Welcome aboard, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland

It is an absolute pleasure to introduce Fast Lane readers to NHTSA's new Administrator, David Strickland.

If you've been involved in consumer safety in the last eight years, then David is probably a familiar name. As the Senior Counsel for the Senate's Consumer Protection Subcommittee, he was the lead staff member overseeing NHTSA, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

That job made him quite the watchdog, and President Obama and I know he's ready to continue that role here at DOT.

As Commerce Committee chair Sen. Jay Rockefeller said of our new Administrator:

“David is well-respected by the members of the Commerce Committee and all of the stakeholders who work with NHTSA, including the industry, safety advocates, and environmental groups. David is an outstanding selection for this position and an asset to the administration.”

Here are just a few of David's safety achievements in recent years:

• Advised Senate Commerce Committee members on the inclusion of several significant vehicle safety mandates, including electronic stability control
• Advised Senators on safety reforms and funding increases for NHTSA’s seat-belt and drunk-driving grant programs
• Named Congressional Staffer of the Year in 2004 by Mothers Against Drunk Driving for his role in making the driving public safer.

But David has also been the Senate's lead adviser on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reforms and standards. He is responsible for CAFE measures in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the first mandated increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.

That bill increased fleet-wide fuel efficiency standards by at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years, to 35 mpg by 2020, so that's no small accomplishment.

It's also worth noting that David has demonstrated his ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans. For example, as former NHTSA Administrator David Kelly noted, David successfully worked automobile safety measures into law in 2005: "Even though the Republicans were in control, he was one of the main guys getting auto safety provisions in that bill."

NHTSA has an important role to play in both safety and environmental protection, and David Strickland has demonstrated his commitment to both while not antagonizing either the auto industry or consumer and environmental advocates.

I look forward to working with a guy who can get things done.

Comments

[Jonathan]

Ah, David Strickland, I knew this guy in high school, cool searching for his name and him popping up here. I knew you'd make it.

http://www.methodvault.com

[Michael E. Bailey]

David is a great choice to lead this important agency. He is a timely choice too at a time of concern about safety and drivers who text or talk on the phone while they try to drive. What is needed is some technology built into the car and/or the phone that will keep the phone turned off while the car is going. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Veronica Lakes]

Hi David -

BIG CONGRATULATIONS!

Once again, and again, and again, you continue to make us really proud! (smile)

Love ya, Your Cousin, Veronica

[IVEY KEARSON, JR.]

ME AND OTHER FORD THUNDERBIRD OWNERS ARE EXPERIENCING THROTTLE PROBLEMS. I HAVE RECENTLY FILED WITH YOUR AGENCY. I HAVE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL THAT IS BEING FORWARDED. DON"T LET FORD OFF THE HOOK.

[Kent Mar]

Mr. Strickland,

I'm wondering why the Lexus RX (Crossover SUV) has not been included in the Toyota/Lexus recalls. I've read on NHTSA's website that they too have been experiencing sudden accelerations. I went to the site because on Monday 3/1, my friend's 2008 RX400h suddenly accelerated causing them to crash through their garage door and almost collide with the cement wall in the rear of the garage. Luckily, the 2 adults and two infants in the car were not injured.

Toyota/Lexus needs to acknowledge the problem with these cars and that the problem may be in the electronics.

Thank you for your attention

[Norm Talsoe]

Why is NHTSA now interested in the fact that evidence is starting to come in showing that the Toyota rug and pedal fixes do not solve the problem. I reported 6 incidents between 2004 and 2006 before I finally traded my 2000 LS400 in. Others did the same and were ignored by both NHTSA and Toyota. The evidence has been staring you in the face for at least 10 years. You just chose not to believe it. David Gilbert a Professor has shown that it was possible to demonstrate acceleration that the ECM control module did not detect. In disgust I sent the following memo to Jim Lentz.

Mr. Jim Lentz

President and Chief Operating Officer

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc

February 28, 2010

Dear Mr. Lenz,

I just read your full page add titled “Our Pledge to Toyota Drivers.” In it you stated:

“Our solutions are effective and durable – and we are confident that no problems exist with our electronic throttle control system.”

“We’ve asked a world – class engineering firm to conduct a comprehensive independent analysis of this system. Their interim report confirms that its multiple fail-safes work – and we will make their final report public.”

The statement essentially calls me a liar and that the 6 incidents I had of run away acceleration with a 2000 Lexus LS400 (VIN JT8BH28F5Y0170032) were my fault or my imagination. It ignores all other similar reports. It ignores the fact that these Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) events coincidently started showing up with the implementation of drive by wire electronic throttle systems. It ignores the test done by a professor who rigged a car to emulate the self acceleration event with no recognition by the “so-called” fail safes that the event occurred. It ignores the fact that for my 60+ years of driving I never experienced any such events with any other car. It ignores the fact that some of the other car manufacturers have already implemented the brake override system that you are about to embrace. I wonder why they would do that. Could it be that they too experienced electronic related throttle failures? Incidentally that fix should be mandatory for all car manufacturers since most, if not all, of them have had similar problems with the advent of drive by wire systems.

In short I take offense to the insinuation of being a liar!

My (SUA) events all started from being at a stop. When I took my foot off the brake before touching the accelerator, the car lurched forward. If caused by the rug or stuck accelerator why was it not trying to go forward while I was stopped with the brake. Furthermore, where does the stuck accelerator or rug get the intelligence to lurch forward on its own 3 times while I’m pushing as hard as I can on the brake as I’m pushing the shift into neutral? Additionally, why does the attempted acceleration disappear when I get into neutral while I still have my foot on the brake? During the 3 times the car leapt forward it moved about a foot each time with the feeling that the accelerator was at full throttle. It happened at about a lurch per second rate and took about 3 seconds to react to the condition by first braking with all my might and then going to neutral. Fortunately I was able to get to neutral about 6 inches to a foot before hitting the car in front of me.

As far as your above plan goes, why should I, after being ignored for 6 years and now indirectly being called a liar, believe you especially when Toyota is hiring the test firm? Is NHTSA involved as a monitor? Are there third party independent evaluators involved --- specifically the professor that found the inability of the so called fail safe features to perform i.e. he saw no indication from the fail safe electronics when self acceleration was excited.

How are they going to do a credible test for a low probability event of maybe 1% to 5%? The test would give no problem found for 95 to 99% of the cars tested providing the electronics were even looking for the occurrence of an SUA.

I pose the question: “Does Toyota now directly look for an SUA occurrence symptom of simultaneous braking and acceleration?” If so what do they to with the indication?

I happen to be an electrical engineer that has had experience in chasing intermittent problems when designing disk drives. It once took me 3 weeks to capture an intermittent problem that occurred maybe once a week. It turned out to be too low a noise threshold where noise would periodically trigger an error. In determining weak components that cause excessive bit error rates we had to invoke bit error rate testing where we stressed the electronic system with noise, voltage margins and other stressors in order to achieve an acceptable Bit Error Rate.

These circumstances are similar. Only the ramifications are not merely an unacceptable error but death or jail time for the driver because of something that was probably Toyota’s fault. I recommended my car be captured and margin tested to see if one could excite the condition. My suggestion was ignored. Any testing of a general population of cars with a low probability of having such symptoms will be fruitless. I guarantee that you will not find any problems of a SUA condition especially if you haven’t even designed a test to capture the condition. A car, like the one I had, that has shown the event, is worth its weight in gold. It has the known problem and could be stressed with a good chance of finding the problem.

I further find it interesting that my car was auctioned off and sold to the United Arab Emirates. What a neat way to get rid of a problem. Incidentally, in doing a carfax search I found that there was no evidence of my reporting the SUA incidents in the captured maintenance history from Carfax and no record of testing for it when I had brought my car in. All the above does not instill confidence that Toyota truly understands the extent of the problem or even worse refuses to acknowledge known electronic system problems because of the potential cost liability that pushes them to hide what they know.

The Toyota I once knew and respected, not only as a car owner but also as an engineer, would take this problem as a challenge to prove that they could put in place a manufacturing test protocol that would stress test all cars for this condition and again be an example of first class engineering that targets 6 sigma quality. All car manufacturers have experienced this problem but I'd be willing to bet none of them stress test for the condition. What are you going to do when you've implemented the rug and accelerator fix and SUA events still take place? Does the blame go back to the driver?

I challenge Toyota to put together a test program that has participation of 3rd party expertise from the Academic world and or NHSTA and outline a program that searches for cars, that are claimed to have experienced an SUA event, that are still drivable. Put together a test plan that can trigger the event and capture the fact that it occurred. Once the problem is understood put together a manufacturing protocol that stresses the electronics while looking for the SUA occurrence rate during margin testing. In fact NHSTA should push to get all manufacturers to demonstrate their test protocol that does this type of testing.

In the meantime people have been killed and put in jail because Toyota has not accepted the possibility that there are electronic failure problems. Yet you cover your behinds by saying you will implement an advanced braking override system in the future. If you are certain that there are no electronic problems why are you promising to invoke the advanced braking system? The approach conveniently takes you off the hook to be responsible for all the cars that go back to the late ‘90’s & 2000’s that may in fact have electronic problems and would need a massive recall to cure.

I have been a loyal customer up to this point but your responses to date are driving me away.

Disgusted,

Norm Talsoe

Email: ntalsoe@comcast.net

[C McCaffrey]

I hope he will do a better job of policing Toyota than the agency has done in the past. Sounds like the foxes were guarding the hen house.

[Stephen Shaw]

To David Strickland: Black boxes are not the issue and they only invade personal constitutionally protected privacy. The problems with uncontrolled acceleration lie with the ECU's controlling way too many auto functions. It's fine to have computer controlled windshield wipers which judge the amount of rain. But the basic operational functions of driving a car should be DRIVER CONTROLLED: steering, braking, gas pedal, ignition key, gear shift. The driver should have direct mechanical control of these functions, not a computer / ECU. If there is uncontrolled acceleration, the driver should be able to turn off the ignition, shift into neutral, apply the brake, and they all work. The driver's inputs must have priority over the ECU.

Auto makers are competing on technology these days, so they want to computerize all aspects of the car's operations. Regulators should mandate that these basic functions mentioned above should not be computerized. Safety demands that driver inputs have priority over ECU programming.

[Tom Gallagher]

What are Mr.Strickland's qualifications for this job? We read that he was a congressional staffer--but that term covers a wide range of skills and experiences. Is he an engineer? Does he have technical training? Has he managed a major organization, agency, foundation? What are his academic qualifications? I can't seem to find any references save those of a high school friend. Did he attend college or earn advanced degrees?

His position is one of enormous importance, and he should possess qualifications commensurate with that role.

[Josef]

I read a recent article about quiet cars causing problems for pedestrians and that you are looking into adding some kind of device to quiet vehicles to make them audible to pedestrians.

I suggest something like Brownian noise as a possible solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_noise

Noise pollution is already a major problem in most urban areas, but Brownian noise would be a solution that would not contribute toward noise pollution. In fact, Brownian noise (and pink or white noise) is often used in relaxation and sleep aid devices to mask out annoying noises. It sounds very similar to rainfall or a waterfall.

Brownian noise also has the benefit of being one of the easiest sounds for the human auditory system to spatially locate, which would grant additional safety gains.

[John]

To David Strickland: (Unintended Acceleration) The Decelerator is a Brake Override System that will provide a solution to the unintended acceleration even if the accelerator is at a full throttle position. Additional information can be obtained at www.thedecelerator.com.

[M. Patrick]

Honorable Administrator Strickland,

Like hundreds of thousands of freedom loving motorcyclists in the United States, I have grown very weary of being considered a second-class citizen when in fact, I vote, work, and pay taxes like millions of other hardworking Americans; both bikers, and non-bikers alike.

Today we are very concerned about any and all laws or administrative regulations that attempt to hinder our rights to ride free. Throughout the United States, we, as bikers are under attack legislatively and administratively in a thinly veiled attempt by Federal and State law enforcement agencies to restrict our freedoms and arbitrarily and subjectively profile and harass us as if we are second class citizens.

Today I am petitioning you to please reconsider your position on mandatory helmet laws across this nation. This is a state issue and surely there are more pressing matters at the federal level than to harass and profile the motorcycle riding community. Additionally, in many states, mandatory roadblocks posing as safety checks for motorcycles only, under DTNH22-10-R-00386 also known as “Motorcycle Law Enforcement Demonstration” program is an illegal attempt on the part of the NHTSA to Lobby state legislatures using Federal taxpayer dollars for funding. I do not support such a law, and neither will I support any legislator at any level who embraces, or endorses any such law. And I will do my best to see that any legislator who does so does gets fired during their next election cycle.

I support each State's rights to determine their own helmet policies, NOT Mr. Strickland's position of wanting to, "put a helmet on every motorcyclists head" to reduce accidents and fatalities. That statement alone makes it painfully obvious that Mr. Strickland does not travel America’s roadways on a motorcycle. The most dangerous situation that motorcyclists confront daily traveling America’s roadways would be cell phone texting and usage by individuals driving automobiles. I would dare say that reduction in cell phone usage and driver awareness programs would impact the accident and fatality rate of motorcyclists 10 fold over requiring helmets and the traffic safety checks combined. It seems ludicrous to me that I would be pulled over on the side of a busy freeway and risk injury or death to have someone that may or may not have ever driven a motorcycle, school me, on motorcycle safety. The statistics prove that motorcycle safety and awareness, in conjunction with riders training programs across the country have a far greater impact in reducing injuries and fatalities. The funding the government has set aside would be much better spent in causation studies, such as the one being conducted right now in Oklahoma.

I support the honorable Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) H.R. 1498 supporting efforts to retain a ban on NHTSA's ability to lobby State Legislators using our federal dollars through the "Motorcycle Law Enforcement Demonstration" grant program. Suspend this program now, (DTNH22-10-R-00386) for your reference.