cost $10K in medical
bills into one that costs $1mil. Why should the defendent have to
pay the entire difference if the plaintiff was violating the law?



And between a driver and passengers, it doesn't matter who is
violating the law if that violation is not a cuase of the accident or
its severity. *

You don;t think not wearing a seat belt can have an effect on the
severity? In the case under discsussion, the occupants were ejected
from the vehicle.


That is, if the driver were going over the speed
limit, the judgment against him would likely be more, but because
going faster causes greater injuries, not because it's illegal.

Ever hear of a punitive damage award? If someone is flagrantly
violating a law and causes damages, the award can contain a component
for punitive damages that is above and beyond the actual cost of the
injuries.



In some states, comparative negligence may be calculated, if the
passenger did something to help cause the accident.

In a few states contributory neglignece can prevent someone who was
only slightly at fault from recovering from the other party, but that
refers to negligence that caused the accident, not failing to wear a
seatbelt that results only in greater injury.


Wrong

"Countering The Seat Belt Defense
By: IRA H. LEESFIELD
Leesfield Leighton & Partners P.A.
2350 South Dixie Highway
Miami, Florida 33133
(305) 854-4900

Introduction
If you are injured in a car accident, and it is not your fault at all,
you expect a full recovery. You may not get one because of the seat
belt defense. This defense can reduce the amount of damages plaintiffs
can recover for failing to wear their seat belts in car accidents. In
most jurisdictions, a successful seat belt defense allows plaintiffs
to recover only for damages they would have incurred if they had been
wearing their seat belts.

Few topics in tort law have been as controversial as the seat belt
defense. Perhaps that is why the following 31 jurisdictions have
definitively rejected it: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
and Wyoming.(1)

On the other hand, the following 15 jurisdictions clearly allow for
the possibility of at least some reduction in a plaintiff's damages
for failure to wear a seat belt: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Two jurisdictions are
still not clearly decided,(2) and three others do not have fully
developed laws addressing the issue.(3)

Within the jurisdictions that allow for application of the seat belt
defense, a plaintiff's damages could be reduced under a "comparative
negligence" or a "failure to mitigate damages" theory.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:19:52 -0500, mm
wrote:




Is this true of diesels too? There was a case on the People's Court
where 3 said and no one disagreed, that if for some reason the fuel
pump doesn't turn off, and let's assume the car is in neutral, the
engine will just run faster and faster until it breaks up.

Two said that the only way to stop it is to pinch the fuel line
closed.

I don't know if the car was new or old.

Cutting off the air supply would kill the engine also. Stuffing a rag
or your shirt in the air inlet may be faster than finding something to
pinch a line fully closed.


any EFI motor would just shut off the fuel injectors or kill the ignition
once the RPM limit was reached.

I think my Nissan kills the ignition,it's rather abrupt at the redline.
I'd rather the EFI just held the fuel injectors at a limit than the motor
start dying like it does now.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jan 30, 6:36*pm, mm wrote:
OT *Toyota

If it's not the carpet that's causing Toyatas to speed up, then how
can replacing the gas pedal help?

How many of you are still driving your Toyota?

Yes, although I don't think it's one of the models affected. Mine
is a 2003 Matrix.

Would you have thought to put the car in neutral if it's speeding up?

Well, yes. I drive a stick, and mashing on the clutch is pretty much
a reflex.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:17:06 -0500, "Charlie"
wrote:


"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 5:36 pm, mm wrote:
OT Toyota

If it's not the carpet that's causing Toyatas to speed up, then how
can replacing the gas pedal help?

How many of you are still driving your Toyota?

Would you have thought to put the car in neutral if it's speeding up?

The case where the guy called 911 because he was accelerating was crazy,
he was a lame-ass driver, what the hell is a phone operator supposed
to do? (The car was later T-boned in an intersection and all died I
think).

Here's a quote from today's NY Times

"The Lexus ES 350 sedan, made by Toyota, had hit a sport utility vehicle,
careened through a fence, rolled over and burst into flames. All four people
inside were killed: the driver, Mark Saylor, an off-duty California Highway
Patrol officer, and his wife, daughter and brother-in-law."

Not exactly lame-ass.

Charlie

OK, what proves he wasn't? Just because he was a Chippy?

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:29:40 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:19:52 -0500, mm
wrote:




Is this true of diesels too? There was a case on the People's Court
where 3 said and no one disagreed, that if for some reason the fuel
pump doesn't turn off, and let's assume the car is in neutral, the
engine will just run faster and faster until it breaks up.

Two said that the only way to stop it is to pinch the fuel line
closed.

I don't know if the car was new or old.

Cutting off the air supply would kill the engine also. Stuffing a rag
or your shirt in the air inlet may be faster than finding something to
pinch a line fully closed.


any EFI motor would just shut off the fuel injectors or kill the ignition
once the RPM limit was reached.

I think my Nissan kills the ignition,it's rather abrupt at the redline.
I'd rather the EFI just held the fuel injectors at a limit than the motor
start dying like it does now.
I believe DIESEL was mentioned.
If a deisel starts sucking engine oil when hot, shutting off the fuel
won't do anything - and stuffing rags in the intake can have a minimal
effect. A chunk of 3/4" plywood over the intake of a diesel loader
engine HAS proven effective in the past.

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:40:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:29:40 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
m:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:19:52 -0500, mm
wrote:




Is this true of diesels too? There was a case on the People's Court
where 3 said and no one disagreed, that if for some reason the fuel
pump doesn't turn off, and let's assume the car is in neutral, the
engine will just run faster and faster until it breaks up.

Two said that the only way to stop it is to pinch the fuel line
closed.

I don't know if the car was new or old.

Cutting off the air supply would kill the engine also. Stuffing a rag
or your shirt in the air inlet may be faster than finding something to
pinch a line fully closed.


any EFI motor would just shut off the fuel injectors or kill the ignition
once the RPM limit was reached.

I think my Nissan kills the ignition,it's rather abrupt at the redline.
I'd rather the EFI just held the fuel injectors at a limit than the motor
start dying like it does now.
I believe DIESEL was mentioned.
If a deisel starts sucking engine oil when hot,

But they don't all suck engine oil, do they? Only ones with bad
rings? Or PCV valve? (do they have those on diesels?)

Isn't it also possible that the fuel pump keeps running for some
reason?

shutting off the fuel
won't do anything - and stuffing rags in the intake can have a minimal
effect. A chunk of 3/4" plywood over the intake of a diesel loader
engine HAS proven effective in the past.

What do you mean by "loader" engine?

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:24:56 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Jan 30, 6:36*pm, mm wrote:
OT *Toyota

If it's not the carpet that's causing Toyatas to speed up, then how
can replacing the gas pedal help?

How many of you are still driving your Toyota?

Yes, although I don't think it's one of the models affected. Mine
is a 2003 Matrix.

Would you have thought to put the car in neutral if it's speeding up?

Well, yes. I drive a stick, and mashing on the clutch is pretty much
a reflex.

Cindy Hamilton

I haven't heard anything about stick shifts regarding this. Yet I'm
sure the pedal is the same. Maybe they are better at putting it in
neutral.


I probably would use neutral too. I say that because I used to have a
car that stalled even at 60 sometimes, with an automatic. I would put
the car in neutral, restart it while coasting at 58mph, and put it
back in drive. It took 5 seconds and even the first time it may have
only taken 10, allowing time to wonder what to do. I think that would
have been good training for this.


I'm still bothered by the use of pedal to mean, apparently, pedal
assembly.

Guys with cars might call the whole thing an assembly, but it's the
nature of corporate types to use formal, technical language, even when
it sounds stilted and silly. Here, where it really makes a
difference, I'm really surpised they call it a pedal. Where is their
stuffy language when we need it? Yet I too heard, on the radio while
almost awake, about humidity. Plainly, the rubber pad one puts his
foot on and the steel plate behind it aren't influenced by humidity.

They had two years to solve this. I don't know what they were
thinking.

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:54 -0500, mm
wrote:


I'm still bothered by the use of pedal to mean, apparently, pedal
assembly.

Just now for the first time I heard the news refer to the "pedal
assembly". They are shipping to dealers a small metal bar that will
attaches to the pedal assembly and decrease "surface tension and
friction", and this they expect to fix the accelerator pedal.

There is surface tension in the pedal assembly? "Ain't nuthin' simple
anymore" but I have no idea why there would be surface tension in an
accelerator pedal assembly.

Why wasn't the old system good enough? A pedal on a lever,
connected to some rod and pivotrs, or to an accelerator cable, with a
spring to pull things back. Didn't this work fine from 1920 to 2000?
I know I sound like a codger, but if they were going to make things
more complicated, they sure should have been diligent when complaints
came in.


Guys with cars might call the whole thing an assembly, but it's the
nature of corporate types to use formal, technical language, even when
it sounds stilted and silly. Here, where it really makes a
difference, I'm really surpised they call it a pedal. Where is their
stuffy language when we need it? Yet I too heard, on the radio while
almost awake, about humidity. Plainly, the rubber pad one puts his
foot on and the steel plate behind it aren't influenced by humidity.

They had two years to solve this. I don't know what they were
thinking.

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:58:17 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:40:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:29:40 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:19:52 -0500, mm
wrote:




Is this true of diesels too? There was a case on the People's Court
where 3 said and no one disagreed, that if for some reason the fuel
pump doesn't turn off, and let's assume the car is in neutral, the
engine will just run faster and faster until it breaks up.

Two said that the only way to stop it is to pinch the fuel line
closed.

I don't know if the car was new or old.

Cutting off the air supply would kill the engine also. Stuffing a rag
or your shirt in the air inlet may be faster than finding something to
pinch a line fully closed.


any EFI motor would just shut off the fuel injectors or kill the ignition
once the RPM limit was reached.

I think my Nissan kills the ignition,it's rather abrupt at the redline.
I'd rather the EFI just held the fuel injectors at a limit than the motor
start dying like it does now.
I believe DIESEL was mentioned.
If a deisel starts sucking engine oil when hot,

But they don't all suck engine oil, do they? Only ones with bad
rings? Or PCV valve? (do they have those on diesels?)

Isn't it also possible that the fuel pump keeps running for some
reason?

On a Deisel, other than Common rail, the injector pump is powered
mechanixcally by the engine, and "pulling the rack" shuts off
injection, stopping the engine.

A "common rail" deisel uses a high pressure pump and electric fuel
injectors, just like a gas engine (although much more robust) so
shutting off the electricity to the injectors OR the pump will stop
the engine if the pump is eectrically driven.

Most non-common-rail diesels have either a shutdown motor or an
emergency kill linkage, or both. If the shuddown motor fails, you need
to manually "pull the rack" to shut it off - which is what either a
normal mechanical shutdown or an emergency kill does.

shutting off the fuel
won't do anything - and stuffing rags in the intake can have a minimal
effect. A chunk of 3/4" plywood over the intake of a diesel loader
engine HAS proven effective in the past.

What do you mean by "loader" engine?
An engine on a large "loader" - Front-enf loader, Loader/backhoe,
industrial loader tractor - whatever you want to call it - kinda like
a 'Dozer with wheels instead of tracks.

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:17:06 -0500, "Charlie"
wrote:



Here's a quote from today's NY Times

"The Lexus ES 350 sedan, made by Toyota, had hit a sport utility vehicle,
careened through a fence, rolled over and burst into flames. All four people
inside were killed: the driver, Mark Saylor, an off-duty California Highway
Patrol officer, and his wife, daughter and brother-in-law."

Not exactly lame-ass.


I'd have thought hat someone with that training would know what to do.
Sad results from an alleged professional with some driver training.