6 ms·

Woz says there's an acceleration problem with his Toyota Prius

19 points by siculars 17y ago

siculars 17y ago
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 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
- bdfh42 17y ago
  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.
  - siculars 17y ago
    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.
  - GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
    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.
    - acangiano 17y ago
      > 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.
- cmallen 17y ago
  >preverbal proverbial
  - siculars 17y ago
    duly noted. thanks!
- ars 17y ago
  He posted the details of the problem (3 months ago) on slashdot: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430048&cid=29973870 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430048&cid=299...
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmastrac 17y ago
    Thanks for posting that. It seems to match up exactly with the problem vaguely described in the linked article. Scary.
ams6110 17y ago
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.
- masomenos 17y ago
  To be fair, plenty of us had second thoughts the first time we heard that idea...
  - protomyth 17y ago
    "Pay me $100 million by noon tomorrow or my car virus will be unleashed" Does your software take into account bad sci-fi premises?
- metajack 17y ago
  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.
  - mblakele 17y ago
    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.
  - ams6110 17y ago
    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.
    - bad_user 17y ago
      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.
ynniv 17y ago
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/wathen.html http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/05/wat... ]
- __david__ 17y ago
  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.
  - wundie 17y ago
    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.
    - __david__ 17y ago
      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 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - ynniv 17y ago
AngryParsley 17y ago
I've driven a Prius a couple of times, and I concur that they have an acceleration problem. I step on the gas pedal and the car has problems accelerating. (rim shot) 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.
- Frazzydee 17y ago
  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.
  - AngryParsley 17y ago
    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.

19 points by siculars 17y ago

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 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

bdfh42 17y ago
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.
- siculars 17y ago
  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.
- GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
  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.
  - acangiano 17y ago
    > 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.
cmallen 17y ago
>preverbal proverbial
- siculars 17y ago
  duly noted. thanks!
ars 17y ago
He posted the details of the problem (3 months ago) on slashdot: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430048&cid=29973870 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430048&cid=299...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- mmastrac 17y ago
  Thanks for posting that. It seems to match up exactly with the problem vaguely described in the linked article. Scary.

ams6110 17y ago

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.

masomenos 17y ago
To be fair, plenty of us had second thoughts the first time we heard that idea...
- protomyth 17y ago
  "Pay me $100 million by noon tomorrow or my car virus will be unleashed" Does your software take into account bad sci-fi premises?
metajack 17y ago
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.
- mblakele 17y ago
  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.
- ams6110 17y ago
  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.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    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.

ynniv 17y ago

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/wathen.html http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/05/wat... ]

__david__ 17y ago
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.
- wundie 17y ago
  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.
  - __david__ 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ynniv 17y ago

AngryParsley 17y ago

I've driven a Prius a couple of times, and I concur that they have an acceleration problem. I step on the gas pedal and the car has problems accelerating. (rim shot) 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.

Frazzydee 17y ago
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.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  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.