Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

safetyresearch.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#81

Post by dmethvin »

quant5 wrote: post #8

Patio11 has talked about how programmers are little respected and paid poorly in Japan compared with the US. Could this have something to do with Toyota's code quality being so poor and causing this issue?

The programmers writing embedded software in the US aren't being paid all that much in respect or money either. It's not glamorous, you're basically invisible. Given all the money paid in the valley to develop the next Uber for Dogs it's hard for these companies to compete. That's why companies like GE are doing commercials for recruiting [1] but I don't think they hit the target.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvfU1NpCJQQ

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#82

Post by ebbv »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47
ebbv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more importantly than that there are a couple of underlying facts that invalidate the whole premise that unintended acceleration means automatic accidents/death: 1) None of these cars are 700hp Supras that accelerate at drastic speeds. These were normal consumer cars that frankly aren't that fast even with the throttle fully depressed. 2) The brakes in all of these vehicles are many times more powerful than the e…

Your two point list is silly. Consumer cars & SUVs can go 0-60 in under 10 seconds in almost all cases, and the fact that the brake can overcome that acceleration is great, except it takes time, and within the time between unexpected acceleration and stopping damage/injuries/death can occur. I had a water bottle fall onto my right leg while turning, this caused a sudden but short lived acceleration (e.g. 10 MpH of un…

Who is responsible for the property damage in the example you gave? The car manufacturer? No. The water bottle manufacturer? No. You. You were the driver behind the wheel.

It's still the driver's fault for not reacting properly. You could have unexpected acceleration or deceleration (which is just as dangerous in some circumstances) due to a lot of different problems; throttle stuck open, O2 Sensor goes wonky and tells the ECU to adjust the fuel mixture in a way that makes your car run rich and stall out, tire blows out causing your car to swerve severely to the right. In all of these cases it is up to the driver to react properly.

NOW, if they had proven that there was a design/manufacturing defect in these cars that Toyota knew about and did nothing about (like in the GM faulty ignition switch case), that's a different story. That would mean the manufacturer put customers at risk deliberately and not only should they pay financial penalties for that, but there should be jail time involved.

However, in the Toyota unintended acceleration case, not only was it very few drivers, they were never even able to establish a cause for the unintended acceleration. The software "experts" that testified for the plaintiffs only said that basically the software is badly written. It was never demonstrated that a specific piece of code caused unintended acceleration.

Instead, what is the obvious answer is that panicking drivers hit the throttle when they meant to hit the brakes. Especially since at least one of the drivers testified that they hit the brakes and it was unable to stop the car, which is total baloney.

EDIT: Also let me just state as a disclaimer I do not work for Toyota, never have, don't know anybody who does, I don't own any Toyota cars and never have. I just can't deal with people spreading bullshit.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#83

Post by hga »

arbitrage wrote: post #65
bradfa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will add a tremendous amount of cost to product development. This might be worthwhile if simple consumer or industry pressure doesn't work.

> This will add a tremendous amount of cost to product development. Not that many people are getting killed, so it's an acceptable tradeoff?

Yes, it's an potentially acceptable tradeoff. While the figures vary, economists and the like have estimates of how many people you'll kill for every N million dollars you extract from the economy (and they're below 10 million last time I checked). Just how much do you propose to extract with such a regime?

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#84

Post by hga »

bradfa wrote: post #63
ebbv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more importantly than that there are a couple of underlying facts that invalidate the whole premise that unintended acceleration means automatic accidents/death: 1) None of these cars are 700hp Supras that accelerate at drastic speeds. These were normal consumer cars that frankly aren't that fast even with the throttle fully depressed. 2) The brakes in all of these vehicles are many times more powerful than the e…

As I understand it, the brakes in modern gasoline powered cars often need vacuum and when the throttle is wide open (high acceleration) the engine will generate very little if any vacuum, so the assist which normally provides high braking power is not present and this can drastically reduce the braking ability of the car. Some cars have a sensor to detect if you are overlapping the throttle and brakes and will cut th…

To the extent that's true, it's only for the period of high acceleration (I know this intimately since my first vehicle was a 1967 Kaiser Jeep CJ-5 with vacuum powered windshield wipers). Once the new engine speed is achieved, that vacuum sure ought to come back (weaseling because I don't remember checking for this while at sustained high RPMs).

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#85

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

kllrnohj wrote: post #64
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your two point list is silly. Consumer cars & SUVs can go 0-60 in under 10 seconds in almost all cases, and the fact that the brake can overcome that acceleration is great, except it takes time, and within the time between unexpected acceleration and stopping damage/injuries/death can occur. I had a water bottle fall onto my right leg while turning, this caused a sudden but short lived acceleration (e.g. 10 MpH of un…

> Consumer cars & SUVs can go 0-60 in under 10 seconds in almost all cases, and the fact that the brake can overcome that acceleration is great, except it takes time The actual data paints a different picture: http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/braking-result... That said people don't do well with surprises so while the car mechanically would have no trouble at all stopping very nearly as fast due to a wid…

> The actual data paints a different picture

To what? That doesn't contradict what I said at all.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#86

Post by mikeash »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #76
mikeash wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That battle testing also killed millions of people. Modern cars are vastly safer. Demonstrably so. Computers in cars may make them more dangerous. But this is far outweighed by the greater overall safety in the cars that have them. You can't buy an otherwise modern car with no computer control, so your choice is either to buy a modern car with computers, or buy an old car without them. If you're avoiding computers th…

I actually know three people who were run over by a tractor trailer! While I don't know anybody killed in a plane crash. One was rushed to the hospital with a skull cracked like an eggshell. Almost fully recovered except he can't smell anything. One had a tractor/trailer fall over while turning a corner, onto his car. He happened to lie in the gap between tractor and trailer, leaving a little uncrushed cell with him…

Sounds like any passengers in the rear seat would have been doomed in that last crash. A modern car probably would have fared much better.

Your second story is pretty amazing! Sometimes it's all about luck.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#87

Post by sosborn »

Jemmeh wrote: post #42
quant5 wrote: post #8

Patio11 has talked about how programmers are little respected and paid poorly in Japan compared with the US. Could this have something to do with Toyota's code quality being so poor and causing this issue?

That seems so strange to me since I always think of Japan as being so technologically advanced. Granted, even here in the USA programming used to be considered "women's work", mostly revolving around planning and organization. So they passed it off to secretaries. I just didn't think that was something that was still happening. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...

> I always think of Japan as being so technologically advanced.

Ask anyone who has lived in Japan for a sufficient period of time and they will laugh at this statement, especially as it relates to programming.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#88

Post by burnallofit »

sakopov wrote: post #77

One of the general principles of engineering ethics states "A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner's duty to public welfare as paramount." I think part of the problem is that software development isn't considered an engineering discipline and code of engineering ethics goes out the window.

I got a degree in CS at UC Berkeley. There were exactly 2 lectures on ethics, both given by the same professor. Kudos to him (Ousterhout), but shame on the department. I'm not singling out UCB, I'm sure many other schools have the same problem.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#90

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

ebbv wrote: post #82
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your two point list is silly. Consumer cars & SUVs can go 0-60 in under 10 seconds in almost all cases, and the fact that the brake can overcome that acceleration is great, except it takes time, and within the time between unexpected acceleration and stopping damage/injuries/death can occur. I had a water bottle fall onto my right leg while turning, this caused a sudden but short lived acceleration (e.g. 10 MpH of un…

Who is responsible for the property damage in the example you gave? The car manufacturer? No. The water bottle manufacturer? No. You. You were the driver behind the wheel. It's still the driver's fault for not reacting properly. You could have unexpected acceleration or deceleration (which is just as dangerous in some circumstances) due to a lot of different problems; throttle stuck open, O2 Sensor goes wonky and tel…

> It's still the driver's fault for not reacting properly.

But in the scenario I gave the driver DID react properly. The break was applied and the car brought to a halt. It didn't stop damage being done or a dangerous situation from occurring.

Same thing with sudden acceleration. A driver can react appropriately and the condition can still be incredibly dangerous or even deadly.

> Instead, what is the obvious answer is that panicking drivers hit the throttle when they meant to hit the brakes.

Saying something is "obvious" when it is disputed just makes you sound arrogant and dismissive. Many experts don't agree with your "obvious" conclusions.

> Especially since at least one of the drivers testified that they hit the brakes and it was unable to stop the car, which is total baloney.

You're again contradicting the experts. They said that it is possible for the car to ignore brake input, but were unable to determine how corruption could have occurred to cause it.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that unintended acceleration occurred and that the brake was ignored, I do not, nobody does. But I think the way you're dismissing it and stomping all over a dozen or more experts is absurd. You cannot know it didn't occur any more or less than they know it did. You certainly don't have the expertise for your "obvious" conclusions to be meaningful.

> EDIT: Also let me just state as a disclaimer I do not work for Toyota, never have, don't know anybody who does, I don't own any Toyota cars and never have. I just can't deal with people spreading bullshit.

Right... And you essentially saying that the conclusions of experts in the field is wrong without any proof, cite, or good explanation definitely isn't "bullshit."

The fact you need a disclaimer saying "I am not a shill" (paraphrasing) means you yourself must know how absurd you're sounding here.

Post reply on HN