In early December 2005, Toyota learned of two early model Lexus IS250 with accelerator pedals “out of tolerance” – meaning the pedal could become stuck. One instance occurred during a dealer pre-delivery inspection and a second was reported by Toyota Canada during transportation at the port facility. The automaker had received no complaints in the U.S. or Canada.
Nonetheless, Toyota was on it like a shot:
After years of applying band aids to its Sudden Unintended Acceleration problem, Toyota will finally offer a vehicle-based remedy to fix SUA problems involving floor mats that can entrap the accelerator pedals in eight Toyota and Lexus models. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced this morning that
Toyota plans to reconfigure the accelerator pedal on 3.8 million vehicles going back to the 2004 model year. Other fixes include modifying the floor area around the pedal and in some models, installing a brake-to-idle override that allows the driver to quickly stop a vehicle in an unintended acceleration incident and newly-designed replacement driver- and front-passenger side all-weather mats. Continue reading
Have you heard the one about The Pneumatic Tire? If you’re involved in tire litigation, the defense may have waved this august tome in front of a judge claiming that it is the Tire Bible handed down from on high by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, itself.
And this would be somewhat true. In 2005 NHTSA did contract J.D. Walter and Alan Gent of the University of Akron to act as assembling editors for a low-budget update of the 1981 edition of the Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires. With a total project cost of $89,575, Walter and Gent recruited top-level executives in the tire industry – including the good folks at Cooper Tire—to serve as authors and members of the editorial board. The work was to have been thoroughly vetted at the agency, but according to several sources, NHTSA passed a very light hand over the project and the final version consisted of a wholesale borrowing from the original, complete with decades old data, with some new chapters added to reflect technological advances. Continue reading
Showing admirable restraint, Toyota waited a whole five days before trumpeting the closing of Defect Petition 09-001 as proof positive “that no defect exists in vehicles in which the driver’s floor mat is compatible with the vehicle and properly secured.”
In a letter to its customers, Toyota referred to NHTSA’s “extensive technical review of the issue, including interviews with consumers who had complained of unwanted acceleration, NHTSA concluded that …the only defect trend related to vehicle speed control in the subject vehicles involved the potential for accelerator pedals to become trapped near the floor by out-of-position or inappropriate floor mat installations.” Toyota’s press release went on to say:
“This is the sixth time in the past six years that NHTSA has undertaken such an exhaustive review of allegations of unintended acceleration on Toyota and Lexus vehicles and the sixth time the agency has found no vehicle-based cause for the unwanted acceleration allegations.
The question of unintended acceleration involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles has been repeatedly and thoroughly investigated by NHTSA, without any finding of defect other than the risk from an unsecured or incompatible driver’s floor mat, said Bob Daly, TMS senior vice president.”
Some of this is actually true. The agency has not found a vehicle-based defect that is causing unwanted acceleration. It doesn’t mean there isn’t one – it just means that the agency hasn’t found it. By any standard, the agency investigations are far from the thorough and can be accurately described as cursory by anyone with a passing understanding of defect investigation.
Here’s NHTSA’s summary of one of those “thorough” investigations into Toyota Tacoma SUA:
“ODI reviewed the petition, assessed VOQs, interviewed persons who filed VOQs, tested the vehicle, and reviewed Toyota’s response to an agency Information Request. The complaints fell into three groups. A majority of the complaints may have involved the Tacoma’s throttle control system. Some complaints did not involve a failure of the throttle control system. For the remaining reports, although there may have been an issue with the throttle control system as one possible explanation, we have been unable to determine a cause related to throttle control or any underlying cause that gave rise to the complaint. For those vehicles where the throttle control system did not perform as the owner believes it should have, the information suggesting a possible defect related to motor vehicle safety is quite limited.
Additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists or a NHTSA order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as requested by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied.”
In other words NHTSA:
The most thorough of the government investigations appears to be the agency’s Vehicle Research & Test Center analysis of a 2007 Lexus ES350. This investigation, cited by Toyota above as evidence of the lack of a defect, suggests otherwise. Here’s what else the report stated:
“To comprehend the statistical significance of the probability for this event to occur, a survey was sent to a sample size of 1986 registered owners of a 2007 Lexus ES-350 requesting information regarding episodes of unintended acceleration. NHTSA received 600 responses for an overall response rate of 30.2%. Fifty-nine owners stated they experienced unintended acceleration. Thirty-five of those responding also reported that their vehicles were equipped with rubber Lexus all-weather floor mats and several commented that the incident occurred when the accelerator had become trapped in a groove in the floor mat. Interviews with owners revealed that many had unsecured rubber floor mats in place at the time of the unintended acceleration event, which included in some cases unsecured rubber floor mats placed over existing Lexus carpeted mats.”
The report is silent on several key issues, including owners who did not comment that the accelerator pedal was trapped in the groove of an all weather floor mat. And what of the remaining 24 who didn’t have all weather floor mats?
The agency’s 2004 “thorough” investigation of SUA in 2002-2003 Camry and Lexus ES350 vehicles also failed to find a defect. In its Closing Report, the agency said:
“ODI failed to find any evidence in the interviews conducted (113 VOQ and 36 Toyota reports, 149 total), or in the information provided in Toyota’s IR response, of instrument panel warning lamp illumination or ETC diagnostic codes detection. None of the complainants interviewed described conditions similar to failsafe mode operation. One report (10062931) was found where an ETC component replacement occurred in connection with a repair attempt related to the alleged defect, no others were found. Toyota’s warranty claim rate is low with 24 of the 43 warranty claims submitted involving diagnostic repairs (that did not result in component replacement because no fault was detected). Many warranty claims were not related to the alleged defect Toyota’s ETC parts sales rate for the subject vehicles is low also. There are no service bulletins or campaigns that relate to the alleged defect.”
Translation: Driver’s actual experiences didn’t unfold the way Toyota says they should have (hey – the little light didn’t go on!); the automaker hasn’t replaced parts under warranty (check those floor mat numbers); and it didn’t acknowledge the problem via a technical bulletin, therefore it didn’t happen.
The latest “thorough” defect petition investigation was in response to Jeffery Pepski’s experience with SUA in his 2007 Lexus. Pepski’s vehicle was examined by a NHTSA investigator and a Toyota representative at a Lexus dealer in which they couldn’t reproduce the incident and claimed the floor mat was the cause. The investigation then headed west to investigate the causes of tragic fatal crash that killed Mark Saylor and three family members in a 2009 Lexus ES350. In that crash, the agency blamed an improperly placed all-weather accessory floor mats that were not specified for that model. Pepski’s vehicle was equipped with the original equipment carpet mats. Why does the investigation tie these two incidents together? Pepski says that the agency came out ready to persuade him that the floor mat was to blame, even though that didn’t square with his experience of pulling up the accelerator pedal, as well as pushing down on it. Both NHTSA and Toyota have demonstrated how an all-weather floor mat can cause the bottom edge of the accelerator pedal to catch, but the company and agency are notably silent on how the carpeted mat causes pedal interference.
If this is all due to errant floor mats, we have some questions:
Why do Toyota/Lexus models experience SUA absent all weather floor mats?
What changed in the floor mat design in 2002, when the complaint rates significantly increase?
How can a floor mat entrap a pedal during highway driving, when the operator has been driving steadily and does not depress the accelerator?
If Toyota/Lexus vehicle have floor mats so badly designed that they have killed at least 16 individuals and injured at least 243 injuries in SUA events, why is Toyota just getting around to fixing it now?
Why is Toyota claiming that floor mats are the cause of SUA incidents in vehicles not part of the floor mat recall? If they are causing SUA, shouldn’t they be recalled too?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has denied the latest petition for a defect investigation into Sudden Unintended Acceleration in Lexus ES350 vehicles, saying that Toyota has responded to the problem, by recalling 3.8 million floor mats, earlier this month.
“Except insofar as the petitioner’s contentions relate to that recall, the factual bases of the petitioner’s contentions that any further investigation is necessary are unsupported. In our view, additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists or a NHTSA order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as alleged by the petitioner at the conclusion of the requested investigation. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.”
To date, SRS has documented 16 deaths and 237 injuries related to Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration in the last six years. The most recent crash in August claimed the lives of a California Highway Patrolman and three of his family members, after the 2009 Lexus loaner he had been driving sped out of control and crashed on a Santee highway.
NHTSA’s denial of the latest petition asking for a probe into Toyota SUA problems beyond the floormats was submitted by Jeffery Pepski, of Plymouth, Minn. who was able to keep his 2007 Lexus from crashing as it sped under its own command for several miles one February evening, until suddenly stopping. But the incident was so disturbing, he refused to drive the vehicle again and filed a detailed petition to the agency in March, describing his nearly uncontrollable drive home, reaching speeds of almost 80 miles per hour. Applying the brakes with all the force he could muster, Pepski was able to slow the vehicle to 40 mph.
In his original complaint to the agency, Pepski noted: “I alternated between pumping the accelerator pedal and pulling up on it from the underside with my right foot as it became clear that the throttle was stuck in an open position. The vehicle continued to speed back up to over 65 mph with less pressure on the brake pedal.”
Pepski tried pressing the ignition button, and shifting the vehicle into neutral, without bringing the event to an end. Suddenly, the acceleration stopped. Toyota chalked it up to a misplaced floor mat, and denied Pepski’s request that it buy back the vehicle. In May, NHTSA and a Toyota representative inspected Pepski’s vehicle and concluded that Pepski’s OE carpet mat had entrapped the pedal.
Pepski was not persuaded:
“I was trapped in a runaway vehicle,” Pepski told SRS. “I was able to push down on the accelerator as well as push up the accelerator with my foot. If the floor mat had been the cause, I would have dislodged it and the acceleration I was experiencing would have gone away and that didn’t happen.”
He asked the Toyota representative to demonstrate how the floor mat could encroach upon the gas pedal – and remain there while a driver pushed and pulled the pedal.
“They couldn’t demonstrate that,” Pepski says. “If they can’t duplicate it, they say it didn’t happen, but computer glitches in cars can happen, just like they happen on your home computer. Glitches happen all of the time. Most have no serious consequences, but some do.”
Pepski’s petition raised seven issues in its request to broaden a 2007 Lexus SUA Preliminary Evaluation, which also closed with a finding that accessory all-weather floor mats were to blame. (Pepski’s vehicle did not have all-weather floor mats.) His points ranged from questioning if NHTSA addressed the proper corporate entity in Preliminary Evaluation PE07-016; to Toyota’s assessment of the defect; to questioning if the vehicle even met federal motor vehicle safety standards governing accelerator and brake systems.
In its denial, NHTSA responded to each of Pepki’s issues, dismissing them as incorrect or misguided. The agency said that Toyota vehicles complied with all relevant FMVSSs, that its investigation of drivers who complained of SUA events revealed that the problem was due to a misplaced floor mat and that Toyota was responding with its floor mat recall. The agency took pains to chide Pepski for confusing Toyota’s Brake Assist system referenced in the Owner’s Manual with the brake power assist system. The latter “is a computer controlled automobile braking technology that increases braking pressure in an emergency situation (e.g., crash avoidance braking).”
Although NHTSA and the automaker have tried to close the book on SUA, it is unlikely that the incidences – or the questions about electronic glitches in its electronic throttle control and brake systems will stop. Meanwhile, owners wait for Toyota’s latest countermeasure after alerting owners to remove floormats in more than 3 million models including the following:
Toyota and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have issued urgent consumer safety alerts to owners of a wide range of Toyota and Lexus models to take out any removable driver’s floor mat and NOT replace it with any other floor mat.
“Recent events have prompted Toyota to take a closer look at the potential for an accelerator pedal to get stuck in the full open position due to an unsecured or incompatible driver’s floor mat,” Toyota said in a press release.
The advisory follows an August 28 crash in Santee, California that killed four. California Highway Patrolman Mark Saylor was at the wheel of a 2009 Lexus ES350, when the vehicle apparently suffered an sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) event. Some investigators suspect that the floor mat may have entrapped the pedal.
The affected models are:
- 2007 – 2010 Camry
- 2005 – 2010 Avalon
- 2004 – 2009 Prius
- 2005 – 2010 Tacoma
- 2007 – 2010 Tundra
- 2007 – 2010 ES350
- 2006 – 2010 IS250 and IS350
“Have all-weather floor mats caused unintended acceleration in some Toyota and Lexus models? Probably. But is it the only cause in these vehicles? I don’t think so” says Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies. “Reviewing complaint data, interviewing owners, and examining evidence from SUA incidents leads us to conclude there is more going on here. This not likely the last we’ve heard of Toyota and Lexus sudden acceleration.” Continue reading
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA—A horrific sudden unintended acceleration crash that killed four – including a California Highway Patrol officer who was at the wheel of the 2009 Lexus when it plunged over an embankment and burst into flames – may raise the profile of SUA incidents as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration weighs granting a defect petition to re-investigate the problem in Lexus vehicles.
On August 28, Mark Saylor and his wife Cleofe, both 45, their 13-year-old daughter, Mahala, and 38-year-old brother-in-law, Chris Lastrella, were killed after reporting to a 911 operator that they could not stop their Lexus ES 350, as it careened down Route 125. The tape of the brief call, released to the public last week, features the voice of Lastrella, telling the operator that the vehicle had no brakes. The call ended with occupants calling on each other to pray. Continue reading
REHOBOTH, MA – As Enterprise Rent-A-Car and General Motors scramble to correct the false advertising that claimed former fleet vehicles being sold used were equipped with “standard” side curtain airbags, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has agreed to correct the information on its consumer website.
Over a three-year period, GM had offered fleet buyers as a cost savings the option of deleting the standard side airbags in 2006-2008 Chevrolet Impalas and MY 2008-2009 Chevrolet Cobalt and Buick LaCrosse models. Last month, investigations by SRS and the Kansas City Star revealed that the troubled automaker and Enterprise, its biggest fleet customer and the nation’s largest used car seller, were re-selling these altered fleet vehicles – mostly the Impalas – to retail consumers and advertised them as having the important safety feature. Continue reading
Safety Research & Strategies continuing investigation into the “fleet delete” option that allowed GM fleet buyers to purchase vehicles without “standard” side curtain airbags reveals that bagless cars are still being sold to the public as having the feature. (SRS Investigation)
On September 2, 2009, SRS requested GM president and CEO Frederick Henderson change its advertising and marketing materials to reflect that the feature is not standard and alert all dealers and car buyer’s guide organizations of this anomaly on the 2006 through 2008 Impala, 2008 through 2009 Cobalt and any other vehicles that GM has marketed with “standard” side curtain airbags that were offered to fleet buyers without the feature.
SRS also asked NHTSA Acting Administrator Ron Medford to have the agency amend its side-impact crash-test rating information to reflect new information that has come to light regarding deleted “standard” side curtain airbags.
Below are links to the letters:
Letter to GM President and CEO, Frederick Henderson
Letter to NHTSA Acting Deputy Administrator Ron Medford
The California Tire Age bill passed the state assembly yesterday 48-21 and that loud pop you may have heard was the sound of the Rubber Manufacturer’s Association’s head exploding.
While it wasn’t as good as a rant as one from the Tire Industry Associations’ Roy Littlefield, the immediate response from the tiremakers trade group wasn’t far off (RMA Press Release). Dan Zielinski, RMA senior vice president of public affairs, panted about the bill’s proponents using “fear-mongering to allege that tires reaching a certain chronological age are dangerous.” Continue reading
