Woz says there's an acceleration problem with his Toyota Prius(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Woz says there's an acceleration problem with his Toyota Prius
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10445564-64.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0
32 comments
I haven't driven one of these cars...is there anything stopping the driver from nudging the gear selector up to neutral?
I also don't agree with your point about point #3 being a sound decision on its own. Keyless ignition is convenient, but there's no reason not to have a kill switch besides aesthetics. And they probably could have designed an aesthetically-pleasing, small kill switch.
Moving up a level of abstraction is only great when it works the way it's supposed to, and there should always be some sort of manual override for the rare, untested cases when it doesn't.
I also don't agree with your point about point #3 being a sound decision on its own. Keyless ignition is convenient, but there's no reason not to have a kill switch besides aesthetics. And they probably could have designed an aesthetically-pleasing, small kill switch.
Moving up a level of abstraction is only great when it works the way it's supposed to, and there should always be some sort of manual override for the rare, untested cases when it doesn't.
How often do you shift into neutral with an automatic transmission? A panicked driver probably wouldn't think to take unfamiliar actions.
I agree that cars should have kill switches, but I forgot to mention a disadvantage of them: killing the engine kills power steering. If a driver accidentally hits the kill switch they could have trouble avoiding obstacles or making a turn. Motorcycles don't have power steering and riders are familiar with the kill switch.
I agree that cars should have kill switches, but I forgot to mention a disadvantage of them: killing the engine kills power steering. If a driver accidentally hits the kill switch they could have trouble avoiding obstacles or making a turn. Motorcycles don't have power steering and riders are familiar with the kill switch.
You're right, and I guess this shows how driver education can save lives, especially now that drivers really don't need to understand how cars work (I sure don't). Years later, I still distinctly remember my instructor describing what you could do if your brakes fail.
Are you sure that power steering requires the main engine, or does it use a different power source? Perhaps the kill switch could disable everything except power steering, unless it's held down? I've read that turning the car off using the key doesn't disable power steering unless it's turned all the way, so that would provide similar functionality.
Are you sure that power steering requires the main engine, or does it use a different power source? Perhaps the kill switch could disable everything except power steering, unless it's held down? I've read that turning the car off using the key doesn't disable power steering unless it's turned all the way, so that would provide similar functionality.
Usually steering is powered by a hydraulic pump driven by the engine's serpentine belt. Automatic transmissions have torque converters, which are one-way (the engine can turn the wheels, but the wheels can't turn the engine). As soon as the engine dies, the serpentine belt stops, hydraulic pressure drops, and steering gets hard.
Some newer models (usually hybrids) power the hydraulic pump with an electric motor, and a few cars have purely electric power steering (just an electric motor, no hydraulics). In these types, a kill switch could be set up to stop only the engine, not the electrics. The battery could power the car long enough to stop safely.
Some newer models (usually hybrids) power the hydraulic pump with an electric motor, and a few cars have purely electric power steering (just an electric motor, no hydraulics). In these types, a kill switch could be set up to stop only the engine, not the electrics. The battery could power the car long enough to stop safely.
If the Woz says there is some sort of software malfunction I think those talking Toyota puppets blitzing the airwaves should take a moment, pick up the phone and ask Woz for his input.
What happened to the good 'ol days of harikiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku)? I'm not really suggesting that Toyota top brass should start sharpening their knives ;) But if anyone following this story over the last year or two can say that there isn't a coverup afoot here, I'll eat crow. The proverbial heads should be rolling at Toyota.
[edit] typos
What happened to the good 'ol days of harikiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku)? I'm not really suggesting that Toyota top brass should start sharpening their knives ;) But if anyone following this story over the last year or two can say that there isn't a coverup afoot here, I'll eat crow. The proverbial heads should be rolling at Toyota.
[edit] typos
There does not have to be a conspiracy here (even of silence) but you are correct - if the Woz says there is a software glitch then a software glitch there is.
If the Toyota guys can't find it then - yes - they should ask someone who can find it.
If the Toyota guys can't find it then - yes - they should ask someone who can find it.
I foresee many a class action lawsuit followed potentially by a congressional investigation of not only Toyota, but of the larger automotive industries continued encroachment of electrical systems and their software components in the most fundamental aspects of the automobile.
I can only hope for a mighty public outcry and backlash against these opaque practices. It's one thing to convert more systems from mechanics to electronics. It's another thing to wrap the entire thing in secrecy and obfuscation. Ralph Nader should be leading the charge on this.
I can only hope for a mighty public outcry and backlash against these opaque practices. It's one thing to convert more systems from mechanics to electronics. It's another thing to wrap the entire thing in secrecy and obfuscation. Ralph Nader should be leading the charge on this.
Woz != god. Woz != says so therefore it most likely is so.
However if he can reproduce this quite easily then there is probably a software bug. And Toyota can't afford a recall. Honestly this just has to be taken to courts, its the driving force of our economy.
However if he can reproduce this quite easily then there is probably a software bug. And Toyota can't afford a recall. Honestly this just has to be taken to courts, its the driving force of our economy.
> Woz != god. Woz != says so therefore it most likely is so.
It doesn't mean that he is necessarily right, but he is definitely worth paying attention to.
It doesn't mean that he is necessarily right, but he is definitely worth paying attention to.
He posted the details of the problem (3 months ago) on slashdot: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430048&cid=299...
Thanks for posting that. It seems to match up exactly with the problem vaguely described in the linked article. Scary.
[deleted]
Gives one second thoughts about the idea of self-driving cars zipping down the highway like a fluid in a pipe, never colliding or bunching up in traffic jams.
Self-driving cars don't have to be safe in an absolute sense, just safer than human drivers. I think in some ways that is not a very high bar.
From a technocratic point of view, yes. From an emotional point of view, no. People are more forgiving of one another than of machines. Machines are supposed to be perfect.
True, but if a human driver causes an accident it's treated as a one-off thing. If a software bug causes your auto-driver to veer into the oncoming lane under certain conditions, the manufacturer will be pilloried even if the raw number of accidents is less than what human drivers cause. Irrational, yes, but that's the way it is.
Actually it's more like ... one drunk driver can cause one isolated accident (assuming his license is revoked, he learns his lesson or he's dead afterwards). One software bug can cause 10000.
Now, that’s definitely the wrong analogy. Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug. Punishing the individual is sort of like telling your user who just reported a bug “Oh, the program crashed when you clicked on that button? Yeah, don’t do that.“ It’s like putting huge red warning labels next to that button or make the mouse move slower when it comes close to that button. It’s like taking the program away from that and only that one user. Cute, but won’t fix the bug.
We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
> Drinking and driving is the bug, not any individual. Societies with access to alcohol and cars have that bug.
That's rich. That's another way of saying ... societies with people in them have bugs.
Yeah, my wife last night had a bug ... she kept wining that I work too much. If this escalates we'll probably end-up like other people getting divorced ... which could lead me into getting drunk and into a car crash. If people only automated those cars, I wouldn't have to worry about it.
Problem is, that's not a bug I can fix ... next time I'll get some automated robot that doesn't mind me working so much ... hope she doesn't BSOD on me though.
> We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
No, it would only give those people with God-syndrome some sense of control.
That's rich. That's another way of saying ... societies with people in them have bugs.
Yeah, my wife last night had a bug ... she kept wining that I work too much. If this escalates we'll probably end-up like other people getting divorced ... which could lead me into getting drunk and into a car crash. If people only automated those cars, I wouldn't have to worry about it.
Problem is, that's not a bug I can fix ... next time I'll get some automated robot that doesn't mind me working so much ... hope she doesn't BSOD on me though.
> We are limited in our ability to fix bugs of that kind. Banning alcohol would probably the wrong thing to do and probably no work. What might work is automating transportation. We can at least fix the bugs there.
No, it would only give those people with God-syndrome some sense of control.
So the answer is learning software!
A similar situation devastated Audi in the '80s. Hopefully Toyota will learn from history. The Audi problem was more severe because acceleration happened during the transition from park to drive, which is a far more dangerous situation.
[ http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/05/wat... ]
[ http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/05/wat... ]
That's an interesting link. Do you know if they ever figured out the root cause? Wikipedia makes it sound like it was only ever considered driver error.
Also, why is accelerating during the park->drive transition more dangerous than sudden acceleration at speed? Seems to me like the really high speed case would be deadlier to car occupants and those around them.
Also, why is accelerating during the park->drive transition more dangerous than sudden acceleration at speed? Seems to me like the really high speed case would be deadlier to car occupants and those around them.
Wikipedia makes it sound like it was only ever considered driver error.
Wikipedia only contains "official" "facts". There is no evidence on either side of the story, so Wikipedia just reports whatever Audi said. Complaints were limited to a specific make and model of vehicle. Would it not be rather unlikely that people who can't tell the gas from the break drove that one make and model? It really isn't important either way - the fact is that it had a real impact on their public perception and sales.
Seems to me like the really high speed case would be deadlier to car occupants and those around them.
Cars moving > 25 MPH are generally found in environments specifically designed for this purpose. Cars in "park" are generally inches from other cars, walls, people, pets... a fraction of a second travel from danger. It doesn't take much speed to fatally pin someone between a car and something else.
Wikipedia only contains "official" "facts". There is no evidence on either side of the story, so Wikipedia just reports whatever Audi said. Complaints were limited to a specific make and model of vehicle. Would it not be rather unlikely that people who can't tell the gas from the break drove that one make and model? It really isn't important either way - the fact is that it had a real impact on their public perception and sales.
Seems to me like the really high speed case would be deadlier to car occupants and those around them.
Cars moving > 25 MPH are generally found in environments specifically designed for this purpose. Cars in "park" are generally inches from other cars, walls, people, pets... a fraction of a second travel from danger. It doesn't take much speed to fatally pin someone between a car and something else.
Going from Park -> Drive indicates that you are just getting going and possibly not fully prepared for such a surprising situation. If, like today’s Toyota problem, I'm driving and my car starts to speed up I’m likely to be fully engaged in driving and able to correct the situation more naturally.
True, it would be more surprising, but on the other hand I was thinking you're probably nearer to obstacles such that you don't have enough time to accelerate to lethal speeds before crashing into something.
[deleted]
[deleted]
OK, back on topic. There's all this talk of cars accelerating out of control. Almost any car with disc brakes is able to overpower its own engine... for a little while. The biggest problem is that a wide open throttle means there is no manifold vacuum, so the brake hydraulics will be unassisted after pumping the brake pedal a couple of times. If the car is still at speed and the throttle is wide open, it will to be a lot harder to stop.
The problem of uncontrolled acceleration is due to a failure of multiple systems in ways that car designers didn't predict. All of the following are required for a car to accelerate uncontrollably:
1. An automatic transmission. In a manual the driver will hit the clutch and brake pedals to decelerate.
2. Hydraulic brakes powered by manifold vacuum. Electronic-assisted brakes are less reliable overall, but they will work reliably if the car's throttle is wide open.
3. Keyless ignition and lack of a BIG RED KILL SWITCH in a standardized location. Industrial equipment has them. Motorcycles have them. Why don't cars have them?
Each of these things alone seems like a sound decision. Automatic transmissions let drivers focus on driving instead of shifting. Hydraulic brakes are usually reliable, and they use manifold vacuum that would otherwise be wasted. Keyless ignition is convenient. But together these systems (coupled with a panicked driver) can fail in unexpected ways. I'm not trying to excuse Toyota, just pointing out that this sort of thing could have happened to any car company.