Prev: 9700WT Dual Card Quad Band WIFI TV JAJA cell phone
Next: Test your Signal Integrity skills with this set of quiz
From: keithw86 on 12 Mar 2010 15:31
On Mar 12, 2:17 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <p...(a)pstech-inc.com> wrote:
> "Michael Robinson" <nos...(a)billburg.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ifvmn.22115$mn6.12572(a)newsfe07.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:hn8jnh$rsp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com....
> >>> A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
> >>> turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
> >>> "there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any back
> >>> up brake system . . ."
>
> >>> The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.
>
> >>> Bret Cahill
>
> >> To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
> >> problem.
> >> It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no apparent reason
> >> into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look at it, they can't
> >> replicate the problem. The processor never does it again, at least while
> >> anyone is looking. We've never seen software do that have we? No!
>
> >> But the real problem is Toyota's secrecy, not allowing any third party to
> >> examine their documentation even to the point of defying court orders.
> >> They
> >> have blown smoke up each other's butts with attempted fixes, floor mats
> >> and
> >> accelerator mechanical fixes but likely to no avail. Failures keep coming
> >> and Toyota believes their own propaganda. It's time for an independent,
> >> third party look into the problems including Toyota's engineering and
> >> documentation without a connection to Toyota but with full openness on
> >> their
> >> part. Otherwise, maybe we should forbid them from selling in the US until
> >> they are more open.
>
> >> The San Diego Prius should be impounded by the TSA and examined by them
> >> just
> >> as an airplane would be.  Toyota's techs should be kept away from it
> >> except
> >> under TSA supervision. Like before, they aren't likely to find anything
> >> wrong or make up something silly like floor mats, drivers big feet or
> >> something equally ridiculous. No more Toyota excuses and secrecy.
>
> > You've pretty much put my thoughts on this into words.
>
> > I've noticed some op-eds and such pointing up the known problem of driver
> > error (i.e., panic and press harder on accelerator thinking it's the brake
> > pedal).
>
> > But here we have a guy standing on the brake with both feet and pulling
> > the e-brake too.  Something's obviously seriously wrong with the car.
>
> > Toyota has a serious mental  block on this.  Floor mats!  How stupid can
> > you get.  Meanwhile, people die.
>
> > About 15 years ago I witnessed a car accelerate out of control in New York
> > City, coming up Lafayette Street, cross Astor Place, and slam into a
> > construction scaffold.  The car was like a missile, the engine was
> > absolutely screaming.  One pedestrian that didn't get hit by the car was
> > seriously injured just from standing NEAR the point of impact.  I don't
> > know if the people in the car even survived.  This stuff is no joke.
>
> > If we don't hold the Toyota people's  feet to the fire, shame on us.
>
> There was a news story last night about a woman who lost control when she
> put her RAV4 in reverse after being involved in a minor fender-bender with a
> neighbor's vehicle. The SUV apparently went full throttle and slammed into
> her house. She is 70 years old, and it is possible that she might have
> panicked, but there were others who witnessed the event. Her vehicle was not
> part of the recall, but she had it checked by a Toyota technician. Here is
> the story:http://www.wbaltv.com/news/22813852/detail.html
>
> I am totally in favor of having a separate black box that keeps a record of,
> say, the last 60 seconds of vehicle operation before a serious crash is
> detected. I don't mind if the police look at the data for the speedometer
> and my use of the accelerator, brake, steering, etc., because I don't drive
> like a maniac. Of course, it might be expected that one may have exceeded
> the speed limit or accelerated quickly trying to avoid an accident, but any
> information that helps provide the truth in any investigation should be
> welcome by anyone who has nothing to hide.

So, you have no problem with police searching your home, reading your
email, or recording your telephone calls, all without a warrant?

> It is frustrating to hear of long-term criminals who have repeatedly gotten
> off on serious offenses because of technicalities. Even if proper procedures
> may not have been followed, as long as there was no overt intimidation or
> physical harm to the defendent or his property, and the evidence found was
> solid, then it should be admitted. If there was a breach of protocol, that
> should be a separate crime that might cause the investigators to be charged
> and punished. But the punishment for that might just be a fine or temporary
> suspension and reeducation about the laws that might have been broken. I'm
> sure most law enforcement officers would accept such risk if it would result
> in a perp being convicted and sentenced for a crime that was without a doubt
> committed.

Why not just throw out the entire BoR? It just gets in the way of
those nice people from the government, making it harder for them to
help you.

From: Paul E. Schoen on 12 Mar 2010 16:17

<keithw86(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce19caba-a2ab-47fb-9c1a-613ced6dde07(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 2:17 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <p...(a)pstech-inc.com> wrote:
>
> There was a news story last night about a woman who lost control when she
> put her RAV4 in reverse after being involved in a minor fender-bender with
> a
> neighbor's vehicle. The SUV apparently went full throttle and slammed into
> her house. She is 70 years old, and it is possible that she might have
> panicked, but there were others who witnessed the event. Her vehicle was
> not
> part of the recall, but she had it checked by a Toyota technician. Here is
> the story:http://www.wbaltv.com/news/22813852/detail.html
>
> I am totally in favor of having a separate black box that keeps a record
> of,
> say, the last 60 seconds of vehicle operation before a serious crash is
> detected. I don't mind if the police look at the data for the speedometer
> and my use of the accelerator, brake, steering, etc., because I don't
> drive
> like a maniac. Of course, it might be expected that one may have exceeded
> the speed limit or accelerated quickly trying to avoid an accident, but
> any
> information that helps provide the truth in any investigation should be
> welcome by anyone who has nothing to hide.

"So, you have no problem with police searching your home, reading your
email, or recording your telephone calls, all without a warrant?"

Doing so without a warrant would still be a crime. But if it turned up
undeniable evidence of a crime, and was unusable only because of a minor
technicality, then I don't have a problem with that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


> It is frustrating to hear of long-term criminals who have repeatedly
> gotten
> off on serious offenses because of technicalities. Even if proper
> procedures
> may not have been followed, as long as there was no overt intimidation or
> physical harm to the defendent or his property, and the evidence found was
> solid, then it should be admitted. If there was a breach of protocol, that
> should be a separate crime that might cause the investigators to be
> charged
> and punished. But the punishment for that might just be a fine or
> temporary
> suspension and reeducation about the laws that might have been broken. I'm
> sure most law enforcement officers would accept such risk if it would
> result
> in a perp being convicted and sentenced for a crime that was without a
> doubt
> committed.

"Why not just throw out the entire BoR? It just gets in the way of
those nice people from the government, making it harder for them to
help you."

It is based on an interpretation of *unreasonable* search and seizure.
Mistakes are often made, and as long as I was not physically injured by
unreasonable force, or my property destroyed, then I would rather be
inconvenienced and compensated if there were no evidence of guilt. Our
justice system rightly errs on the side of caution, but too often perfectly
good evidence is considered "tainted" and inadmissible because of some
inconsequential paperwork error or other similar problem.

But I would at the same time exclude any police or governmental activity
involving the so-called "War On Drugs", particularly when it concerns
individual possession or use, and no violence or attempts to distribute to
minors. Most of our most violent crime is directly related to these failed
policies, which makes the entire drug network so wealthy and powerful. Any
attempt by authorities to limit personal use and possession of something
deemed to be harmful to the individual is a gross violation of personal
rights, and when someone has an addiction or a strong desire for something,
nothing short of a totalitarian police state can control it. If a substance
or activity does not harm others, governmental authorities should have no
right to interfere. At worst it is a medical issue, and anyone who commits a
real crime because of such a condition should be punished and required to
get treatment.

Paul

From: krw on 12 Mar 2010 18:32
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:17:53 -0500, "Paul E. Schoen" <paul(a)pstech-inc.com>
wrote:

>
><keithw86(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ce19caba-a2ab-47fb-9c1a-613ced6dde07(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 12, 2:17 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <p...(a)pstech-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> There was a news story last night about a woman who lost control when she
>> put her RAV4 in reverse after being involved in a minor fender-bender with
>> a
>> neighbor's vehicle. The SUV apparently went full throttle and slammed into
>> her house. She is 70 years old, and it is possible that she might have
>> panicked, but there were others who witnessed the event. Her vehicle was
>> not
>> part of the recall, but she had it checked by a Toyota technician. Here is
>> the story:http://www.wbaltv.com/news/22813852/detail.html
>>
>> I am totally in favor of having a separate black box that keeps a record
>> of,
>> say, the last 60 seconds of vehicle operation before a serious crash is
>> detected. I don't mind if the police look at the data for the speedometer
>> and my use of the accelerator, brake, steering, etc., because I don't
>> drive
>> like a maniac. Of course, it might be expected that one may have exceeded
>> the speed limit or accelerated quickly trying to avoid an accident, but
>> any
>> information that helps provide the truth in any investigation should be
>> welcome by anyone who has nothing to hide.
>
> "So, you have no problem with police searching your home, reading your
> email, or recording your telephone calls, all without a warrant?"
>
>Doing so without a warrant would still be a crime. But if it turned up
>undeniable evidence of a crime, and was unusable only because of a minor
>technicality, then I don't have a problem with that.

Ah, so you *do* think it's just peachy.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> It is frustrating to hear of long-term criminals who have repeatedly
>> gotten
>> off on serious offenses because of technicalities. Even if proper
>> procedures
>> may not have been followed, as long as there was no overt intimidation or
>> physical harm to the defendent or his property, and the evidence found was
>> solid, then it should be admitted. If there was a breach of protocol, that
>> should be a separate crime that might cause the investigators to be
>> charged
>> and punished. But the punishment for that might just be a fine or
>> temporary
>> suspension and reeducation about the laws that might have been broken. I'm
>> sure most law enforcement officers would accept such risk if it would
>> result
>> in a perp being convicted and sentenced for a crime that was without a
>> doubt
>> committed.
>
> "Why not just throw out the entire BoR? It just gets in the way of
> those nice people from the government, making it harder for them to
> help you."
>
>It is based on an interpretation of *unreasonable* search and seizure.
>Mistakes are often made, and as long as I was not physically injured by
>unreasonable force, or my property destroyed, then I would rather be
>inconvenienced and compensated if there were no evidence of guilt. Our
>justice system rightly errs on the side of caution, but too often perfectly
>good evidence is considered "tainted" and inadmissible because of some
>inconsequential paperwork error or other similar problem.

We are *not* discussing "inconsequential paperwork errors or other similar
problems". Quote from above:

"any information that helps provide the truth in any investigation should
be welcome by anyone who has nothing to hide."

....and you are defending this. <boggle>

>But I would at the same time exclude any police or governmental activity
>involving the so-called "War On Drugs", particularly when it concerns
>individual possession or use, and no violence or attempts to distribute to
>minors. Most of our most violent crime is directly related to these failed
>policies, which makes the entire drug network so wealthy and powerful. Any
>attempt by authorities to limit personal use and possession of something
>deemed to be harmful to the individual is a gross violation of personal
>rights, and when someone has an addiction or a strong desire for something,
>nothing short of a totalitarian police state can control it. If a substance
>or activity does not harm others, governmental authorities should have no
>right to interfere. At worst it is a medical issue, and anyone who commits a
>real crime because of such a condition should be punished and required to
>get treatment.

More meandering mumbo-jumbo.
From: Jasen Betts on 13 Mar 2010 05:11
On 2010-03-11, Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system problem.
>> It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no apparent reason
>> into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look at it, they can't
>> replicate the problem. The processor never does it again, at least while
>> anyone is looking. We've never seen software do that have we? No!
>>
>> But the real problem is Toyota's secrecy, not allowing any third party to
>> examine their documentation even to the point of defying court orders. They
>> have blown smoke up each other's butts with attempted fixes, floor mats and
>> accelerator mechanical fixes but likely to no avail. Failures keep coming
>> and Toyota believes their own propaganda. It's time for an independent,
>> third party look into the problems including Toyota's engineering and
>> documentation without a connection to Toyota but with full openness on their
>> part. Otherwise, maybe we should forbid them from selling in the US until
>> they are more open.
>>
>> The San Diego Prius should be impounded by the TSA and examined by them just
>> as an airplane would be.  
>
> It's hard to believe that a brake system designed to take the car from
> 60 - 0 in 3 seconds cannot prevail against a drive train that can only
> put out a fourth that much power.

with the throttle wide open the manifold vacuum is not there
so there's no power assist on the brakes.

if the driver is somewhat feeble it's conceivable that they will not be
able to stop the car using the brakes.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Paul E. Schoen on 13 Mar 2010 19:53

"Jasen Betts" <jasen(a)xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hnfobv$rtg$1(a)reversiblemaps.ath.cx...
> On 2010-03-11, Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
>>> problem.
>>> It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no apparent reason
>>> into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look at it, they can't
>>> replicate the problem. The processor never does it again, at least while
>>> anyone is looking. We've never seen software do that have we? No!
>>>
>>> But the real problem is Toyota's secrecy, not allowing any third party
>>> to
>>> examine their documentation even to the point of defying court orders.
>>> They
>>> have blown smoke up each other's butts with attempted fixes, floor mats
>>> and
>>> accelerator mechanical fixes but likely to no avail. Failures keep
>>> coming
>>> and Toyota believes their own propaganda. It's time for an independent,
>>> third party look into the problems including Toyota's engineering and
>>> documentation without a connection to Toyota but with full openness on
>>> their
>>> part. Otherwise, maybe we should forbid them from selling in the US
>>> until
>>> they are more open.
>>>
>>> The San Diego Prius should be impounded by the TSA and examined by them
>>> just
>>> as an airplane would be.
>>
>> It's hard to believe that a brake system designed to take the car from
>> 60 - 0 in 3 seconds cannot prevail against a drive train that can only
>> put out a fourth that much power.
>
> with the throttle wide open the manifold vacuum is not there
> so there's no power assist on the brakes.
>
> if the driver is somewhat feeble it's conceivable that they will not be
> able to stop the car using the brakes.

Also, if the car has ABS, it will be activated by mashing the brake pedal.
That will prevent any of the wheels from locking up, so it will purposely
reduce pressure on the brakes. The Prius has an electric motor as well as an
ICE, and it is more powerful (60kW=80HP) in newer models. An ICE would stall
if the brakes were locked, and starting torque is more limited, but an
electric motor has a lot more low end torque. I think there are some fairly
obvious factors that have been overlooked and perhaps some redundant safety
features may have been phased out to cut costs.

Here is an excerpt from the specs on the 2010 Prius:
"Star Safety System: Regenerative Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS) with Brake Assist
(BA), and Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) Vehicle Stability Control
(VSC) and Traction control (TRAC)"
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/document/2010_Prius_Product_Info_FINAL.pdf

So some of these safety features may conspire to create an unsafe condition.
I doubt that engine vacuum is used for the power assist, as the ICE is not
always running, and much of the motive power is derived from the electric
motor.

There is also a recall for an ABS software problem:
http://www.toyota.com/recall/abs.html?srchid=K610_p280864904

The following indicates that the power assist for brakes is electrical. It
also describes in some technical detail how the ABS, VSC, and EBD adjust
braking pressure. And there may also be an issue with the Regenerative
Braking Control. It states that the MG2 is mechanically connected to the
front wheels and used to provide regenerative braking under normal
deceleration requests. But it is only a little change of motor control
software that makes the motor operate as a generator. And all of these
software systems, AIUI, are activated only by the resistive sensors on the
throttle and brake pedal position sensors. I don't think there is a backup
pressure switch or end travel switches to detect extreme conditions and
activate any sort of mechanical override or electrical kill switch.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid16.pdf

All of these fancy controls are wondeful when working properly, but unlike
mechanical systems they do not tend to fail gradually and gracefully so that
problems can be noticed by the driver. Things can get dangerous if something
goes wrong...goes wrong...goes wong..go on...go on...go go go go go!!!

Paul


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: 9700WT Dual Card Quad Band WIFI TV JAJA cell phone
Next: Test your Signal Integrity skills with this set of quiz