In The News
Millions of dollars have been collected on behalf of innocent victims!
Toyota Recalls
Recently, Toyota announced two safety recalls that cover some of its models. Both recall campaigns address conditions related to the accelerator pedal. The first recall, “Floor Mat Entrapment,” regards the potential for an unsecured or incompatible driver’s floor mat to interfere with the accelerator pedal and cause it to get stuck in the wide-open position.
The second recall, “Pedal,” is being conducted because there is a possibility that certain accelerator pedal mechanisms may mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position.
Currently, Toyota has recalled the current vehicles for issues relating to their floormats and accelerator pedals.
Avalon: 2005-2010 (1st recall – floormats; 2nd recall – stuck pedal)
Camry: 2007-2010 (1st recall – floormats; 2nd recall – stuck pedal [certain])
Corolla: 2009-2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal; 3rd recall – floormats)
Highlander: 2008-2010 (3rd recall – floormats)
Highlander: 2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal [Except hybrid models])
Lexus ES350: 2007-2010 (1st recall – floormats)
Lexus IS250: 2006-2010 (1st recall – floormats)
Lexus IS350: 2006-2010 (1st recall – floormats)
Matrix: 2009-2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal; 3rd recall – floormats)
Pontiac Vibe*: 2009-2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal; 3rd recall – floormats)
Prius: 2004-2009 (1st recall – floormats)
RAV-4: 2009-2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal)
Sequoia: 2008-2010 (2nd recall – stuck pedal)
Tacoma: 2010 (1st recall – floormats)
Tundra: 2007-2010 (1st recall – floormats; 2nd recall – stuck pedal)
Venza: 2009-2010 (3rd recall – floormats)
* Pontiac Vibe is included in the recall because it is similar to the Matrix and produced under a partnership between the two companies.
Take cheap jewelry away from small children
LOS ANGELES – The nation’s product safety agency issued an unprecedented warning Wednesday to parents: Don’t give your children cheap metal jewelry. And if they already have some, toss it because it could contain hazardous levels of heavy metals such as lead and cadmium.
Writing in a blog posting Wednesday evening, the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission noted that children who chew, suck on or swallow a bracelet charm or necklace may be endangering their health.
“I have a message for parents, grandparents and caregivers: Do not allow young children to be given or to play with cheap metal jewelry, especially when they are unsupervised,” wrote Inez Tenenbaum, the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
In making the recommendation, Tenenbaum cited an investigation by The Associated Press which reported high cadmium levels in kids’ jewelry items imported from China including bracelet charms from Walmart and Claire’s stores.
Lab tests conducted for the AP on 103 pieces of low-priced children’s jewelry found 12 items with cadmium content above 10 percent of the total weight. Several of those shed very high amounts of the metal when analyzed for how much of the toxin a child might be exposed to after swallowing the item.
Like lead, cadmium can hinder brain development in young children, according to recent research. It also causes cancer.
“To prevent young children from possibly being exposed to lead, cadmium or any other hazardous heavy metal, take the jewelry away,” Tenenbaum wrote.
While neither Tenenbaum nor an agency spokesman would outright say not to buy cheap children’s jewelry, the inference was clear.
For items already in homes, “Parents should ’safely dispose’ of the jewelry following state and local environmental laws, and not resell it through online auctions or to a thrift store,” CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said.
Even during the height of product recalls from China several years ago – when millions of items of jewelry or painted toys with high lead levels were taken off store shelves – the CPSC did not issue such a public warning. Under the administration of President Barack Obama, and with Tenenbaum replacing commissioner Nancy Nord atop the agency, the CPSC is projecting a much more aggressive image.
Although it did not carry the force of law, the announcement Wednesday was far bigger than a recall in scope: Instead of going after one particular item, the CPSC targeted an entire industry.
In a written statement, an attorney representing the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association said the organization’s members “have worked diligently over the past 18 months to comply with new lead standards and other new safety regulations” that were part of major legislation passed in 2008.
“Safety is our No. 1 concern and our members manufacture safe products,” attorney Sheila A. Millar wrote. “We are continuing to investigate and are in contact with CPSC and retail customers.”
Tenenbaum said the agency is “actively investigating the jewelry cited in the recent AP story.” She said the inquiry “is squarely focused on ensuring the safety of children.”
Asked whether Tenenbaum’s posting reflected findings beyond what AP reported, Wolfson said, “We don’t have enough information to answer that but we want to be proactive and forward looking.”
While the CPSC’s focus has been on children’s jewelry – defined by law as for those 12 and under – testing reviewed by AP apart from its original investigation showed that some adult jewelry also can contain high levels of cadmium. None of the CPSC statements Wednesday addressed safety concerns about adult jewelry.
Other reaction has been swift and sweeping.
Within hours of the release of AP’s original story Sunday, the CPSC said it would investigate the highlighted items, among them charms that contained between 84 and 91 percent cadmium. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Claire’s, an international accessories and jewelry chain with nearly 3,000 stores in North America and Europe, have since pulled items cited in the report from shelves. Wal-Mart had no comment Wednesday about Tenenbaum’s advice; a spokesman for Claire’s did not return a call and e-mail seeking comment.
In a recorded speech delivered earlier in the week, Tenenbaum also admonished Asian manufacturers meeting in Hong Kong not to substitute cadmium or other heavy metals for lead, which effectively has been banned from children’s jewelry and toys since passage of the 2008 law.
An official with China’s product safety agency said it would examine the findings and several members of Congress have urged reforms in U.S. regulations.
Earlier Wednesday, a senior U.S. senator unveiled legislation to ban cadmium and two other heavy metals from children’s jewelry and toys.
“It is just despicable that a manufacturer anywhere, in this case in China, would use something that’s known to be poisonous to children and put it in children’s jewelry to save a few bucks,” New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer told reporters outside a dollar store in Rochester, N.Y., that sold charm bracelets with high cadmium content.
Schumer plans to introduce the “Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act” when Congress resumes session next week.
In issuing her warning, Tenenbaum said the agency is “working to take decisive action,” using the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, “a law aimed at keeping kids safe from toxic chemicals and metals.”
To date, the CPSC has never pursued an enforcement action against a product based on that authority.
Reprinted from Associated Press
Toyota Corolla, Matrix Sudden Stalls Focus Of NHTSA Probe
As if Toyota didn’t have enough problems with the sudden, unexplained acceleration of its vehicles – the company is involved in another federal safety probe.
This time regulators are looking at numerous complaints of engine stalling problems in Corolla and Matrix cars from model year 2006 equipped with 1ZZ-FE engines, reports USA Today.
Sometimes the vehicles even stall at highway speeds, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched the investigation November 30th, citing 26 complaints from drivers.
The stalls happened randomly on highways and intersections.
In one case a year ago, a Corolla stalled in heavy traffic and blocked a right-turn lane for two hours.
A consumer writes to NHTSA, “you NHTSA folks might want to give a call over to Toyota NA corporate headquarters before some young people have there [sic] lives destroyed by an engine stall in high speed commuter traffic.”
The Corolla and Matrix investigation covers 397,000 vehicles.
Toyota spokesman John Hanson acknowledged the investigation to the Times but declined to speculate further.
“It’s the first step,” he said. “They’re asking us for a preliminary evaluation. We’ll submit that to them and they’ll decide whether to take this to the next level.”
NHTSA is looking at a problem with the electronic control module or onboard computer which was the subject of a service bulletin two years ago.
Neither the Corolla nor Matrix is involved in the massive recall of 4.2 million Toyotas because of a sudden acceleration problem. Consumer Reports finds Toyota leads NHTSA adverse event reports for all 2008 models.
And the company has also announced it’s recalling its Tundra pickup truck because a rust problem, caused by salt used on roads in the winter in certain states, can cause the spare tire to fall out.
Sales for the automaker are down 24 percent through November while Honda and Ford have gained share reports the Times.
The Corolla is a top seller for Toyota, ranking fifth among all vehicle sales this year.
NHTSA Toyota Speed Control: Accelerator Pedal Recall
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2010 passenger vehicles. The accelerator pedal can get stuck in the wide open position due to its being trapped by an unsecured or incompatible driver’s floor mat.
A stuck open accelerator pedal may result in very high speeds and make it difficult to stop the vehicle, which could cause a crash, serious injury, or death.
Toyota filed an amended defect report on November 25, 2009, stating that dealers will modify the accelerator pedal and, on certain vehicles, alter the shape of the floor surface under the pedal. These changes address the risk of pedal entrapment due to interference with the floor mat. Redesigned accelerator pedals will become available beginning in April 2010 and dealers will replace any modified with the new pedal if desired. Also, dealers will replace any genuine Toyota or Lexus all-weather mats, or repurchase the previous mats from owners who do not want the new ones. Additionally, software modifications will be installed on Camry, Avalon, and Lexus ES 350, IS 350 and is 250 models that will ensure that the brake overrides the accelerator in the event both brake and accelerator pedals are applied. Toyota will begin mailing letters to owners in December 2009. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331, Lexus at 1-800-255-3987.
Vehicle Makes/Models affected.
Lexus / ES 350 2007-2010
Lexus / IS 2006-2010
Toyota / Avalon 2005-2010
Toyota / Camry 2007-2010
Toyota / Prius 2004-2009
Toyota / Tacoma 2005-2010
Toyota / Tundra 2007-2010
What Are IIHS Least Safe Cars?
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released its 2010 Top Safety Picks, which include all vehicles that received a “Good” rating in the different crash tests, but what about those vehicles that didn’t fare so well? USA Today wondered the same thing and looked them up for us.
The good news is there really aren’t any completely dangerous vehicles on the road anymore. Regulation and consumer demand for safer cars have increased vehicle-safety standards to new heights. Hence the term “least safe” in the headline.
Click the jump to find out which of the 145 vehicles listed by IIHS were rated “Poor” in at least one category.
Mini Cars
2009 Chevrolet Aveo — Poor when hit from the rear
2009 Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio — Poor when hit from the side or rear
Small Cars
2009 Volkswagen New Beetle — Poor when hit from the side
2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser — Poor when hit from the side or the rear
Large Luxury Cars
2010 Infiniti M35/M45 — Poor when hit from the rear
2010 Cadillac STS — Poor when hit from the rear
Small SUVs
2010 Ford Escape Hybrid; Mercury Mariner Hybrid and Mazda Tribute Hybrid — Poor in a rollover
2009 Hyundai Tucson — Poor in a rollover
2010 Jeep Wrangler — Poor when hit from the side
Midsize SUVs
2009 Hummer H3 — Poor when hit from the rear
2009 Kia Sorento — Poor when hit from the side
Minivans
2009 Nissan Quest — Poor when hit from the rear
2010 Toyota Sienna — Poor when hit from the rear
Reprinted from Cars.com
NHTSA Proposes Passenger Ejection Crash Safety Test
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a new crash safety test with the intention of reducing passenger ejections through side widows.
The test involves propelling an impact device toward the side windows up to four times in order to simulate a rollover. Per the NHTSA, the mass is based on that of a 50th percentile male’s upper torso on the window opening during an occupant ejection. The requirement would measure how far the impact device moves beyond the window’s plane. This new standard, if applied, would affect just passenger-adjacent side windows of most vehicles.
As means to pass the test, the NHTSA proposes that automakers modify current side-impact air bag curtains and suggests the use of glazing technology. “The curtains would be made larger so that they cover more of the window opening, made more robust to remain inflated longer, and made to deploy in both side impacts and in rollovers,” the NHTSA says.
The guidelines are not finalized yet, but the NHTSA has outlined possible exceptions. While convertibles would not be exempt from the testing, walk-in vans would be “on practicability grounds,” the NHTSA says. The federal agency hasn’t decided on vehicles that have no doors, or have doors that are designed to be attached or removed.
Data points to Toyota’s throttles, not floor mats
Eric Weiss was stopped at a busy Long Beach intersection last month when he said his 2008 Toyota Tacoma pickup unexpectedly started accelerating, forcing him to stand on the brakes to keep the bucking truck from plowing into oncoming cars.
Toyota Motor Corp. says the gas pedal design in Weiss’ truck and more than 4 million other Toyota and Lexus vehicles makes them vulnerable to being trapped open by floor mats, and on Wednesday, it announced a costly recall to fix the problem.
But Weiss is convinced his incident wasn’t caused by a floor mat. He said he removed the mats in his truck months earlier on the advice of his Toyota dealer after his truck suddenly accelerated and rear-ended a BMW.
“The brakes squealed and the engine roared,” the 52-year-old cabinet maker said of the most recent episode. “I don’t want to drive the truck anymore, but I don’t want anyone else to, either.”
Amid widening concern over unintended acceleration events, including an Aug. 28 crash near San Diego that killed a California Highway Patrol officer and his family, Toyota has repeatedly pointed to “floor mat entrapment” as the problem.
But accounts from motorists such as Weiss, interviews with auto safety experts and a Times review of thousands of federal traffic safety incident reports all point to another potential cause: the electronic throttles that have replaced mechanical systems in recent years.
The Times found that complaints of sudden acceleration in many Toyota and Lexus vehicles shot up almost immediately after the automaker adopted the so-called drive-by-wire system over the last decade. That system uses sensors, microprocessors and electric motors — rather than a traditional link such as a steel cable — to connect the driver’s foot to the engine.
For some Toyota models, reports of unintended acceleration increased more than fivefold after drive-by-wire systems were adopted, according to the review of thousands of consumer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Toyota first installed electronic throttles in 2002 model year Lexus ES and Camry sedans. Total complaints of sudden acceleration for the Lexus and Camry in the 2002-04 model years averaged 132 a year. That’s up from an average of 26 annually for the 1999-2001 models, the Times review found.
The average number of sudden-acceleration complaints involving the Tacoma jumped more than 20 times, on average, in the three years after Toyota’s introduction of drive-by-wire in these trucks in 2005. Increases were also found on the hybrid Prius, among other models.
Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said the automaker could not explain the trend. But Toyota has consistently held that electronic control systems, including drive-by-wire, are not to blame.
“Six times in the past six years NHTSA has undertaken an exhaustive review of allegations of unintended acceleration on Toyota and Lexus vehicles,” Toyota said in a statement this month. “Six times the agency closed the investigation without finding any electronic engine control system malfunction to be the cause of unintended acceleration.”
NHTSA officials have consistently said they have not found any electronic defects. “In the high-speed incidents, which are the type of crashes in which death or serious injury is most likely, the only pattern NHTSA has found to explain at least some of them are pedal entrapment by floor mats,” a spokeswoman said in a written statement.
Toyota has been under a spotlight since the San Diego crash, in which the driver’s desperate efforts to stop the car were recorded on a 911 emergency call made by a passenger.
After that incident, The Times reported that sudden-acceleration events involving Toyota vehicles have resulted in at least 19 deaths since the introduction of the 2002 model year. By comparison, NHTSA says all other automakers combined had 11 fatalities related to sudden acceleration in the same period.
Independent electronics and engineering experts say that the drive-by-wire systems differ from automaker to automaker and that the potential for electronic throttle control systems to malfunction may have been dismissed too quickly by both Toyota and federal safety officials.
Unlike mechanical systems, electronic throttles — which have the look and feel of traditional gas pedals — are vulnerable to software glitches, manufacturing defects and electronic interference that could cause sudden acceleration, they say.
Ask the computer
“With the electronic throttle, the driver is not really in control of the engine,” said Antony Anderson, a Britain-based electrical engineering consultant who investigates electrical failures and has testified in sudden-acceleration lawsuits. “You are telling the computer, will you please move the throttle to a certain level, and the computer decides if it will obey you.”
Although Toyota says it knows of no electronic defects that would cause a vehicle to surge out of control, it has issued at least three technical service bulletins to its dealers warning of problems with the new electronic throttles in the 2002 and 2003 Camry.
The throttle systems on six-cylinder engines can cause the vehicle to “exhibit a surging during light throttle input at speeds between 38 mph and 42 mph,” according to one of the bulletins that was published by Alldata, a vehicle information company. The solution provided to dealers was to reprogram the engine control module.
NHTSA, the nation’s primary agency for auto safety, has conducted a total of eight investigations of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles since 2003, prompted by defect petitions from motorists and its own examination of complaints. But the agency has tested electronic throttle systems only twice in those probes, its records show.
Three years ago, the agency asked Toyota to test an electronic throttle component from a 2006 Camry, a task the company delegated to the Japanese supplier that manufactured the part. The supplier exonerated the throttle, and then NHTSA allowed Toyota to keep virtually the entire 74-page report almost completely confidential. The report, posted on the agency’s website, has dozens of redacted pages.
The other test, conducted at a NHTSA laboratory in Massachusetts, found that a Toyota throttle exhibited unusual behavior when researchers applied a magnetic field to the device’s sensitive electronics. Engine speed surged by 1,000 revolutions per minute, according to a 2008 report by the agency’s Vehicle Research and Test Center.
Nonetheless, the lab concluded that the system “showed no vulnerabilities to electric signal activities.” The details of the experiment were not explained in the lab report, and the agency never explained the apparent contradiction.
Advanced systems
The electronic throttle was first introduced by BMW in 1988.Like a conventional throttle system, it controls the flow of air into the engine. Today, every new Toyota vehicle sold in the U.S. uses drive-by-wire. The systems cost less to install on the assembly line and increase the efficiency of the vehicle.
To run these advanced throttle systems, each automaker develops its own electronic control modules and proprietary software that has unique control logic. The operations of the systems are opaque to consumers, as are potential failures.
In a worst-case scenario, consultant Anderson says, stray electrical voltages, electromagnetic signals or bad sensor readings could cause an undetectable error within the car’s network of up to 70 microprocessors, setting off an unpredictable chain of reactions. One of those, he said, could be a command to completely open the throttle.
The auto industry has battled allegations of electronic defects in sudden-acceleration lawsuits for more than two decades, arguing that they are not caused by any vehicle defect.
Richard Schmidt, a former UCLA psychology professor and now an auto industry consultant specializing in human motor skills, said the problem almost always lies with drivers who step on the wrong pedal.
“When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong,” Schmidt said. “The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn’t always do what it is told.”
To be sure, the complaints by Toyota and Lexus owners about sudden acceleration involve a tiny share of the company’s vehicles on the road.
But runaway acceleration represents a high proportion of the complaints filed by consumers about Toyota in federal databases. For the 2007 Lexus ES sedan, for example, 74 of 132 complaints filed with NHTSA alleged sudden acceleration.
And independent experts say the number of complaints actually filed is only a tiny fraction of all potential problems, because most people don’t bother filing a report.
Critics say NHTSA hasn’t kept pace with technological changes.
The auto industry has undergone a technological revolution in the last decade, and today about 25% of a vehicle’s price reflects its electronics content. Nonetheless, NHTSA has adopted few, if any, standards for designing or testing vehicle electronics, according to industry officials. Indeed, the agency’s two-page safety standard for accelerators was adopted in 1973.
Dale Kardos, who runs a consulting firm that helps automakers with regulatory issues, said manufacturers had repeatedly tried to get that standard updated because they feared they could no longer comply. “The industry would like to see standards written to reflect modern technology,” Kardos said.
Instead, independent organizations and the industry itself are setting standards and developing safety policies. The International Organization for Standardization, a nongovernment group that sets industrial standards, recently introduced a new standard for automakers to protect vehicle electronics.
Supplier TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., which makes computerized controls for brakes and air bags, said its systems have multiple layers of redundancy to make sure electronic faults are detected and isolated.
“Manufacturers’ standards are far above the regulatory standards,” said Ian Harvey, TRW’s executive lead for electromechanical compatibility. “You wouldn’t want somebody to make a cellphone call and the air bag goes off. That potentially could happen if you didn’t take the proper precautions.”
Test drives
Despite the huge increase in complexity, when NHTSA investigators conduct field tests of alleged malfunctions of Toyota throttle systems, they rarely do more than drive suspect vehicles for a few miles, test the brakes and plug a diagnostic tool into their onboard computers to look for error codes, investigation records show.
Michael Pecht, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland who has studied sudden acceleration for 10 years, said it’s nearly impossible to replicate an electronic control system fault simply by driving a short distance.
“These are not things that occur every day. If it occurred a lot, you could track it down. If it occurs once in 10,000 trips, then it is difficult to find,” he said.
What’s more, said Huei Peng, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Michigan and a specialist in vehicle control systems, many of the kinds of electronic errors that a modern car is susceptible to are not detectable by the car’s fault detection system.
“When there’s no error code, it doesn’t mean there’s no error,” Peng said.
Despite the potential risks associated with electronic systems, NHTSA’s own reports indicate it often does not test them while investigating unintended acceleration.
In a 2005 probe of Lexus ES vehicles, NHTSA reported that its investigator reviewed two vehicles that had allegedly surged out of control, but that “no interrogation or communication with the electronic systems was performed” before giving them a clean bill of health.
Texas resident Thomas Ritter, who has a mechanical engineering degree and spent 15 years as an engineer at General Motors, Chrysler and other auto and truck makers as well as 25 years designing oil exploration equipment, believes Toyota’s acceleration problem lies in the electronics.
Last July, his wife was driving her 2006 Lexus ES 330 with four grandchildren near Houston when it accelerated out of control. To avoid a wreck, she crossed four lanes of traffic before smashing into a masonry sign, totaling the car and deploying the air bags. No one was seriously injured.
“When you think about a machine operated by computers, almost anything can go wrong,” Ritter said.
A ’smart pedal’
Toyota announced Wednesday that it had developed a series of fixes to prevent floor mats from causing sudden acceleration.
In 4.26 million vehicles in the U.S. and Canada, Toyota said it would cut off a segment of the accelerator pedal and then later install a newly designed pedal. It also will add a so-called smart pedal, software that cuts engine power any time both the accelerator pedal and brake pedal are depressed at the same time.
Such software has already been adopted as a safety feature by a number of automakers, including Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW, Nissan and Chrysler, the companies said.
Independent auto safety experts said that though all of Toyota’s fixes would help reduce the problem, it has not gotten to the root cause.
“These incidents are coming in left and right where you can’t blame the floor mats,” said Sean Kane, president of the consulting firm Safety Research and Strategies. “So they are chipping away at a problem that is widespread and complicated without having to unravel a root cause that could be very expensive.”
Reprinted from the LA Times
Toyota to reshape, replace gas pedals on 3.8M recalled autos
Toyota Motor Corp. said today it will reshape or replace accelerator pedals on 3.8 million vehicles involved in the company’s largest recall ever.
The company said it will reconfigure the shape of accelerator pedals to cut down on the risk that they may be jammed in the floor mat. In addition, it will replace original equipment floor mats with redesigned mats.
The models involved are:
• 2007 to 2010 model year Camry
• 2005 to 2010 Avalon
• 2004 to 2009 Prius
• 2005 to 2010 Tacoma
• 2007 to 2010 Tundra
• 2007 to 2010 Lexus ES 350
• 2006 to 2010 Lexus IS 250
• 2006 to 2010 Lexus IS 350.
In addition, Toyota will install a brake override system on the involved Camry, Avalon, and Lexus ES 350, IS 350 and IS 250 models “as an extra measure of confidence.” The system will shut off engine power if drivers press the accelerator pedal and brake pedal simultaneously.
The automaker said it will send first-class letters to owners of the Camry, ES 350, and Avalon by the end of the year. Owners of the five other models will be notified throughout 2010.
Early next year, dealers will be trained to reshape the pedal. Replacement parts shaped the same way as the reconfigured pedal will be available at dealerships in April, Toyota said. Customers who initially have their pedals reshaped may elect to have them replaced.
A former Toyota engineer who is now with automotive analysis firm Edmunds.com, said in a statement today that the solutions from the recall should work.
“Our tests have confirmed that an out of position floor mat can cause the throttle to stick because of the shape and geometry of the current gas pedal,” wrote Dan Edmunds who served as senior chassis development engineer for Toyota’s Technical Center before joining Edmunds.com as director of automotive testing in April 2006.
“Temporarily shortening and replacing the accelerator pedals are viable solutions to alleviate the problem,” Edmunds wrote.
Toyota, the world’s biggest automaker, announced the recall in late September, citing the risk that a loose floor mat could force down the accelerator, a problem suspected of causing crashes that killed five people.
Toyota has said it has confidence the problem is linked to floor mats and not a vehicle design flaw or problems related to braking, fuel or accelerator systems.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said discussions included “several vehicle-based” factors that may contribute to pedal interference and a driver’s ability to control and stop the car when the accelerator gets stuck.
Toyota has said that the cost of any related repair work have no effect on its business as the company has set aside nearly 500 billion yen ($5.6 billion) in provisions for recalls.
Toyota vs. NHTSA
Earlier this month, Toyota Executive Vice President Yukitoshi Funo denied allegations the automaker tried to sidestep engineering or design defects that led to the recall.
His comments came a day after NHTSA rebuked Toyota for issuing “inaccurate and misleading information” about the safety recall, which advised drivers to remove floor mats that may potentially jam underneath the gas pedal and cause unintended acceleration.
A Toyota statement days earlier said NHTSA found “no defect exists in vehicles with properly installed floor mats.” In fact, NHTSA had said Toyota vehicles have a “very serious defect.”
The accelerator and floor design of the vehicles create “the potential for entrapment of the accelerator by floor mats,” said a statement by NHTSA. It said removing the floor mats is only an interim solution that does not correct the underlying defect.
Funo said Toyota had “no disagreement on this issue.”
In early November, ABC News broadcast interviews in early with a number of Toyota drivers who said their vehicles suddenly accelerated out of control even though their foot depressed the brake and not the gas pedal. ABC cited reports of 16 acceleration-related deaths and more than 200 accidents.
The floor mat recall was prompted by an Aug. 28 accident involving a runaway Lexus ES 350 in San Diego that killed four people.
Toyota in late October said it would begin sending letters to owners urging them to remove the floor mats from their cars while the company considers what to do to curb unintended acceleration problems.
Toyota takes blame for part from Dana
Toyota Motor Corp. is taking the blame for rust problems on 2000 and 2001 Toyota Tundra pickups. But in a highly unusual move, the automaker identified Dana Holding Corp. as the supplier of the trucks’ frames.
Dana also built the frames for 750,000 1995-2004 Tacoma pickups that faced similar rust problems and were the subject of voluntary recalls and buybacks last year.
Toyota was to submit information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last week in response to complaints about rusted frames on the pickups.
Dana spokesman Chuck Hartlage said, “We are assisting Toyota with this investigation” on the Tundras.
Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons says there is no connection between the Tacoma and Tundra frames.
“The frames were built to a different design and at different plants” for the Tacoma and Tundra, he said. “So this is not apples to apples.” He said Toyota does not blame Dana.
“It is too early to speculate what we will do for Tundra,” Lyons said. “They’re only looking at one specific portion of the frame — the cross member that supports the spare tire — not the entire frame.”
NHTSA is investigating 20 reports that relate to spare tire separation and brake system failures as a result of frame corrosion on the vehicles.
NHTSA has received 238 complaints about the 2000 models and 48 about the 2001 models. The complaints range from brake-line corrosion to corrosion of the entire frame. More than 70 complaints had been posted since NHTSA launched its preliminary evaluation of the problem on Oct. 6.
NHTSA to Increase Side Impact Crash Standards
In the quest for increased safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will implement a new side impact crash standard that requires vehicles to protect occupants against a narrow fixed object, such as a telephone pole.
Currently, NHTSA’s side impact tests place vehicles against wide, moveable objects. This current specification protects vehicle occupants in the event of a car getting T-boned while going through an intersection. However, impacting a narrow, fixed object is the most dangerous single vehicle impact according to Stephen T. Kozak, chief global safety engineer at Ford.
The new NHTSA side impact crash test will analyze a vehicle’s ability to keep occupants safe in the event of sliding into a tree or a telephone pole by crashing a vehicle into a fixed 10-inch pole at a 75 to 90 degree angle. At the time of impact, the vehicle will be traveling between 18 and 20 mph. NHTSA will impose the same set of regulations used on other crash tests to determine the amount of damage sustained by the occupants.
To meet the new standards, NHTSA “anticipates that vehicle manufacturers will install dynamically deploying side airbags to meet the proposed vehicle to pole test” with an estimate cost of “$121 per vehicle.” Kozak, however, says the costs could be much greater. The new standard cannot be met by simply installing a two-stage airbag (which automakers will do), but the whole side structure must be reinforced as well. This will require higher strength steels, which are more expensive to manufacture.
Additionally, the cost of developing and testing of the two-stage airbag system isn’t insignificant. Engineers must come up with an airbag that deploys softly to cushion occupants’ heads, but offer a firmer lower portion to provide support to the pelvic area. The system must then be tested on a computer simulation, with engineers performing iterations of the system until it is ready for physical crash testing.
Accident, Injuries or Death of a Loved one because of a Third Party’s Fault? 
Victim of an Airline or Plane Crash? 
Contract breached? Unfair Competition? 
Cars, Cribs, Pills, Toys, many products are defective and dangerous. 
Did somebody stole your idea? Is anyone using your mark or technology? 
Can I be a Citizen or Resident of the US? Am I here legally? 
Mitsubishi auto and SUV crash test ratings. 
Does your vehicle have any recalls or defects that need to be repaired? 
Have you been injured in a ATV accident? 
Do you have a case? Don’ know where to begin? 
Does your Toyota have a dangerous defect or recall? 
