Deadly wreck of Megabus on I-55 linked to tire blowout
Our Texas bus accident lawyers know that you might have already seen some news about the Thursday crash of the Megabus in Litchfield, IL that killed 1 young passenger and sent around 48 more to the hospital with injuries ranging from minor to severe. 81 people were on the Megabus at the time that it lurched out of control and rammed head-on into a concrete bridge support on I-55.
The double-decker bus was traveling from Chicago to Kansas City at the time of the crash. The deadly Megabus wreck on I-55 happened about 55 miles northeast of St. Louis. The damage to he front of the Megabus was so severe that rescuers needed to use ladders to extract the injured through the windows of the upper deck of the bus.
Reportedly, several witnesses heard a tire blowout on the bus just before it crashed into the concrete bridge support on I-55. Our Texas bus accident lawyers note that the Megabus was apparently traveling at about 65 mph when the deadly Megabus wreck on I-55 occurred.
Aditi Avhad, 25, was sitting at the front of the bus on the upper deck with her parents on her way back to her college town when the Megabus crashed. She was fatally injured in the accident.
A Megabus company spokeswoman said that the bus involved in the deadly wreck on I-55 was fairly new, manufactured just last year, and that the bus had undergone a full preventative maintenance check, including tires, within the past week. She said all of their buses must undergo such checks every 10 days.
Our Texas bus accident lawyers have been writing this summer about the critical need to check your tires’ condition regularly. Especially in the summer sun and heat, tires age faster, and become more prone to blowouts, failures due to over inflation or under inflation, and tread separation. In excessive heat, tires may not make the full mileage recommended by manufacturers before you need to replace them with new ones. And hidden defects that result during manufacturing can result in sudden blowouts even in fairly new tires.
Megabus USA LLC requires its drivers to take 9 hours off to rest between scheduled shifts, which exceeds federal safety standards. The federal safety standards in this regard are alarmingly low. Drivers also receive extensive classroom and hands on driving training according to Megabus. And the company has the highest rating (“satisfactory”) with the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). (Source: Associated Press, 8/3/2012.)
But controlling a large, double-decker bus after it’s just had a tire blowout, presents a serious challenge for which few drivers will feel adequately prepared. Modern vehicles must have ESC (electronic stability control) systems to help them stay on course and on the road in event of emergencies. For instance, when an ESC system detects a vehicle veering off course, it will automatically apply one or more brakes to try to slow the vehicle’s spin and keep it going in the intended direction. But this crash involved a double-decker Megabus, and information was unavailable regarding an ESC system on the bus.
Our Texas bus accident lawyers had written about a year ago on the rather low federal safety standards governing coach bus travel. Our article followed a deadly accident on I-95 in New York that killed 15 people. Several fatal, high profile bus accidents have led to closer examination of the lax rules and practices that allow coach bus drivers to work excessively long shifts and allow them to drive with minimal safety training.
Learn more about the still low safety standards governing commercial vehicles and what you might do to help ensure your safety by reading the linked article by our Texas bus accident lawyers.
Is China quicker to recall dangerous & defective vehicles than the U.S.?
If you own a Jeep Wrangler, our Galveston auto defect lawyers realize that you might well remember Chrysler announcing the recall of almost 70,000 of the vehicles from the 2010 model year due to a defect that could cause sudden underbody fires. In China, the government had already convinced Chrysler to recall the Jeep Wrangler from the 2008, 2009, and 2010 model years for that same dangerous Jeep Wrangler defect. And in China, Chrysler replaced a skid plate – exhaust configuration that had been linked to the accumulation of debris in the undercarriage of the vehicle that could then ignite.
But as Safety Research and Strategies Inc. aptly pointed out on June 19th, Chrysler resisted making the same fix to the vehicles in the U.S. with those model years. The company explained to the NHTSA, which had received several complaints regarding the undercarriage fires, that although the design of the 2010 MY JK Wrangler was similar across the globe, the rate of underbody fires was higher in China than in the U.S. And this allegation apparently justified a recall in China, but not in the U.S., even though the vehicle designs contributing to the fires were substantially similar in both countries.
Our Galveston auto defect lawyers did not notice an explanation for the higher rate of fires in China that would help allay our fears if we were Jeep Wrangler drivers. Was the higher rate of fires perhaps because more Chinese drivers drive off road and accumulate more combustible debris in the skid plate? We don’t know. And our hypothetical explanation seems unlikely since many of the complaints to the NHTSA involved vehicles that had never left the roadway.
Chrysler defended its U.S. recall of only certain 2010 Jeep Wranglers by maintaining that a change in design of the exhaust system for that model year resulted in “less than optimal clearances” between the automatic transmission’s skid plate and the exhaust catalyst. This unfortunately does not explain the high rate of underbody fires reported for the 2008 and 2009 model years.
China’s pressure on Chrysler resulted in a stronger recall than the company issued for the U.S. So you might observe that in an absence of pressure, some automakers might be inclined to take risks with your safety in order to protect their profits. We understand that Chrysler is certainly under some pressure to perform financially after the high profile bailout and its lackluster performance in the auto market recently.
But the need to improve profitability is certainly no excuse for neglecting your safety. If you receive an injury in an accident caused by a vehicle defect, you need to hold the manufacturer financially accountable for the needless harm it’s caused you. Our Galveston auto defect lawyers know how to build strong cases against automakers that have hidden defects from consumers. We have more than 14 years of experience helping injured clients to make them pay for the damage they’ve caused to innocent lives and families.
Contact us today for a free legal consultation. You can call toll free at 877-307-9500 or use our online contact form to schedule your free case evaluation. We could help you every step of the way to successfully take on the big automakers and win the full financial recovery you deserve after you’ve suffered because of a vehicle defect. And our Galveston auto defect lawyers charge no attorney’s fees unless you win your case. So call today and get started on your road to recovery.
Today’s huge U.S. recall belongs to the Toyota RAV4 & Lexus HS 250h
Already it seems like it’s been a banner year for auto recalls, and we still have a few months left to go. On the one hand, our Houston auto injury lawyers applaud the NHTSA and the automakers for taking dangerous, defective vehicles out of circulation. On the other hand, we can’t help but notice that some of the recalled model years date back more than a decade. Does it really take that long to notice and announce a dangerous, life-threatening crash risk problem?
The latest big recall in the U.S. market was announced by Toyota. It covers 778,000 (yes, almost a million) Toyota RAV4 SUVs and Lexus HS 250h. The RAV4, you may know, is a hugely popular vehicle. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been stopped behind a vehicle at a light only to notice it’s a RAV4, usually by the prominent logo on the spare tire covering.
The Toyota recall applies to 2006 to 2011 RAV4 SUVs and to 2010 only Lexus HS 250h sedans. Our Houston auto injury lawyers note that the 778,000 vehicles are being recalled because of a problem with the suspension that could lead to separation of the suspension arm, loss of control over the vehicle, and a crash. If the rear suspension nuts in the recalled Toyota and Lexus vehicles aren’t tightened properly after a wheel alignment, the suspension arms could rust and separate from the vehicle. (Source: Associated Press, 8/2/2012)
Toyota has received reports of several crashes and injuries caused by the suspension defect. The NHTSA opened its own investigation into the dangerous problem in June after it received several reports of the problem from drivers. One report described a loss of control over the vehicle that caused the driver to swerve across 4 lanes of an interstate highway after the suspension arm disconnected from the car.
Toyota says the company is currently working on a fix for the problem and will notify owners of the recalled vehicles when it’s ready. In the meantime, Toyota says hat drivers should contact their dealers if they hear an abnormal sound in the rear of their vehicle. We hope that if you should hear that sound (and the abnormal sound isn’t just a mischievous child or a pet), you will have time to pull over and stop before the suspension arm disconnects and chaos ensues. The recall announcement was unclear on that point.
The ubiquitous Toyota RAV4 SUVs actually have a string of recalls and NHTSA investigations to their (dis)credit. A current investigation involves the danger of door fires from a defect in the power window switches. A recall last year covered 2007 and 2008 RAV4s in which the airbags could deploy without warning. And before that, 2009 and 2010 RAV4 SUVs were recalled, along with many other Toyotas, due to sticking accelerator problems.
Unintended acceleration is an ongoing problem in the Toyota universe and one that many Toyota drivers say has not been adequately addressed. Our Houston auto injury lawyers have in fact written several articles on the mysterious and seemingly insoluble Toyota unintended acceleration problem. We suspect we’ll have more to write on that score as time passes.
In the meantime, be aware of the crash and injury risks presented by the suspension arm defect. Get your vehicle repaired as soon as Toyota has a fix for the problem.
And if you or a loved one suffer needless injury because of a defect in your vehicle, contact our Houston auto injury lawyers for a free consultation regarding your possible legal options and potential for a full financial recovery from the manufacturer behind the defect.
Our Houston auto injury lawyers have more than 14 years of experience protecting the rights of innocent injured victims who have received injuries or even lost loved ones because automakers sent a product out onto the market that contained a deadly defect. Let us help you make the full financial recovery your deserve. Call or contact us through our website today.
Another Ford Escape recall: almost 500K for sticking accelerator pedal
The Houston SUV injury lawyers remark that in a year when Ford hoped to introduce its revamped Ford Escape to the market with much acclaim, the small SUV has been dogged by a series of very serious recalls for dangerous defects. One recall that we recently discussed led the company to take the nearly unheard of step of telling owners of 2013 Ford Escapes to simply stop driving them. At once. A cut fuel line could lead to sudden engine fires, and had already done so in several vehicles.
Ford had also recalled another 10,000 of the 2013 Ford Escapes to correct a problem with carpet padding that could interfere with braking. Now the company is recalling about 485,000 Escapes and Ford Mavericks from the 2001 through 2004 model years to fix sticking accelerator pedals that can cause severe crashes.
Our Houston SUV injury lawyers wonder how these vehicles can make it all the way through the design, assembly, and testing phases without anyone ever noticing these problems. It seems it would cost Ford less money to be more diligent up front and catch the errors before they lead to damaging recalls and potentially deadly crashes.
This latest recall affects Ford Escapes and Mavericks from the 2001 to 2004 model years that have 3-liter V-6 engines and cruise control. The NHTSA has received 68 complaints regarding the defect, including 13 crashes, 8 injuries, and one fatality.
The one known fatality from the dangerous Ford Escape defect occurred in January 2012. 17-year-old Saige Bloom, whose mother was following behind in another car, found that she could not stop after she had depressed the accelerator pedal. Her Ford Escape kept accelerating into an intersection through a red light, where young Saige Bloom’s Escape crashed into a car and then rolled 3 times. Ms. Bloom died from her crash injuries.
An inspector that Ms. Bloom’s family hired after the accident found that the Ford Escape’s speed control pedal had broken and become stuck under the engine cover leaving the throttle open at near full speed.
Our Houston SUV injury lawyers note that the spate of recalls relating to dangerous defects in the Ford Escape has apparently not dimmed the vehicle’s popularity. It was the top selling SUV in the United States for the past month and was also the top selling small SUV for 3 of the 4 model years affected by the latest recall.
Some consumer advocates suggest that Ford has been slow to take action regarding this dangerous defect. The executive director of the consumer group Center for Auto Safety says that Ford knew of the sticking accelerator problem since at least 2005. Our Houston SUV injury lawyers emphasize that it’s now 7 years later, and it took the tragic and deadly crash of a teenager in January to bring attention to the problem.
Ford says that it does not yet have enough parts to truly repair the defect, but that dealers can disconnect the cruise control until the parts are available and that should prevent the snag from occurring. The cruise control cables can snag on the plastic cover on top of the Escape’s engine and cause the accelerator pedal to stick. Ford says that this can occur when the gas pedal is nearly fully depressed to the floor and where the cruise control cables have been bent or pushed from their original position.
A Ford Motor Company spokesperson points out that the cables might be bent or moved when the vehicles are serviced. Some think that the problems currently surfacing could date back to a servicing of the Ford Escapes during a 2004 recall effort. In 2004, almost 600,000 Ford Escapes and Mazda Tributes were recalled to fix an accelerator cable defect.
Our Houston SUV injury lawyers point out that the Tribute is a vehicle identical to the Escape that is manufactured by Ford for Mazda, essentially the Ford Escape under another brand name. It’s not clear yet whether Mazda will recall the Tributes affected by the problem. But it is our Houston SUV injury lawyers’ opinion that it should, since the Tribute shares the same potential for the sticking accelerator pedal defect relating to damaged cruise control cables that can lead to equally deadly crashes as in the Escape.
The NHTSA said that the 2004 recall repairs might have damaged the vehicles’ cruise control cables. And some Ford dealers had told the company back in 2004 and 2005 that some of the cruise control cables got damaged during the 2004 recall repairs.
When the parts become available, Ford has said that its dealers will replace the fasteners on the engine cover in the Ford Escape. They will raise the engine cover to make sure that there is plenty of room for the cruise control cable so that it can’t become snagged. In the meantime, owners of the Ford Escapes affected by the recall can get dealers to disconnect their cruise control to prevent the snagging cable and sticky acceleration problem.
Given the large number of complaints regarding the sticky accelerator problem and the number of years that it has know of the danger of the defect, our Houston SUV injury lawyers feel that Ford has been quite lax and slow to act to address the problem. In the intervening years, numerous crashes have occurred, resulting in a number of injuries and one tragic death. Buyers might want to consider the Ford Escape’s history of defects and the company’s safety record before rushing out to buy one of the small SUVs.
If you’re injured due to a vehicle defect that the manufacturer has neglected to address, hold that manufacturer financially accountable for the harm you and your family has needlessly suffered. Contact our experienced Houston SUV injury lawyers for a free and confidential legal consultation. We’ll listen to the specific circumstances of your case, and help you understand your available legal options and solutions. Our more than 14 years of successful case results on behalf of our injured clients speak for themselves. Take a look, call us today, and get started on your road to financial recovery.
(Source: Tom Krisher, Associated Press, Auto, 7/26/2012)
Texans with 2013 1.6-liter engine Ford Escapes, stop driving right now
Last week our Houston engine fire injury lawyers mentioned that Ford Motor Company had taken the nearly unprecedented step of telling new Ford Escape owners to stop driving their vehicles immediately. The warning came after the company learned of a defect in a fuel line leading to the engine compartment. The fuel lines, supplied by the TI Automotive plant in Ashley, IN, were mechanically scored, or lacerated, during production.
These fuel lines with the cuts on their surface could split, leading to fuel leaks. The fuel leaks could cause the spilled fuel collected near the engine to catch fire. Indeed 3 vehicles, one owned by a Canadian customer, and two being driven by Ford employees, have already experienced the dangerous engine fires.
Engine fires are a very serious hazard. They can lead to catastrophic wrecks and fatal injuries among those trapped in a vehicle that suddenly catches fore under the hood. So if you own one of the new Ford Escape SUVs affected by the recall, don’t take chances. Stop driving it at once.
The affected Ford Escapes are all 2013 models with 1.6-liter engines that were manufactured at Ford’s Louisville Assembly Plant between October 8, 2011 and July 11th. You could find out your vehicle’s manufacture date and plant of origin by contacting your Ford dealer. TI Automotive has since repaired the manufacturing flaw that led to the cut fuel lines and continues to produce the fuel lines for the Ford Escape SUV.
Ford says that only about 4,800 of the 11,500 Ford Escapes subject to the recall have been sold. The rest remain on dealer lots. Ford Escapes with 2.0 and 2.5-liter engines are not subject to the engine fire danger or the recall.
Our Houston engine fire injury lawyers note that the redesigned Ford Escape, along with the retooled Ford Fusion, was one of the automaker’s two key product launches for the 2013 model year. Ford is taking steps to minimize the danger from this early recall.
And if you own one of the Ford Escape SUVs subject to the recall, the company will come pick up your vehicle and take it to the dealer for a free repair. Ford will also provide a loaner vehicle for you to use while your vehicle is being repaired. The company has allotted $660 per recalled vehicle to defray rental, transportation, and other costs from the defect.
If you have a new 2013 Ford Escape with a 1.6-liter engine, don’t delay. Our Houston engine fire injury lawyers suggest that you stop driving the vehicle immediately. And find out from your dealer if it is one of the SUVx that might have a cut fuel line. Then let Ford make the necessary repair. Sudden engine fires are far too dangerous and potentially deadly a risk to leave things to chance.
If you’ve already experienced an injury from a sudden engine fire or other vehicle defect, you deserve financial compensation from the manufacturer to defray the burdensome expenses that follow such a needless injury. We have the experience and legal knowledge to protect your rights and win your recompense from the big manufacturers.
Contact our Houston engine fire injury lawyers today for a free legal consultation and case evaluation. We could help you understand your available legal options and counsel you to a successful financial recovery against the manufacturer responsible for your harm. Call us toll free at 877-307-9500 or reach us through our online contact forms.
U.S. dialysis product recall for GranuFlo due to cardiac death risks
The Texas dialysis injury attorneys at Denena & Points remark that GranuFlo is a concentrated powder product that gets mixed with water. The resulting acid solution combines with a bicarbonate solution in the dialysis machine to create “dialysate.” The dialysate passes through the machine’s artificial kidney to cleanse the patient’s blood.
Our Texas dialysis injury attorneys point out that GranuFlo has been linked to 941 sudden cardiac deaths in 2010 at 670 dialysis centers in North America that are owned by Fresenius, the maker of GranuFlo. Fresenius, based in Germany, owns 50 dialysis centers in New Jersey alone. The company provides dialysis services to more than 2 million patients across the globe and also sells dialysis machines and other products to its own dialysis facilities and others.
The FDA recall of GranuFlo for cardiac death risks said of the dialysis product that “[t]here is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.” The FDA issued its highest level of recall, a Class 1, against the product, but did not require that GranuFlo be removed from the market. The reason is a shortage of available alternative products that could be used t help the millions of patients worldwide in need of dialysis.
Our Texas dialysis injury attorneys note that the need for dialysis services has burgeoned along with the obesity epidemic. Obesity leads to diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney failure. Kidney failure requires dialysis treatments to compensate for the loss of the kidneys’ services as blood cleansers. Patients usually need dialysis treatments 3 times a week for several hours each session. Medicare (your tax dollars) pays for most of these treatments in the 400,000 U.S. dialysis patients at a cost of around $20 million annually.
Instead of yanking the product from the market, the FDA has required that Fresenius re-label GranuFlo and update its operating manuals for the dialysis machines that use the product. The cardiac death risk related to GranuFlo seems to stem from the increase in bicarbonate levels that the product causes in the blood stream. Where patients already had higher levels of bicarbonate in their blood prior to dialysis, the GranuFlo treatment apparently heightened the risk of cardiopulmonary arrest and sudden cardiac death by 6 to 8 times. Sudden cardiac death presents a leading cause of death to U.S. dialysis patients.
Fresenius has strongly recommended to physicians at its centers that they test their patients’ blood chemistries, particularly for bicarbonate levels, monthly, and tailor their individual prescriptions for dialysis chemicals to appropriate levels. Our Texas dialysis injury attorneys emphasize that Fresenius did not send similar warnings to non-Fresenius owned centers that use GranuFlo until some 5 months after it had warned its own centers of the danger. The FDA is investigating this troubling delay that could have endangered other patients’ lives.
Fresenius is the largest for-profit dialysis treatment center chain in the United States. But ownership of dialysis treatment centers is becoming increasingly consolidated among a few for-profit chains. The 2nd largest for-profit dialysis chain is Davita.
The growing concentration of dialysis services into a few hands is raising questions about safety and accountability. The concern is particularly strong where one of the chain operators also makes the products that it and other centers use. As recently as May, more than a quarter million dialysis patients, slightly more than half of whom received treatment in Fresenius facilities, were using GranuFlo as part of their treatments. Sales of the product reached more than $80 million per year. (Source: Lindy Washburn, The Record, NorthJersey.com, 7/22/2012.)
If you or your loved ones require dialysis treatments to clean your blood following kidney failure, you might not have any alternative to use of the GranuFlo product until other alternative products become more widely available. Your treating physician should be testing your blood chemistry regularly for elevated bicarbonate levels and adjusting your treatment dosage as needed in order to minimize your risk of cardiopulmonary arrest and sudden cardiac death from your dialysis treatments.
If you or a family suffered a cardiac incident or injury from your dialysis treatment, the adverse consequences could be catastrophic for your family. Our dedicated Texas dialysis injury attorneys could help you make a full financial recovery for your harm from those responsible for your injury.
Contact us for a free and confidential legal consultation regarding your options and eligibility for financial compensation stemming from the recalled dialysis product. Our Texas dialysis injury attorneys have almost 15 years of reliable experience holding negligent companies accountable for the suffering they and their products have caused to innocent victims.
Let us help you too. Call us toll free at 877-307-9500 or use our online contact forms at your convenience. Get the full financial recovery you deserve when a dangerous product or company delay regarding known risks has endangered your life or the life of a family member.
Will new FDA medical device tracking system really enhance your safety?
The Houston medical device injury lawyers at Denena & Points note that the FDA has proposed a new medical device tracking system in an effort to help the agency keep watch over patients’ safety and medical device effects on that safety. The new medical device tracking system responds to concerns raised over the past several years regarding adverse effects caused by widely used medical devices in the United States.
The types of medical devices affected by the proposed rule would include some of those life-saving innovations upon which so many are dependent: artificial hips, knees, and other joints, pacemakers and cardiac stents, scanners, and radiotherapy machines. The U.S. remains the global leader in medical device technology. The medical device industry shows a net trade surplus in the U.S. and employs about 2.5 million workers within the U.S.
Our Houston medical device injury lawyers emphasize that the real economic benefits of the medical device industry to the United States should not blind us to the dangers posed by lack of product testing. Medical devices generally are not subject to the rigorous testing or clinical trials that new drugs must sometimes undergo.
Certain classes of medical devices are exempt altogether and others are “grandfathered” into FDA approval if manufacturers can show that they are a descendant product that is substantially equivalent to another product that has already garnered FDA approval. And don’t forget that medical device products that already existed at the time of the FDA’s advent in the 1970s received automatic approval with no testing and no questions asked. Our Houston medical device injury lawyers hope that you might see from this brief outline some of the serious safety gaps in the FDA approval process that lead to defective and dangerous medical devices that cause adverse health consequences to patients.
A prominent example of medical device failure causing widespread harm focuses on the metal-on-metal hip implants that quickly failed in a majority of recipients and led to dangerous repeat surgeries. Among the brand names associated with the metal-on-metal hip implant failures are the Depuy ASR, the Stryker Rejuvenate, the Biomet M2A-Magnum, and the Zimmer Durom Cup. (Source: Eric Chaffin, The Legal Examiner, 7.19.2012) Around 150,000 U.S. patients are thought to have received the dangerous hip implants, but the identities of only a few thousand of those patients are known to the FDA.
The FDA has received strong criticism for approving these medical devices without clinical testing. The agency has also been blamed for failing to respond quickly or strongly enough to the many reports of the medical devices failures and adverse consequences in the patients that received the metal-on-metal hip implants.
The FDA responds by saying that its proposed new medical device tracking system should make it easier for the agency to track performance of medical devices once they reach the market, identify problems in the devices, and respond more quickly with product recalls when needed.
The tracking system would apply a unique alphanumeric identifier, similar to a bar code, to each device. Our Houston medical device injury lawyers understand that the ID number would contain information like the manufacturer’s name, type of device, serial number, batch or lot number, and expiration date. The information in the ID code would also be placed into a publicly available database to enable easier tracking of individual medical devices.
The proposed tracking system comes as a response to a law passed by Congress in 2007 that instructed the FDA to develop a Unique Device Identification (UDI) medical device tracking system. Another law passed by Congress in this year set a final deadline for enactment of the UDI system within the year.
The FDA has provided 120 days for the healthcare and manufacturing industries to comment on the proposal. After the comment period, The FDA will have 6 months to finalize and issue the UDI medical device tracking rules. And the new rules will then be phased in over the following 7 years. The rules will apply first to those medical devices the agency deems most dangerous or highest risk.
Our Houston medical device injury lawyers believe that the proposed UDI medical device tracking system will provide some improvements to patient safeguards and safety oversight of new medical devices. But we wouldn’t argue that the proposed system even begins to address the potential problems caused by medical device exemptions from safety testing and clinical trials under the FDA. Learn more about the substantial safety gaps in the existing FDA approval process in our Houston medical device injury lawyers’ linked article on the topic.
Mercedes’ M class dangerous unintended braking problem
Another flaw in sophisticated electronic vehicle control systems rears its ugly head. Our Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys have been writing about Toyota’s as yet unexplained unintended acceleration problem. So we thought it fair to give equal time to Mercedes’ unintended braking problem. Both problems seem to issue from hard-to-pinpoint defects in the vehicles’ electronic control systems.
We wonder if the Toyota engineers and the Mercedes engineers were to merge the two defective systems, would that cause the unintended acceleration and the unintended braking problems to cancel each other out? (Of course not, but that solution is no more ludicrous than Toyota’s advice to replace the floor mats.)
Our Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys point out that while automakers turn increasingly to electronic computerized control of vehicle systems, we as yet have no federal standards here in the U.S. governing functional safety for automotive electronics. Less than a year ago, the ISO (International Standardization Organization) issued a voluntary functional safety standard (ISO 26262) for electronic systems in mass-produced passenger vehicles.
We emphasize that this is a purely voluntary standard by which automakers are not required to abide in the U.S. It falls to the human driver to act as the failsafe for defective or malfunctioning vehicle electronic control systems. Isn’t that backwards? Weren’t electronic control systems supposed to work the other way around and provide fail-safes against problems to which human drivers couldn’t react quickly or accurately enough?
Victims of the Mercedes sudden unintended braking malfunction have reported that were driving at speed when suddenly the brake began engaging for brief periods, causing their vehicles to “buck” and other vehicles around them to swerve and brake hard to avoid collisions.
The sudden unintended braking problem is attributed to a malfunctioning yaw sensor. The ESC (electronic stability control) system reacts to brief electrical faults in the defective yaw sensor by applying the brake in short bursts (about 0.3 seconds or less) to try and correct the perceived problem. Basically, when the yaw sensor malfunctions, the ESC perceives this as an event where Mercedes is losing traction with the road or leaving its intended course.
So the ESC applies a brake or brakes to try and bring the vehicle back on what it believes was the intended trajectory. The real flaw here is that the Mercedes was not leaving its intended course and the driver had not lost any vehicle control until the defective system tried to “correct” a problem that had not occurred. The alarming defect in the electronic control systems could easily cause a crash by erroneously trying to prevent one.
The problem of Mercedes’ M-class vehicles unintended braking has been presented to the NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). But in 2007, it closed a preliminary evaluation of the problem without taking any action. Mercedes had presented a non-public explanation to the ODI that apparently satisfied the agency. And the agency seemed to take the position that since there were no documented crashes and deaths from the problem, it wasn’t a problem worth further attention. (Source: Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., 7/14/2012.) Our Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys mention that in a fatal crash, it would be difficult to document without surviving witnesses that a few split seconds of unintended braking had caused the crash.
Mercedes’ own VP for electrical, electronics, and chassis development cautioned strongly as early as 2004 against overburdening vehicles with electronic functions. And Mercedes did in fact remove about 600 unnecessary functions from vehicles due to quality concerns. Our Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys approve limiting unnecessary electronic functions. Too many electronics distract some drivers, and also limit drivers’ control over their own vehicles.
Federal laws require ESC systems in all new vehicles. And the ESC tie to the yaw sensor in the Mercedes M class seems to be the source of the dangerous unintended braking problem. So the Mercedes unintended braking issue is probably not a safety problem that will be going away any time soon.
Our Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys really can’t decide which is more dangerous: Mercedes’ unintended braking issue or Toyota’s unintended acceleration issue. Both have the potential to catch drivers off guard and cause deadly crashes. Inexperienced drivers particularly might not know how to react to the malfunction in order to save themselves and their vehicles.
If you’re injured because of a vehicle defect or malfunction, you might be eligible to obtain a full financial recovery for the needless harm you’ve suffered from the vehicle’s manufacturer. Contact our experienced Lake Jackson auto defect attorneys for a free consultation to evaluate your case and to learn your legal options for holding the manufacturer accountable for your injuries.
U.S. senator asks NHTSA for more data on Toyota unintended acceleration
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking the U.S. NHTSA, the agency tasked with oversight of auto safety issues, for a deeper probe into the unintended acceleration problem that’s been linked to some Toyota models. Our Clear Lake Toyota acceleration injury lawyers have written before about the ongoing struggle faced by the injured victims of accidents caused by the Toyota defect. You can read the details in the article linked in the title of this blog.
Senator Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and his request to the NHTSA cites criticisms by whistle-blowers regarding the “too narrow” focus of NHTSA investigations on the matter. Reportedly, these unidentified whistle-blowers provided Sen. Grassley with documentation on reports by both the NHTSA and NASA on investigations into the Toyota defect.
The reports apparently stated that although proof wasn’t found that the electronic throttle control systems caused the unintended acceleration problem, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t cause the problem. Specifically, Sen. Grassley’s letter to the NHTSA asks the agency to look into the possibility of “tin whiskers,” crystalline structures of tin, as a possible cause of the Toyota unintended acceleration problem.
Our Clear Lake Toyota acceleration injury lawyers point out that Toyota has taken exception to tin whiskers as a possible cause of the acceleration problem. A company spokesman said no one’s “ever found a single real-world example” of tin whiskers causing such a problem, and that there’s no scientific evidence that Toyotas are more prone to unintended acceleration than any other type of vehicle.
At issue is a document from 2006 in which it’s alleged that Toyota engineers found a problem with unintended acceleration (UA) in one of their vehicles. Toyota asserts that the translation of the document and the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate. (But, significantly, our Clear Lake Toyota acceleration injury lawyers note that the company has failed to provide its own “correct” translation of the document.) The U.S. DOT has said that 3 causes have been found for UA in Toyotas: sticky pedals, improperly installed floor mats, and driver error. (Source: Toru Hanai, Reuters (CNN), 7/13/12)
The NASA data mentions that 2000 to 2010 saw 9,698 customer complaints regarding the UA problem, and that this number probably represents a fraction of the number of actual UA incidents since UA tends to be underreported. Senator Grassley is asking how many of the 9,698 vehicles that were subjects of the complaints were tested for tin whiskers.
In short, the controversy over the possible Toyota defect leading to the UA problem continues to go round and round. In the meantime, more victims suffer serious injuries and even fatal accidents because of the problem, whatever its cause.
If you or a loved one has been the victim of an unintended acceleration accident and you need to know what to do to obtain restitution for your harm, contact our Clear Lake Toyota acceleration injury lawyers for a free and confidential legal consultation. We could review the specific facts of your case with you, help you pinpoint causes of the accident, and help you understand your legal options for making a full financial recovery from the manufacturer whose defective product injured you. Call us toll free at 877-307-9500 or use our web contact features to reach us at your convenience.
Enjoy a safe summer: learn the limitations of “jet skis” before you ride
Galveston PWC injury lawyers recognize that personal watercraft (PWCs), commonly called “jet skis,” are fast and fun. Old and young alike enjoy them for their speed and their ability to carry riders through thrilling stunts. The PWC, which by design has no external rudder or propeller, benefits from the lack of the “drag” that these features would create to achieve high speeds at the surface of the water and the ability to pivot sharply. Its lack of an external propeller can also save swimmers and wildlife alike from the danger of lacerations.
The PWC drives itself through the water by an internal pump-jet, a screw-shaped impellor system that takes water in through the front and impels it back out at high speed. A movable nozzle on this system provides thrust and direction. When thrust ceases, so does directional control. The first PWCs were used primarily by trained riders as racing craft.
Beginning in the early 1980s, with the introduction of new, well-marketed, and appealing consumer models of PWC, the popularity of the craft for novice riders enjoyed an upsurge. PWCs were readily portable and affordable and owners could carry them along to weekend outings on the water as well as to longer vacations. Renters at waterside destinations could enjoy the thrill of the PWC for a small fee.
But our Galveston PWC injury lawyers caution that the highly enjoyable PWC had some limitations that novice riders and renters might not learn about until it was too late. When the throttle is released to slow the craft down, the driver loses the ability to steer. And the PWC has no braking mechanism. It must coast to a stop, over a distance often exceeding the length of a football field.
Huge numbers of accidents began to occur because PWC riders seeing themselves in danger of a collision would release the throttle to slow down and try and turn the craft away from the danger. With almost every other type of land or water vehicle, slowing and turning away from a danger could provide an effective means to escape or minimize an imminent wreck. But our Galveston PWC injury lawyers emphasize that when you release the throttle to slow your PWC, you lose the ability to steer and can’t turn away from an approaching collision.
The lack of an external propeller does reduce laceration injuries from PWCs. The bulk of PWC-related injuries are ugly, blunt-force trauma wounds inflicted from a high-speed crash. Our Galveston PWC injury lawyers note that many of these injuries prove fatal, disfiguring, or permanently disabling.
Continued in Part 2.