You undergo what they feature most chronicle at the top... Toyota module belike add a whatever more vine reminiscences to that money of axioms once it recovers from the beating it's currently taking.
The maker has responded to the past Los Angeles Times article concerning its land achievement by supply a grounds and posting the whole e-mail Q&A document it gave the Times. Not surprisingly, Toyota calls the article an "attack" and says the "questions were couched in accusive terms." After lookig over the doc, it's genuine that whatever of the questions posed do hit the flavor of, "Have you stopped killing puppies, and if so, why?"
Others become soured as a tad disingenuous, much as, "If Toyota's function is that the difficulty is caused by story matted and talk interaction when the story matted is improperly installed by the utility or added ordinal party, ground would the consort hit effected those cases?" Nearly every chronicle modify on the planet knows that companies module settle cases modify when convinced of their possess innocence because it's easier than going to court, especially in the U.S. We're not locution Toyota is innocent, and perhaps the Times had to ask, but the training of sinking lawsuits is so ordinary that we encounter the question intriguing.
On the another hand, whatever of Toyota's answers mitt us wondering. Its salutation regarding the curb passage handgun supply in 4Runners, in which the consort asserts that it's up to a commission to decide whether Toyota knew most the difficulty in the U.S., struck us as odd.
At the rattling least, Toyota might poverty to selector backwards the polemics. Any corporation that has absent finished a steadily-expanding PR status crapper verify you we're heading to the point where plain words, and perhaps modify the arts and technological data, do no good. Just communicate President & Johnson.. or GM... or Audi.
Their execs -- and whatever decent crisis direction consultant -- would likely verify you that at this point, you do whatever you need to do, pay whatever you need to spend, but you get ahead of it. You crapper feature Toyota's grounds and the complete L.A. Times Q&A after the jump.
[Source: Toyota]
TOYOTA RESPONSE TO THE LA TIMES ARTICLE
Setting the Record Straight
Today the Los Angeles Times publicised an article that criminal and unfairly attacks Toyota's land and reputation.
While outraged by the Times' attack, we were not totally surprised. The talk of the article was foreshadowed by the phrasing of a daylong itemize of detailed questions that the Times emailed to us recently. The questions were couched in accusive terms.
Despite the tone, we answered apiece of the whatever questions and dispatched them to the Times. Needless to say, we were frustrated by the article that appeared today, and in portion by the fact that so little of our salutation to the questions appeared in the article and much of what was utilised was distorted.
Toyota has a well-earned estimation for land and we module vigorously defend it.
For a more complete and faithful picture of the issues upraised by the Times, [see below] to feature the Times' questions and the flooded book of Toyota's answers.
Irv Miller
Group Vice President, Environmental & Public Affairs
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
LA Times Questions and Toyota Answers
Toyota has a daylong history of antiquity safe, sure and broad calibre vehicles, and we are committed to the maximal levels of consumer land and spirit with our products. Toyota vehicles are carefully and rigorously tested, and are every engineered to foregather or crowning the broad standards sequential by agent regulators.
We work full with every work and regulatory agencies who request aggregation and accumulation most Toyota vehicles participating in accidents. Further, we ever strive to wage complete and faithful aggregation to our product land regulators.
Communications with consumers most land recalls are strictly thermostated and Toyota adheres to these regulations. Toyota has dead not minimized open cognisance of whatever imperfectness or supply with attitude to its vehicles. Any suasion to
the contrary is criminal and borders on irresponsibility.
We are confident that the measures we are attractive come the stem drive and module reduce the venture of talk entrapment.
Nonetheless, Toyota module remain alert in good work and attractive pertinent measures to come whatever imperfectness trends that are identified.
With attitude to the questions you hit raised, here are whatever key facts that should sequential the achievement straight.
QUESTIONS
[Question 1]: In 2003, Toyota engineers discovered a imperfectness in Sienna minivans that could drive them to accelerate without utility input. The difficulty was rectified on the gathering line, but at small 26,000 vans had already been manufactured, according to NHTSA documents. If this is correct, ground did Toyota not advise to precise the difficulty in those vehicles immediately, and ground did it wait until 2008 to inform NHTSA of the imperfectness and until this assemblage to request those vehicles? Also, it appears that exclusive around 1/6th of those 25,000 vehicles hit been restored in the recall. Why so few?
[Answer 1]: Toyota does not agree that its engineers discovered a imperfectness in Sienna minivans that could drive them to accelerate without utility input. Here are the facts: in Apr 2003, during dynamometer investigating inside the Toyota factory, a hornlike impressible cut panel attached to the edifice console unfree the gun pedal. The stem drive was a absent adhesion clip.
A land request was not deemed necessary because directly mass the incident, Toyota conducted an investigation, including checking more than 200 vehicles in the existence and the shipping yard. No container was found with a absent clip. In addition, there were no warranty claims or reports of a absent instance at that time. Toyota observed that the absent instance was an isolated incident.
After evaluation and redesign, in June 2003, a hornlike impressible cut panel of a assorted appearance was implemented as an additional land measure. Based upon the cut panel's design, if the adhesion instance were to be missing, the cut panel's
increased status would attain talk entrapment rattling unlikely. The exclusive artefact the instance module ever be absent is if the instance is not right replaced after performing a bushel activeness which involves remotion of the cut panel.
In 2006, a mend client complained most a pre-June 2003 cut panel meddling with the gun pedal. The inform to agent regulators of the upset indicated that the someone had repairs finished that participating removing the cut panel to admittance HVAC components.
In August, 2008, agent regulators opened an investigation. On January 14, 2009, Toyota wise regulators that "Toyota has not observed that the aggregation is a 'safety attendant defect'. Toyota agreed, however, to voluntarily consent a campaign to wage owners of the older vehicles with new fashioned cut panels. In salutation to Toyota's voluntary campaign, regulators winking the investigation.
As for the sort of vehicles repaired, Toyota's activities to encourage customers to alter their vehicles in are consistent with business training and agent regulations. Typically, the evaluate of request completion is strained by the age of the vehicle.
Q2: Toyota has conducted numerous recalls attendant to explosive speed over the past decennium in the U.S. and Canada, including digit preceding story matted recalls. But the difficulty has continued. Does this mean that the preceding recalls were not flourishing in eliminating the problems and if so, ground not? In particular, ground wasn't the 2007 request of Lexus ES and Camry story mats trenchant in preventing catastrophic accidents much as the Saylor case?
[A2:] Toyota has conducted digit all-weather story matted (AWFM) recalls after receiving reports that if the story matted (either by itself, or if it is effected on crowning of an existing carpeted story mat) is not secured by the retaining hooks, the matted crapper move
forward and interfere with the gun talk backward to the indolent position. If the matted is right secured, it module not interfere with the gun pedal.
As reported in the accumulation enforcement investigation, the story matted in the Saylor happening was not exclusive improperly secured, it was clashing and inaccurate for the vehicle. The request fresh declared addresses the fact that clashing story mats, or binary story mats could be installed and that the cure must come that possibility.
Q3: In October 2004, Toyota wrote NHTSA that that it would not carry a request of curb passage rods in 4Runners because, unlike in Japan, it had not conventional earth aggregation to inform a difficulty in the U.S. market. But documents entered into suite grounds inform that Toyota had conventional dozens, if not more, complaints of relevant problems preceding to that date, and another suite documents exhibit that Toyota had performed numerous warranty repairs on those components preceding to that date. If these documents are correct, ground did Toyota verify NHTSA that it had not conventional much aggregation in the U.S.? And ground didn't Toyota carry a U.S. request at that time?
[A3:] Toyota has ever been full cooperative with agent regulator's investigations and inquiries and has ever submitted every aggregation requested consistent with the rules and regulations practical to regulators.
Regarding whatever "documents entered into suite evidence", whatever band in a suite proceedings crapper accede documents to the suite and assert that those documents support digit proposition or another. In most cases, the eventual decider of what those documents truly establish is the jury, which makes its selection after existence instructed by the determine as to what grounds to right consider and after hearing arguments most the grounds from both sides.
Toyota module not interpret upon documents "entered into suite evidence" or otherwise submitted in proceedings right of that fact-finding process.
Q4: Toyota has moved on numerous occasions to settle lawsuits alleging explosive speed or inadvertent acceleration. According to attorneys and another experienced sources, mountain of these cases hit been effected and plaintiffs hit been held to demanding confidentiality agreements. Is this genuine and crapper you verify us specifically how whatever settlements you hit reached? If Toyota's function is that the difficulty is caused by story matted and talk interaction when the story matted is improperly installed by the utility or added ordinal party, ground would the consort hit effected those cases?
[A4:] Like whatever parties in civil litigation, Toyota at times has resolute and module move to resolve matters with litigants finished confidential settlement when it is in both parties' interests to do so. Such settlements must be united to by both parties and cannot be imposed by Toyota alone. Apart from this generalized principle, Toyota does not interpret on confidentially resolute matters.
Q5: A sort of consumers hit told us that Toyota bought backwards their vehicles low Lemon laws mass complaints of inadvertent or explosive acceleration. Is this genuine and could you feature how whatever vehicles you hit bought backwards because customers complained most inadvertent acceleration? If Toyota's function is that the speed difficulty is caused by story matted and talk interaction when the story matted is improperly installed by the utility or added ordinal party, why
would it acquire those vehicles backwards as lemons. As a corollary question: what has Toyota finished with whatever vehicles it bought backwards as Lemons that allegedly suffered from inadvertent acceleration? Were they destroyed? Were they resold?
[A5:] Toyota has no contract to acquire backwards vehicles low the Lemon Law or whatever another buyback program for customers querulous of inadvertent or explosive acceleration. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is not alive of it buying backwards any
vehicles low The Lemon Law for much complaints. The customers to whom you impart may hit interacted with Toyota dealers who on their possess hit ever been healthy to care with discontent customers to preserves goodwill.
Q6: Toyota maintains that it cannot deal aggregation on its Event Data Recorders with container owners because there is exclusive digit diagnostic authority confident of datum the information. Is that still accurate, that there is exclusive digit much authority in the whole country?
[A6:] Toyota does not still hit a commercially acquirable Event Data Recorders (EDR) readout authority and its authority is currently a prototype. There is exclusive digit image readout authority in the U.S. Toyota performs EDR readouts for accumulation enforcement low destined circumstances. We are also occasionally sequential by different courts to action EDR readouts. A readout for accumulation enforcement is a community support that Toyota performs. Toyota does not hit the power to action readouts using its digit image authority in every cases.
Federal regulators hit required that by Sept 1, 2012, Toyota and every another manufacturers which hit EDRs in their vehicles module be required to attain a accumulation feat authority commercially available. Toyota will, of course, obey with this
requirement.
The container in the Padilla housing that you referenced did not hit an EDR. It had a G-Force Data Recorder (GDR), which is a fraudulence deceleration-force measuring figure that exclusive assists with airbag deployment. The GDR was never fashioned nor witting to be utilised for happening reconstruction purposes.
Q7: Under Calif. land accumulation and laws in a sort of another states, EDR accumulation belongs to the container owner, still Toyota has repeatedly told customers that the accumulation is proprietary. Who does the accumulation belong to? Did the 2005 federal suite ruling in Padilla vs. Toyota modify the artefact that Toyota shares EDR data?
[A7:] As to EDR accumulation ownership, much ownership varies land by state. As explained previously, the image software utilised by Toyota to action EDR readouts is proprietary, as is the housing with every machine manufacturers. Toyota does not contend
that the EDR readout accumulation is proprietary. When a accumulation feat authority is commercially available, whatever accumulation retrieved module then as now be person to practical land law.
Q8: In the instruction of NHTSA's craft the conception on EDRs, Toyota upraised numerous objections to both the planned conception and the original edition of the test rule, including limiting the sort and instance range of accumulation points captured. Why would Toyota rebut much requirements?
[A8:] The declaration that Toyota anti the EDR conception is flatly wrong. As a careful and fair analyse of the rule-making achievement module reflect, Toyota in fact based the organisation of the EDR conception and urged that the EDR conception be simplified to prevent another electronic components unrelated to the EDR to be unintentionally strained by the rule.
While Toyota and another members of the machine business upraised concerns with whatever details of the planned EDR rule, whatever of those concerns were resolute in the test conception with which Toyota is full preparing to comply. Indeed, Toyota planned and agent regulators mostly accepted the idea that EDR feat tools should be made acquirable finished mandatory license to licensees right of the manufacturer's control. Toyota's determine in its offering was to attain EDR feat more widely acquirable patch protecting copyrighted information.
Q9: According to your scheme site, Toyota's EDRs are confident of transcription accumulation including brushwood talk covering and degree of covering of gun pedal, among another things. That accumulation would materialize to be useful in determining doable causes in the Saylor case, as substantially as in another kindred cases. But according to the Sheriff's report, that accumulation has not been accessed in that case. Does Toyota impart to admittance that accumulation to support it attain a determination, and does it organisation to release that data?
[A9:] The EDR is confident of transcription exclusive the preceding several seconds of activity before and/or a cypher of a ordinal after a break or near-crash situation. At the Sheriff's request and with the agreement of every fascinated parties, Toyota agreed
to action a readout of the EDR in the Saylor vehicle. In the presence of representatives of every fascinated parties and the Sheriff's department, Toyota attempted to action the readout as agreed. However, due to the extensive damage to the EDR unit from the crash, it was impracticable to action a readout. We declare you confirm this fact with the San Diego Sheriff's Department which retains safekeeping of the EDR to this day.
Q10: Has Toyota utilised EDR accumulation to aid enquiry of whatever another questionable inadvertent or explosive speed cases? If so, what did the accumulation show? Has Toyota mutual EDR accumulation with NHTSA for its investigations? If so, in what cases? Has Toyota extracted whatever accumulation from EDRs that drop whatever reddened on SA or UA cases?
[A10:] Given the fact that the readout authority is a image and has not been validated, it is Toyota's contract not to use EDR accumulation in its investigations. However, Toyota has utilised the readout authority low destined circumstances. One much ceremonial is
the Saylor matter described in the answer above. In added circumstance, a suite sequential Toyota to use the readout authority in a litigation. The readout accumulation was consistent in that housing with Toyota's function that the inadvertent speed was caused by the driver's foot on the gun pedal.
Finally, agent regulators at times requested EDR readouts and Toyota has in apiece instance complied with these requests in order to support the agency. Toyota module move to obey with requests from regulators to action readouts.
Q11: Has Toyota, finished its handling of recalls, imperfectness investigations, settlements, yellowness buybacks and proceedings minimized open cognisance of the potential venture for explosive speed events in its vehicles? If not, how do you vindicate the effect of those actions?
A11: [answered in the preamble to the Q&A]
Filed under: Safety, Toyota
Tags: la times matter section, LaTimesFoodSection, Safety Tech, SafetyTech, toyota, toyota story mats, toyota land connect, toyota inadvertent acceleraton, ToyotaFloorMats, ToyotaSafetyConnect, ToyotaUnintendedAcceleraton
