DC Tom Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I know the whole neutral thing... But some people panic or do not have enough time shift into neutral (that is the accident occurs within seconds... Like hitting something). Honestly... What would somebody do if they were pulling into their driveway and the thing accelerated... You would have about a second to react... Now what happens if it crashed through a wall or something... Or ran over somebody... Jumped the curb. ABC just did a thing on how Audi had this problem back in the 1980's (1988)... They had to really change their image because of all the problems with the 500 (I think that was the model). The whole saftey feature about stepping on the brakes to get the car out of park thing came from those Audi cases. I take the same thing with foot on the clutch to start too. What do you do if you are at a light? Sure you may slow down... What about oncoming traffic... Or say into a train at a grade crossing?? Sure... I tend to chuckle at the PICNIC (Problem In Chair Not In Computer) angle... But come on... Are we really that cold-hearted? Hopefully with this coming to light, more people can react better. Just to make a comparrison on people react... I mean really, training was give after Columbine... This most recent shooter incident may have been a lot worse. The teacher that jumped the dude before he could chamber another round directly attributes how he reacted to his training that he received. We would all like to think that we would just put the shifter in N and coast to a stop or jump a deranged perp that is looking to hurt people. Most people really have never really thought about these things. They should now. Cars are turning into moving computers... Heck they all ready are. We have to expect they behave better than you run of the mill piece of Dell crap. It is not big issue when your PC behaves badly... It is with a car. By the way, it's PEBCAK (Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard). Though I think I like PICNIC better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 How COULD Ralph Nader have failed us so miserably? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 And it leads to the point does the government really want people to stop smoking and get rid of that cash cow. But regarding gasoline they'll just tax whatever it is that's better that comes along. and do we ever want to cure chronic diseases like diabetes that require a lifetime of medical supplies and treatment? etc etc etc. Oh and if "industry-friendly" means "look the other way while consumers are saddled with potentially dangerous products", I'll take a pass and go with "unfriendly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The "sudden acceleration" was due to the fact that people were putting their foot on the gas instead of the brakes... 60 Minutes fabricated a lot of crap and that's what caused Audi to decline in sales over 60%... Sorta what the government is trying to do to Toyota right now... To improve sales of GM? (that's the cynic in me talking, anyway). Wall Street Journal article from 1989: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm "Government agencies in Japan and Canada, as well as in the U.S., conducted painstaking studies. The Canadians who are franker about such things, called it "driver error." In America, where we can't attach blame to anyone whose name doesn't end with Inc., it was called "pedal misapplication." And unsurprisingly, it's not just Audi drivers who commit it." "The "60 Minutes" story starred a mother who had run over her sixyearold son. On the air, she insisted that she had had her foot on the brake the whole time. When her $48 million claim came to court in Akron, Ohio, in June 1988 the investigating police officer and witnesses at the scene testified that after the accident the distraught mother had admitted that her foot had slipped off the brake. The jury found no defect in the car." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Un...ed_acceleration Another good article: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/in-defens...-the-audi-5000/ "Parnelli fired up the Caddy's big V8, dropped it in gear and floored it- with his other foot on the brake. The left rear wheel lit up in a screeching howl; the car was soon engulfed in a cloud of acrid smoke. The Caddy didn't move an inch- obviously. And neither did Parnelli, glancing at the wincing producer with his wicked grin. I had assumed (wrongly) that race-car drivers grew up eventually. The experience seared in a lesson in basic automobile physics: brakes are always more powerful than engines, even when they have 500 cubic inches (8.2 liters). Too bad we didn't have our cameras running. We could have made a graphic rebuttal to 60 Minutes' fraudulent destruction of Audi." Thanks Fez! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrecrazed Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 If the government would just get out of the car business, this witch hunt wouldn't be much of an issue. But they are too arrogant for that. Its like having NFL refs owning 60% of the Dolphins. Either give up your part of GovMotors or have no say in this. I guess its ok for this adm though...they make up the rules as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 If the government would just get out of the car business, this witch hunt wouldn't be much of an issue. But they are too arrogant for that. Its like having NFL refs owning 60% of the Dolphins. Either give up your part of GovMotors or have no say in this. I guess its ok for this adm though...they make up the rules as they see fit. Just to bad it's not a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Just to bad it's not a witch hunt. TOO and it is a witchhunt. Only you with your blinders on do not see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 TOO and it is a witchhunt. Only you with your blinders on do not see that. Why, because they brought them in for questions? Because the government bailed out GM? I have blinders on because I don't believe in it? By that philosophy, you must be part of the flock because you do believe in the witch hunt. It's simple... agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Why, because they brought them in for questions? Because the government bailed out GM? No, it's because they weren't asking questions for the sake of getting answers - they were verbally attacking the company and trying to make them look bad in an attempt to sway public opinion (which worked in your case). See Audi in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 No, it's because they weren't asking questions for the sake of getting answers - they were verbally attacking the company and trying to make them look bad in an attempt to sway public opinion (which worked in your case). See Audi in the 80s. Ok, they have this huge evil plan against toyota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Ok, they have this huge evil plan against toyota. You're honestly trying to say that the "hearing" was just about gathering facts and not pandering for votes and trying to sway public opinion away from Toyota?! Did you see/hear any of it?! And again I'll point to the "sudden acceleration issue" that Audi "had" in the 80s. How do you explain that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 You're honestly trying to say that the "hearing" was just about gathering facts and not pandering for votes and trying to sway public opinion away from Toyota?! Did you see/hear any of it?! And again I'll point to the "sudden acceleration issue" that Audi "had" in the 80s. How do you explain that one? No. I do not believe there was a hidden agenda to lure sales away from toyota. I believe it was done so that they could say that they were working during an election year. Again, Toyota F'd up they would not be in this position if they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 No. I do not believe there was a hidden agenda to lure sales away from toyota. I believe it was done so that they could say that they were working during an election year. Again, Toyota F'd up they would not be in this position if they didn't. Just like Audi in the 1980s...? You have yet to address that one, even though I've brought it up directly to you multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Just like Audi in the 1980s...? You have yet to address that one, even though I've brought it up directly to you multiple times. I don't care about the 80's and Audi. I am talking about now. Toyota has great stake in this country with jobs, etc. I highly doubt they are going after a company who employs a large amount of American citizens, etc. That would be completely foolsih. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I don't care about the 80's and Audi. I am talking about now. Toyota has great stake in this country with jobs, etc. I highly doubt they are going after a company who employs a large amount of American citizens, etc. That would be completely foolsih. Those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it. History shows that people lie (or are mistaken). Doesn't mean there's really a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I don't care about the 80's and Audi. I am talking about now. Toyota has great stake in this country with jobs, etc. I highly doubt they are going after a company who employs a large amount of American citizens, etc. That would be completely foolsih. So you just brush away a perfectly good counter argument to how the data might be falsified based on the fact that that was then and this is now? You have terrible debating skills. I'm sorry but if you are going to outright say, Toyota deserve this, then you have to address previous !@#$ ups by the administration or else you're just exactly what people say you are, someone who debates with their eyes closed. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it. History shows that people lie (or are mistaken). Doesn't mean there's really a problem. You beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I don't care about the 80's and Audi. I am talking about now. Toyota has great stake in this country with jobs, etc. I highly doubt they are going after a company who employs a large amount of American citizens, etc. That would be completely foolsih. Yes they would, because they are not union jobs. The admin is only looking out for the special interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Yes they would, because they are not union jobs. The admin is only looking out for the special interests. Don't you have some gay muppets to attack? And again, just because they had a hearing doesn't mean anything. And because they aren't union jobs? What about the jobs within the supply chain for automakers? Are they all union for GM? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 You have yet to address that one, even though I've brought it up directly to you multiple times. And he won't because his club is the one running the circus Now if the other club was running the circus pBills et all would be screaming bloody murder. And Connor would link it somehow to 9/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts