Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Feds Conclude Toyotas Aren't Crazy

  1. #1

    Default Feds Conclude Toyotas Aren't Crazy

    Yet another witch hunt against technology that turns out to be little more than user error...

    DOT 16-11
    Tuesday, February 8, 2011

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELEASES RESULTS FROM NHTSA-NASA STUDY OF UNINTENDED ACCELERATION IN TOYOTA VEHICLES


    WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Transportation released results from an unprecedented ten-month study of potential electronic causes of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched the study last spring at the request of Congress, and enlisted NASA engineers with expertise in areas such as computer controlled electronic systems, electromagnetic interference and software integrity to conduct new research into whether electronic systems or electromagnetic interference played a role in incidents of unintended acceleration.

    NASA engineers found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents. The two mechanical safety defects identified by NHTSA more than a year ago – “sticking” accelerator pedals and a design flaw that enabled accelerator pedals to become trapped by floor mats – remain the only known causes for these kinds of unsafe unintended acceleration incidents. Toyota has recalled nearly 8 million vehicles in the United States for these two defects.

    U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, “We enlisted the best and brightest engineers to study Toyota’s electronics systems, and the verdict is in. There is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas.”

    In conducting their report, NASA engineers evaluated the electronic circuitry in Toyota vehicles and analyzed more than 280,000 lines of software code for any potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. At the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, NASA hardware and systems engineers rigorously examined and tested mechanical components of Toyota vehicles that could result in an unwanted throttle opening. At a special facility in Michigan, NHTSA and NASA engineers bombarded vehicles with electromagnetic radiation to study whether such radiation could cause malfunctions resulting in unintended acceleration. NHTSA engineers and researchers also tested Toyota vehicles at NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio to determine whether there were any additional mechanical causes for unintended acceleration and whether any of the test scenarios developed during the NHTSA-NASA investigation could actually occur in real-world conditions.

    “NASA found no evidence that a malfunction in electronics caused large unintended accelerations,” said Michael Kirsch, Principal Engineer at the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC).

    While NASA and NHTSA have identified no electronic cause of dangerous unintended acceleration incidents in Toyota vehicles or any new mechanical causes beyond sticking pedals and accelerator pedal entrapment, NHTSA is considering taking several new actions as the result of today’s findings, including:

    Propose rules, by the end of 2011, to require brake override systems, to standardize operation of keyless ignition systems, and to require the installation of event data recorders in all passenger vehicles;
    Begin broad research on the reliability and security of electronic control systems;

    Research the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals, as well as driver usage of pedals, to determine whether design and placement can be improved to reduce pedal misapplication.
    NHTSA and NASA will also brief the National Academy of Sciences panel currently conducting a broad review of unintended acceleration and electronic throttle control systems on the reports released today.

    “While today marks the end of our study with NASA, our work to protect millions of American drivers continues,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland. “The record number of voluntary recalls initiated by automakers last year is also very good news, and shows that we can work cooperatively with industry to protect consumers.”

    Based on objective event data recorder (EDR) readings and crash investigations conducted as part of NHTSA’s report, NHTSA is researching whether better placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals can reduce pedal misapplication, which occurs in vehicles across the industry. NHTSA’s forthcoming rulemaking to require brake override systems in all passenger vehicles will further help ensure that braking can take precedence over the accelerator pedal in emergency situations. The ongoing National Academy of Sciences study, which will examine unintended acceleration and electronic vehicle controls across the entire automotive industry, will also make recommendations to NHTSA. The NAS study was launched in spring 2010 alongside the NHTSA-NASA investigation and will be finalized later in 2011.

    In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled nearly eight million vehicles as part of the sticky pedal and pedal entrapment recalls. Toyota also paid $48.8 million in civil penalties as the result of NHTSA investigations into the timeliness of several safety recalls last year. Across the industry, automakers voluntarily initiated a record number of safety recalls in 2010.

    To read the executive summary and findings of the NASA report, click here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs...rt_execsum.pdf

    To read NASA’s full report, click here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs...-UA_report.pdf

    To read the executive summary and findings of the NHTSA report, click here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs...rt_execsum.pdf

    To read NHTSA’s full report click here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs...-UA_report.pdf

    http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot1611.html

  2. #2
    I bet a bunch of lawyers are sad.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Weren't there cases that turned out to be fake from the get go?
    Congratulations America

  4. #4
    Yes, and there were cases where the pedals had to be recalled for sticking and the floor mats had to be recalled for jamming the gas pedal down. Toyota got fined pretty fucking bad for the way they handled those.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-09-2011 at 12:45 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    I don't believe it... I think the Feds just didn't find the cause. My 2 cents is that it's probably some sort of rare (and hard to find in testing) maths precision error causing the numbers to go crazy.

  6. #6
    Eh? They found a very hard-to-replicate-in-real-life situation where acceleration could happen, but concluded it was so rare as to be almost impossible.

  7. #7
    Oh, I don't like reading.. but anyway... improbable isn't impossible!

    Edit: anyway, I read a bit about what they were up against. 280,000 lines for an electronic engine control: that's freaking enormous. Gigantic. I highly doubt that these guys had the manpower to check the program thoroughly.

    Moar edits: Well, they did input/output testing, and couldn't find any problems, which necessarily means that either there are no problems or they didn't really test everything... who knows... maybe going from 50mph to 20, then to 42.5, and finally to 30, activates a secret code that causes the gas pedal to go in reverse. Aand.. Toyota forgot to remove this code.
    Last edited by agamemnus; 02-10-2011 at 04:27 AM.

  8. #8
    Oh geez, it's freaking NASA. I think they can handle going through code.

    Why is everyone so afraid to believe that floormats and operator error are the main causes of this issue? The only vehicles that could have possibly faced the accelerator issue from electronic issues would have been the hybrid ones. Yet they weren't the only vehicles involved in these sort of crashes.

  9. #9
    No, not they can't check 280,000 lines of code in a period of months without employing hundreds of programmers. I don't think they have or used those kinds of resources. Probably a dozen programmers if not fewer...

  10. #10
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    No, not they can't check 280,000 lines of code in a period of months without employing hundreds of programmers. I don't think they have or used those kinds of resources. Probably a dozen programmers if not fewer...
    They can't??
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  11. #11
    No! (I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not.)

  12. #12
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Not really. What makes you say that they can't? Because it seems like a lot to you?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  13. #13
    280,000 lines of code is probably not much to a NASA engineer. I'm sure they deal with much more than that with their own programs. I'm guessing a space shuttle's components have much much more than that.

    Just asked Hubby, who is not an engineer but is a linux admin, and he has to deal with many lines of code for the site he works with. Some can be a few thousand, some tens of thousands. So if he can look through that much, a NASA engineer should be able to.

    They probably break them up into sections, and I'm sure they have software to check for bad commands or something. Once a section has checked out, they move on to the next. Seems like it may be time-consuming but not something a good engineer team can't handle.

  14. #14
    It's a lot! I'm a programmer.. it's one thing to look through a program for a specific flaw; if you know how to reproduce it, you can back-trace through thousands of lines of code to find it: the flaw/bug is in function a, which is called by function b, which is called by function c, which is called by function d, and you know function "d" was run. Then you figure out that "c" was run, then "b", then "a"...

    It's a whole 'nother thing to look through a program to find a flaw that you cannot reproduce. If you can't reproduce it, you can't back-trace and isolate the flaw.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    They probably break them up into sections, and I'm sure they have software to check for bad commands or something. Once a section has checked out, they move on to the next. Seems like it may be time-consuming but not something a good engineer team can't handle.
    Sorry but that sounds like you have no idea what you speak about. Software testing is something that usually takes the same amount of time as the development. Of course you do unit testing, but those only test the units behaviour, but you also have to do integration tests, and there is gets nasty, because one unit can influence the other. The lines of code is not really a good measurement anyway, a small program can be complex too, while a large program can be very linear.

    What NASA can do within this time is to verify that what Toyota has tested was done correctly.

    BTW to ask a Linux administrator about this problem is like asking a brick layer to calculate the structural integrity of a skyscraper. I don't want to diss either of those professions, but it's not their field.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  16. #16
    No, actually, what you just posted is exactly what he told me. Thanks. I am not a computer expert so often what he says goes over my head.

    He has done programming in the past as well. He just gets paid a hell of a lot more to do what he does now. So yes, he does know what the hell he is talking about, it's me that doesn't.

    EDIT: Since he's gone at work now and I can't bother him with my luddite drivel; if something cannot be reproduced doesn't that show that it is unlikely to happen? I'm not getting why Toyota has been vilified for something that has been shown to be almost impossible to happen under normal driving conditions. Or why NASA is made out to be incompetent. If they can launch rockets I'm sure they can go through code! THey have a huge amount of resources; why else would they have been called upon to verify this?

  17. #17
    I'm not a programmer either, but i understand the problem they're raising. It could be somethign common can cause it, they just need to find a consistent way to cause the error in quesion. Once they have that they can begin to hone in on the exact casuse.

    If it's hard to duplicate I would agree that suggests uncommones; however, it could still be something common happening somewhere/at sometime when people drive.

    In short, what they're saying is you can't just go line by line, the lines are inter-related, you have to follow what each segment is referencing and how. Then lastly, if you don't know the problem at all it's hard to pinpoint, but if you do know an issues then you can begin to as he said find the lines that relate to that line, and check what they're diong until you come to the inconsistency/malfunction.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    EDIT: Since he's gone at work now and I can't bother him with my luddite drivel; if something cannot be reproduced doesn't that show that it is unlikely to happen? I'm not getting why Toyota has been vilified for something that has been shown to be almost impossible to happen under normal driving conditions. Or why NASA is made out to be incompetent. If they can launch rockets I'm sure they can go through code! THey have a huge amount of resources; why else would they have been called upon to verify this?
    This goes much further than you might think. The core problem is very common in science: To prove the non-existence of something is hard to impossible. So in this case we want to prove the non-existence of an error. Of course it helps that we search a particular error, and that is actually the reason why NASA can make such a claim. So at first they can sort out which part of the software have something to do with the gas pedal. Then they can concentrate to that.

    There is also a problem with manpower, you can't divide it that easily. You know the old joke: One woman needs 9 months to carry a child to term, how long need 9 women?

    But as I said, Toyota didn't sell cars without proper testing, and testing can be verified, no need for NASA to start from nothing. So I already said, that I trust in NASA, but the task is enormous nevertheless.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  19. #19
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Unit/integration/functional testing (which is what software testing relies upon to find error before they make into production) relies on the simple logic that you need to think of all cases which can come into existance beforehand. That means the common cases as well as the fringe conditions (the latter ones are even more important).

    The more complex software gets, the less probable it will be to catch all fringe cases. And then there is the freak stuff, of course. Like bit flip due to charged particles (be that natural radiation or cosmic rays).
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #20
    thats why cars need better shielding and perhaps ECC memory.

    I didn't read the report, but I remember drivers complaining about their steering wheels reacting to cell phones. Much like crappy speakers do.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I didn't read the report, but I remember drivers complaining about their steering wheels reacting to cell phones. Much like crappy speakers do.
    I don't think steering wheels operate this way.
    . . .

  22. #22
    They shouldn't, no...

  23. #23
    Like, every time I talk on the phone my car starts to weave in and out of my lane?
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I don't think steering wheels operate this way.
    I'm not saying they pop like speakers
    but I remember reading about an uptick in reports for steering wheels stiffening up or favoring a certain side under possible interference.

    Think Toyota ended up issueing a TSB for the ECU to its dealers instead of going through with a recall.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    but I remember reading about an uptick in reports for steering wheels stiffening up or favoring a certain side under possible interference.
    I'm saying steering wheels do not seem to physically work that way, or at least they shouldn't. As in there should not be electronics to interfere with, and its far more likely that people are looking to place the blame elsewhere by fingering a system they don't understand and hoping the people they are complaining to don't either...
    . . .

  26. #26
    THe excuses people come up with

    As many people that talk on their cellphones while on the road, my Toyota has never had a steering wheel issue. I go right around their asses!

  27. #27
    I love my Toyota Yaris! Not one single problem. It's been one of my all-time favorite cars.

  28. #28
    For now. Wait until it starts answering Jeopardy questions and then saying "Loot. Kill. Destroy"...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •