7 ms·

Toyota's Daihatsu to halt all vehicle shipments as safety scandal widens

137 points by LopRabbit 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago
Daihatsu’s charade. Committing fraud in safety testing needs to be punished severely. It’s good to see that they’re stopping shipments. I hope there’s more than just fines.
- suprjami 3y ago
  What do you suggest? I don't have an answer but it seems difficult to penalise a corporation in any meaningful way.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    Have the owner/s, management, board held personally liable. Jail time. Pierce the corporate veil.
  - riffraff 3y ago
    Send people to jail in addition to the fines. The corporation won't suffer but the next people will have a disincentive to commit illegal acts.
    - askvictor 3y ago
      How do you stop management who make the decisions from scapegoating some junior underling?
      - dwattttt 3y ago
        Legal process, discovery, and corporate records.
        askvictor 3y ago
        Ideally, sure, but I doubt these kinds of decisions generally get written down so there's probably no paper trail. I suppose if you just held the CEO ultimately responsible...
      - Mtinie 3y ago
        Or, we collectively decide that it’s unlikely scandals of this scope did not previously pass the CEO’s desk at some point in the timeline and start with penalties at the top, and then move down the line. My argument can be expanded to the fact that if a “rogue underling” did this without C-level input that leadership at the company is negligent at the least, or attempting to abstract responsibility and hide the issue behind deniability at the worst. Addendum: I should have picked a better phrase to start with. I agree that the legal process is the correct way to proceed, but once a determination of culpability is made, hiding behind layers of leadership should not be the defacto norm.
        0xDEADFED5 3y ago
        "collectively deciding" is a lynch mob. remembering the danger of such thinking seems more important every day.
        Mtinie 3y ago
        Really? That’s an interesting take and one that I hadn’t considered. I need to think about how I feel regarding the underlying premise but I can certainly see where you can make the argument. I agree that jumping to lynch mob reactions aren’t helpful. My original point—-which was likely not worded well—is that the humans which make up “society” need to reach a point where they can recognize that corporations make and follow-through on decisions because they are supported by sign-off from our fellow humans, not because of an abstract corporate mechanism. Thank you for the sidebar.
        lightedman 3y ago
        "'collectively deciding' is a lynch mob" Gee, what do you call a jury decision, then? A non-collective decision?
      - nerdbert 3y ago
        Require more accountability if a company wants to enjoy the benefits of incorporation. Decision processes have to be documented and responsibilities clearly delineated. Employees have the opportunity and duty to ensure their work is correctly described. The current system isn't working, it's producing too much abuse.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    A corporation is made of people. Fraud and reckless endangerment are crimes, even when you do them on company time. And once you have middle managers convicted, there are gang-related laws that allow you to easily travel up the chain of command. The legal frameworks exist. There is just no will to enforce laws if the crime is done on company time.
    - pjerem 3y ago
      Corporations are organized to dilute responsibility. In corporations, nobody knows what the other employees really do, nobody know where the decisions are coming from and why. Employees and managers make stupid decisions under pressure. You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job.
      - b112 3y ago
        Except that's not wholly true. The CFO is one example. Bery specific duties, responsibilities, and can pverride anyone on certain things. We need more of this. Privacy, security officers woth specific duties. Same with anything such as safety.
      - acdha 3y ago
        > You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job. Sure you can: if you have accounting fraud the CFO is liable, and the only question is whether it’s for deliberate fraud or negligence but in either case the buck stops at the top. The reason why such charges are uncommon is because those people tend to be politically well-connected, not because it’s impossible to come up with a regulatory solution.
        Guvante 3y ago
        Negligence isn't enough for most crimes. There is a Mens Rea test which requires deliberate illegal action or gross negligence. Lots of these aren't "person up top said to cheat" but usually "person up top has unreasonable requirements". Can you really go after someone who was pig headed and expected the impossible because their subordinates cheated? In contrast civil penalties are appropriate here, just need to adjust the amount to discourage the behavior.
  - xyst 3y ago
    For one, corporate executives signing off on these cost cutting measures need to be jailed. Customers that own impacted models need to be compensated and vehicles bought back by Toyota at retail price (not depreciated, current value). Countries need to hold corporations accountable by blacklisting import of their vehicles for X amount of years. State and local governments need to issue multibillion dollar fines.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    Justify the incredible salaries by attaching criminal liability in certain circumstances to the officer roles of a company.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Japanese executives don't have incredible salaries, and Japan already has well defined cultural expectations for what companies should do if there's a scandal. (It involves the execs crying at press conferences.)
      - RCitronsBroker 3y ago
        (and extra-Deep tepco bows)
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Punish the company? Fire the board and the C-suite, wipe out all the shareholders and run an IPO, take the proceeds as a fine or restitution for those affected. Or if you’re feeling particularly mean just deny the corporate entity’s rights (and parents) to do business at all, force the owners to run a fire sale for any value they can grab. You penalize corporations with fines proportional to their total value, removing permissions to operate in certain ways, break them apart, or just legally dissolve them entirely. The problem is all too often fines are like 30 seconds of revenue. Make it 50% of market cap forcing them to raise cash or pay the fine in stock.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
      What, if any, might be some of the unintended consequences of this?
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        Tens of thousands of employees without work, and if they have company stock, they lose their retirement. That's the usual reason given for not imposing a corporate death penalty.
      - colechristensen 3y ago
        The “chickenshit” arguments against this is that it will hurt employees of the fined company or investors who didn’t know any better. Grandma’s IRA is full of index stocks, she didn’t choose any of this and shouldn’t be punished. It’s not so hard to motivate media to spread this message. The problem with that argument is that it makes it so nobody is ever responsible, competition must act the same or risk losing to the misbehaving competitors, and all you have to do to be above the law is have employees, investors, and misbehavior complicated enough to be difficult to understand who is responsible.
      - maeil 3y ago
        None that make a significant dent in the benefits. The societal benefits of getting companies to actually abide by the law on a wide scale are much larger than any realistic consequence. Including the death of a few big companies, which yes, may mean unemployment for all of their employees. And if you want to prevent this, nationalization (which can be temporary) is always an option, as was seen in many countries with banks around 2008-2009.
  - beefield 3y ago
    Not sure if you mean difficult politically or technically. Politically I have no answers, but technically, I assume that you would not need that many fines that wipe out shareholder equity, most of corporate debt and all of board/C-suite wealth before corporations would take law seriously. I think there are states that are fond of three strikes and out type laws, maybe those could be applied to corps as well?
  - Zardoz89 3y ago
    Nationalize it
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    In the worst cases, execution of the company and imprisonment for those steering it.
  - rasz 3y ago
    Takata treatment.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
    Corporate death penalty. Lifetime ban for all implicated from working in positions of authority or safety critical positions.
- askvictor 3y ago
  How is that any different to emissions fraud? Emissions fraud kills people, albeit slowly/statistically, and you can't pinpoint the exact people affected.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    In my opinion, it’s not.
  - Mtinie 3y ago
    The primary difference is directly connecting injuries and deaths with the action, rather than indirectly connecting them. This does not mean that I personally feel they aren’t equally reprehensible and bad for society.
joneholland 3y ago
I had a 90s Daihatsu Charade back in the day. Didn’t even know they were still in production.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  I’ve only seen them in Pakistan.
dc3k 3y ago
I wonder what models are affected. I bought a Hijet at an auction that is waiting to board a ship in Japan. Not that I expect any sort of safety in a crash to begin with with a kei truck, but I am curious if they're included in the scam. Hopefully this also frees up some ro-ro space so it finally gets a spot on board. It's been a very long 3 month wait so far.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  I'm guessing your Hijet is not 25 years old or you are not in the U.S. (where I thought imported trucks from Japan were typically 25 years or older).
  - dc3k 3y ago
    It was manufactured in August 2008. The regulation where I am is 15 years, so I'm just under the wire (or would have been had it shipped right when I bought it in September) The article didn't mention how far back this goes. I'd love to see a list.
xyst 3y ago
“… The problems were found in 64 models and three vehicle engines, including 22 models and an engine sold by Toyota, Daihatsu said in a statement. The investigation also found the problems affected some models of Mazda Motor Corp. and Subaru Corp. sold in Japan, and Toyota and Daihatsu models sold abroad. …” [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2023-12-20/toyotas-small-car-unit-daihatsu-will-suspend-all-vehicle-shipments-over-widespread-safety-cheating https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2023-12-20/toy... Does anybody know the exact list of models impacted? I am not familiar with “Daihatsu” and Toyota relationship. Neither US News or CNBC article mention exact manufacturer and model names
- dharmab 3y ago
  The full scope is currently unclear and being investigated; it may be a broad as every vehicle that Daihatsu designed. > An independent panel has been investigating Daihatsu after it said in April it had rigged side-collision safety tests carried out for 88,000 small cars, most of those sold as Toyotas. > > But the latest revelations suggest the scope of the scandal is far greater and went back much further than previously thought and could potentially tarnish the automakers' reputation for quality and safety. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyotas-daihatsu-will-expand-production-halt-over-safety-scandal-nikkei-2023-12-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
- danielvf 3y ago
  Here's a list of models and years, straight from the manufacturer. Note that most (but not all) were not deliberate attempts to pass off known unsafe problems, but were rather a culture of doing things like running a test of the driver's side, then copying the same results for certification on both the driver and passenger side. https://www.daihatsu.com/news/2023/20231220-4_1.pdf https://www.daihatsu.com/news/2023/20231220-4_1.pdf
raylad 3y ago
How does this work? I thought collision testing was performed independently, but government agencies and insurance organizations. Shouldn't that have detected any of these problems?
- LegitShady 3y ago
  It sounds like the tested vehicles weren't the same as actual production cars. Choosing to cheat on airbags seems like a big deal though. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyotas-daihatsu-will-expand-production-halt-over-safety-scandal-nikkei-2023-12-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota... >The investigation found that the airbag control units used by Daihatsu in airbag tests for some models were different from the ones used in cars sold to the public, including Toyota's Town Ace and Pixis Joy models and the Mazda Bongo. ... >The misconduct also included false reports on headrest impact tests and test speeds for some models. The investigation found cases of misconduct were particularly prevalent after 2014 and, for one already-discontinued Daihatsu vehicle, went back as far as 1989.
  - dsgnr 3y ago
    Also found a report about another problem they cheated on tests to pass: "They said the door trim on the affected vehicles had been modified with a "notch" to minimise the risk in testing that the door interior could break with a sharp edge and cause injury to an occupant when the side airbag deployed in an accident." https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/japans-daihatsu-broke-side-collision-test-procedures-some-toyota-cars-2023-04-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/japans...
    - Mtinie 3y ago
      The strange thing about that modification is that it appears on the surface to be a legitimate safety improvement. Could the underlying test be subpar?
      - LegitShady 3y ago
skhr0680 3y ago
I used to own a Daihatsu and always wondered how they made such a small car comply with the safety standards of larger vehicles. Cheating. The answer was cheating on the test.

137 points by LopRabbit 3y ago

Daihatsu’s charade. Committing fraud in safety testing needs to be punished severely. It’s good to see that they’re stopping shipments. I hope there’s more than just fines.

suprjami 3y ago
What do you suggest? I don't have an answer but it seems difficult to penalise a corporation in any meaningful way.
- askvictor 3y ago
  Have the owner/s, management, board held personally liable. Jail time. Pierce the corporate veil.
- riffraff 3y ago
  Send people to jail in addition to the fines. The corporation won't suffer but the next people will have a disincentive to commit illegal acts.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    How do you stop management who make the decisions from scapegoating some junior underling?
    - dwattttt 3y ago
      Legal process, discovery, and corporate records.
      - askvictor 3y ago
        Ideally, sure, but I doubt these kinds of decisions generally get written down so there's probably no paper trail. I suppose if you just held the CEO ultimately responsible...
    - Mtinie 3y ago
      Or, we collectively decide that it’s unlikely scandals of this scope did not previously pass the CEO’s desk at some point in the timeline and start with penalties at the top, and then move down the line. My argument can be expanded to the fact that if a “rogue underling” did this without C-level input that leadership at the company is negligent at the least, or attempting to abstract responsibility and hide the issue behind deniability at the worst. Addendum: I should have picked a better phrase to start with. I agree that the legal process is the correct way to proceed, but once a determination of culpability is made, hiding behind layers of leadership should not be the defacto norm.
      - 0xDEADFED5 3y ago
        "collectively deciding" is a lynch mob. remembering the danger of such thinking seems more important every day.
        Mtinie 3y ago
        Really? That’s an interesting take and one that I hadn’t considered. I need to think about how I feel regarding the underlying premise but I can certainly see where you can make the argument. I agree that jumping to lynch mob reactions aren’t helpful. My original point—-which was likely not worded well—is that the humans which make up “society” need to reach a point where they can recognize that corporations make and follow-through on decisions because they are supported by sign-off from our fellow humans, not because of an abstract corporate mechanism. Thank you for the sidebar.
        lightedman 3y ago
        "'collectively deciding' is a lynch mob" Gee, what do you call a jury decision, then? A non-collective decision?
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      Require more accountability if a company wants to enjoy the benefits of incorporation. Decision processes have to be documented and responsibilities clearly delineated. Employees have the opportunity and duty to ensure their work is correctly described. The current system isn't working, it's producing too much abuse.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  A corporation is made of people. Fraud and reckless endangerment are crimes, even when you do them on company time. And once you have middle managers convicted, there are gang-related laws that allow you to easily travel up the chain of command. The legal frameworks exist. There is just no will to enforce laws if the crime is done on company time.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    Corporations are organized to dilute responsibility. In corporations, nobody knows what the other employees really do, nobody know where the decisions are coming from and why. Employees and managers make stupid decisions under pressure. You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job.
    - b112 3y ago
      Except that's not wholly true. The CFO is one example. Bery specific duties, responsibilities, and can pverride anyone on certain things. We need more of this. Privacy, security officers woth specific duties. Same with anything such as safety.
    - acdha 3y ago
      > You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job. Sure you can: if you have accounting fraud the CFO is liable, and the only question is whether it’s for deliberate fraud or negligence but in either case the buck stops at the top. The reason why such charges are uncommon is because those people tend to be politically well-connected, not because it’s impossible to come up with a regulatory solution.
      - Guvante 3y ago
        Negligence isn't enough for most crimes. There is a Mens Rea test which requires deliberate illegal action or gross negligence. Lots of these aren't "person up top said to cheat" but usually "person up top has unreasonable requirements". Can you really go after someone who was pig headed and expected the impossible because their subordinates cheated? In contrast civil penalties are appropriate here, just need to adjust the amount to discourage the behavior.
- xyst 3y ago
  For one, corporate executives signing off on these cost cutting measures need to be jailed. Customers that own impacted models need to be compensated and vehicles bought back by Toyota at retail price (not depreciated, current value). Countries need to hold corporations accountable by blacklisting import of their vehicles for X amount of years. State and local governments need to issue multibillion dollar fines.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Justify the incredible salaries by attaching criminal liability in certain circumstances to the officer roles of a company.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Japanese executives don't have incredible salaries, and Japan already has well defined cultural expectations for what companies should do if there's a scandal. (It involves the execs crying at press conferences.)
    - RCitronsBroker 3y ago
      (and extra-Deep tepco bows)
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Punish the company? Fire the board and the C-suite, wipe out all the shareholders and run an IPO, take the proceeds as a fine or restitution for those affected. Or if you’re feeling particularly mean just deny the corporate entity’s rights (and parents) to do business at all, force the owners to run a fire sale for any value they can grab. You penalize corporations with fines proportional to their total value, removing permissions to operate in certain ways, break them apart, or just legally dissolve them entirely. The problem is all too often fines are like 30 seconds of revenue. Make it 50% of market cap forcing them to raise cash or pay the fine in stock.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    What, if any, might be some of the unintended consequences of this?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      Tens of thousands of employees without work, and if they have company stock, they lose their retirement. That's the usual reason given for not imposing a corporate death penalty.
    - colechristensen 3y ago
      The “chickenshit” arguments against this is that it will hurt employees of the fined company or investors who didn’t know any better. Grandma’s IRA is full of index stocks, she didn’t choose any of this and shouldn’t be punished. It’s not so hard to motivate media to spread this message. The problem with that argument is that it makes it so nobody is ever responsible, competition must act the same or risk losing to the misbehaving competitors, and all you have to do to be above the law is have employees, investors, and misbehavior complicated enough to be difficult to understand who is responsible.
    - maeil 3y ago
      None that make a significant dent in the benefits. The societal benefits of getting companies to actually abide by the law on a wide scale are much larger than any realistic consequence. Including the death of a few big companies, which yes, may mean unemployment for all of their employees. And if you want to prevent this, nationalization (which can be temporary) is always an option, as was seen in many countries with banks around 2008-2009.
- beefield 3y ago
  Not sure if you mean difficult politically or technically. Politically I have no answers, but technically, I assume that you would not need that many fines that wipe out shareholder equity, most of corporate debt and all of board/C-suite wealth before corporations would take law seriously. I think there are states that are fond of three strikes and out type laws, maybe those could be applied to corps as well?
- Zardoz89 3y ago
  Nationalize it
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  In the worst cases, execution of the company and imprisonment for those steering it.
- rasz 3y ago
  Takata treatment.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  Corporate death penalty. Lifetime ban for all implicated from working in positions of authority or safety critical positions.
askvictor 3y ago
How is that any different to emissions fraud? Emissions fraud kills people, albeit slowly/statistically, and you can't pinpoint the exact people affected.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  In my opinion, it’s not.
- Mtinie 3y ago
  The primary difference is directly connecting injuries and deaths with the action, rather than indirectly connecting them. This does not mean that I personally feel they aren’t equally reprehensible and bad for society.

joneholland 3y ago

I had a 90s Daihatsu Charade back in the day. Didn’t even know they were still in production.

selimthegrim 3y ago
I’ve only seen them in Pakistan.

dc3k 3y ago

I wonder what models are affected. I bought a Hijet at an auction that is waiting to board a ship in Japan. Not that I expect any sort of safety in a crash to begin with with a kei truck, but I am curious if they're included in the scam. Hopefully this also frees up some ro-ro space so it finally gets a spot on board. It's been a very long 3 month wait so far.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
I'm guessing your Hijet is not 25 years old or you are not in the U.S. (where I thought imported trucks from Japan were typically 25 years or older).
- dc3k 3y ago
  It was manufactured in August 2008. The regulation where I am is 15 years, so I'm just under the wire (or would have been had it shipped right when I bought it in September) The article didn't mention how far back this goes. I'd love to see a list.

xyst 3y ago

“… The problems were found in 64 models and three vehicle engines, including 22 models and an engine sold by Toyota, Daihatsu said in a statement. The investigation also found the problems affected some models of Mazda Motor Corp. and Subaru Corp. sold in Japan, and Toyota and Daihatsu models sold abroad. …” [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2023-12-20/toyotas-small-car-unit-daihatsu-will-suspend-all-vehicle-shipments-over-widespread-safety-cheating https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2023-12-20/toy... Does anybody know the exact list of models impacted? I am not familiar with “Daihatsu” and Toyota relationship. Neither US News or CNBC article mention exact manufacturer and model names

dharmab 3y ago
The full scope is currently unclear and being investigated; it may be a broad as every vehicle that Daihatsu designed. > An independent panel has been investigating Daihatsu after it said in April it had rigged side-collision safety tests carried out for 88,000 small cars, most of those sold as Toyotas. > > But the latest revelations suggest the scope of the scandal is far greater and went back much further than previously thought and could potentially tarnish the automakers' reputation for quality and safety. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyotas-daihatsu-will-expand-production-halt-over-safety-scandal-nikkei-2023-12-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
danielvf 3y ago
Here's a list of models and years, straight from the manufacturer. Note that most (but not all) were not deliberate attempts to pass off known unsafe problems, but were rather a culture of doing things like running a test of the driver's side, then copying the same results for certification on both the driver and passenger side. https://www.daihatsu.com/news/2023/20231220-4_1.pdf https://www.daihatsu.com/news/2023/20231220-4_1.pdf

raylad 3y ago

How does this work? I thought collision testing was performed independently, but government agencies and insurance organizations. Shouldn't that have detected any of these problems?

LegitShady 3y ago
It sounds like the tested vehicles weren't the same as actual production cars. Choosing to cheat on airbags seems like a big deal though. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyotas-daihatsu-will-expand-production-halt-over-safety-scandal-nikkei-2023-12-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota... >The investigation found that the airbag control units used by Daihatsu in airbag tests for some models were different from the ones used in cars sold to the public, including Toyota's Town Ace and Pixis Joy models and the Mazda Bongo. ... >The misconduct also included false reports on headrest impact tests and test speeds for some models. The investigation found cases of misconduct were particularly prevalent after 2014 and, for one already-discontinued Daihatsu vehicle, went back as far as 1989.
- dsgnr 3y ago
  Also found a report about another problem they cheated on tests to pass: "They said the door trim on the affected vehicles had been modified with a "notch" to minimise the risk in testing that the door interior could break with a sharp edge and cause injury to an occupant when the side airbag deployed in an accident." https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/japans-daihatsu-broke-side-collision-test-procedures-some-toyota-cars-2023-04-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/japans...
  - Mtinie 3y ago
    The strange thing about that modification is that it appears on the surface to be a legitimate safety improvement. Could the underlying test be subpar?
    - LegitShady 3y ago

skhr0680 3y ago

I used to own a Daihatsu and always wondered how they made such a small car comply with the safety standards of larger vehicles. Cheating. The answer was cheating on the test.