Who's really to blame, the people who sell the gimmicky non-standardized controls or the people who buy them? There would be no stupid start buttons in the middle of the dash if there were no stupid people who want them.

I think location and design of the start control would be well down the list for most people choosing a new car.

Don't they focus group every ridiculous detail of a "new" car so accountability for bad decisions can be outsourced?

Good point. The focus groups must have liked the retro start button.

Of course, we in Australia are still being told there's no problem here...

But I've just learned that Toymotor service departments all around the country are reprogramming computers on all these cars as they come in for servicing.

Who's capable of doing that Toymotor logo to bull's face thing for me?

Of course they did. I do. I like the Toyota Avalon/Prius smartkey approach where you don't actually use a physical key at all. You walk up to the car, it unlocks. You sit in the seat, and press Start, it starts. Fantastic. It clinics well. My yachtclub uses the same sort of thing for its security, it is heaps better than stupid magnetic swipe cards or actual keys.

The problem is they needed two buttons not one, or a more intuitive interface.

We've been through this before. NHTSA never made any such determination. Toyota tried to make the same claim you are about the NHTSA's findings. NHTSA then demanded a retraction from Toyota and got one.

See the comment about fly-by-wire aircraft. The amount of training military (and most commercial) pilots receive is astronomical. This could be a new business opportunity for car manufacturers ... design an overly-complicated and non-intuitive layout, then force the buyer to pay for expensive training. SWEET!

But seriously, from a design standpoint I concur with you ... however keeping in mind the realities of humanity I think a standard interface definition is a good idea.



Perhaps this might be the "standard interface" requirement ... specifying a functionality rather than a physical layout.

The responsibility for intelligent design is incumbent upon the designers themselves. Standards may also be imposed from above by the "safety nazis," but that's another matter. I am talking about the responsibility we all accept for ourselves, no matter what kind of work we do. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to know how to operate it. If you make cars, you have a responsibility to design them safely and intelligently.

Nor is the designer's job finished when he meets the standards imposed by the "safety nazis," any more than the driver has met the standards when he passes the driver's test.

Now I would like to examine the term "safety nazi." The Nazis were directly responsible for assassinating over six million people, along with countless millions more needless deaths. There were, with no hyperbole at all, among the greatest blights on civilization in recorded history. How can we call government and insurance regulators trying to do their jobs "Nazis?" Does that really make sense to anyone?

Silly as it is, the pushbutton is not the problem for me. What I don't accept: that we need to build some trick functions into it in order to make it safe as a stop button. The only way a kid or dog can get to the button is if said kid or dog is not where it belongs. We don't need a three-second hold or a three-times-in-five-seconds function. If we do, the button needs to be relocated. I would much rather have an ignition switch that can be shut off accidentally than one you can't shut off when you need to. Our safety priorities are all twisted around.

The sellers, obviously. It would be really stupid for a bad designer to blame his work on the customer for buying it. In that tableau, who's kidding who.

Really, you are only drawing a highlighter over the standard justification for making and selling inferior products -- people will buy them. Aka the greater fool theory. Worked for GM for awhile.

Shark. Jumped.

we have safety-nazi's
we have soup-nazi's
we have surf-nazi's
we have anti-sex nazi's

the way it is used it has nothing to do with national socialism
or hating jews
or killing people

it means totally committed, sure they are correct, with a narrow focus, only on one problem or thing
and a disregard for unexpected results or consequences
like the ''JUST SAY NO'' [to sex] people who fight birth control info/sex ed for kids
and then when teen birth rates go way up only want the ''JUST SAY NO'' BS repeated louder as the ONLY fix

I don't think you an lay blame entirely on one crew or the other. To say it's all consumer-driven denies the requirement for sound engineering and design principles. To say it's all in the laps of the seller (designer/engineer/etc) ignores the very real force that is consumer choice. Pontiac Aztek springs to mind.

The word Nazi in this context also (for me) conjures images of SS, Gestapo, interrogator etc. None of those words have the same ring when placed after "safety".

BS

Push-button start is way down the list of priorities for anyone shopping for a car. The only way you can blame the buyer is if you believe that every car out there is perfectly suited to the tastes and needs of it's owner.

Secondly, it is highly irrational to expect buyers to foresee a potential problem with push button ignition systems when hundreds of the worlds top automotive engineers and planners and testers and what-have-you couldn't do it.

jackie stewart was a F-1 safety nazi

I am sure he saved a few lives
but the races lost something too
fans lost closeness to the sport
access to the cars drivers pits ect
many older tracks were changed or droped

safety nazi's tend to never see the end results

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all buyers of push-button start cars bought them because of the push-button start...that would just be weird. I also don't think anyone is suggesting that buyers understand the intricacies and fine details of possible problems in a system with 200 million lines of code. THAT responsibility does fall on the manufacturer. If you push the kill switch, it should kill, just like a motorcycle. As McGuire pointed out earlier - if your child (I have 3) or your pet (I have 1 large one) can operate that button while you're driving, one of two things has happened - a stunning display of technical incompetence on the part of the interior design people or - folks / animals are loose when they shouldn't be. My 55kg Cane Corso has her own seatbelt - if a dog that large can wear one, so can Fluffy and Muffy and the rest of the purse-dog set.

Uhm, in both JYS case and the example of safety nazis in road cars, the goal far outweighs any cost. In fact it's the very act of looking at it as a profit-loss account that creates the Toyota situation.

And surely in the case of road cars, it's even more important to be safety conscious? It's transportation, it has no need to be visceral for the sake of it.

It's probably true that some circuits were dropped because of the safety campaigns...

And some were changed. But others were dropped for other reasons, mostly political or financial.

And the 'closeness to the sport' and 'access to cars (and) drivers, pits etc' was caused more by commercialism than by any safety campaigns. Nothing to do with safety in that.

If JYS had ELIMINATED auto racing he wouldn't be a "nazi." The Nazis were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and committed unspeakable atrocities. If people who are overly serious about soup or surfing are "nazis," the word has lost any meaning. Should you happen to encounter an actual Nazi, what would you call him?

You can't compare, equate, or analogize Jackie Stewart to the Nazis. Not if you have a brain and can recognize the difference between good and evil. And no, not everything you don't like is evil. Sometimes I think the current generation -- my generation -- is the most self-absorbed and empty-headed there has ever been.

I don't think I am following you. How are consumers responsible for the Aztec?

I can see how designers would love the big start button and why focus groups would respond in a positive fashion. A great big button in the center of the dash says press this and let the adventure begin. Design types love this sort of symbology.

However, it is still incumbent on the designers and engineers to do their due diligence on the technical issues. Not every attractive idea is necessarily a good idea. I am still perplexed on one point: How come it is safe to allow the starter to be engaged instantly and/or accidentally, but not for the engine to be stopped instantly/accidentally? That's not very logical.

Well the dumb thing is an actual race car has several steps to turn it on, but multiple outright kill switches.

My guess is the focus groups, and the development process, never found a problem with the Start button. I regularly slap passenger's hands away from controls (hey my nickname isn't 'Popular' Greg), I really can't imagine letting a passenger reach over to prod the Start button any more than I let them fiddle with the PRNDL. And as I said before the whole keyless entry stuff really seems cool, and the Start button is an intrinsic part of it. The assumption the driver makes is that it is properly designed. In retrospect, yes a Stop button seems like a good idea, and again as I've said, the system FMEA doesn't seem to have been pursued with sufficient vigour.

I have way too much experience with automotive electrical systems to believe that. When electrical design fails and two circuits cross, the resistance between them cannot be predicted. What the Exponent technician/lawyers are describing is not, strictly speaking, a short circuit. By definition, a short circuit occurs when a malfunction removes the load from the circuit, and the usual outcome is a blown fuse or breaker due to over-current. These are crossed circuits. No over-current, no blown fuse.

True short circuits due to crossed wires with bare insulation, etc, are generally not a huge safety problem in automobiles because the load capacity of the false connection is generally very low, often lower than the rating of the fuse. The flaw burns into the clear even before the fuse can open. Or the fuse blows and the circuit simply stops working. Crossed circuits are another matter -- the circuits are carrying their normal load, simply the wrong ones. And here we have 5V signal circuits with bugger all of 15 milliamperes on the line. It may be helpful to think not in terms of a specific resistance but its reciprocal, conductivity. What happens when a multi-pin terminal connector body fills up with oil, dirt, coolant, salt, and water? Or when two wires rub together until their insulation is bare, allowing two conductors to barely touch as the vehicle vibrates? The measured resistance will not be ~0 ohms or >1000 ohms. It will vary wildly as the two wires vibrate together and when the critical resistance is met, say ~200 ohms, the malfunction will occur. So you don't need a special or extraordinary failure to duplicate this malfunction. You need only a very ordinary failure -- two wires rubbing together.

Ford uses three as well, on the Mustang anyway. IMO three is a sensible minimum for functionality and safety, all things considered.

But really, you can put 11 sensors in there and the system will not approach say, aircraft levels of robustness or reliability, because the sensors, wires, terminations, software, etc, do not meet aircraft standards. This is low unit cost, mass production automotive stuff. So just so everyone understands, for better or worse, these systems are never going to match aircraft standards for reliability or safety. Aircraft standards would add hundreds if not thousands to the cost of the vehicle. I am not saying that's bad or good, just let's recognize what we have here. Put five or ten million of these out on the road and what should you expect? Unlike aircraft, one failure does not place hundreds of lives at risk. But what is the actual total risk of placing five or ten million vehicles out there, each one having a potential for failure? Indeterminate.

Famous last words. Is your assessment based on a thorough FMECA validated with testing? Or is it an ivory tower proclamation?

IIRC General Dynamics was quoted as saying "wire chafing is not a failure mode in F-16s" and after many fatal crashes caused by wire chafing they quietly made changes to fix the problem.




So what is a driver to do if their car goes out of control and they cannot stop it/disengage the engine/bring it under control using normal control inputs? Pray?

Generally speaking if I know my car is starting a SUA and I can't stop it, I'd live with the consequences of killing the engine.

Not responsible for it's creation, rather it's demise. GM built something that (most) consumers weren't interested and that lack of interest (or lack of consumer purchasing) quickly ended that product line.

It's one thing to knowingly turn off your engine when you know what is going to happen. It's something completly different to have you engine suddenly turned off because the controls are easy to be affected by mistake.



You can't introduce safety features which possibly can end up doing more damage than they prevent.

Also keep in mind that there is no direct link between throttle position and pedal position, and what about cars without throttles?



A lot have happen since the conventional ignition switch. The mechanical ignition key got assisted by an electronics to prevent thefts, this 'electronic key' then replaced the mechanical key. From there the step to a starter button is quite small, and it is convienient for the driver. A lot of things have been introduced over the years in cars just because it's convienient for the drivers. After all, had these cars had manual tranmissions, the driver could just have pressed the clutch pedals instead of turning the engine off!



From Ray LaHood's testimony to congress:

"NHTSA has not been able to establish a vehicle-based cause for unintended acceleration events in Toyota vehicles not covered by those two recalls. The exception was a recall of model year 2004 Sienna vans in 2009 due to a defective trim problem that could, if loosened during servicing, entrap the accelerator at full throttle."



Call it whatever you want, to have two wires crossed and then two additional wires crossed with the correct resistance of 200 ohms is too unlikely. If the resistance is higher or lower than 200 ohm the fault will be detected; to have the resistance vary wildly as you put it doesn't cut it. It's exactly 200 ohms or bust. Also, if this was the reason for SUA in Toyotas, we would have seen the same issue in other cars aswell, since many cars function the same way.

I am not even close to being able to carry on a conversation here, but my personal experience...the circuit simply stopped working. And typically, we can see evidence of a shorted circuit...

Are you saying the 3 second delay to shut off the engine has saved lives?


That's right, so in order to implement an instantaneous tactile feedback system such as I proposed, a computer ajustable pedal stop would have to be incorporated into the system to limit pedal movement based on the actual percentage of full power that the computer is commanding from the engine.

Absolutely. There are people who touch things without thinking. This weirdo I worked with at Wachovia operations walked accross a new cafeteria and touched his finger to labeled wet paint. Then he came back and said something like, when I see a wet paint sign, I have to know for sure. I never let that particular boy molester in my car, but I've seen other people who just push stuff for reasons known only to them. I had an assistant at Bear Stearns when flat screens were newish technology(2001). She would push her finger into the screen hard enough to make everything go prismatic. It was just her reading style, you know? Lips moving, finger following? When I told her to stop, she said that 'she was used to the glass ones,' like putting her greasy finger prints on everything was just peachy. There are FAR too many people out there who accompany the phrase 'what's this?' with simultaneously pushing, twisting or flicking the control in question. Perhaps pot use in highschool and college plays a role.

But really noone has come up with a reason for this wanky pushbutton starter. A key has served well for 60 years and does not cause these problems.
As for cars that unlock when you walk up to them you had better have a good liason with a towtruck operator and your dealer as they seem to be causing an inordinate amount of trouble already. Wait until they get old!!
A lot of Euro cars seem to suffer from faulty security systems, people may not steal them but that is a bit pointless as you cannot drive it either, An aquaintence suffers a several hundred dollar bill [plus towing] at least yearly to make their 02 VW go.

The world must be full of a lot of surprises for people who don't foresee problems with keyless entry and pushbutton starting, but we've a population that doesn't understand anything about consequences. One of the blogs I read suggests that McGuire is pretty representative of the quality of thinking that permeates the auto industry. Fancy key fobs and gimmicky controls are considered essential to the 'pride of ownership experience' for buyers of 'aspirational' cars.

Yes, really the whole thing is a nightmare.

The thought of having a ton or two of "dynamic metal" dependent upon its consumer electronics in the hands of the average driver is simply too awful.

[off-topic alert]

I recall that I bought in sequence new, three video tape machines: not one of them would play back the tapes I had - they would play only tapes that they themselves had recorded. I even took the pre-recorded tapes to a shop and they played OK on all the machines there. I smashed the first one with a 4lb club hammer. the other two just went into the bin.

The point of the above "tangent" is that these were all reputable brands (like Toyota was) , but apart from risking the death of one individual from apoplexy, there was little likelihood of "collateral damage."

The final irony is that in one case I wrote to the makers (Sharp) explaining that I had demolished the machine and was disgusted etc., etc., adding as an afterthought that "no-one would buy a car that doesn't work..." How times change!

Yes, really the whole thing is a nightmare.

The thought of having a ton or two of "dynamic metal" dependent upon its consumer electronics in the hands of the average driver is simply too awful.

[off-topic alert]

I recall that I bought in sequence new, three video tape machines: not one of them would play back the tapes I had - they would play only tapes that they themselves had recorded. I even took the pre-recorded tapes to a shop and they played OK on all the machines there. I smashed the first one with a 4lb club hammer. the other two just went into the bin.

The point of the above "tangent" is that these were all reputable brands (like Toyota was) , but apart from risking the death of one individual from apoplexy, there was little likelihood of "collateral damage."

The final irony is that in one case I wrote to the makers (Sharp) explaining that I had demolished the machine and was disgusted etc., etc., adding as an afterthought that "no-one would buy a car that doesn't work..." How times change!

The traditional key causes other problems. SAAB's placement gets around one of these (knee injuries in crash) but may cause other problems. As I keep saying, the start button probably clinics well and is an integral part of a keyless extry system. That is a reason. It may not be a popular reason round here, but given the desperation of manufacturers to find showroom differentiators for their models, I can quite see why it would have strong internal support.

Are you sure that they weren't introduced as marketing gimmicks? My brother-in-law's BMW is so overloaded with switches and unecessary controls that it is ridiculous.




Bad logic. The cars didn't have manual transmissions so your point is not relevant.




Seriously. Are all cars wired precisely the same way? Are the wiring harnesses routed exactly the same way through the car? Is the NVH attenuated through the mounting hardware exactly the same way?

Well, we do see SUA in all cars. In fact, when this story broke Toyota was trailing Ford in SUA complaints something like 2500 to 2800 since 2005. The UAW owned US government went on a Toyota feeding frenzy and SUA claims came out of the wookwork, sort of like Jim Sikes and his Prius.

Guess I am not following you there. Am I for or against high-feature entry & op?

As you say bad placement, but at least it turns the engine off without a 3 second delay.

Right. The car was a poor design so the consumers rejected it. How is that the consumers' fault?

In design, here I would include GM's brand management team at the time, which had as much to do with the vehicle's design as the designers and engineers.

It's not about fault. The original response was to your post which appeared to suggest that consumers bought whatever designers built and therefore consumers can't be blamed for gimmicky products (at least that's how I read it). I said you couldn't hold either group (manufacturers or consumers) entirely at fault. My bringing up the Aztek and it's demise was to suggest that your (apparent) position ignores the very real influence consumers have on what is sold, or at least what continues to be sold. I can't imagine a start button makes or breaks a sale unless the consumer is 16 perhaps, however it's also not the button that is the problem here - it's the way the button works - the firmware, that is the problem.

I once had a whizzy custom motorcycle show up at my shop from the east coast and it had no key. Instead, the rider pushed the left turn, right turn and horn buttons in a specific sequence that would command the ECU to close the relay and apply power to the bike's electrical system. To shut it off you simply hit the kill switch. Never have to worry about losing your keys (and I suppose if you made the sequence long enough, you'd never have to worry about driving intoxicated).

Desmo posed this question:
Who's really to blame, the people who sell the gimmicky non-standardized controls or the people who buy them? There would be no stupid start buttons in the middle of the dash if there were no stupid people who want them.

I say designers are responsible for design. One traditional part of consumer surveys in this biz is the question, "what do you want to see in your next car"? Build those features into an automobile and you get the Homer Simpson car. In focus groups, consumers can't respond to features unless they see them in the focus vehicle. If a designer develops a feature, it's up to him or her to make it functional.

Good design isn't based on fads, trends, or focus groups. Focus groups were developed to test and validate design, not steer it. Superior design accurately anticipates consumer needs and wants. Design is the manufacture of desire -- I believe Bucky Fuller said that.

BTW, consumers responded very positively to the original Aztek concept vehicle. They rejected the production version in droves.

Great. So let's put the thing in a sensible location and give it proper functionality. I don't want a button I need to press for three seconds or three times in five seconds just to shut off the engine. That itself is not safe. I'm driving, not typing. I don't want to have to speed-read the owner's manual in the rental car parking lot just to figure out which one I happen to have today. That's not product differentiation, that's just dicking around for its own sake at the expense of the customer's patience and safety. These are deficient designs. We don't need them. They serve no useful purpose. The manufacturers that currently employ them need to get rid of them before the governments do it for them.

I agree with that. It is as if a company had decided to fit fluorescent pink seat covers. Those who order them would reasonably anticiapte they were properly designed and wouldn't burst into flames due to static electricity. That is the screwup with the start button - the FMEA was not pursued with sufficient vigour.

Following the Federal and Toyota investigations comprehensively rebuking his claims, San Diego California Highway Pigs are trying to rehabilitate Jim Sikes' story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_on_...s_runaway_prius

Sikes may be a compulsive liar and thief, and science may confirm that he was full of it, but he is just as credible as the fellow officers of the guy that died in the loaner Lexus. I am still quite confident that the local revenuers were complicit in his hoax.

Any chance he was excessively speeding, was about to get pulled over, and pulled SUA as an excuse?

His 911 call, during which he cried like a 3 year old girl and feigned complete incompetence as a driver in spite of his history of track days with the Corvette Club, was over 20 minutes long. Ergo, I don't think he was using SUA as an excuse to speed. Conventional wisdom says he just did this to open up a lawsuit against Toyota, but I say he did it in partnership with the police officers to create a world where calling 911 is the right thing to do when faced with SUA rather than anything that works, like standing on the brakes, turning off the engine, or shifting out of gear. He supposedly did exactly what a dead CHP officer did in the same case with a happy ending this time to show that the dead officer wasn't incompetent.