Yesterday here in Mpls, a woman drove a 2004 Camry thru the front of a beauty solon and claims the car floor boarded on her. So I don't think any kind of problem has really been cured. And 2004 is not even on the list.

 

Just to be clear:

My remarks of "problem salved" were specific to the Camry Hybrid.

I'd bet that the 2004 Camry was not a hybrid.

And I do not think we have had any post-recall work UA incidents on the TCH.

Jack

 

My folks had UA with their 2007 Accord. They got rid of it and have a 2009 Accord. It UA-ed the other day.
UA is a fact of life and will haunt all manufacturers as it appears to be a random glitch associated with these ultra high tech computer controlled vehicles (of course, excluding the cases of driver error, physical mat/pedal obstructions and the random cases of fraud)

 

UA happens for a variety of reasons. It can be caused by mechanical or design defects, of course. But, by far the most common cause is still the driver unintentionally pushing on the gas pedal. No amount of recalls or design changes is ever going to eliminate that last, most common, cause.

 

The problem with these random events is that there is a high probability that it was user error that caused this but the UA stories are a quick alibi that will be trotted out first. If there is any investigation, and it turns out that it was not a UA we will never hear about it again. So by UA being blamed it gets to stay in the headlines and more people will use that as a reason for their accident instead of accepting responsibility when they are at fault.

 

As NHTSA documents attest, all vehicles suffer reports of UA. Toyotas, however, suffered a statistically significant higher number of events.

Did that occur because of something unique to Toyotas or because one or two events received sufficient publicity to cause more people to report what they previously hadn't reported?

As to the mat problem, how about we go back to a hard surface of some kind on the driver's side? What's the point of having carpeting, which wears out faster than the car. So we put another piece of carpet on top to protect the expensive carpet underneath, but since mats are expensive too, we add another mat on top of the mat to protect it, which then of course gets in the way of the gas pedal's ability to move freely. It looks like a recipe for trouble to me.

 

I'd attribute it to other factors, including knowledge as to what NHTSA is (How many people heard of NHTSA before last year? How many knew that they were supposed to report it? How many knew how to report it?). In addition, Toyota's are popular in certain parts of the country (the coasts, etc.), while Ford, is popular in other parts of the country (the fly over states). Is it possible that someone in DC, NY, LA, etc. is more likely to complain to the government about an issue, whereas someone in Ohio, Iowa, etc. might not? Statistics are dangerous and often abused to prove a point.
After my parent's UA instance, it took me (a seasoned web user) about 20 minutes to figure out how to report it. How many less seasoned web users would have reported their UA? Might they have just asked their local mechanic about the acceleration and that was the end of it?

 

A few days ago an elderly man drove a Toyota Corolla into a store front but he admitted up front that it was his fault not the car. He stated that he hit the gas pedal instead of the brake. The car went completely into the store with little damage to the car. However, it was damaged by the fire department as they pulled it out of the store.

I think others have done the same thing but they just blame it on the car since everybody knows that Toyota has had problems.

 

Actually they don't. NHTSA took the rare step of issueing a statement clarifying this. Toyota's have a higher number of events, because there are more of them. "Statistically" (as in percentage of), Toyota's are no worse or better than the others.

Cheers!

Dang

 

While Toyota suffered a higher number of reports of UA in the last year or two, Ford, over the last five or six years, suffered double the number of reported UA incidents as Toyota did. Since cars don't suffer UA continually, but rather rarely, looking at the short term snapshot and deciding that the issue was involving only one manufacturer is faulty logic.
I went to the NHTSA database and noted that one owner reported his vehicle's UA in three separate incidences. I don't know if the NHTSA report is the gross number of incidences (failing to filter out repeated complaints about the same car) nor do I know if driver reported three separate incidence reports representing three separate occurrences or whether driver was irate and filed three separate reports over the same (single) occurrence. Finally, the NHTSA database doesn't break out driver error (be it either improperly placed mats or pedal confusion) from actual mechanical failure.
I've repeatedly posted that the report system only has data from those that reported their problem. I'd argue that fewer than one in fifty people would know what NHTSA is nor know that they were supposed to report the defect. How can a statistically valid sample be drawn? What if the Camry is more popular amongst lawyers and accountants (who would know about filing) and Ford Escort is more popular amongst school teachers and musicians (who might not know about filing) yet both cars suffered the same problem. Are the pools prejudiced and likely to skew in the direction of one based on the type of driver, not the model of the car? A 1920's telephone poll showed overwhelming support for the republican candidate who was trounced in an election. Since few democrat voters had telephones the sample pool was invalid. You can't always trust statistics on surface value.
As such, relying on the NHTSA stats that inflamed the headlines about the danger of the one model from one manufacturer portrayed a scenario that is distorted, at best, and most likely wrong, at worst.
I think the entire hoopla regarding the Camry/Lexus issue was based upon faulty reading of a gross statistic from a database without further review and analysis to ensure that the conclusion was valid. It was too easy to see a statistical blip on the chart ("...hey look at this, in the last year we had a lot of Camry owners complain...there must be a problem with Camrys...") and draw the conclusion. I'm not saying I have access to all the records, nor did my review extend beyond a simple sampling of reports, but given all the variables at work, I don't know how they jumped to the conclusion that it was only one company's problem.