Originally Posted By: PT1
The current NHTSA watchdog method is by far the very best in the world.
Really?
From
http://www.safetyresearch.net/toyota-sud...ation-timeline/
Quote:
September 22 [2003]
NHTSA denies the Boddaert petition (DP03003). The agency says that its analysis of speed control complaints involving the Lexus and other peer luxury vehicles shows that Toyota is not a statistical stand-out..
July 22 [2004]
ODI closes its investigation of 2002-2003 Camrys, Camry Solara and Lexus 300ES vehicles without finding a defect (PE04021). The agency concluded with its standard caveat: “A defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.”
December 15 [2005]
NHTSA memos document two separate inspections performed, one of Jordan Ziprin’s vehicle in Arizona and another involving a crash in Falls Church, VA. The agency notes no abnormalities or faults other than body damage were found.
January 5 [2006]
NHTSA closes DP05002 and denies the Ziprin petition. NHTSA says it examined 1172 owner complaints in a population of 7 million vehicles and could find no trend.
March 5 [2007]
NHTSA denies the Jefferson stating it has not identified a vehicle-based defect, nor was it able to witness such an event when road testing the Petitioner’s vehicle. An evaluation of a suspect throttle actuator removed from the Petitioner’s vehicle did not reveal a component problem. Warranty and parts sales of the actuator are unremarkable. There is no evidence of a wide-spread defect or ongoing concern.
Agency notes: “This in no way implies that we doubt the Petitioner’s reported experiences with his vehicle. Rather, the agency simply lacks evidence of a safety related defect in his vehicle or a trend of such defects in the subject vehicles. In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as alleged by the Petitioner in the subject vehicles 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.”
August 27 [2008]
NHTSA closes investigation its investigation into Tacomas (DP08001) and denies Kronholm petition. The agency concludes that they are unable to find one possible explanation and have been unable to determine a cause for SUA complaints in Tacomas.
The agency notes: “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.”
October 28 [2009]
NHTSA closes Defect Petition 09001. The Office of Defects Analysis concludes 78 percent of the complaints involved incidents of floor mat interference, including all of the crashes and injuries:
“Therefore, ODI’s analysis found 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.”
NHTSA clearly sided with Toyota and not with car owners who were trying their best to rectify the problem. It will be interesting to see the upcoming congressional inquiry into this.
