Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

[Harry K]

te:

See my reply to MM.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Well, if you want to prove that the car cannot be shifted to neutral, go rent one and try it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

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

Harry K

[dpb]

Jim Elbrecht wrote: ...

Interesting -- I thought from salty and some others everybody involved was stacked like cordwood...

--

[Harry K]

ote:

rote:

Ya notice you are the only poster calling others 'stupid'. Why is that? Your posts have borded on 'stupid' since the start of the thread but noone AFAIK has called you on it....hmmm...guess I just did.

Harry K

[salty]

That's because, as we already know, you are an idiot.

[salty]

Actually, and in fact, that is not correct. Add it to the list of things you got wrong. You ARE stupid.

[HeyBub]

Heh! In a wonderful book called "Systemantics" the author discovered several rules of systems. One of which was: "Fail Safe systems often fail by failing to fail safe."

As an example, consider automotive braking:

• Originally, you stepped on a pedal which pulled a wire which activated the brake shoes.

• Next stage was hydraulic brakes, with about twice as many parts that could fail.

• Then came power brakes with even more vulnerable parts.

• Next came dual brake systems.

• Then anti-lock brakes

• Now we're back to "brake-by-wire" (although not the same wire as in incarnation #1)

In between each of these "improvements" were dozens of minor tweaks. So, then, today an automobiles braking system contains, oh, 100 times as many parts at that of a Model-T.

I carry a chain and a grappling hook.

[trader4]

Nonsense. Sure there are multiple computers in a car. Common ones are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. But nothing says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. Why would it seem unusual to have a case where the engine start/shutoff was in the same computer as that which determines the throttle position? It is part of the engine control, is it not? And if there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for that same computer to control it? That computer is the one that knows if the car is running, what speed it's traveling at etc.

I don't know what exactly any of the computers in these cars controls or how the system is put together. Yet, you among others, are jumping to conclusions on what is possible or impossible without any facts.

Just because you haven't yet seen it doesn't make it impossible by design as you are now suggesting.

[Doug Miller]

How long does it take to shift into neutral?

Incredible stupidity on their part IMHO.

Toyota bears responsibility for the runaway acceleration, to be sure -- but the accidents that resulted are, for the most part, the fault of the incompetent drivers. Shifting into neutral is not a difficult concept.

[trader4]

Geez, after all this time isn't this clear? YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TURN OFF THE IGNITION. Did you read how the Lexus, for example, is built? There is no key to turn. It's based on a key chain fobe that enables the ignition when you are in the car. You then push a start button to start the car. You have to hold that same button for 3 secs continuosly to shut off the ignition. And that ASSUMES the computer is responding to that command, which, if the same computer happens to be commanding full throttle could mean the computer is stuck in some abnormal mode and IS NOT GOING TO RESPOND.

[Doug Miller]

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.

[dpb]

I'm suggesting nothing other than what you're suggesting is no less hypothesizing than I (and is, in fact, more than I've suggested which is only that there's been no indication of any reason shifting to neutral or turning off ignition wouldn't have halted the runaways).

All I pointed out above was that there are multiple controllers; there's no indication of what is in which and it's quite possible the fly-by-wire (if that is, indeed, what it is; I've seen no absolute confirmation on that, either) portion that is apparently the problem isn't a single processor subsystem of the larger system. So, to assert that there's "the computer" that is at fault is again, purely speculation.

--

[dpb]

Simply because I happen to think (as, apparently, did at least _one_ driver) there might be an alternative to simply hanging on for the ride that one behind the wheel might take???

Interesting definition, that... :)

--

[trader4]

It seems to me Harry is the guy calling people stupid. Those that died in crashes, including the CA highway patrol officer. And he does that without understand how the various systems on these cars work, which computer controls what, how they may or may not be interlinked and what is possible. His reasoning is that since you could almost always stop most cars or even a Lexus by turning off the ignition, shifting into neutral, etc, that it must be true on every car from Toyota that is undergoing this acceleration phenomena I don't know about stupid, but it is very illogical and poor reasoning.

[Tony]

Ahh, but are you talking about a high vacuum or a low vacuum?

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

--

[salty]

At this point, I'm talking about the vacuum between some people's ears.

[Douglas Johnson]

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

-- Doug

[Tony]

I only rented a car a few times but they always do a quick course on the "cabin controls" just like they always have done for me with a new car. I'm thinking the rental agency could be in hot water too. I'd bet the person going over the controls didn't even know it takes 3 seconds of holding that button when the car is in motion. Probably more like "you press it to start it, you press it again to turn it off".