Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Unintended Accleration? Beware of TV Network Fraud
You've already seen the ABC News piece about a college professor rigging up a Toyota Avalon so he could induce a short circuit that would cause unintended acceleration. It's a frightening demonstration. And as detailed yesterday, it's also bad journalism.
We've seen this sort of thing happen before. Sometimes the major TV networks, despite all their gravitas and prestige, seem to toss their ethics out the window if they get the chance to show a gory story that involves automotive accidents.
There have been several instances in the past when investigative reports from network television showed horrific safety crashes that made the vehicles involved look dangerous. But it later turned out that those tests were fraudulent. Is ABC engaging in the same tactics?
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
Back in 1987, CBS's 60 Minutes famously hired a plaintiff's witness, William Rosenbluth, who claimed he could cause an Audi to experience unintended acceleration. But he had to disassemble the transmission, drill holes in it and attach a tank of compressed air to make it happen-something that would never occur in the real world. But 60 Minutes never mentioned these facts, and presented Rosenbluth's test as proof that Audi had a defect. It single handedly nearly destroyed Audi in the American market. It took the company 20 years to recover.
In 1993, NBC's Dateline even more famously rigged up a Chevy pickup with explosives to make it "blow up real good" in front of the cameras. It presented this as proof that GM had defective pick-ups. GM hired investigators who ultimately found that the Dateline test was nothing but a fraud. Dateline was forced to publicly apologize.
Worse, ABC had no input or rebuttal from Toyota. It left out the company's version of this event, or maybe never even asked for it. Toyota says it met with Mr. Gilbert, he showed them a test, and they pointed out how this could not cause unintended acceleration. Now the company claims Gilbert showed a different type of test to ABC News. Toyota says it welcomes the chance to evaluate what he's doing and it invites ABC to bring its cameras back for that demonstration.
ABC also featured Sean Kane of Safety Research and Strategies on its report of the Avalon's unintended acceleration. He was presented as a safety advocate, but Mr. Kane makes his living by selling data and information to plaintiff attorneys, the very people who are going to be suing Toyota. Sean Kane has a vested interest in seeing Toyota sued, but ABC never mentioned that fact.
Plaintiff's witnesses like Sean Kane or William Rosenbluth make decent money testifying against car companies. They earn several hundred dollars an hour, whether they're on the stand or waiting around to be called to the stand. Presenting people like this as independent news sources, without identifying them for what they really are, violates all journalistic principles. Or at least it should.
Now, it could well turn out that Toyota does indeed have an electronics problem that causes unintended acceleration. But don't jump to conclusions based on last night's report from ABC News.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Tired of Toyota recall news? Try out the recall-free version of Autoblog.
We've seen this sort of thing happen before. Sometimes the major TV networks, despite all their gravitas and prestige, seem to toss their ethics out the window if they get the chance to show a gory story that involves automotive accidents.
There have been several instances in the past when investigative reports from network television showed horrific safety crashes that made the vehicles involved look dangerous. But it later turned out that those tests were fraudulent. Is ABC engaging in the same tactics?
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
Back in 1987, CBS's 60 Minutes famously hired a plaintiff's witness, William Rosenbluth, who claimed he could cause an Audi to experience unintended acceleration. But he had to disassemble the transmission, drill holes in it and attach a tank of compressed air to make it happen-something that would never occur in the real world. But 60 Minutes never mentioned these facts, and presented Rosenbluth's test as proof that Audi had a defect. It single handedly nearly destroyed Audi in the American market. It took the company 20 years to recover.
In 1993, NBC's Dateline even more famously rigged up a Chevy pickup with explosives to make it "blow up real good" in front of the cameras. It presented this as proof that GM had defective pick-ups. GM hired investigators who ultimately found that the Dateline test was nothing but a fraud. Dateline was forced to publicly apologize.
ABC never really explained how this short circuit demonstration worked.
Back to the ABC News report. First off, ABC never really explained how this short circuit demonstration worked. It showed professor Dave Gilbert, from the automotive department at the University of Southern Illinois, with what looked like a volt meter with wires sticking out of it. He said that he could use that to induce a short circuit that would cause the car go to full-throttle acceleration, yet leave no error code that a mechanic could later trace. Maybe a more detailed technical explanation would be too much for a mass TV audience to understand, but ABC wants us to swallow Gilbert's demonstration with next to no details of what he was really doing.Worse, ABC had no input or rebuttal from Toyota. It left out the company's version of this event, or maybe never even asked for it. Toyota says it met with Mr. Gilbert, he showed them a test, and they pointed out how this could not cause unintended acceleration. Now the company claims Gilbert showed a different type of test to ABC News. Toyota says it welcomes the chance to evaluate what he's doing and it invites ABC to bring its cameras back for that demonstration.
ABC also featured Sean Kane of Safety Research and Strategies on its report of the Avalon's unintended acceleration. He was presented as a safety advocate, but Mr. Kane makes his living by selling data and information to plaintiff attorneys, the very people who are going to be suing Toyota. Sean Kane has a vested interest in seeing Toyota sued, but ABC never mentioned that fact.
Plaintiff's witnesses like Sean Kane or William Rosenbluth make decent money testifying against car companies. They earn several hundred dollars an hour, whether they're on the stand or waiting around to be called to the stand. Presenting people like this as independent news sources, without identifying them for what they really are, violates all journalistic principles. Or at least it should.
Now, it could well turn out that Toyota does indeed have an electronics problem that causes unintended acceleration. But don't jump to conclusions based on last night's report from ABC News.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Tired of Toyota recall news? Try out the recall-free version of Autoblog.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 4)
dukeisduke 11:21AM (2/24/2010)
John, the main problem I had with ABC News's use of Prof. Gilbert was that they didn't disclose that he's in the employ of plaintiff's attorneys in several civil cases against Toyota. While he may have found a hole in Toyota's OBD-II algorithms, this still should have been disclosed to the audience.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:04PM (2/24/2010)
Scott:
The big reporting is done by people in big cities and on the coasts. These are areas where Toyotas sell well and the people who do the reporting are quite likely to own Toyotas themselves. So I think the idea that this is big because Toyota has been threatening the big 3 (more like vanquishing them) is off base. These reporters are not an arm of Detroit.
I do agree with your comments that part of it is because Toyota has been seen as infallible. Remember, more people are interested in news when it tells them something they don't already know. This goes for car mags too, btw. Anyway, people "know" that Toyota is awesome and couldn't go wrong. The press is thus interested in reporting stories that (at least seem to) show people that what they know is wrong, that Toyota can indeed mess up.
A lot of people somehow get romantic about Japanese makes, that they are the scrappy underdogs and have their back. Then when they see Toyota bragging that they've saved money by delaying NHTSA safety measures, it really is news to them. And it should be. Business is business.
Scott 11:28AM (2/24/2010)
As Mark Twain would say, "there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." There may be an engineering defect with the vehicle, but it will take some impartial investigation for the root cause to pan out.
Gilbert's test involves external stimulus not found in real world driving ("voltmeter with wires coming out" thanks for that super-technical evaluation) thus invalidating the test to determine root cause. To find out what's happening in reality, a REAL engineer will have to hook up a laptop to a car's computer and record data in real time while reproducing the effect without any further modifications to the vehicle.
Has anyone but myself read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor? The beginning of this book is eerily similar in context.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 11:55AM (2/24/2010)
I think you and many others don't understand what it is Gilbert is trying to do here. The problem Toyota is having is very elusive. It only happens perhaps 100 times in a million cars and that's when given a span of several years. So if you want to try to observe the problem, Toyota would have to wire up tens of thousands of cars and drive them and then they'll see it if they're lucky once in the coming year.
This just isn't a realistic scenario.
So what Gilbert is trying to do is a method where you simulate possible failures of components in the system and what happens. If you find a case that seems to show similar symptoms, then maybe that's it. Then you fix the system so that this simulated failure case doesn't produce a problem and hope that this was the problem.
The issue then becomes is what he is simulating really a plausible situation.
If he's found a plausible situation and if Toyota is really more susceptible to it than other makes as he says, then it's an issue. But I don't think any of us really know for sure.
Scott 12:06PM (2/24/2010)
100 in One Million is 0.01%. Nobody with an engineering degree is going to spend their time trying to eliminate One Hundreth of a Percent chance of failure, it's simply not possible considering the number and complexity of components of an automobile.
Unless of course, you are exaggerating.
External stimulus does not produce realistic and reasonable failure criteria in the electrical world. The possibility of introducing failures that simply would not occur in reality is far more likely than producing the exact criteria causing the problem.
The fact that I'm an electrical engineer and I do this for a living may or may not carry any weight for you when you consider my position on this.
RSR 12:30PM (2/24/2010)
I think LS2LS7 summed it up well.
Scott,
If (really serious) safety potential such as this is involved, at least some automakers would spend time and money to prevent even a small chance. I am quite certain that this is true, because I did it for living as well. And yes I have an engineering degree as well.
To simulate failures, you need to introduce external stimulus. This is a common practice in engineering validations, as you'd know as an engineer doing it for living. How else can you even test the system otherwise? The OBDII certification process requires this, and by 'requirement' I mean the legal requirement. You have to demonstrate every required DTCs for the OBDII certification. And the most common way of doing this is by shorting circuits, sometimes multiple circuits, and manipulating the ECM data (if that's the only way to simulate it, per CARB regulations).
And FMVSS has its own safety requirements, which also assumes some very unlikely scenarios. But it's there for reasons - just in case. However unlikely it is to happen, if there is a chance, it can eventually happen.
sk 12:36PM (2/24/2010)
Scott, if the probability would be just 0.01% then how come other car makers did it the right way and interrupt the accelerator as soon as you press the brake? To me it seems the system Toyota used is not well engineered.
Scott 12:46PM (2/24/2010)
I apologize for being unclear, when I said "external stimulus" I meant "external stimulus tailored to create a failure."
The stimulus must be reasonable and realistic, otherwise I could take a hammer to the circuit board and the car would break. Should I cry foul because they car's circuits are not designed to survive specific abuse? No, the reality should be that hammer impacts should be nearly impossible, therefore unreasonable design criteria.
If the tests are specifically designed to reproduce reasonable operating criteria, that clarification is critical to the presentation of findings. My point, and I didn't make this clear before, is that the statistics don't mean anything without a lot of supporting information, none of which is supplied. As far as I can tell the professor simply engineered the correct stimulus to cause a specific failure and applied it.
Automobiles are still more likely to fail due to poor maintenance and driver error, both of which are the true catalyst to this investigation.
why not the LS2LS7? 12:48PM (2/24/2010)
Scott:
Other makes have lower incidence rates and safety systems to stop runaway acceleration. Given that other makes can do it, Toyota can do it. So your assertion that it isn't reasonable to expect that Toyota would work to reduce the incidence rate is wrong. Especially given that lives are at stake!
And I want to mention I've worked on 100ppm problems in my life. And we fixed them. One particular product I worked on sold well north of 20M copies. And so if the problem exhibits 100 times in each million attempts, and people are using it every day, the problem is exhibiting 2,000 times a day. And for some reason a significant number of people want to get on the internet and tell the world about it and then so it appears on engadget. So you're forced to investigate.
Your use of "likely" in the case of doing investigations like this is bizarre. It doesn't matter if you create a few or a bunch of unlikely situations. You create the situations, then test them to find the range of parameters under which this situations can happen and whether it looks like the problem you're seeing. Then you evaluate whether this really seems like it could be simply fixed without introducing bigger problems. If you can fix it affordably and it seems like it could be the problem and it's not going to make it worse, then you fix it. A couple fixes like this and often you find that the problem that's been happening in the real world is no longer happening. You've then can reasonably assume you fixed the thing that was the actual problem (or things).
We did this where I work and we don't even make a product that (reasonably) can kill you. It's doesn't seem ridiculous to think Toyota could do it too.
Scott 12:56PM (2/24/2010)
SK,
I don't know what the true probability is, the 0.01% number is what LS1/LS7 suggested. But, the instances of failure over the number of operating hours of Toyota's systems are astronomically low. There is a lot of attention given to this subject because of a number of emotional responses to what was perceived as an infallible automotive manufacturer.
First, a family died in a tragic manner. No matter how that happened, the biggest target in the accident was automotive giant Toyota.
Second, Toyota has been threatening the sales numbers of domestic manufacturers in the US for years now. Their reputation for quality has caused many Americans to buy Toyota despite perceptions of their "appliance" vehicles.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:17PM (2/24/2010)
Scott:
The big reporting is done by people in big cities and on the coasts. These are areas where Toyotas sell well and the people who do the reporting are quite likely to own Toyotas themselves. So I think the idea that this is big because Toyota has been threatening the big 3 (more like vanquishing them) is off base. These reporters are not an arm of Detroit.
I do agree with your comments that part of it is because Toyota has been seen as infallible. Remember, more people are interested in news when it tells them something they don't already know. This goes for car mags too, btw. Anyway, people "know" that Toyota is awesome and couldn't go wrong. The press is thus interested in reporting stories that (at least seem to) show people that what they know is wrong, that Toyota can indeed mess up.
A lot of people somehow get romantic about Japanese makes, that they are the scrappy underdogs and have their back. Then when they see Toyota bragging that they've saved money by delaying NHTSA safety measures, it really is news to them. And it should be. Business is business.
(sorry, missed with this before)
Scott 1:42PM (2/24/2010)
I wasn't suggesting that this is big news because of some influence from Detroit, I was suggesting that this is big news because of Toyota's sales numbers and their increasing popularity means that this topic interests a lot of people.
I think the Japaneese market is romanticized because of it's accomplishments in vehicle cost (perceived value from features vs cost), fuel economy and reliability. Two of those factors are being turned inside out with this story, low cost may be at the expense of customer safety, and reliability is suspect.
cheeseroc 11:41AM (2/24/2010)
Let's not forget the Suzuki Samurai.
Reply
Dude 11:48AM (2/24/2010)
or Pontiac Fiero
ndchamp 11:55AM (2/24/2010)
Evidently ABC couldn't wait for CBS to file a phony test.
cdwrx 11:53AM (2/24/2010)
John McElroy is gaining a reputation for defending the failures of the automotive industry. I'll agree that the ABC story is bad journalism because it failed to investigate as deeply as it could or should have. However to dismiss every critic because they have a vested interest in the outcome is naive. Anyone who has in depth knowledge of the issue is going to have a vested interest on one side or the other. McElroy enjoys that unique Detroit mindset that is incapable of even recognizing failure, nevermind learning from it.
Reply
Jim 11:59AM (2/24/2010)
"John McElroy is gaining a reputation for defending the failures of the automotive industry."
only in your mind.
Snowdog 12:18PM (2/24/2010)
R&T has toyota vid that shows how their system works.
http://archive.roadandtrack.com/video/index.html?bcpid=717440069&bclid=741861823&bctid=68193265001
The short version. There are dual sensors that each have a slightly different reading.
To fool such a system you would have alter the value to each sensor to maintain the relationship between them.
You would need to first figure out how to fool the system then build your box to essentially emulate the behavior of both sensors.
The odds of this happening by accident are approaching zero. But doing it when you understand how it works it is easy to fake out.
Reply
Rich A. Jensen 12:41PM (2/24/2010)
The number of occurrences in the real world also approaches zero.
c. 2500 unintended acceleration claims involving what? something over ten million vehicles?
----
Whatever is going on is an extreme edge condition.
Snowdog 12:53PM (2/24/2010)
"2500 unintended acceleration claims"
Care to breakout how many had "shorts" in both accelerator sensors?
It would be easy to check. I bet the number is ZERO.