|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:17:25 -0500, Tony
wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , wrote: On Mar 1, 9:13=A0pm, Oren wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote: HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED - to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY. People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? =A0What a crazy world. Not sure what your point is but if it's to suggest that the parking brake could be used to stop a car while it's under near max power, that won't work. They are intended for parking only, the brake pads are smaller than the main pads, Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four. When using the rear brakes with the brake pedal, they give about 20% of the braking power. That is with vacuum assist! Using the parking brake lever or pedal they provide even less braking power with no vacuum assist. On many cars with read disk brakes the "parking" brake is a VERY small drum brake inside the rear rotor and will have virtually NO effect on slowing the car at speed, in gear or out. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , wrote: How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic problem. The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by Toyota's president that they're going to look into programming a brake override for the throttle. I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING? Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability something less than desireable?? And just how much authority do you give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what road speed, and at what throttle position?? |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:09:55 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , wrote: On Mar 2, 9:50=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote: Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four. Maybe on YOUR car, but not on my Mercedes. You make the mistake of generalizing on the basis of a too-small sample -- in this case, a sample of one. The parking brake pads are completely seperate. I'm not sure what various other manufacturers do. I'm sure others as you say do use the same pads. Trust Mercedes to do something bizarre. Your car is the exception, I assure you. *Every* vehicle I have ever owned used a cable to activate the same pair of rear shoes or pads that were activated hydraulically by the service brake. That list of vehicles includes three Dodges, a Plymouth, a Ford van, a Fiat, a Chevy truck, a Dodge truck, two Mazdas, an Oldsmobile, two Buicks, two Suburbans, two Saturns, and a Pontiac. _Every_single_one_ used exactly the same pads or shoes for the parking brake as for the service brake. And there is a list just as long that does not. Like most Volvos, Corvette and any rear wheel disk GM and a few of the newer models of just about every one of the brands you noted. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:07:41 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote: On Mar 1, 7:38Â*pm, AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:20:49 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: -snip- bulll****. Â*There is just about no car and certainly no toyota that can't be stopped by the brakes in normal working order even if the engine is under full throttle. The engine isn't 1/20th as powerful as the brakes. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/test...toyota-9917789 At about 1:21 Brian Ross says "Brakes don't work". Â* Â*At 2:50 he expands on that a bit. Â* The brakes did not work. Try it some time. Â*Floor your car with one foot. Â*Stomp on the brakes with the other foot. Â*The car will stop. Â*If it is a manual tranny, the engine will stall. And yet all these folks with runaway cars say [the survivors] they stood on the brakes to no avail. People confuse the pedals all the time. Â*I doubt they had time to look down and verify the pedals while they were panicing. Happens several times every week in a country the size of the U.S. Only difference now is the hysteria over it. Â*Just like 10 years ago with the audis. Â*The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the wrong pedal. " The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the wrong pedal." Just so I'm clear on this... Are you saying that there is no problem with the Toyotas? It's all user error? It is when they go for several miles (or even a mile) and then hit something. Even IF there is a malfunction, only driver error accounts for that. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:12:31 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 wrote: On Mar 1, 4:48Â*pm, "chaniarts" wrote: DerbyDad03 wrote: On Mar 1, 3:21 pm, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:08:01 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:15:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:00:44 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:39:39 -0500, Tony wrote: mm wrote: My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!! If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again. I would simply assure myself that I could tell the difference between the brake and accelerator pedals. This is the same ****ing hysteria that struct audi ten years ago. The reports vanished when audi installed an interlock so that the driver had to have his boot on the brake pedal before putting the car in gear. Not even remotely the same thing. And you were there in each and every case? People occasionally stomp on the wrong pedal. It happens every week all the time. The only thing different now is the media hysteria. The only hysteria evident is yours. The Toyotas, when they "run away" seem to do it while the driver is just cruising along, sometimes already at highway speeds. Has nothing to do with a foot hitting the gas pedal rather than the brake pedal. In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle. This has been widely reported. The problem with Audis would happen when the car was being moved from a standing position because of the size and position of the pedals making it easy to push the wrong one without realizing it. Also widely reported.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle." I'm admittingy tossing out "partial information" here, since I can't cite the source. The other I heard a gentleman who was being interviewed on the radio - who I believe was a spokesman from some Auto Safety organization - who stated: "In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more powerful than the strongest engine. There is no reason that a driver should not be able to stop a Toyota when it exhibits the run-away problem. The key is to not panic, apply the brakes, shift into neutral and pull to the side of the road." Sounds easy enough. ;-) that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in neutral. the brakes won't stop the car if, in fact, it is in gear and accelerating (or at least once the breaks start slipping due to overheating), it won't. "that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in neutral." I'm not arguing whether the brakes will stop the car or not, but I will argue that that is most certainly what the quote implies. "In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more powerful than the strongest engine." If indeed the brakes are stronger than the engine, then they will stop the car even when it is in gear. What would be the point of going on the radio and stating that "Any brake system will stop a car that is in neutral."? That's pretty obvious. I can certainly see that as written in my post, you could take the quote to mean the car must be in neutral. However, had you heard the speaker speaking, with the inflections and pauses where they were, you could easily tell that he was making 2 distinct points: 1 - The brakes are strong enough to overcome the most power engine. 2 - Here's the process to follow if you have a stuck accelerator. Number 2 doesn't make Number 1 false. All you need to do is look at accelleration figures in comparison to stopping distance figures. A car takes X number of feet to accellerate from a stop to 100 KPH. The stopping distance is generally something in the neighbourhood of X/4 feet, meaning the brakes are dissipating roughly 4 times the power the engine is producing. It's not just Brakes vs Engine, though. See also mass, momentum, inertia and gravity for additional information. Unless of course, you are driving a weightless car. The inertia affects accelleration EXACTLY the same as it affects braking. Going down hill when stopping vs uphill acclellerating, or vice versa, would skew the results somewhat. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:24:12 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote: wrote: -snip- All you need to do is look at accelleration figures in comparison to stopping distance figures. A car takes X number of feet to accellerate from a stop to 100 KPH. The stopping distance is generally something in the neighbourhood of X/4 feet, meaning the brakes are dissipating roughly 4 times the power the engine is producing. I'd love to see a physics class [or Mythbusters] take out the words like "a car" and "x number" and "generally in the neighborhood" and "roughly". throw in a few things like inertia and the difference in a drive train and brake pads. . . and find out why none of the reports that I've heard have said "The engine was at full throttle, I was going 50 miles an hour and was able to get the car stopped with my brakes." Even the guy who drove to the dealership with a full throttle engine who had the presence of mind to go to neutral, brake, go back in gear, accelerate. . . then back to neutral for control said his brakes would not slow the car while it was in full throttle position. Looking for more proof for *my* thoughts- I found some middle ground in actual research by Car & Driver- http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tion-tech_dept In a nutshell- "Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. . . . brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camrys throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet€”thats . . . just 16 feet longer than with the Camrys throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet€” . . . We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further." Maybe by the time you got to 10MPH you'd have the presence of mind to put it in neutral- Don't know why they didn't try a Lexus. Would have loved to see what happened if you first tried the brakes-- then applied full power. Seems like that would have been human nature. HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED - to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY. If you are going slow enough, and your brakes are good enough, I agree, you have a chance by mash 'em and hold 'em. Problem is- it isn't a perfect world. In the Calif crash, the car was a loaner whose brakes were already compromised. [still- it looks like shifting into neutral should have saved the day. but we don't *know* that they didn't try that.] Oh, we KNOW that, because in neutral a car will NOT accellerate unless going down a very steep hill or falling off a cliff. Audi & a couple other manufacturers have a shut off on their drive-by-wire vehicles, so hitting the brakes kills the throttle. I hate the idea of software on throttles, brakes, or steering-- but that one seems like common sense. OTOH- if this is a computer problem, what's to say that would work anyway. Jim |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 2, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:11:16 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: ... What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN. The victims are 0% to blame. ... So, _nothing_ ever breaks in your world? "Should" ain't "doesn't" no matter what it is; if it's mechanical it can fail. Not reacting properly when there apparently was quite a lot of time (evidenced by 911 call in the CA incident) makes the participant an (albeit unwilling) accomplice in the result of a failure (granted) not of their doing initially. Unless there was a complete failure of the ignition system _and_ transmission shifter as well as the accelerator, then yes, there's no doubt there was operator error involved as well as the mechanical failure. Nobody's blamed those involved for the initiating event; only questioned the outcome as being inevitable. The counter example cited is too dissimilar to be of any import -- in that case the remedy is to take some unusual precaution a priori (of course, if one is proposing a walk in a particularly unsavory area after dark if just might not be so unusual to either choose another entertainment venue or take the precautions); in the case under discussion it's the lack of an appropriate response to the event after it has occurred when there is ample opportunity to take corrective action (and afaik there's no data that says such actions aren't possible). So, I'll disagree with the assertion that there's no culpability in severity of outcome independent of the driver in the incidents until and unless it's shown that the remedial actions were unavailable. Rationalizew any way you wish. There is a stack of dead bodies that says you are wrong.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the cure for _not_ dieing has been published and should have been known by every one of the victims (provided there was _time_ to react properly). You "totally innocent" stance is groundless. Every driver should know enough about the vehicle operation to take the proper action without having to be told. Harry K |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 2, 9:06*am, Hell Toupee wrote:
Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. *There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. *They loaned it out again anyway. It doesn't matter that the dealership was at fault there. The primary cause of the deaths was driver stupidity. Had he responded properly, as I hope anyone possting in this forum would, noone would have died. Harry K |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 2, 9:31*am, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote: Hell Toupee wrote : Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. *There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. *They loaned it out again anyway. It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose,because the reported problem did not occur when checking it out. and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner? The operator should have known there was a problem, diagnosed it and fixed it properly before leaving the dealership. He must have been stupid.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - !!??? He should have known there was a prolem with unintended acceleration? And just how do you think he could have done that unless the dealer told him? Fixed it!!!? The DEALER can't even find the problem much less fix it. Harry K |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
In , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In , wrote: How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic problem. The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by Toyota's president that they're going to look into programming a brake override for the throttle. I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING? Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability something less than desireable?? And just how much authority do you give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what road speed, and at what throttle position?? As if you expect need for the engine to be more than idling when the brakes are applied? - Don Klipstein ) |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
dpb wrote:
wrote: ... What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN. The victims are 0% to blame. ... So, _nothing_ ever breaks in your world? "Should" ain't "doesn't" no matter what it is; if it's mechanical it can fail. Not reacting properly when there apparently was quite a lot of time (evidenced by 911 call in the CA incident) makes the participant an (albeit unwilling) accomplice in the result of a failure (granted) not of their doing initially. Unless there was a complete failure of the ignition system _and_ transmission shifter as well as the accelerator, then yes, there's no doubt there was operator error involved as well as the mechanical failure. Nobody's blamed those involved for the initiating event; only questioned the outcome as being inevitable. The counter example cited is too dissimilar to be of any import -- in that case the remedy is to take some unusual precaution a priori (of course, if one is proposing a walk in a particularly unsavory area after dark if just might not be so unusual to either choose another entertainment venue or take the precautions); in the case under discussion it's the lack of an appropriate response to the event after it has occurred when there is ample opportunity to take corrective action (and afaik there's no data that says such actions aren't possible). So, I'll disagree with the assertion that there's no culpability in severity of outcome independent of the driver in the incidents until and unless it's shown that the remedial actions were unavailable. -- When I was a teenager, I was driving the family '67 Chrysler aircraft carrier when the throttle return spring broke on the big 383 V8. I cut the ignition, pulled over to the side of the road, opened the hood, fixed it with a pair of pliers and went on my way. If it had happened to my mother or one of my sisters, the outcome may have been different. I'm not picking on women but my aunt was driving down a highway when she saw a wrong way driver coming straight at her, she let go of the wheel, covered her face and started screaming. My male cousin grabbed the wheel and steered the car to safety. Perhaps drivers education classes should take a hint from aircraft pilot training and train for the inevitable odd mechanical or human brain failure. TDD |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four. Not true, My Sonata has rear disc brakes, but the parking brake has shoes inside of a drum. I've tried stopping the car with it and doubt it would have a lot of effect at full throttle. OTOH, it does have a throttle over ride if you stop on the brakes. Engine goes to idle no matter the pedal position. I once owned a couple of Renault 10 shoe boxes, 1730 pounds of screaming 4 cylinder terror. The cars had 4 wheel disk brakes and the "emergency brake" was a cable operated cam mechanism that squeezed the rear calipers. It was a true emergency brake as opposed to a "parking brake". Those were the weirdest most fun vehicles I ever owned except for the Renault 16. TDD |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:45:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote: "mm" wrote What do you claim was in the manual that he didn't know? If there were something really novel, the dealership should have explained it. If it wasn't really novel, then he would have been able to turn off the car. The car did not start/stop with a key. It has a button and a sensor that knows you have the fob on you. Unless you've dropped it on the floor? What happens then?, or if the passenger grabs it and throws it to the back seat. Yes, the dealer should have explained how to shut the car off. From what I've read, you have to hold the button for a couple of seconds. I can see a panicked driver slapping the button I can see that too. I don't seem to panic, but otoh, I may be too calm and slow during emergencies. Other people panic. I'd be scared for sure if the car was speeding up. repeatedly instead of holding it for a few seconds. Just like turning off a cell phone, you have to hold the button. I'm still not good at hanging up my cordless phone (I have two slightly different models with the buttons arranged differently), or my cell phone, or turning off the cell phone. I was thinking about the car thing. At 60 MPH, a mile a minute, 3 seconds is enough to go 264 feet. I would much rather have a key, which turns off the ignition in my car in under a fifth of a second, more like 20 feet. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 01:44:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote: Hell Toupee wrote in : Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway. It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose, because the reported problem did not occur when checking it out. and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner? The operator should have known there was a problem, diagnosed it and fixed it properly before leaving the dealership. He must have been stupid. So the operator is supposed to do the job of his dealership's mechanic onto the dealership's loaner car? For a problem that the operator had no opportunity to become aware of until on the road way out somewhere? (Or was the operator supposed to not leave the dealership after returning the car until the dealership confirms successful diagnosis and repair of the problematic loaner car being returned by the operator? And to verify that the dealership was not dishonest about successful diagnosis and repair of the dealership's loaner car after it's return to the dealership?) AIUI, the dealer is very sorry the family is dead. - Don Klipstein ) |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:48:50 -0600, dpb wrote:
Other than possibly being in very close quarters at initiation of the event, one has to wonder what actually did happen other than panic and inappropriate or incorrect response. If one were in a parking space and it surged, it would be highly likely to hit something directly in front/rear before had time to react. Similarly in close traffic I was interested for my next car in a Solara convertible, but a guy on the radio with a used car lot and shop told how one of them pinned itself and almost pinned his mechanic against the wall. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:51:13 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote: On Mar 2, 9:06*am, Hell Toupee wrote: Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. *There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. *They loaned it out again anyway. It doesn't matter that the dealership was at fault there. The primary cause of the deaths was driver stupidity. The primary cause was auto failure. Who was negligent? The dealership. It would have been great if the driver had found something that worked, but there is no evidence he was negligent, and nothing you've said even if true has suggested it. Had he responded properly, as I hope anyone possting in this forum would, noone would have died. Harry K |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
"mm" wrote in The car did not start/stop with a key. It has a button and a sensor that knows you have the fob on you. Unless you've dropped it on the floor? What happens then?, or if the passenger grabs it and throws it to the back seat. It has to be within 20 feet of the car. If it is tossed out the window, the engine will stop. I was thinking about the car thing. At 60 MPH, a mile a minute, 3 seconds is enough to go 264 feet. I would much rather have a key, which turns off the ignition in my car in under a fifth of a second, more like 20 feet. After these incidents, cars may go back to that. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 01:44:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote: Hell Toupee wrote in : Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway. It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose, because the reported problem did not occur when checking it out. and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner? The operator should have known there was a problem, diagnosed it and fixed it properly before leaving the dealership. He must have been stupid. So the operator is supposed to do the job of his dealership's mechanic onto the dealership's loaner car? For a problem that the operator had no opportunity to become aware of until on the road way out somewhere? I'm just trying to make my logic match that of others here. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:21:36 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote: "Tony" wrote That has been my understanding in the past, but I'm not so sure about some of the newer cars from all that I've read. I'll have to try it on my wife's car since it won't work on mine. When I push both the gas and brake at the same time, the engine goes to idle no matter the speed. When stopped, it it like being in neutral if I hold the brake down. Dang, you can't even do "line lock" burnouts! Nope, those days are gone. Shame since it is a Sonata Limited with the 249 hp V-6 It will beat a lot of so called muscle cars and has a top speed of 137 mph. I have no problem getting to 70 on the on-ramp. Any muscle cars that a Sonata could beat would definitely have the qualifier "so called" in front of the term "muscle car". |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:08 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote: wrote Panic and untrained/unskilled drivers certainly have a large component to play in end results methinks as well even though the initiating event is hardware/software related it appears... What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN. The victims are 0% to blame. You do have a responsibility to your self and others to be properly trained in the use of any machinery, be it a table saw, pistol, punch press or automobile. Just as pilots train over and over how to handle a crippled aircraft, drivers should know emergency procedures. What do you do if the hood flies up? Tire blows out run out of gas slush from a passing car blinds the windshield you hit black ice a car cuts in front of you the truck next to you drifts into your lane and a few hundred other possibilities. These thing happen every day and a competent driver knows how to handle them to avoid a crash. Some days I play the mental game of "what if" while driving. When the emergency presents itself, I should be better equipped to handle it. Okay, how many of the items above do YOU practice dealing with on a regular basis. And by practice, I mean, replicate the situation and drive out of it. Do you own a skid pad? |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:27:34 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:08:52 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:01:21 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:37:24 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:49:48 -0600, dpb wrote: LouB wrote: Tony wrote: mm wrote: My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!! If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again. And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power brakes. Better than uncontrolled acceleration, undoubtedly. Unless they're fully hydraulic steering (of which I know of no autos; do have such a tractor), it's only the power assist that's lost, not steering. Same w/ the brakes, it's only the power assist. The actual recommendation is to shift to neutral and let it over-rev; what possibility/likelihood of blowing an engine is I've not firm estimate but if that happens you're in same boat anyway... Probability of blowing the engine is much less than 2% - the compiuter shuts off fuel at about 4500 RPM in neutral. Unless of course the runaway condition is being caused by a fault in the computer! Would need to be a compound fault, as the rev limiter has no connection to the throttle. It shuts off injectors. SO - even if the "unintended accelleration" problem IS a computer glitch, it would still not blow up if put in neutral....... If the computer is malfunctioning, then I think you can allow for the possiblity that it may not do what you expect on many fronts. We don't know the nature of what is causing the fault. Is it an unreliable oscillator? A bad ground? Leaky capacitor? Power fluctuations? Electrical noise? Any of those things could have widepread repercussions in the computer. Anything that stops the clock would, by necessity, stop the engine because the clock is required to fire the injectors and time the spark. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to run if the oscillator (clock) of the ECU was to fail. Pretty much the same with a bad ground - as the injectors are ALL powered externally and grounded through the ECU. Also, all the sensors go to higher voltage as the input increases. A ground (Other than the wired signal ground for each 3 wire resistance type sensor) is not required on the majority of sensors, and if that ground went bad the reference voltage would go out of spec, throwing a code or the sensor would be detected as an open circuit (also an out of range value), throwing a different code. About the only thing external that could be causing an accelleration problem would be digital noise entering the system as RFI that just happened to be exactly the right frequency and amplitude , at exactly the right place, to fool the computer into thinking it was a legitimate signal. Nice try, but it's obvious you don't have an advanced degree in computer science. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:28:09 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:36 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:35:05 -0500, Tony wrote: wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:05:13 -0500, Tony wrote: LouB wrote: Tony wrote: mm wrote: My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!! If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again. And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power brakes. Loose it, or it becomes more difficult? That would be a shame if I couldn't steer or brake my car because I ran out of gasoline. Are there any vehicles like that? When I taught my niece to drive, in a large empty parking lot, at about 35mph I told her I was turning off the engine. Then I told her to make a left hand turn. She's a tiny little thing but she struggled and it did turn. As far as the brakes, if it's vacuum assisted you still have normal braking until you pump it too many times and runs out of the vacuum. Don't pump them, apply pressure until you stop. I told her that if her engine ever dies for whatever reason, that will be the result, so be ready for it. You loose the ASSIST. Means braking needs both feet and steering needs some muscle. At speed the steering is not much of an issue, while at low speeds it can be very difficult. Braking the opposite.(sorta) The good part about braking is you will have full power assisted braking until you pump the pedal a couple times... so Don't Pump it! Under hard acceleration, you may lack the vacuum assist as well. Anyone who has driven a car with vacuum wipers knows what happens when you are flooring the gas pedal. The wipers slow dramatically or stop. Which is EXACTLY what was just said. Really? Who other than me said that under heavy acceleration, engine vacuum is reduced? I'll give you a hint: NOBODY |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:40:33 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:12:31 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 wrote: On Mar 1, 4:48*pm, "chaniarts" wrote: DerbyDad03 wrote: On Mar 1, 3:21 pm, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:08:01 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:15:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:00:44 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:39:39 -0500, Tony wrote: mm wrote: My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!! If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again. I would simply assure myself that I could tell the difference between the brake and accelerator pedals. This is the same ****ing hysteria that struct audi ten years ago. The reports vanished when audi installed an interlock so that the driver had to have his boot on the brake pedal before putting the car in gear. Not even remotely the same thing. And you were there in each and every case? People occasionally stomp on the wrong pedal. It happens every week all the time. The only thing different now is the media hysteria. The only hysteria evident is yours. The Toyotas, when they "run away" seem to do it while the driver is just cruising along, sometimes already at highway speeds. Has nothing to do with a foot hitting the gas pedal rather than the brake pedal. In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle. This has been widely reported. The problem with Audis would happen when the car was being moved from a standing position because of the size and position of the pedals making it easy to push the wrong one without realizing it. Also widely reported.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle." I'm admittingy tossing out "partial information" here, since I can't cite the source. The other I heard a gentleman who was being interviewed on the radio - who I believe was a spokesman from some Auto Safety organization - who stated: "In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more powerful than the strongest engine. There is no reason that a driver should not be able to stop a Toyota when it exhibits the run-away problem. The key is to not panic, apply the brakes, shift into neutral and pull to the side of the road." Sounds easy enough. ;-) that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in neutral. the brakes won't stop the car if, in fact, it is in gear and accelerating (or at least once the breaks start slipping due to overheating), it won't. "that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in neutral." I'm not arguing whether the brakes will stop the car or not, but I will argue that that is most certainly what the quote implies. "In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more powerful than the strongest engine." If indeed the brakes are stronger than the engine, then they will stop the car even when it is in gear. What would be the point of going on the radio and stating that "Any brake system will stop a car that is in neutral."? That's pretty obvious. I can certainly see that as written in my post, you could take the quote to mean the car must be in neutral. However, had you heard the speaker speaking, with the inflections and pauses where they were, you could easily tell that he was making 2 distinct points: 1 - The brakes are strong enough to overcome the most power engine. 2 - Here's the process to follow if you have a stuck accelerator. Number 2 doesn't make Number 1 false. All you need to do is look at accelleration figures in comparison to stopping distance figures. A car takes X number of feet to accellerate from a stop to 100 KPH. The stopping distance is generally something in the neighbourhood of X/4 feet, meaning the brakes are dissipating roughly 4 times the power the engine is producing. It's not just Brakes vs Engine, though. See also mass, momentum, inertia and gravity for additional information. Unless of course, you are driving a weightless car. The inertia affects accelleration EXACTLY the same as it affects braking. Going down hill when stopping vs uphill acclellerating, or vice versa, would skew the results somewhat. FAIL |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote: On Mar 2, 4:55*pm, wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:11:16 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: ... What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN. The victims are 0% to blame. ... So, _nothing_ ever breaks in your world? "Should" ain't "doesn't" no matter what it is; if it's mechanical it can fail. Not reacting properly when there apparently was quite a lot of time (evidenced by 911 call in the CA incident) makes the participant an (albeit unwilling) accomplice in the result of a failure (granted) not of their doing initially. Unless there was a complete failure of the ignition system _and_ transmission shifter as well as the accelerator, then yes, there's no doubt there was operator error involved as well as the mechanical failure. Nobody's blamed those involved for the initiating event; only questioned the outcome as being inevitable. The counter example cited is too dissimilar to be of any import -- in that case the remedy is to take some unusual precaution a priori (of course, if one is proposing a walk in a particularly unsavory area after dark if just might not be so unusual to either choose another entertainment venue or take the precautions); in the case under discussion it's the lack of an appropriate response to the event after it has occurred when there is ample opportunity to take corrective action (and afaik there's no data that says such actions aren't possible). So, I'll disagree with the assertion that there's no culpability in severity of outcome independent of the driver in the incidents until and unless it's shown that the remedial actions were unavailable. Rationalizew any way you wish. There is a stack of dead bodies that says you are wrong.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the cure for _not_ dieing has been published and should have been known by every one of the victims (provided there was _time_ to react properly). You "totally innocent" stance is groundless. Every driver should know enough about the vehicle operation to take the proper action without having to be told. Harry K You are truly "lost in space" |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:53:20 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote: On Mar 2, 9:31*am, wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote: Hell Toupee wrote : Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. *There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. *They loaned it out again anyway. It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose,because the reported problem did not occur when checking it out. and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner? The operator should have known there was a problem, diagnosed it and fixed it properly before leaving the dealership. He must have been stupid.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - !!??? He should have known there was a prolem with unintended acceleration? And just how do you think he could have done that unless the dealer told him? Fixed it!!!? The DEALER can't even find the problem much less fix it. Harry K I was just trying to match the logic of a few others in this thread, including yourself. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"mm" wrote in -snip- I was thinking about the car thing. At 60 MPH, a mile a minute, 3 seconds is enough to go 264 feet. I would much rather have a key, which turns off the ignition in my car in under a fifth of a second, more like 20 feet. After these incidents, cars may go back to that. at the very least it should be mandatory to have the panic shutoff that ?Audi? has-- hit it 3 times quickly & it shuts down. Should save 2 1/2 seconds or so. Jim |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
|
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
In article , "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four. Not true, My Sonata has rear disc brakes, but the parking brake has shoes inside of a drum. I've tried stopping the car with it and doubt it would have a lot of effect at full throttle. Depends on the vehicle. In my experience, the overwhelming majority use the exact same set of pads/shoes. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?
In article , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , wrote: How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic problem. The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by Toyota's president that they're going to look into programming a brake override for the throttle. I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM THE BEGINNING? Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability something less than desireable?? Only that small number of fools who make a habit of using the brakes and throttle simultaneously. And just how much authority do you give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what road speed, and at what throttle position?? Absolute authority at any speed over, say, 5mph. Obviously. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 3, 6:22*am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:08 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote: wrote Panic and untrained/unskilled drivers certainly have a large component to play in end results methinks as well even though the initiating event is hardware/software related it appears... What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN. The victims are 0% to blame. You do have a responsibility to your self and others to be properly trained in the use of any machinery, be it a table saw, pistol, punch press or automobile. *Just as pilots train over and over how to handle a crippled aircraft, drivers should know emergency procedures. What do you do if the hood flies up? Tire blows out run out of gas slush from a passing car blinds the windshield you hit black ice a car cuts in front of you the truck next to you drifts into your lane and a few hundred other possibilities. *These thing happen every day *and a competent driver knows how to handle them to avoid a crash. *Some days I play the mental game of "what if" while driving. *When the emergency presents itself, I should be better equipped to handle it. Okay, how many of the items above do YOU practice dealing with on a regular basis. And by practice, I mean, replicate the situation and drive out of it. Do you own a skid pad?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And how many of these procedures does any reasonable person do with a RENTAL car, The Lexus death car driven by the CA highway patrol officer was a rental car. Is it reasonable for that driver to know that when the car is traveling the procedure for turning off the ignition is very different from turning it off when the car is parked? It takes pushing in the dash start button a full, continuous 3 seconds. Would you do that or would you do what many people might do, push it in for a second or two, then try again? Do you read the owners manual before driving off? Tell the truth now. In fact, most of the rental cars I've had didn't even have the owner;s manual in them. Even if you read it in the manual in your own car, would you remember it 3, 5 years later in the middle of an emergency. I quite amazed at the superiority complex some folks have here. You assume you would do so much better at handling this than a trained CA highway patrol officer in a car with 3 other people who also had considerable time to come up with ideas on how to stop the car. I think in view of not knowing all the facts and with so many of these unexplained accidents, SA and I are not so willing to jump to conclusions. And I also think no matter what happened, from what we know a lot of the blame falls on Toyota because it's clear: A - In the Lexus at least, it takes a continuous 3 sec push to turn off the ignition of the car while moving. That seems excessively long. B - Toytota, unlike other manufacturers, chose to not have an interlock that disengages the throttle when brakes are applied C - They knew about these increasing incidents for a long time and didn't do enough. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 2, 11:51*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:06*am, Hell Toupee wrote: Harry K wrote: On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things. At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so anymore. I _know_ it was the driver's fault. *There is no debate about that. He was just plain stupid. More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden acceleration problem to them. *They loaned it out again anyway. It doesn't matter that the dealership was at fault there. *The primary cause of the deaths was driver stupidity. *Had he responded properly, as I hope anyone possting in this forum would, noone would have died. Harry K- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's amazing how you can rush to judgement. The driver wasn't some kid, a guy half drunk or a partly senile old man. It was a CA highway patrol officer trained in advanced driving techniques. He had THREE other people in the car that could also come up with ideas how to stop the car. Have you analyzed the car and know how it operates? Already we know a good reason why they would not have been able to shut off the Lexus. It takes a full 3 second push on the start button. How long do you think 3 secs is going to seem to you when you're in a car in traffic going 90mph and accelerating? Would you be so knowledgable and rational under those conditions? Or would you wind up dead and being called stupid? As for the rest of the possible ways of stopping the car, without carefully reviewing the design of the car and the crashed car, it's premature to rush to judgement. |
Toyota acceleration Was Snow Cover On Roof Provides WindProtection?
On Mar 2, 11:08*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:43*am, wrote: On Mar 2, 7:01*am, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Mar 2, 5:55*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote: "mm" wrote Yes. And some of them won't turn off either, some of the ones with no keyhole. You have to hold the button for something like three seconds. *That sounds like a very long time if you are accelerating in traffic. Apply brakes, shift into neutral. No more acceleration. Do you know for sure how the shift mechanism works on all these cars? No, I don't know for sure, and I'm assuming you don't either. So I guess it's open for discussion. The throttle is fly by wire, what makes you so sure there isn't something similar for the tranny that could block it from being moved into certain positions under certain conditions? * That even seems desirable, does it not? Not in all instances. Right Like preventing it from being moved into park while it's moving? While I *might* not want to be able to put a tranny in park while it's moving, I would most certainly want to be able to put it in neutral for the very reason this "snow on the roof" thread has continued for so long. If my throttle got stuck, whether by a floor mat, an electronic fault, a driver having a heart attack or a car jacker with a death wish, I'd be really ****ed if I couldn't pop it into neutral in an attempt to keep myself alive. Yes, but you missed my whole point. You acknowledged that it's desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being shifted into at least Park while it's moving. OK, so I implement that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by the computer. That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning and has the throttle pegged. How do you know the computer isn't stuck in some erroneous program loop or state and isn't responding to ANY commands? Until someone has a definitive independent study of what happened in a lot of these cases, I'm not going to rush to judgement against the drivers. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter