Toyota acknowledges bug in 'black box' reader
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
"Until this year, Toyota had only one black box reader in the U.S., and did not allow outsiders to use it. "
"Toyota for years argued in courtrooms that black box data were not reliable and that the proprietary reader used to interpret them was a prototype. It was not until the automaker faced thousands of allegations that its vehicles accelerated without being told to that it began holding up EDR downloads as evidence that drivers, rather than vehicles, were at fault."
Telling stuff IMO.
"Toyota for years argued in courtrooms that black box data were not reliable and that the proprietary reader used to interpret them was a prototype. It was not until the automaker faced thousands of allegations that its vehicles accelerated without being told to that it began holding up EDR downloads as evidence that drivers, rather than vehicles, were at fault."
Telling stuff IMO.
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
Toyota acknowledges software bug in 'black box' reader
Be forthright and tell us what your intentions were when you decided to make this thread.
Toyota acknowledges software bug in 'black box' reader
Be forthright and tell us what your intentions were when you decided to make this thread.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
So we can all see and judge for ourselves....Tell us all, what are the parameters that are collected by the Toyota EDR? Why does Toyota not make available what data is collected for each model in their lineup? Why does Toyota continually submit redacted and edited EDR reports to courts throughout this country in lawsuits? Why do Toyota EDR dowloads have to go through Toyota to recover them?
Ford and GM have provided third party readers for years with valid data available to interested third parties.
"Other automakers, including General Motors Co. and Chrysler, already make such readers available to the public.".....including Ford and they have done so for YEARS....Why not Toyota?
If you dont see a problem, it's only because Toyota doesn't WANT you to see a problem.
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
So we can all see and judge for ourselves....Tell us all, what are the parameters that are collected by the Toyota EDR? Why does Toyota not make available what data is collected for each model in their lineup? Why does Toyota continually submit redacted and edited EDR reports to courts throughout this country in lawsuits? Why do Toyota EDR dowloads have to go through Toyota to recover them?
Ford and GM have provided third party readers for years with valid data available to interested third parties.
"Other automakers, including General Motors Co. and Chrysler, already make such readers available to the public.".....including Ford and they have done so for YEARS....Why not Toyota?
If you dont see a problem, it's only because Toyota doesn't WANT you to see a problem.
The software said that a Tundra went 177MPH? And they thought that was valid data?
I predict a lock in short order on this thread.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
"Other automakers, including General Motors Co. and Chrysler, already make such readers available to the public.".....including Ford and they have done so for YEARS....Why not Toyota?
One reason may be because so many people in this country are paranoid about civil rights violations, they think they're being "tracked" with an EDR. People think they track their location, where they're going, who is in the car, etc. One person told me, "you know those things record your conversations, right?"
Scary.
"Other automakers, including General Motors Co. and Chrysler, already make such readers available to the public.".....including Ford and they have done so for YEARS....Why not Toyota?
One reason may be because so many people in this country are paranoid about civil rights violations, they think they're being "tracked" with an EDR. People think they track their location, where they're going, who is in the car, etc. One person told me, "you know those things record your conversations, right?"
Scary.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
If your statement was made in seriousness, I agree. Heck, if it was made in sarcasm, I still agree! The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
If your statement was made in seriousness, I agree. Heck, if it was made in sarcasm, I still agree! The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
Bingo.
...IF Mr. Michels at Toyota is right about what he's saying, of course.
But that doesn't seem to be in dispute right now. All that remains is some vague "well what ELSE is wrong with them?" suspicion. We shall see.
The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
Bingo.
...IF Mr. Michels at Toyota is right about what he's saying, of course.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
The software said that a Tundra went 177MPH? And they thought that was valid data?
As a data analyst, this sets off alarms and redlights....if this data is faulty, what other data coming out of the software is faulty.
In other words, if the data is telling us that it wasn't the vehicle but the driver at fault, can we believe that if the same data stream is telling us that the vehicle went 177mph?
But I keep forgetting, by questioning the great Wizard of Oz that is Toyota, I obviously have an agenda....
The software said that a Tundra went 177MPH? And they thought that was valid data?
As a data analyst, this sets off alarms and redlights....if this data is faulty, what other data coming out of the software is faulty.
In other words, if the data is telling us that it wasn't the vehicle but the driver at fault, can we believe that if the same data stream is telling us that the vehicle went 177mph?
But I keep forgetting, by questioning the great Wizard of Oz that is Toyota, I obviously have an agenda....
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
If your statement was made in seriousness, I agree. Heck, if it was made in sarcasm, I still agree! The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
What IS material, is the FACT that the same Company that is issueing this statement, is also the same Company that said the EDR data was unreliable for YEARS. In court in sworn affadavits and testimony, they claimed that the data was unreliable, bordering on useless. I agree, the inputs aren't in question, how could they be, Toyota wont even tell us what data is logged on what models. What should be "in question" is the honesty of a Company clearly playing both ends against the middle when it suits their interests.
The REAL material question is....Do you believe their mouthpiece then or do you believe them now?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Quote:
Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said that the software bug, which involved how information about post-crash change in velocity was interpreted, did not affect readouts for any other data points, particularly for those collected prior to impact, called pre-crash data.
I don't see the problem...?
If your statement was made in seriousness, I agree. Heck, if it was made in sarcasm, I still agree! The inputs to the EDR are not in question. The reporting of the EDR pre-crash is not in question (which is what a sudden acceleration investigation will look at). What is in question is apparently a mathematical interpretation of post-crash speed, which is immaterial to the current focus on Toyota anyway.
What IS material, is the FACT that the same Company that is issueing this statement, is also the same Company that said the EDR data was unreliable for YEARS. In court in sworn affadavits and testimony, they claimed that the data was unreliable, bordering on useless. I agree, the inputs aren't in question, how could they be, Toyota wont even tell us what data is logged on what models. What should be "in question" is the honesty of a Company clearly playing both ends against the middle when it suits their interests.
The REAL material question is....Do you believe their mouthpiece then or do you believe them now?
Originally Posted By: opus1
But I keep forgetting, by questioning the great Wizard of Oz that is Toyota, I obviously have an agenda....
If people think there is an 'agenda' by posting something about Toyotas obvious try to cover something pretty important up, then I would question that person or groups lack of ability to come up with a reasonable, logical explanation to said article.
I have no knife in this fight - I just browse the forums here. But I really hate the "sharks smell blood in the water" forum syndrome.
But I keep forgetting, by questioning the great Wizard of Oz that is Toyota, I obviously have an agenda....
If people think there is an 'agenda' by posting something about Toyotas obvious try to cover something pretty important up, then I would question that person or groups lack of ability to come up with a reasonable, logical explanation to said article.
I have no knife in this fight - I just browse the forums here. But I really hate the "sharks smell blood in the water" forum syndrome.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
What IS material, is the FACT that the same Company that is issueing this statement, is also the same Company that said the EDR data was unreliable for YEARS. In court in sworn affadavits and testimony, they claimed that the data was unreliable, bordering on useless. I agree, the inputs aren't in question, how could they be, Toyota wont even tell us what data is logged on what models. What should be "in question" is the honesty of a Company clearly playing both ends against the middle when it suits their interests.
I think there are really two issues here.
The first issue is can the EDR be trusted? Given the intense scrutiny of this whole situation over the past few months, by NASA, the NHTSA, and whomever else has been looking at these things, if there was an obvious error in the way the EDR is reporting the relevant data, I fully believe that these multiple agencies would have reported that. Because that’s what the first issue here is all about: this sudden acceleration investigation. And in fact, the NHTSA has reported otherwise: that after a lot of examination, there appears to be no evidence to support sudden acceleration. You and I may not know what Toyota’s EDR reports, or how it works, or whatever. But I can assure you: if the NHTSA had ANY question about what data they store or how they worked, and if Toyota was anything but 100% cooperative with the investigation, the NHTSA would be publicly asking questions. And they haven’t been.
The second issue, and the one you seem to be more concerned with, is can Toyota be trusted? That’s not a question I will consume myself with, because I don’t know, and I’m sure I’ll never know. And frankly, it really doesn’t matter to me. I’m not in a personal relationship with any automaker whose vehicle I happen to own. It’s strictly a business decision. I may go buy groceries at Food Lion. I might buy a Honda lawn mower. I have tires from both Michelin and Firestone. Have any of those companies done anything in the past that has been questioned? Probably. But it’s nothing I have direct knowledge of, nor control over, so I don’t waste time thinking about it.
What IS material, is the FACT that the same Company that is issueing this statement, is also the same Company that said the EDR data was unreliable for YEARS. In court in sworn affadavits and testimony, they claimed that the data was unreliable, bordering on useless. I agree, the inputs aren't in question, how could they be, Toyota wont even tell us what data is logged on what models. What should be "in question" is the honesty of a Company clearly playing both ends against the middle when it suits their interests.
I think there are really two issues here.
The first issue is can the EDR be trusted? Given the intense scrutiny of this whole situation over the past few months, by NASA, the NHTSA, and whomever else has been looking at these things, if there was an obvious error in the way the EDR is reporting the relevant data, I fully believe that these multiple agencies would have reported that. Because that’s what the first issue here is all about: this sudden acceleration investigation. And in fact, the NHTSA has reported otherwise: that after a lot of examination, there appears to be no evidence to support sudden acceleration. You and I may not know what Toyota’s EDR reports, or how it works, or whatever. But I can assure you: if the NHTSA had ANY question about what data they store or how they worked, and if Toyota was anything but 100% cooperative with the investigation, the NHTSA would be publicly asking questions. And they haven’t been.
The second issue, and the one you seem to be more concerned with, is can Toyota be trusted? That’s not a question I will consume myself with, because I don’t know, and I’m sure I’ll never know. And frankly, it really doesn’t matter to me. I’m not in a personal relationship with any automaker whose vehicle I happen to own. It’s strictly a business decision. I may go buy groceries at Food Lion. I might buy a Honda lawn mower. I have tires from both Michelin and Firestone. Have any of those companies done anything in the past that has been questioned? Probably. But it’s nothing I have direct knowledge of, nor control over, so I don’t waste time thinking about it.
Well, there it is, isn't it? "I dont know, and I dont want to know".
It's a free country, do as you wish.
It's a free country, do as you wish.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: opus1
In other words, if the data is telling us that it wasn't the vehicle but the driver at fault, can we believe that if the same data stream is telling us that the vehicle went 177mph?
No, because it calls into question the quality of the software used. Such a program error should have been detected in testing, if they did any testing.
In other words, if the data is telling us that it wasn't the vehicle but the driver at fault, can we believe that if the same data stream is telling us that the vehicle went 177mph?
No, because it calls into question the quality of the software used. Such a program error should have been detected in testing, if they did any testing.
What is a forum on oil supposed to do about it?
Go to Congress and lobby for a law that requires Toyota to do whatever it is you think they should. That should take a while.
What you want to say is don't buy any more toyotas?
Go to Congress and lobby for a law that requires Toyota to do whatever it is you think they should. That should take a while.
What you want to say is don't buy any more toyotas?
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Well, there it is, isn't it? "I dont know, and I dont want to know".
Part of life is understanding what you can control, what you can influence, and what you truly have knowledge of. I don't know what Toyota knows and what they don't. So I won't pretend to. And I also won't waste my time trying to figure it out.
I guess part of your notion is true, "don't want to know", in that I choose to focus my attention on more important things in life. I suppose I could, if I were so inclined, devote much more of my waking moments digging up documents and court papers and trying to separate fact from fiction. But again, I go back to what I said earlier. I’m not in an emotional relationship with the automaker from whom I might purchase a car. In other words: it doesn’t matter to me. If I were to set out to never purchase anything from any company who ever had a questionable moment in public, both of these two things would happen: I wouldn’t be able to buy anything, and I’d spend so much time trying to “investigate” that over which I have no real knowledge anyway. I have more pressing and desirable things to do in life, quite frankly. Those into conspiracy theories might see that as "plausible deniability". Others will acknowledge that as as person prioritizing his or her resources to matters most important to them.
Have a great day!
Well, there it is, isn't it? "I dont know, and I dont want to know".
Part of life is understanding what you can control, what you can influence, and what you truly have knowledge of. I don't know what Toyota knows and what they don't. So I won't pretend to. And I also won't waste my time trying to figure it out.
I guess part of your notion is true, "don't want to know", in that I choose to focus my attention on more important things in life. I suppose I could, if I were so inclined, devote much more of my waking moments digging up documents and court papers and trying to separate fact from fiction. But again, I go back to what I said earlier. I’m not in an emotional relationship with the automaker from whom I might purchase a car. In other words: it doesn’t matter to me. If I were to set out to never purchase anything from any company who ever had a questionable moment in public, both of these two things would happen: I wouldn’t be able to buy anything, and I’d spend so much time trying to “investigate” that over which I have no real knowledge anyway. I have more pressing and desirable things to do in life, quite frankly. Those into conspiracy theories might see that as "plausible deniability". Others will acknowledge that as as person prioritizing his or her resources to matters most important to them.
Have a great day!
I find this whole thing interesting from a technical and legal standpoint. I have read some of the technical reports about this issue. I've read court papers for other cases. Heck, I've even watched the goings-on in General District Court for a couple of hours. That's just me--I like to learn about this world that I live in. I know that's not typical, most people could not care less about what goes on around them.
I also think it's very interesting, and like to stay plugged into the technical side of the discussion. But when the discussion goes to "they're lying" or "he said, she said", that's when I turn off. I think that's when the discussion loses its productiveness, and often gets emotional, accusatory, etc.
- Status
