Topic: ‘Toyota defence' might rescue jailed Minnesota man

[CatsEye68]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/toyota-defence-might-rescue-jailed-minnesota-man/article1480692/

Ever since his 1996 Toyota Camry shot up an interstate ramp, plowing into the back of an Oldsmobile in a horrific crash that killed three people, Koua Fong Lee insisted he had done everything he could to stop the car.

A jury didn't believe him, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. But now, new revelations of safety problems with Toyotas have Mr. Lee pressing to get his case reopened and his freedom restored. Relatives of the victims – who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago – now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota. The prosecutor who sent Mr. Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look.

“I know 100 per cent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible,” Mr. Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes.
..
 The uncertainty could wind up helping Lee and others. Attorneys for both the 32-year-old St. Paul man as well as the victims' families say they're encouraged by the evidence that the problems went beyond models that originally were recalled.

If Mr. Lee's car was defective, “We don't want an innocent man sitting in prison,” said Phil Carruthers, who prosecuted the case for Ramsey County.

A Toyota spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Lee's case.

[ovr50]

What total BS this is turning into.

Greg B (aka CatsEye) - do you spend a lot of time looking up stuff to slam Toyota? Since your return here under your new alias, all your posts have been against Toyota or one of the other Japanese makers. Do you really think that anyone takes you seriously?

Being a little more "rounded" might add something to your CTC profile....

[CatsEye68]

You seem to have confused me with someone else. All I am doing is reporting on what I find during my daily browsing of the news. I am not making any of this up, unlike others.

In any event I fail to see why you are so concerned given the behavior of others around here.

[Mitlov]

What total BS this is turning into.

Greg B (aka CatsEye) - do you spend a lot of time looking up stuff to slam Toyota? Since your return here under your new alias, all your posts have been against Toyota or one of the other Japanese makers. Do you really think that anyone takes you seriously?

Being a little more "rounded" might add something to your CTC profile....

Relax, ovr50, the story was on Autoblog too.  That's where I first saw it.  It's not like you had to look hard for it.

The guy never should have been imprisoned to begin with.  Driving his pregnant wife home from church with no drugs or alcohol in his system?  I have trouble believing that there was ANY intent to go 90+ mph...certainly not intent proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether the problem here was a stuck pedal, a slipped floormat (stock or aftermarket), or even just driver error, I would certainly hope that this would make people think twice before finding someone guilty of vehicular homicide.

A family man who it appears did nothing deliberately wrong is serving an eight year prison sentence.  Whatever caused this accident, it doesn't appear to be something this guy did with a shred of intent.  If that's doesn't strike you as effed up...

I don't know jack about criminal law, but while there's certainly not enough here to find Toyota or a floor mat manufacturer liable in those three wrongful death cases, I would hope that there's enough here to allow Mr. Lee an appeal to get out of prison and see his kids again.

[blur911]

Relatives of the victims – who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago – now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota.

This is probably what got the case reopened. Now they're hoping he's innocent so they can sue for millions.

Geez, it was a 1996, long before drive-by-wire.

[Mitlov]

Relatives of the victims – who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago – now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota.

This is probably what got the case reopened. Now they're hoping he's innocent so they can sue for millions.

Geez, it was a 1996, long before drive-by-wire.

It could have been a stuck pedal or floor-mat entrapment (stock or aftermarket).

I really, really don't think there's enough here to ever prove a case against Toyota, but I really, really want to see Mr. Lee out of jail.

[safristi]

..it's a  Mister lee to me too...............................

[ovr50]

Another case of "unintended acceleration"......from the local news website:

Mistaking pedals causes crash
by Castanet Staff - Story: 52956
Feb 25, 2010 / 1:45 pm

A woman ended up with minor injuries following a collision into the Starbucks in the Westbank Shopping Centre just before noon Thursday.

Constable Steve Holmes say the 39-year-old Kelowna resident apparently selected the gas pedal, instead of the brake, as she pulled up to building.

“Her black 2002 Dodge pickup lurched forward, over the sidewalk, crunching a table and some chairs between it and the side of the building. Fortunately no one was seated around the table at the time,” says Holmes.

He says the driver was taken to Kelowna General Hospital for treatment of minor injuries which included a neck strain.

“The truck received moderate damage to the front end, and was towed from the scene. The building sustained marks to the exterior.”

It does not appear that alcohol was a factor.

No charges are being contemplated.

[The Mighty Duck]

^ WTF is your point? Funny you're so eager to blame driver error, when Toyota itself admits there was a problem with the model in question:

Auto Recall Date: 01/03/1996
Vehicle Component: VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL
Estimated Vehicles Affected: 5145
1996 TOYOTA COROLLA Defect Summary:
THESE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEMS FAIL TO HOLD THE SPEED SET BY THE DRIVER AND CAN ACCELERATE ABOVE THE INTENDED SET SPEED.
Defect Consequence:
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAN INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE CRUISE CONTROL ASSEMBLIES.
Notes: ROSTRA PRECISION CONTROLS,

[rrocket]

^ WTF is your point? Funny you're so eager to blame driver error, when Toyota itself admits there was a problem with the model in question:

Auto Recall Date: 01/03/1996
Vehicle Component: VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL
Estimated Vehicles Affected: 5145
1996 TOYOTA COROLLA Defect Summary:
THESE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEMS FAIL TO HOLD THE SPEED SET BY THE DRIVER AND CAN ACCELERATE ABOVE THE INTENDED SET SPEED.
Defect Consequence:
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAN INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE CRUISE CONTROL ASSEMBLIES.
Notes: ROSTRA PRECISION CONTROLS,

WTF is YOUR point?  You show a recall for a Corolla.  Lee was driving a Camry.  NEXT!!   

[ovr50]

"^ WTF is your point? Funny you're so eager to blame driver error, when Toyota itself admits there was a problem with the model in question:"

Are you referring to me, Demo? 

[PJungnitsch]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/toyota-defence-might-rescue-jailed-minnesota-man/article1480692/

“I know 100 per cent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible,” Mr. Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes.

Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Doesn't seem to jive, especially as a 1996 Camry only had 185 hp at most.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/toyota-defence-might-rescue-jailed-minnesota-man/article1480692/

“I know 100 per cent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible,” Mr. Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes.

Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Doesn't seem to jive, especially as a 1996 Camry only had 185 hp at most.

This is true. IF the brakes aren't fully applied at first, they overheat, then fade. On top of that, at maximum revs, there isn't much vacuum left for power assist.

Frankly, I think the danger is just as overblown as the sidesaddle fuel tanks, Pinto fires and Explorer roll-overs. I would have thought that Toyota would have learned a better way of controlling the PR wars, there is plenty of precedent from which to learn.

[vdk]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/toyota-defence-might-rescue-jailed-minnesota-man/article1480692/

“I know 100 per cent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible,” Mr. Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes.

Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Doesn't seem to jive, especially as a 1996 Camry only had 185 hp at most.

A Rolla has 140hp...

[rrocket]

^^Did you miss the part where it said he was driving a Camry?

[vdk]

My point being, a Rolla has <140hp and they seem to run away don't they. HP doesn't matter when you ride the brakes.

[rrocket]

My point being, a Rolla has <140hp and they seem to run away don't they. HP doesn't matter when you ride the brakes.

Corollas only seem to run away in the US for whatever reason....

[The Mighty Duck]

WTF is YOUR point?  You show a recall for a Corolla.  Lee was driving a Camry.  NEXT!!   

Whoops. My mistake.

That said, the 1996 Camry was recalled for the same reason:

1996 Toyota CAMRY Recall ID from NHTSA: 96E001000
Auto Recall Date: 01/03/1996
Vehicle Component: VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL
Estimated Vehicles Affected: 5145
1996 TOYOTA CAMRY Defect Summary:
THESE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEMS FAIL TO HOLD THE SPEED SET BY THE DRIVER AND CAN ACCELERATE ABOVE THE INTENDED SET SPEED.
Defect Consequence:
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAN INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE CRUISE CONTROL ASSEMBLIES.
Notes: ROSTRA PRECISION CONTROLS,

"^ WTF is your point? Funny you're so eager to blame driver error, when Toyota itself admits there was a problem with the model in question:"

Are you referring to me, Demo? 

Obviously. What purpose did the article you posted serve, exactly?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Doesn't seem to jive, especially as a 1996 Camry only had 185 hp at most.

It's also possible that if you stomped on the brakes and did not immediately notice the car slow, you might assume they're not working and try to pump the brakes. I'd be interested to see how fast a vehicle with the throttle pinned at WOT would stop if a frantic driver was pumping the brakes wildly.

*shrug*

I'm not convinced that it wasn't driver error. But as has been pointed out, the car only had 185 hp. Even if he accidentally hit the throttle, you'd think he'd notice and back off before reaching nearly 150 kph... it's not a 96 Camry has Veyron-like acceleration or something. And the car (and maker) in question have a history of problems controlling their vehicles' speed, it seems.

That seems like enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on this man's guilt, don't you think?

[rrocket]

WTF is YOUR point?  You show a recall for a Corolla.  Lee was driving a Camry.  NEXT!!   

Whoops. My mistake.

That said, the 1996 Camry was recalled for the same reason:

1996 Toyota CAMRY Recall ID from NHTSA: 96E001000
Auto Recall Date: 01/03/1996
Vehicle Component: VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL
Estimated Vehicles Affected: 5145
1996 TOYOTA CAMRY Defect Summary:
THESE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEMS FAIL TO HOLD THE SPEED SET BY THE DRIVER AND CAN ACCELERATE ABOVE THE INTENDED SET SPEED.
Defect Consequence:
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAN INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE CRUISE CONTROL ASSEMBLIES.
Notes: ROSTRA PRECISION CONTROLS,

"^ WTF is your point? Funny you're so eager to blame driver error, when Toyota itself admits there was a problem with the model in question:"

Are you referring to me, Demo? 

Obviously. What purpose did the article you posted serve, exactly?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Doesn't seem to jive, especially as a 1996 Camry only had 185 hp at most.

It's also possible that if you stomped on the brakes and did not immediately notice the car slow, you might assume they're not working and try to pump the brakes. I'd be interested to see how fast a vehicle with the throttle pinned at WOT would stop if a frantic driver was pumping the brakes wildly.

*shrug*

I'm not convinced that it wasn't driver error. But as has been pointed out, the car only had 185 hp. Even if he accidentally hit the throttle, you'd think he'd notice and back off before reaching nearly 150 kph... it's not a 96 Camry has Veyron-like acceleration or something. And the car (and maker) in question have a history of problems controlling their vehicles' speed, it seems.

That seems like enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on this man's guilt, don't you think?

Ok..and no neutral again?  As you say...a 185 HP Camry wouldn't be real zoomy...so why not put it into neutral?  And pumping the brakes?  Another driver error.  Also, a few here have said that they've pushed on some brake pedals that were closely spaced and hit the brake AND accelerator at the same time.  Could be that too..

BUT...it's impossible to say I suppose..

[The Mighty Duck]

Ok..and no neutral again?  As you say...a 185 HP Camry wouldn't be real zoomy...so why not put it into neutral?  And pumping the brakes?  Another driver error.  Also, a few here have said that they've pushed on some brake pedals that were closely spaced and hit the brake AND accelerator at the same time.  Could be that too..

BUT...it's impossible to say I suppose..

All responses which assume that a driver suffering from UA will remain cool, collected, and has been taught how to properly respond to crisis situations. Real life demonstrates that many drivers do not know how to respond to crisis situations (or even drive safely in ordinary conditions), so your point is moot.

I wouldn't call pumping the brakes "operator error". I'd call it a panic response created by a situation that should never have occurred - the car shouldn't be accelerating on its own to begin with.