Slashdot Mirror
Toyota's Engineering Process and the General Public
Doofus writes "The Washington Post has published in today's paper an article titled 'Why it's so hard for Toyota to find out what's wrong' by Frank Ahrens on the Toyota situation and the difficulties of adequately conveying to Senators and Representatives — most of whom are non-technical — the debugging process. Ahrens interviews Giorgio Rizzoni, an 'expert in failure analysis' at Ohio State, who describes the iterations of testing that NHTSA will likely inflict on the Toyota sample cars they have purchased, and then moves into the realm of software and systems verification: 'He explained that each vehicle contains "layers of computer code that may be added from one model year to next" that control nearly every system, from acceleration to braking to stability. Rizzoni said this software is rigorously tested, but he added: "It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."' Ahrens ends the piece with a quote from a 2009 LA Times interview with former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt about how user reports are often unreliable: 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong. The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.'"
Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence presented by professor David W. Gilbert that called into question Toyota's electronic throttle system.
> Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence ...
Macroscopic events generally don't challenge evidence. They challenge the politics of evidence.
One challenges evidence with small, discrete, verifiable events.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."
How wrong can you be? Yes there is. Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions. Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free. Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.
Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this? It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA. In short, why, in a country where states are going bankrupt, privacy is an illusion, healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama, rampant spending and tax increases. In short, why do I care about this? File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it. Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering, with stock in competitor's companies and large problems they haven't solved wasting their time with this crap.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Of course Toyota is right. The most likely cause of these "sudden acceleration" problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal. I've owned plenty of Toyotas, and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now, because now is a great time to buy one. Unfortunately, my current Toyota only has 150K miles, meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle. After that... I'll buy another Toyota.
I don't respond to AC's.
... being in control of braking and acceleration.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."
Um ... did this guy ever heard of formal verification? Or is math proof not good enough for him?
Why does the vehicle ABS (from what I know from the news) get tripped up on instant breaking?
You're confusing two different issues. Some (many) models have having an accelerator problem. Supposedly, the car takes off and there's no way to stop it.
Then, there's the brake issue with the Prius. If you press on the brake lightly, it only uses the regenerative braking (electric). If you hit a pothole, the ABS kicks in and there's a switchover to the friction brakes. You temporarily lose some braking force and it feels like the car is floating or (as some have reported) accelerating.
I own the affected Prius model. I've experienced the issue and I don't think it's a problem. It was a little unnerving until I realized what it was. If I really need to stop sooner when the brakes "fail", all I have to do is hit the pedal harder and it does what I expect.
GE/S/P a- e++ y-- r-- s:++ d+ h! X+++ t++ C+ P+ L++ E W++ w M-- V? PS+ P+
I find it interesting that, in quest of featuritis, designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards. Direct physical connection of steering columns, braking systems, and throttles (so they act as a stopcock, it's good enough for jet fighters!) should be mandatory.
Yes, I know some commercial systems have done acceptably, but consumer shit will NEVER be of that quality due to price competition, and consumers won't maintain their vehicles like aircraft.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Humans are fallible. You can't dismiss user reports. You can review them skeptically, or examine them for trends.
EVERYBODY knows that cell phones cause cancer. So, why hasn't somebody fixed that?
EVERYBODY knows that vaccines cause autism. So, why hasn't somebody fixed that?
EVERYBODY knows that they're smarter than average. So, how did the last few presidents get elected? :)
General Motors has been making cars with poor reliability literally since I was a child. Read your library's old copies of Consumer Reports for verification.
Insufficient attention was given to the poor reliability of G.M. cars, in my opinion.
As long as G.M. cars could continue to be sold, making unreliable cars was more profitable. That's similar to making a sloppy computer operating system that is vulnerable to attacks. The sloppiness helps sell new versions.
Erroneus wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Never has a nick been so apt.
This isn't a Toyota thing. It isn't even exclusive to the auto industry. System complexity was where so many cliches like "Fast, complete, cheap: pick any two" come from.
Sure, we can put missile-guidance software protocols into all sorts of software development; If I remember the metric, every line of code costs 10x as much as in general industry.
Another thought: Airbags took 15 years to get acceptance from their 1970's invention -- the industry quickly realized their safety value, but nobody wanted to pony up $800 (1980 estimated per-car cost) or increase the cost of a car to eat that cost.
And don't even get me started on FAA vs. adequate safety. Or Seldane and the FDA.
tl;dr: Toyota *DOES* test extensively. Shit happens.
The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea. Vehicles have only become more and more problematic since the late 70s due to increased reliance on electronics in place of actual mechanical parts.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual? I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there's a problem.
Isn't this taught in Driver's Ed? I know I was taught to do this if my car ever goes nuts or the gas pedal gets stuck down. Sure it's bad for the engine to be running it that high, but it's a lot better for it than being crunched into a wall or car is.
The simple fact is that overall a Prius with its minor brake transfer problem is far safer than any pre-ABS/traction control car. The fault is far less serious than, say, brake fade in drum brakes. And I don't even own a Toyota. You don't need any kind of tinfoil hat to think this is about bashing the part of the motor industry that is not US-owned.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Here is an example of a person that brought a car to the dealer while it was pegged - mechanic played with pedal and studied the situation:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/feds-investigate-toyota-electronics-for-unintended-acceleration.html
The thing you're missing, is the level of those defects. The problems that GM had with quality were almost never safety related (And when they were, they weren't major and were fixed rapidly). Say what you want that their cars sucked, but in the 100 years they have been selling cars in the USA, they have never had as major of an issue such as this. Ford has (Remember the exploding gas tanks?). Chrysler has (They had an issue with cruise control that caused some accidents). I'm not saying that GM is good (I got rid of my last GM car 2 years ago, and I don't know if I will buy another one). What I am saying is that comparing quality by shear number of defects (As consumer reports does) is ignoring the much more important bigger picture...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
The whole Toyota situation has become irrational. People knowingly sell and buy cars with varying levels of safety every single day. The safety differences between all the different models of cars on the road, of varying sizes, ages, and safety features, utterly swaps any marginal risk Toyota is even alleged to have caused. Go ahead and take the model Toyota has recalled the most of, and I guarantee I can find many, many other makes/models with many more deaths per million miles driven. Again, certainly Toyota should fix it. But at some point, paranoia on one small issue just diverts resources away from other bigger problems.
Toyota should be more forthcoming with the black box info on these cars to validate exactly what the driver was doing at the time of the accident. But they won't because lawyers would be all over that data to file lawsuits. still, knowing the truth is best for all involved. Far less finger pointing; far better remediation of the problem.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The positive effect of computer controlled systems far outweighs the risks. ABS, electronic stability control, etc. were introduced because they reduce accident rates. Period.
Without computer-controlled systems, todays' cars would be dirtier and less safe.
The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea.
A mechanical linkage is not necessarily more reliable or safer. The fact that you can put your hands on it doesn't by itself make it better or worse. You are making an assumption based on your intuition that you cannot back up with data.
Vehicles have only become more and more problematic since the late 70s due to increased reliance on electronics in place of actual mechanical parts.
Nice sound bite but problematic in what way? Cars today are in general demonstrably more reliable, last longer, rust less, are (generally) safer in crashes, more powerful, and emit less pollution. At one point I made my living selling classic cars from the 70s and earlier. I'm very familiar with them first hand. You might like the styling better but performance-wise they are inferior to modern cars in almost every way I can think of.
While the tone could have been nicer, the AC was correct at least here:
if you have enough time to call 911 you have enough time to stop the car
Yes you probably might forget "the trick" they taught you in driver's ed when you're panicking. I probably would.
Yes people are being tremendously callous when they scoff that "Duh, why didn't you just put it in neutral lolz"
Still, if you really can't come up with SOMETHING to avert plowing into an intersection at 135 mph in the 60+ seconds they had, and you seriously expect someone miles away to get to you in two seconds, well, you were probably living on borrowed time anyway.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Wrong. Cars have become MUCH more reliable over the years. Lots can go wrong with mechanical systems. A spring breaks, a rod binds, whatever. A friend had a car break the throttle return spring on a old muscle car and it took off like a rocket, hit a k-rail, ripped off both front wheels, went airborne and landed on a nice Cadillac.
Know what a tune-up is? You used to have to do one at least once a year to keep your car going. Not really done anymore.
I could go on like this for quite a while. I like working on old cars because they are simple. But the new cars are more reliable.
Anarchists never rule