CSpec

The actual danger of the cars in question is overstated. See the topic I posted today in the Toyota subforum.

PITTSBURGH—Toyota has recently made headlines due to a problem with the accelerator sticking on certain vehicles. Nineteen fatalities have been linked to the issue, and Toyota has recalled 2.3 million cars in the U.S. for repairs, which has caused a sense of panic for recalled car owners and the general public. To put things in perspective, Carnegie Mellon University Professor Paul Fischbeck, a risk expert, calculated the risk of driving a recalled Toyota and found that the accelerator problem increases the driving risk by only 2 percent. "There hasn't been a discussion about the actual risk of driving one of Toyota's recalled vehicles," said Fischbeck, a professor of social and decision sciences and engineering and public policy. "Even the messages from the Transportation Secretary have been confusing. First, it's a recommendation not to drive the cars in question at all. Then, that was retracted. I think it's important for people to realize that when you look at the actual risk of driving one of these cars, it's actually very low." Consumers also may want to reconsider parking their recalled Toyotas until repairs have been made. "Replacing driving by walking really increases the risk of dying," Fischbeck said. "Walking a mile is 19 times or 1,900 percent more dangerous than driving a mile in a recalled Toyota. Driving while using a cell phone would increase risk much more than the chance of having a stuck accelerator." In the U.S., there is a little more than one fatality for every 100 million miles driven. The average U.S. vehicle logs about 13,000 miles each year. Based on these averages, for the 2.3 million Toyotas being recalled, there are about 340 fatalities every year for causes unrelated to the accelerator. The accelerator problem is adding about six deaths every year to this total — meaning that the accelerator problem is increasing the driving risk by about 2 percent. The relative increase in driving risk depends on the individual driver. For a 35-year old woman (some of the safest drivers on the road), driving risk is very low (less than half the national average), so the additional risk from stuck accelerators would increase their driving risk by 3.5 percent. For a teenage male driver whose risk is 3.5 times greater than the national average, the driving risk only increases 0.5 percent because of the problem. If every vehicle on the road in the U.S. had this problem, there would be an additional 600 deaths every year. Driving a recalled Toyota for about a half mile less per day would be the same as if you drove in a vehicle without the problem. Thinking about risks in terms of gambling, the chance of dying in a year because of the accelerator problem is about two in a million. This is the same as flipping 19 coins one time each and getting 19 heads. Of course, people die from many things other than automobile crashes. The additional risk from the accelerator problem increases an individual's annual risk of dying by less than 0.5 percent. And because the risk of dying in a given year increases with age, for retirees the additional risk is less than 0.01 percent. "Bottom line, it is important to keep risks in perspective," Fischbeck said. "The stuck accelerator problem does make driving riskier and needs to be fixed. But at the same time, the increased risk is very small."

Japan's remaining businesses are all run by an Old Boys club, and no one the lower ranks dare suggest problems with the Divine Wind from the CEO's office. However the safety problems with Toyotas is incredibly overstated.

Interesting, but is this remotely cost effective? Also, I'm inclined to say that anything labeled "sustainable" is a piece of junk.

Get a Rascal?

Newly Stalled Toyota Blocks Rivals, Too From the Wall Street Journal. When a car breaks down ahead of you, it isn't unusual to feel a certain deplorable smugness as your own engine keeps purring. But the poor unfortunate stuck in the road can still slow you down. Take Toyota Motor, which Tuesday rolled out new customer incentives to help repair the damage from its recall fiasco. Of all foreign rivals, Toyota epitomized the competitive pressure that has ground down the U.S. market share of Ford Motor, General Motors and Chrysler for decades. The televised unraveling of Toyota's reputation for quality could only be good for Detroit, right? Ford, for example, certainly capitalized on Toyota's woes, with sales growth in February busting through analysts' estimates. Toyota's resorting to incentives, however, raises the worrying prospect of a price war. Indeed, industrywide, average incentives rose month-on-month in February by 10.6% to $2,588 a vehicle, according to Edmunds.com, as Toyota's competitors tried to lure away customers. Rebates and cheap financing are useful for winning business, but they undermine the No. 1 priority for the Detroit three: restoring profitability in North America. As if in response to Toyota, GM on Tuesday offered 0% financing for 60 months or more on a range of 2009 and 2010 models, following a weak February and a recall of its own. Brian Johnson of Barclays Capital estimates such financing costs $4,657 a vehicle, more than $2,000 above last month's industry average incentive package. The key question is whether this is temporary or signals a broader breakdown in pricing discipline. After all, consumers are still hurting and the industry remains structurally oversupplied.

Lucky. I agree that hydrogen is far superior to stupid batteries.

CTS seems to be hurting.

Interesting that the Lexus seems to be noticeably quieter.

Wagon!

I quite like the exterior styling of the MKS, but not so much the interior. And I usually try to ignore badge attributes, but Lincoln is seriously uncool. However I voted for other in favor of the Lacrosse.

pinto

So, don't you all feel a bit foolish for assuming a pretty unlikely scenario, that a bank run by bankers would just up and do something so obviously illegal? Maybe you should stop to consider that some loudmouth with nothing to lose is probably not telling the whole truth. It was obvious even from the biased first account that things were not as they seemed. Logic rules the day, though I fear the populist nonsense from this story will lead to some bad outcomes.

Ah ha! As I suspected, this sob story leaves out some trivial details. I'll post from the Louisville Mojo's account. Man Bulldozes House, but Media Only Tells Half the Story The internet is abuzz with stories about Terry Hoskins, the man who bulldozed his house to prevent his bank from seizing it in foreclosure. People are cheering him, calling him a hero, and telling him "Way to stick it to the banks!" There are several basic points, however, that most of these articles, and, it seems, most of the readers, are missing. He claims that the bank was going to foreclose on $160,000 worth of mortgage, on a $350,000 house, that he was current on. Last I checked, though, banks can't just do that. Passing mention of his business debt is made, but no mention of several relevant details; the loan on the two properties (commercial and residential) appears to be cross-collateralized. Total amount he owes the bank = 1.1 million. No mention is made of the fact that he is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and while the IRS is mentioned as having contributed to the situation, I have also read that he is 6 or so years behind on both state and federal taxes. No one seems to be taking into consideration that we're not exactly dealing with Citigroup here, either. I looked up his bank, and it's a small community bank with fewer branches (5) than my little credit union. Sticking it to the guys who might be the ones to help you out and treat you like a person when the big banks won't, isn't exactly my idea of "Getting back at THE MAN," if you know what I mean. There are also no details available about the lawsuit referenced with his brother - it's possible that the lawsuit was totally bogus, but there's also the possibility that he royally screwed his brother over and deserved to lose it...but none of us really know the details. Finally, while he's portraying himself as "the little guy who wouldn't take it anymore from the banks," he's, well, not the average guy affected by this mortgage crisis. You know, the guy who lost his job, got behind on his mortgage, and found his bank refused to work with him. From published reports, he claims to have spent millions on legal fees over the past decade or so. Kind of makes you wonder how much his total debt is, doesn't it, if spending millions of dollars to fight it makes financial sense? I'm not saying the guy was shady in his business dealings - I've never met him, do not have inside knowledge of his business affairs, other than what I've been able to dig up on the internet, nor have I ever done business with him personally. All I am saying is that until we know the WHOLE story - it's way too soon to proclaim the guy a hero. So far, the only media outlet that I have seen questioning the story is Reason - all the others seem to just be running with the story as he told it, because it's the kind of story that generates outrage...and page views. How disappointing. Big media fail on this one.

Again, there is obviously more going on in this story. I would wait for a more professional news outlet than a local TV station to reveal all the facts before condemning every bank in existence.

Considering this guy "understands the consequences" of his action, I would say the bank is in the right. There is always more to a story than meets the eye. However if the bank actually did something illegal or broke a contract, then obviously they're not entitled to anything. But there is no mention of that in the story.

So the bank should take an opportunity cost just because?

This guy is a common criminal.

Saw a salt covered black GT-R on my way to work yesterday!

Wow, what a freak story. Think Lutz is counting his lucky stars for all the days he successfully piloted his fighter jet to work?

I don't understand what this list is--cars by American companies produced in America? If so it leaves out Canadian and Mexican production for US marques, not to mention imports.

I'm curious to see what you think of the flip and slide second row. The idea is cool, but at auto shows it always seemed to be kind of jerky and right on the edge of breaking.

I much prefer the Rainier as well.

Great news. Hopefully they add manual transmission options to the lower trim levels, but I'm not holding my breath.

A huge improvement. Ford has been amazingly adept at updating average models to great ones, without expensive complete redesigns.