Still more on Prius runaway

Page 2 of 7  

wrote:

4
You forgot #4:
Dumbass driver stepping on the wrong pedal (as has been confirmed in the latest case in New York).
According to the NHTSA, "Information retrieved from the vehicle's onboard computer systems indicated there was no application of the brakes and the throttle was fully open." http://www.examiner . com/x-32892-Automotive-News-Examiner~y2010m3d19-Runaway-Prius-in-New-York-may- have-been-driver-error
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:55:01 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

That particular incident was a lot different than the ones where the car ranaway at highway speeds. In that case, it was someone moving from a parked position. BIG diff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:07:46 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

When I read this, I thought you were basically agreeing with me. I guess not.

I think Salty's question was intended to be, of those who are guilty, what percentage say they didn't do anything?

No such physical evidence found in their lab. There is witness evidence some of which is explainable only by saying the witnesses are wrong or that there is an electronic problem in their cases.
There seems to be a tendency in may areas to only consider physical evidence, but that's a narrow usage and not the one used in court nor in much of real life.
Evidence: 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects RHD

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Empirical evidence, or possibly circumstantial evidence, but no scientific evidence. There has been no CONFIRMED evidence, or proof, that any defect exists in the electronics or programming that makes the system succeptible to any outside interference, or that there is any electronic fault that by its very nature makes the system liable to cause either lack of braking power or episodes of uncontrolled accelleration.
NONE. Toyota engineers are still working at it, trying to find ANYTHING that could explain the alleged behaviour of their vehicles.

Circumstantial evidence - based on circumstances and assumptions Empirical evidence - based on observations
Neither can be proven. Neither, alone, is sufficient to convict.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

In the US either alone, if enough of it, is enough to convict. When I was doing fire investigations most convictions were circumstantial (had access, reason, had recently bought gas or had it nearby). Don't think I had one 10 years where we found the guy with the match in his hand as we walked in.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:50:01 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The eyewitness evidence IS empirical evidence. Also some of the stuff elsewhere, some tending to show one thing and some tending to show the opposite, including eyewitnesses from other similar incidents, who also say their cars accelerated. RHD: "1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. "

The scientific evidence you refer to IS circumstantial evidence. In Law, which is the only place I know of that "circumstantial evidence" is used, it is anything other than eyewitness testimony. Despite the movies where someone calls out, "That's all circumstantial evidence" that's what most evidence in court is, and many convictions have only circumstantial evidence supporting them.
The other kind of evidence is direct evidence, which is eyewitness testimony
I didn't need to look this up, but here's a webpage that discusses it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
"Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime"

Nor any CONFIRMED evidence or proof that it doesn't. The two sources of evidence contradict each other, neither is confirmed.

Right, NONE.
A little more below.

That's not true. As I said above, it's a mistaken notion held by many, because of those movies, that circ. evidence is not enough to convict. But many convictions are based only on circumstantial evidence, because there are no eyewitnesses except the defendant, who doesn't admit he did it.
Ask a lawyer, or just look at the evidence offerred in many criminal cases that yield convictions.
But I'm happy we agree I think that witness statements are evidence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK - when you are troubleshooting something, or reverse engineering something, do you go by appearances??
No. You look for something that you can "prove" - something that can be measured and preferably repeated.
In the case of Toyota uninteded accelleration there has been no measureable, provable, repeatable 'evidence" that there is anything electronic involved - yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
" Even if they somehow find out about such a plot, and can prove it, I think "filing a false police report" might be the most he is guilty of. "
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if jail time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved - just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to cover this up.
<http://hosted2.ap.org/CTMID/APUSnews/Article_2010-03-18-US-Runaway-Prius/id-p19140421bf1742938cfb3ed8d72b4cdc
California Highway Patrol's official position:
"Pennings reaffirmed CHP's position that no evidence has emerged to doubt Sikes' version of events."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 7:59am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Aye Karumba. Anybody who's followed these various discussions here over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. But to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. This case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.
Far from being attacked, Forbes is right that most of the media just swallowed it hook line and sinker. They didn't use words like alleged, when describing the incident. Fox News, to their credit is the one news organization that did dig into his background and find out that he filed for bankruptcy for $700K last year, is months behind on his Prius payments, has had a couple reports of stolen property and insurance claims for substantial amounts in the last few years, etc. He also had taken the Prius to the dealer for a recall and they told him, apparently incorrectly, that there was none for his car, providing him with the perfect settup to try to make a case.
You have, according to Forbes, the 911 operator telling him many times during the call to put it in neutral or turn off the engine. He refused to do so. And also according to Forbes, it's impossible to be able to reach the accelerator peddle while driving and pull it up as he claimed he tried to do. Why don't the local cops start acting like cops and ask him to get back in the car and show us how he did it? NTSB and Toyota have analyzed the cars brakes and found no burning consistent with applying the brakes extensively for a long time. Then the guy hires a lawyer.
This guy is just like the Balloon Boy parents. Perhaps the stupist one here is the chief of police and or patrol officer that says they believe Sikes. That is what the sheriff said in the Balloon Boy case too, until he finally woke up.
As for claims that this could be a Toyota grand conspiracy to discredit others, that's beyond ludicrous too. Yeah, there's a chance of that. About .0001%, compared to the 99% probability that Sikes is a fraud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:51 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

The CHP is a fairly respected organization, who has absolutely no motive to lie about what happened. In fact, it is their job to make sure the facts are reported. Their account, which they are standing by, includes input from eyewitnesses.
So far, nobody has anything factual to refute the official CHP report. Nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 10:06am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

No one is suggesting they lied about what happened. However, any reasonable interpretation of what they reported, including the 911 call itself, would lead to the conclusiong that it's 99% certain this guy is a liar. How about what Forbes pointed out? The guy claimed on the 911 call at one point he wouldn't shift to neutral because he didn't want to take his hands off the steering wheel. Yet, he also claimed he reached down, grabbed hold of the gas pedal, and couldn't bring it back up while driving along. Forbes tried it with an average size person and found that they could barely touch and UNPRESSED pedal with their finger tips and could not get at a depressed pedal at all. Then Sikes changed his story to he was afraid to put it into neutral because he thought the car might "flip". He was also afraid to just turn the car off for 20+ miles. Yet finally the car miraculously slows down to 50 and stops when the officer is driving next to him and tells him to put on the brakes and turn it off. The analysis of the brake pads showed no indication that they had been used for hard braking. The onboard computer showed the accelerator and brakes had been applied hundreds of times.
You believe this crap?
As for the police, while not lying, if they were doing their job, they would have asked him to show them how he could have reached the gas pedal while driving. And detained him for some serious questioning. And asked him to take a lie detector test. They did none of that yet if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he lawyer up?
I don't know what level of "proof" you need. You'll never have that in a situation like this unless the guy confesses. But clearly this one stinks to high heaven.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

That borders on insane.

So? He was panicked. Hardly surprising in his situation.

Now THERE'S incontrovertable proof!

The brake pads were down to metal, and there was tons of evidence of recent hard braking.

And you know for a fact that they didn't?

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 12:27pm, snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com wrote:

Uh huh. So panicked that he couldn't just turn the car off or shift to neutral as he was repeatedly instructed to do by the 911 operator. But not panicked so that he could stand on his head and try to pull up the accelerator. I'd say that is very surprising, unless you're a liar.

Not according to the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6912748.html "The brake wear was not consistent with the brakes being applied at full force for a long period, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday, citing three people familiar with the probe, whom it did not name. The newspaper said the brakes may have been applied intermittently."
Sure you can burn up a set of brake pads driving 94mph with partial braking and your foot on the accelerator at the same time.

According to all the news reports they just took the skunk at his word. I do know that in my own cars, reaching down to pull up an accelerator would be extremely difficult if not impossible while driving down the freeway at 94mph.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between police questioning someone and asking if the will submit to a lie detector test and arrest. They are distinctly different events. People are questioned and asked if they will take a lie detector test all the time without being under arrest.

Then you must not watch the news. I see lie detectors used frequently during investigations. They aren't admissable in court, but that is a different issue.

I'd say there is a good deal of evidence that he committed a number of crimes. The probablilities of the brakes not working, refusing to put the car in neutral, refusing to turn the car off, then doing exactly that after 20 miles when the cruiser arrives is 1 in a billion.. I suppose if you were on the OJ jury, you'd have let him off the hook too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

What can I say, except you are deranged if you believe half of what you just posted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com wrote:

They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make you testify against yourself stuff.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help prove you innocent.
Refusing to take one just ups the ante.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:00 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Wrong on all counts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:23:06 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com wrote:

That's what my cop nephew says.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.