In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
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?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at the same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you wanted the
brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept them effective after
leaving the stream. Give me some time, I probably can think of one or two
more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of sense. This
morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama administration is considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected mechanically
to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the brakes are used,
it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you think having valves
that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side effect of providing a
fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving skills to turn the engine
off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
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?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at the same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you wanted the
brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept them effective after
leaving the stream. Give me some time, I probably can think of one or two
more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of sense. This
morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama administration is considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected mechanically
to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the brakes are used,
it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you think having valves
that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side effect of providing a
fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving skills to turn the engine
off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.


Do you think the linkage is going to be moved to idle, pedal and all?
Do you think you can move it at one end only?

Most likely the cable outer sheath at the throttle end would be moved.
Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might be solved.
If the contraption jams, you might have runaway conditions more often
than without the kluge.

In article , wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:54=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, wrote:





On Mar 2, 9:01=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (D=
on =3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
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 overri=
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM =
THE
BEGINNING?

=3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3DA0As in rely=
ing on =3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply a=
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfu=
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any s=
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any tw=
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of them al=
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. You are arguing
that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the
throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle
if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.

Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea, not
mine.

Surely you must know that you
could easily design a computer that controlled both where if the
computer ran amock, it could command full throttle and ignore the
start/stop button that is telling it to shut off the engine. I'm
amazed you would argue such a thing.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own creation.

In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:40:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:07:46 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ
Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ
Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
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?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at the
same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you wanted
the
brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept them effective
after
leaving the stream. Give me some time, I probably can think of one or
two
more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of sense.
This
morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama administration is considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected mechanically
to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the brakes are used,
it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you think having valves
that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side effect of providing a
fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving skills to turn the engine
off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back
to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.


Do you think the linkage is going to be moved to idle, pedal and all?
Do you think you can move it at one end only?

Most likely the cable outer sheath at the throttle end would be moved.
Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might be solved.
If the contraption jams, you might have runaway conditions more often
than without the kluge.

Why do you think the cable needs to be moved _at all_ for the engine
computer
to reduce fuel flow?

look 5 lines up
and look 10 lines up

I guess I have to spell this out for you.

To stop runaway acceleration it is not necessary to cut off the flow of fuel.
Reducing fuel flow to idle levels is more than sufficient. The engine computer

controls the flow of fuel to the injectors. For the engine computer to reduce
this flow to idle levels does not require any movement of any mechanical
linkage.

Do you understand now?

Do I have to read the thread to you?
"Dropping the throttle back to dle is more than sufficient to stop
runaway acceleration."

What the **** do you think a throttle is? Software?

On many cars, yes, it is. Software-controlled, at any rate. The point remains,
there is no need for any sort of mechanical movement of the throttle pedal,
cable, linkage, or whatever for the engine computer to reduce fuel flow to the
injectors.

I replied "Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might
be solved."

I was saying that using a mechanical method was a bad idea.

I don't think anybody ever suggested that using *only* a mechanical method was
a good idea.

wrote:

No, and I never assumed it did. But don't you think a CA highway
patrol officer that has received a variety of training, not only in
driving, but in how to handle difficult, stressful, combat situations,
would have the presence of mind to shift into neutral? Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? Is it possible they didn't
try sure. But doesn't this bother you at all, or are you certain to
join Harry in calling the dead cop stupid?

It bothers me quite a bit. I don't have a good explanation for the reported
facts.

I've never seen a car that can't be shifted into neutral at speed, but that
doesn't mean there isn't one. I've instructed my wife and daughters to shift
into neutral if the car runs away. They all said "You can do that?". So it is
possible that no one thought of it or that it was possible.

I had an '79 Audi that didn't run away, but didn't slow down when I lifted the
accelerator. I hooked my foot under the pedal and pulled it up. It slowed down
just fine. It turned out there was a problem with the throttle sticking. It was
common enough that my mechanic recognized it immediately. If the Lexus throttle
was jammed by the floor mat, the same technique may have worked.

Since I owned an Audi of the appropriate vintage, I paid a lot of attention to
the unintended acceleration issues at the time. Car and Driver magazine has
some first rate automotive engineers on the staff. They showed conclusively
that the brakes can overcome a full throttle. As mentioned in this thread, they
did so again recently.

For most people, 90 mph through traffic is terrifying and panic is not
unexpected. For a CHiPs officer, that is just another day at the office. But
he was calling 911! Of all the useless activities.

Like I said, I don't have a good explanation.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

the Obama "administration" likes mandating things.They are
anti-freedom.

Sure. Governments mandate things. It's what they do.

Thus the necessity of as little government as possible.
Except that DemocRATs are for BIG government and Big Brother.

The difference
between Republicans and Democrats is what they mandate. Republicans
want to run my private life and Democrats want to run my public life.

The Republicans want to tell me who I can marry, who I can sleep with,
what I can put in my body, and what surgical procedures I can have.
The Democrats want to tell me who I can hire, what I have pay them,
what benefits I have to give, who I sell/rent my house to, and what
cars I can buy.

-- Doug


Restricting who you can marry has existed for long before Republicans.
there never has been any "homo marriage",not in 1000's of years of
marriages.Marriage has always been between man and woman.
also,"marriage" is not a "right",it's privelege.There are other
restrictions besides man-woman.

But DemocRATs want to restrict your free speech through speech
codes and "fairness doctrines",they want to restrict(ban) gun
ownership,they want to nullify your private property rights(like Kelo),they
want to discard the Constitution so they can advance communism.Oh,and
DemocRATs are for Racism,always have been.They still believe non-white
races need special priveleges to be "equal" to whites.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
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?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at the
same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you
wanted the brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept
them effective after leaving the stream. Give me some time, I
probably can think of one or two more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of sense.
This morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama administration is
considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected mechanically
to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the brakes are used,
it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you think having valves
that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side effect of providing a
fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving skills to turn the engine
off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle
back to idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.


O2 sensors,along with the throttle position sensor would cause the ECU to
reduce fuel flow to maintain the proper fuel-air ratio.

The problem is electric control of the throttle butterfly.
It leaves it subject to the whims of the computer's programming,any flaws
it may contain,and electrical/electronic failures.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Douglas Johnson wrote:


The Republicans want to tell me who I can marry, who I can sleep
with, what I can put in my body, and what surgical procedures I can
have. The Democrats want to tell me who I can hire, what I have pay
them, what benefits I have to give, who I sell/rent my house to, and
what cars I can buy.


Don't blame the Republicans - they're just the messengers. It was God who
laid down the rules. The Democrats, too, are someone's messenger.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson

wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
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?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at
the same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you
wanted the brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept
them effective
after
leaving the stream. Give me some time, I probably can think of one
or two more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of
sense. This morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama
administration is considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected
mechanically to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the
brakes are used, it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you
think having valves that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side
effect of providing a fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving
skills to turn the engine off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle
back to idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.


Do you think the linkage is going to be moved to idle, pedal and all?
Do you think you can move it at one end only?

Most likely the cable outer sheath at the throttle end would be moved.
Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might be solved.
If the contraption jams, you might have runaway conditions more often
than without the kluge.

Why do you think the cable needs to be moved _at all_ for the engine
computer to reduce fuel flow?


some modern engines cut off fuel flow to pairs of the cylinders,to improve
fuel economy under light load.it doesn't harm anything;the cut-off
cylinders just pump air.it doesn't even matter if the spark plug fires.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:54=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
..com, wrote:





On Mar 2, 9:01=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(D=
on =3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
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 overri=
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE
FROM =
THE
BEGINNING?

=3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3DA0As in
rely=
ing on =3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
apply a=
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttle malfunction, for the override to not work would require
a second malfu=
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than
any s=
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory:
any tw=
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them al=
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. You are arguing
that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the
throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle
if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.

Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea,
not mine.

Surely you must know that you
could easily design a computer that controlled both where if the
computer ran amock, it could command full throttle and ignore the
start/stop button that is telling it to shut off the engine. I'm
amazed you would argue such a thing.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own
creation.


OTOH,you never mentioned the need to ADD a second computer to run your
extra override code.
Thus,it's natural that we should presume you intended to add extra code to
the existing computer programming and use the existing control channels.

Or perhaps you can tell us just HOW you intended to implement your idea of
brake override programming?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:



"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.

No. At least on my Infiniti, the engine runs just fine with the fob
out of the car. It just won't start with the fob out of the car.--
Doug


so,you can exit your car,and leave the motor running while you go into a
store?


And then some thief can drive off with it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 3, 3:18*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:





On Mar 3, 10:54=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (D=
on =3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
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 overri=
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM =
THE
BEGINNING?

=3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3DA0As in rely=
ing on =3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply a=
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfu=
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any s=
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any tw=
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of them al=
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. * The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. * You are arguing
that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the
throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle
if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.



*Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent. *

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea, not
mine.



Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?


Doug:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.


In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault. A computer malfunction that
caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being
able to perform the brake safety function.

You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer. That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing. And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. That qualification you never made. You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:


Since I owned an Audi of the appropriate vintage, I paid a lot of
attention to the unintended acceleration issues at the time. Car and
Driver magazine has some first rate automotive engineers on the
staff. They showed conclusively that the brakes can overcome a full
throttle. As mentioned in this thread, they did so again recently.

did they do this with the car MOVING at speed,and THEN try to stop the car
with full throttle?
Or just put the brakes on and floor the gas pedal?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article , wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:18=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, wrote:





On Mar 3, 10:54=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3D3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , =
(D=3D
on =3D3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
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 ove=
rri=3D
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FR=
OM =3D
THE
BEGINNING?

=3D3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3D3DA0As =
in rely=3D
ing on =3D3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably appl=
y a=3D
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttl=
e
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second ma=
lfu=3D
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than an=
y s=3D
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any=
tw=3D
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of them=
al=3D
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. =A0 The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. =A0 You are arguing
that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the
throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle
if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.



=A0Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent. =A0

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea, no=
t
mine.



Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?


Doug:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.


In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault.

Well, DUH! Obviously.

But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's
*your* assumption.

Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation.


A computer malfunction that
caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being
able to perform the brake safety function.

You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer.

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the same
computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even
suggested.

And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. That qualification you never made.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily had to
be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you wouldn't think
that a perfectly true statement about probability is somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.

You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going to make?
Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now, and it's not due
back til the middle of next week.

On Mar 3, 1:52*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's
assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that
more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the
current laws are much more strict than in 94.

nope.- Hide quoted text -



I'd like to see a credible reference that says there is more than one
computer controlling the engine on a 1994 car or even most of the cars
today. The cars I've been familiar with have had one ECU, or engine
control unit and that is the one computer that manages the engine. It
only makes sense, because whatever the emissions reqts are, you meet
them by correctly running the engine which means you need to measure
rpms, temp, airflow, emissions, speed, throttle, etc and all that
needs to be factored in to then determine the fuel delivery, timing,
etc. It's would seem far easier and simpler to do that in one
computer that gets fed all the info.

There are potentially lots of other computers for climate control,
entertainment system, tranny, electronic displays, etc.

On Mar 2, 11:37*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:07:41 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03





wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:38*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:20:49 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
-snip-

bulll****. *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". * *At 2:50 he
expands on that a bit. * The brakes did not work.

Try it some time. *Floor your car with one foot. *Stomp on the brakes
with the other foot. *The car will stop. *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. *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. *Just like 10 years ago
with the audis. *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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't argue with that!

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:16:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:52*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's
assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that
more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the
current laws are much more strict than in 94.

nope.- Hide quoted text -



I'd like to see a credible reference that says there is more than one
computer controlling the engine on a 1994 car or even most of the cars
today. The cars I've been familiar with have had one ECU, or engine
control unit and that is the one computer that manages the engine. It
only makes sense, because whatever the emissions reqts are, you meet
them by correctly running the engine which means you need to measure
rpms, temp, airflow, emissions, speed, throttle, etc and all that
needs to be factored in to then determine the fuel delivery, timing,
etc. It's would seem far easier and simpler to do that in one
computer that gets fed all the info.

There are potentially lots of other computers for climate control,
entertainment system, tranny, electronic displays, etc.

A lot also depends on what you want to count as a "computer".

A relay uses logic. Is it a computer?

How about a toggle switch?

wrote in message

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".


Evidently you've not driven the newer V-6. I forget the auto mag that did
the test where it beat a Camero in the quarter mile.

wrote in
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?


I've practiced some, I'd had a couple happen to me, but just as important, I
practice them in my mind. Ever watch the top athletes run the downhill in
their minds? Or a race course? They know what to expect and are ready for
when it happens. While driving, just think about where you are and what you
can do if an emergency happens.

Oh, as for the black ice, I learned quickly when I was 17 and found myself
going backwards at 50 mph. Valuable lesson. I do have a rather large
parking lot at work to pay around too, so yes, I do have a skid pad of
sorts.

"Harry K" wrote

Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.

Actually, my father took us out so we could do those things.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:27:49 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



wrote in message

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".


Evidently you've not driven the newer V-6. I forget the auto mag that did
the test where it beat a Camero in the quarter mile.

Then obviously the Camaro was not a real muscle car, either.

Perky, zippy, peppy... sure. Muscle car? LOL!

Jim Yanik wrote:

so,you can exit your car,and leave the motor running while you go into a
store?


And then some thief can drive off with it.

Yep. So don't do that.
-- Doug

Jim Yanik wrote:

did they do this with the car MOVING at speed,and THEN try to stop the car
with full throttle?
Or just put the brakes on and floor the gas pedal?


From
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tion-tech_dept

"With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame
all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s
a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal
problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100
mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but
the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence"

-- Doug

On Mar 3, 4:11*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
**Programming* a throttle override by the brake? *As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Doug:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.

In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault. *

Well, DUH! Obviously.

Well if you now agree that Don's meaning was that he was talking about
the same computer, then your reply was totally wrong, because it was
then up to you to say YOU were talking about 2 different computers.
So, your reply makes no sense.



But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's
*your* assumption.

Your getting yourself confused here. You just agreed above it was
obvious that Don was referring to one computer, ie the same one that
is running the throttle. So, how is it anyone else then supposed to
interpret your comments to be referring to anything other than that
ONE computer?



You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer. *

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the same
computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even
suggested.

*And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. *That qualification you never made.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily had to
be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you wouldn't think
that a perfectly true statement about probability is somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.


You have a problem admitting when you are wrong. And you've been
wrong three times now in this thread. Once on the parking brake issue
when you first claimed all cars parking brakes use the same pads as
the service break. Then wrong again when you said it was bizarre that
Mercedes would use a seperate brake pad for the parking brake. Several
people spotted it and told you that many cars have brakes where the
parking brakes are seperate. I also was wrong when I first implied
that all cars were that way. The difference is, I admitted it.
Yet you never said you were wrong. And your statement above is
still false:

" Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.


That is true ONLY IF the two computers are independent of each other.
That is a critical missing piece. But you never stated that. It's
not up to others to have to make the correct assumptions to go along
with what you wrote. It's like saying you can easily survive a jump
off the George Washington bridge, but leaving out the part about
having a base jumping parachute. Then when called on it, ragging on
about others making the wrong assumptions. Also what you call
assumptions, I would call paying attention to the thread and following
the context of the discussion. I think what Don who made the post
was referring to was clear from the context. You agreed to that
above, I;ve seen his posts and think he has good sense and knows
that if you have a totally seperate computer programmed as the safety
brake/throttle override, then it's not a problem. It's very likely
he was referring to programming the SAME computer. Yet you came
back and implied he was wrong and if you were talking about 2 seperate
computers, first the response then doens't make sense, and second, it
was up to YOU to say you were talking about two.


You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going to make?
Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now, and it's not due
back til the middle of next week.- Hide quoted text -


Let's see here. Don didn't say whether he meant programming another
computer as the brake safety or the same computer we've been talking
about in this thread that controls the throttle. Yet you ASSume he
meant a seperate computer, which seems less likely given the context,
and that's peachy keen. That is the only way the statements that you
then made would be correct. So, there are one set of rules for Doug
and one for everyone else.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Harry K" wrote

Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.

Actually, my father took us out so we could do those things.

My father didn't, but I did that for my daughter and I did it for
myself, starting in parking lots. When roads are snow covered I
regularly do test skids and acceleration tests when no other cars are in
sight and I'm not likely to do damage if I do go out of control. I do
the same on wet roads too. I was surprised how easy I could make the
back of a front wheel drive the car slide as I turned faster/sharper
than normal.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:02:35 -0500, Tony
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Harry K" wrote

Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.

Actually, my father took us out so we could do those things.

My father didn't, but I did that for my daughter and I did it for
myself, starting in parking lots. When roads are snow covered I
regularly do test skids and acceleration tests when no other cars are in
sight and I'm not likely to do damage if I do go out of control. I do
the same on wet roads too. I was surprised how easy I could make the
back of a front wheel drive the car slide as I turned faster/sharper
than normal.

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:02:35 -0500, Tony
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.
Actually, my father took us out so we could do those things.
My father didn't, but I did that for my daughter and I did it for
myself, starting in parking lots. When roads are snow covered I
regularly do test skids and acceleration tests when no other cars are in
sight and I'm not likely to do damage if I do go out of control. I do
the same on wet roads too. I was surprised how easy I could make the
back of a front wheel drive the car slide as I turned faster/sharper
than normal.

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

****, no I didn't. After the practice runs over the active volcanoes I
needed new tires and never finished the underwater part of the course. :-/

In article , wrote:
On Mar 3, 4:11=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
=A0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =A0As in relying on=
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Doug:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.

In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault. =A0

Well, DUH! Obviously.

Well if you now agree that Don's meaning was that he was talking about
the same computer, then your reply was totally wrong, because it was
then up to you to say YOU were talking about 2 different computers.
So, your reply makes no sense.



But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's
*your* assumption.

Your getting yourself confused here. You just agreed above it was
obvious that Don was referring to one computer, ie the same one that
is running the throttle.

Not really. You're the one confused. But that's ok. I understand that happens
to you a lot.

Go play with your straw men, trader. I'm done.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Thus the necessity of as little government as possible.
Except that DemocRATs are for BIG government and Big Brother.

So are the Republicans, just in different areas. Big military, big police, war
on terror, warrantless wiretaps, denial of habeas...


Restricting who you can marry has existed for long before Republicans.

Sure. But it is still a government mandate that restricts freedoms, your
original point.

But DemocRATs want to restrict your free speech through speech
codes and "fairness doctrines",they want to restrict(ban) gun
ownership,they want to nullify your private property rights(like Kelo),they
want to discard the Constitution so they can advance communism.Oh,and
DemocRATs are for Racism,always have been.They still believe non-white
races need special priveleges to be "equal" to whites.

Ain't no saints here. As I started out, it is the nature of government to
mandate and restrict rights. You are trying to frame it as "My guys are giving
good restrictions and those guys are giving bad restrictions." OK. I get that.

But by the way, not all Democrats (notice the correct capitalization) share the
same views any more that all Republicans are of one mind. I think most
Democrats would view the characterization above as extreme.

-- Doug

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:07:12 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:16:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:52Â*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's
assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that
more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the
current laws are much more strict than in 94.

nope.- Hide quoted text -



I'd like to see a credible reference that says there is more than one
computer controlling the engine on a 1994 car or even most of the cars
today. The cars I've been familiar with have had one ECU, or engine
control unit and that is the one computer that manages the engine. It
only makes sense, because whatever the emissions reqts are, you meet
them by correctly running the engine which means you need to measure
rpms, temp, airflow, emissions, speed, throttle, etc and all that
needs to be factored in to then determine the fuel delivery, timing,
etc. It's would seem far easier and simpler to do that in one
computer that gets fed all the info.

There are potentially lots of other computers for climate control,
entertainment system, tranny, electronic displays, etc.

A lot also depends on what you want to count as a "computer".

A relay uses logic. Is it a computer?

How about a toggle switch?

moving the goalposts.

It looks like you're argueing for the sake of arguing.

An ECU is going to have a master program. It doesn't matter if there
are ten trillion computers inside. It is trivial for the master computer
to issue the order to shut the fuel off. It is done every time the
car is shut off. This isn't a terrible complex concept.

Tony wrote:

So! How about that new Harbor Freight Multifunction Tool? Do I need
proof of purchase to join the club?

And my front door sticks, is this due to the humidity from my fern plant
at the other end of the house? Not to mention the radon, it's higher
outside than inside! And I can't find the pilot light on the oven? I
have it plugged into 240VAC but can't find the pilot? How about the cat
litter smell? It's only been a year and it's time to change the litter
already? Is this true? How about my heat, I hear it costs more to turn
it back when no one is home then to leave it at 70F? And my washing
machine won't drain, should I just cut a hole in the bottom of it and
tape it when I want it to fill? My phone is messed up too. Every time
I hear it ring I pick up, say hello, and someone is there talking to me.
And I can't find the "dial", how can I dial numbers when it only has
push buttons? Of course my van, it says 5-30 oil, should I put in
straight 30? I'm in northern Alaska.


I'll give you points for trying to help....
--
aem sends, also tired of Toyota Talk Time....

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:01=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(Don =
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
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?

=A0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =A0As in
relying on =
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply
an override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction. Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less
likely than any single malfunction.


That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any
two events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them alone.

only problem is that in this case of throttle control programming,both
"events" are all part of the *same code*.
it's still possible for the code to jump off into nowhere, go into some
strange loop.

And the failure rates of the processor, its RAM, whatever the code is
stored in, and power and ground connections to these and any power
conditioning circuitry / components such as voltage regulators and
bypass capacitors are not going to zero. The power conditioning for the
throttle control computer may be insufficient to handle voltage variations
caused by malfunction or failure elsewhere in the car. Hardware
failure/malfunction can cause the software/firmware to malfunction or not
be any good at all.

(Will the computer that controls the throttle work properly at the
lowest voltage that the ignition system can work at? If the alternator's
voltage regulator fails, will the computer that controls the throttle keep
on ticking at 17 volts-plus or whatever until the battery is dried out or
fried enough to not allow the car to run or the high voltage blows
something in a way that stops the engine? Will the computer control the
throttle properly with the worst corrosion at the battery terminals that
allows the car to run?)

- Don Klipstein )

"LSMFT" wrote
What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch
off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the
brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over
100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking
stupid can you get?

She also testified that she tried to put the car in neutral but could not
and tried other gears and could not. I don't know if that is true or not.
In a panic, people do (or cannot do) some strange things.

wrote

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

Correct, while it is not practical to practice, it is very possible to think
about what to do. How to open a door or window, equalizing pressure, the air
bubble that will remain, using a cell phone, etc. Yes, it is stupid not to
think about it.

Start here
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/disc...htm?FORM=VIRE5

"Harry K" wrote

And how about if God reached down and blocked off the shift lever?

And what if you wanted to commit suicide? I'd not be surprised if a couple
of these cases are. Many a bridge abutment has been the scapegoat. This
way your family collects insurance and Toyota pays on top.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:20:27 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"LSMFT" wrote
What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch
off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the
brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over
100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking
stupid can you get?

She also testified that she tried to put the car in neutral but could not
and tried other gears and could not. I don't know if that is true or not.
In a panic, people do (or cannot do) some strange things.


she was trying to cover her ass. If you're going to try and bilk
a several millions dollars out of a multinational corporation, you can't
admit any fault. Just like the demon possessed audis of twenty years ago.

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote in
m:

Thus the necessity of as little government as possible.
Except that DemocRATs are for BIG government and Big Brother.

So are the Republicans, just in different areas. Big military, big
police, war on terror, warrantless wiretaps, denial of habeas...

It's the JOB of government to defend the nation,and that requires a big
powerful military. The "War on Terror" is necessary and proper."warrantless
wiretaps" is a misnomer,as the gov't does get warrants,but they also need
to be able to act in a timely manner.Unlawful enemy combatants do NOT get
the same rights as regular military or ordinary citizens,for GOOD reason.
Of course,if you read Andrew C. McCarthy's many writings on these
subjects,you might know something accurate about these things.


Restricting who you can marry has existed for long before Republicans.

Sure. But it is still a government mandate that restricts freedoms,
your original point.

No,it -protects- the freedoms of Americans by protecting marriage from the
homos destroying it,as is their intention.The homos have an agenda,and
their "marriage" shtick is about "normalizing" their perversity,nothing
more.


But DemocRATs want to restrict your free speech through speech
codes and "fairness doctrines",they want to restrict(ban) gun
ownership,they want to nullify your private property rights(like
Kelo),they want to discard the Constitution so they can advance
communism.Oh,and DemocRATs are for Racism,always have been.They still
believe non-white races need special priveleges to be "equal" to
whites.

Ain't no saints here. As I started out, it is the nature of
government to
mandate and restrict rights.

Not as the Constitution is written.
Problem is,the "progressives" don't believe in the Constitution and are
constantly whittling away at it.
They've been working at it since the early 1900's.
DemocRATs (as a group)only give lip service to the Constitution.
They are FAR more of a threat to the Constitution than Republicans.People
are beginning to awaken to that reality,since Obama has revealed himself
for what he truly is.

You are trying to frame it as "My guys
are giving good restrictions and those guys are giving bad
restrictions." OK. I get that.

Apparently not.

But by the way, not all Democrats (notice the correct capitalization)
share the same views any more that all Republicans are of one mind. I
think most Democrats would view the characterization above as extreme.

-- Doug


except that when actually VOTING,DemocRATs are mostly sticking with the
"progressive" insanity of their leadership.

IMO,you've RATIONALIZED the DemocRATS into being morally equivalent to
Republicans. they are not.
I do believe the Republicans have drifted away from their core beliefs,but
still are the much lesser of two evils.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:18=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
.=
com, wrote:





On Mar 3, 10:54=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
ups=3D
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3D3DA0pm, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article ,
=
(D=3D
on =3D3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller
wrote:
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 ove=
rri=3D
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT
THERE FR=
OM =3D
THE
BEGINNING?

=3D3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake?
=3D3DA0As =
in rely=3D
ing on =3D3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
appl=
y a=3D
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttl=
e
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a
second ma=
lfu=3D
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely
than an=
y s=3D
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability
theory: any=
tw=3D
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them=
al=3D
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. =A0 The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. =A0 You are
arguing that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is
running the throttle to also be the safety override and to
disengage the throttle if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.



=A0Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent. =A0

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your*
idea, no=
t
mine.



Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply
an override onto the throttle?


Doug:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
single
malfunction.


In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault.

Well, DUH! Obviously.

But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer.
That's *your* assumption.

Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own
creation.


A computer malfunction that
caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being
able to perform the brake safety function.

You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer.

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the
same computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even
suggested.

And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. That qualification you never made.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily
had to be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you
wouldn't think that a perfectly true statement about probability is
somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.

You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going
to make? Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now,
and it's not due back til the middle of next week.


you debate dishonestly.
You have never mentioned any additional computer or other method of
execution of your additional override code.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim Yanik wrote in
4:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:54=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
..com, wrote:





On Mar 2, 9:01=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(D=
on =3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller
wrote:
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 overri=
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE
FROM =
THE
BEGINNING?

=3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3DA0As
in rely=
ing on =3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
apply a=
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttle malfunction, for the override to not work would require
a second malfu=
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than
any s=
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory:
any tw=
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them al=
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. You are
arguing that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is
running the throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage
the throttle if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.

Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your*
idea, not mine.

Surely you must know that you
could easily design a computer that controlled both where if the
computer ran amock, it could command full throttle and ignore the
start/stop button that is telling it to shut off the engine. I'm
amazed you would argue such a thing.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own
creation.


OTOH,you never mentioned the need to ADD a second computer to run your
extra override code.
Thus,it's natural that we should presume you intended to add extra
code to the existing computer programming and use the existing control
channels.

Or perhaps you can tell us just HOW you intended to implement your
idea of brake override programming?


you also never mention how you would have this additional computer
interface with the existing system.

you debate dishonestly.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:30:11 -0500, wrote:

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.
Do you?
I am a computer tech by trade and training, as well as a licenced auto
mechanic.

The explanation was not meant to be detailed and 100% accurate - but
to cover the basics.