Toyota acknowledges bug in 'black box' reader

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
As I pointed out in PM, and you seemingly agreed with me, this issue cannot be discussed intelligently in a vacuum. It doesn't exist on it's own without the ancillary topics that surround it. The context of Toyota claiming the data either good OR bad takes on a different light when viewed in the comlete light of their previous statements.

You're still looking at this in terms of black-and-white: either the data is 100% correct and reliable, or it is totally worthless. To put it very mildly, I just don't see the sense in that. It's entirely possible that the data is good for some purposes but not others. If you want to take this software bug and extrapolate a conclusion about the entire data set, you have to present a good argument for doing so.

This thread is about one piece of the data having HAD an error that has now been corrected. According to publicly available info, that fault has nothing to do with what is needed to decide whether Toyota is to blame for the UA incidents.

You seem to want to turn this into a general issue about the credibility of Toyota and its EDRs, and then use that conclusion to cast doubt on how they were exonerated in the UA case. And again, you are doing it without a shred of direct evidence. All you have presented are the opinions of people who have it in their best interest to make as much of a fuss as possible over this. That's your call, but I certainly can't agree with you there.


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
If my post count of quotes from lawyers and those familiar with Toyotas court practices is out of line...then report me. Or you can join the oldmaninsc and just put me on iggy.

I didn't say it was out of line, did I? I just said it's obvious that this issue bothers you.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Dood, you say the statements I posted are made by people with a vested interest in the issue. Thats exactly my point about Toyota and THEIR statements.....We are forced because of the way they operate and control their EDR data to trust Toyota....All I'm calling for is an open platform like others utilize, that precludes Toyota or ANY other company from fudging the numbers.

If you honestly feel the quoted comments are useless due to the persons link to the issue...then couldnt the exact same thing be said about statements made by Toyota and their motivation?

Yes, it does bother me. It always bothers me when I see otherwise intelligent people make argumets or excuses based on "well, everybody does it".....Is that the same line of reasoning you use when your son or daughter asks you questions about drug use or sex? Your continued insistance that everybody does it, isn't true for one, and is meaningless on it's face.....No they dont all do the same. Only Toyota employs former NHTSA people, not GM, not Ford. Only Toyota clings to a proprietary EDR system while others provide the data willingly....this isnt a every body does it situation.

Odd that you want me to "stick to the topic" yet you willingly excuse actions being taken in the present because others have done the same years ago.

I really dont see the problem with me calling for Toyota to utilize the exact same practices as their competitors....and it blows my mind that some in here would label that as "above and beyond" what other companies comply with.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
All I'm calling for is an open platform like others utilize, that precludes Toyota or ANY other company from fudging the numbers.

Ah, okay. Why didn't you say so? Most of what you said here is irrelevant to that point. You could have saved yourself quite a lot of time.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Yes, it does bother me. It always bothers me when I see otherwise intelligent people make argumets or excuses based on "well, everybody does it".....Is that the same line of reasoning you use when your son or daughter asks you questions about drug use or sex? Your continued insistance that everybody does it, isn't true for one, and is meaningless on it's face.....No they dont all do the same. Only Toyota employs former NHTSA people, not GM, not Ford. Only Toyota clings to a proprietary EDR system while others provide the data willingly....this isnt a every body does it situation.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm not saying "it's okay because they all do it." What I'm saying is, we can't expect Toyota to do better. The burden is on regulatory agencies to keep them in check, not on them to act morally.

 

[brianl703]

From a practical standpoint, it might be wise for a company act morally on things such as this, so as to avoid regulation, which the costs of compliance may well exceed the costs of acting morally. In other words, that's called "self-policing".

 

[d00df00d]

The operative word there is "might." It's only wise to act morally to the extent that regulatory measures incur excessive costs.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
All I'm calling for is an open platform like others utilize, that precludes Toyota or ANY other company from fudging the numbers.

Ah, okay. Why didn't you say so? Most of what you said here is irrelevant to that point. You could have saved yourself quite a lot of time.

C'mon man, your just playing with me now...right? Re read my posts, it may be lost in my "ranting" lol, but I've made it clear that I think Toyota should at minimum provide the same type and access to the data that GM and Ford and Nissan have for years.

 

[d00df00d]

It IS lost in your ranting. That's the point.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
.....

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?



This is from my second post in this thread. Doesn't seem to confusing or clouded by ranting to me.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The operative word there is "might." It's only wise to act morally to the extent that regulatory measures incur excessive costs.


You don't know what those regulatory measures will entail or require--and they will be mandatory.

It's like at work--if you don't screw off, the boss doesn't think he needs to micromanage you. If you do screw off, then he starts micromanaging you and now you're doing more work than it would've taken to keep the boss off your back in the first place.

 

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
.....I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm not saying "it's okay because they all do it." What I'm saying is, we can't expect Toyota to do better. The burden is on regulatory agencies to keep them in check, not on them to act morally.
But, isn't that how Toyota got their reputation -- by going above and beyond what everyone else was doing? For years all I kept hearing (everywhere, not from you personally) was that Toyota put the customer first, that Toyota went way above peoples' expectations, yadda-yadda-yadda.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this to continue. But that's me...I get it.

 

[Spyder7]

As someone who own and drives a Toyota, my decision to buy it was based on none of things you've mentioned. It was based on tangible things, such as their blue book value, reliability rating, customer satisfaction score, low ownership cost, and longevetity and durability.

But that's me. I get it. I bought one, I drive one. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.

-Spyder

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
This is from my second post in this thread. Doesn't seem to confusing or clouded by ranting to me.

I re-read the thread and now it makes sense to me. You and I weren't going back and forth until you addressed my post directly with some elaborate commentary, and that's when I got a different impression of where you were going, and ran with it.

I believe we have come to an understanding.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
This is from my second post in this thread. Doesn't seem to confusing or clouded by ranting to me.

I re-read the thread and now it makes sense to me. You and I weren't going back and forth until you addressed my post directly with some elaborate commentary, and that's when I got a different impression of where you were going, and ran with it.

I believe we have come to an understanding.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: pidster
I predict a lock in short order on this thread.


Well perhaps you should revisit the quality of your prediction skills. It has stayed reasonably civil and on-point and inside the rules, so no lock (yet anyway...).

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
.....

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?



This is from my second post in this thread. Doesn't seem to confusing or clouded by ranting to me.


No, that post doesn't seem confused or clouded, however, it does seem to be impacted by one very large assumption: that the Ford and GM box data IS valid. I don't think anyone has established that, certainly not conclusively. Toyota is getting looked at pretty hard at the moment, in large measure because of their own very poor decisions about how to handle the data produced by their vehicles. Just because neither Ford nor GM have brought such scrutiny upon themselves does not imply that their cars' data is any more valid than Toyota's.

Heck, I had my GPS report that my V-6 Camry was doing 186 mph. Yes, it was a V-6, but even the six wasn't THAT fast... And yes, it was a GPS, not a black box, but the point is that these are complex systems, and we have to look at their outputs very carefully to ensure that we are not inadvertently outsmarting ourselves. ALL of this data, wherever it comes from, must be VERY carefully examined for validity.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
that the Ford and GM box data IS valid. I don't think anyone has established that, certainly not conclusively.


The Ford and GM box data is available to anyone who wants to spend the money to get the hardware to read it. That being the case, it eliminates a major barrier for someone who wants to conduct tests to validate the accuracy of the data supplied by the Ford and GM boxes.

For that reason, I suspect that this testing has already been done--especially given the amount of attention paid to EDRs by the technical community, which is full of people capable of conducting this type of testing.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The problem with Toyota is:

The data from the black box IS NOT reliable if it indicates the problem(s) is their vehicles.

The data from the black box IS reliable if it indicates the problem(s) is the drivers.

You can not have it both ways.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
that the Ford and GM box data IS valid. I don't think anyone has established that, certainly not conclusively.


The Ford and GM box data is available to anyone who wants to spend the money to get the hardware to read it. That being the case, it eliminates a major barrier for someone who wants to conduct tests to validate the accuracy of the data supplied by the Ford and GM boxes.

For that reason, I suspect that this testing has already been done--especially given the amount of attention paid to EDRs by the technical community, which is full of people capable of conducting this type of testing.


Suspecting, even if reasonably so, is still a far cry from knowing.

=====================================

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The problem with Toyota is:

The data from the black box IS NOT reliable if it indicates the problem(s) is their vehicles.

The data from the black box IS reliable if it indicates the problem(s) is the drivers.

You can not have it both ways.


That's an easy one. Toyota doesn't get to decide (and neither would Ford, GM, Nissan, or Honda). In a court-supervised dispute, the JUDGE will decide, based upon the evidence presented by the parties, whether the black box data is reliable enough to be admitted as evidence.

Toyota is obvious a very economically powerful entity, but I doubt that they have too many American judges in their pockets.

Bring on the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[LS2JSTS]

EK, when Toyota files redacted and edited EDR reports, some with entire columns of data missing. Aren't they in effect "deciding" what gets to the court and in front of the judges eyes?

The difference being. When a court orders a EDR report from a GM vehicle or a Ford vehicle, GM and Ford never handle it in any way....a third party provides it.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
EK, when Toyota files redacted and edited EDR reports, some with entire columns of data missing. Aren't they in effect "deciding" what gets to the court and in front of the judges eyes?

The difference being. When a court orders a EDR report from a GM vehicle or a Ford vehicle, GM and Ford never handle it in any way....a third party provides it.


Easy solution. Motion for Order to Show Cause why the company should not be held in contempt for failure to timely disclose. If they don't cough up the info, fine them a million per day until they do.

That said, Toyota's alleged lack of cooperation does not imply that GM or Ford's data is good or bad, either way. Different issues altogether.