MSNBC.com
Toyota revelations may free jailed driver
Criminal cases involving acceleration being re-examined amid recalls
The Associated Press
updated 11:27 a.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 26, 2010
LINO LAKES, Minnesota - 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 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 Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look.
"I know 100 percent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible," Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes. "When the brakes were looked at and we were told that nothing was wrong with the brakes, I was shocked."
Lee's accident is among a growing number of cases, some long resolved, that are getting new attention since Toyota admitted its problems with sudden acceleration were more extensive than originally believed. Numerous lawsuits involving Toyota accidents have been filed over the recent revelations, and attorneys expect the numbers will climb.
In testimony before Congress, company executives renewed their apologies for underestimating the safety problems but also acknowledged that they still may not have identified all the causes for the sudden acceleration.
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 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 Lee's case.
Lee, a recent Hmong immigrant with only about a year of driving experience, was driving his pregnant wife, 4-year-old daughter, father and brother home from church the afternoon of June 10, 2006, when their Camry zoomed up an Interstate 94 exit ramp in St. Paul. Police said it was traveling between 70 and 90 mph when it rear-ended a car stopped at a red light.
Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died at the scene. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down, and died shortly after Lee was convicted.
At his 2007 trial, Lee testified he was certain he tried to brake. But a city mechanic testified the brakes worked fine, and Carruthers, the prosecutor, argued Lee must have hit the gas by mistake. Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence.
Lee's Camry wasn't among those subject to Toyota's recent safety recalls, but Toyota did recall some 1996 Camrys for defective cruise controls that could cause sudden acceleration.
Bob Hilliard, a Texas attorney, is preparing a lawsuit by the victims in the Lee crash. Hilliard said other federal complaints suggest a defect more widespread than recalled cruise controls — something with engine control modules that could extend to other Toyota makes and model years.
Hilliard said he's aware of about 16 potential class-action cases filed around the country on the basis of the automaker's recent revelations. Attorneys for the victims' family declined to make them available, but Hilliard said they feel differently about Lee now. "They seem to have made peace with the fact that he's telling the truth," Hilliard said.
Lee said he's grateful.
"I feel like them believing in me is a gift that I've received from God," he said.
Schafer said he'll file paperwork soon asking to reexamine the wrecked Camry, which still sits at the St. Paul police impoundment lot. All sides expect that request to be granted. Then Schafer would have to persuade the judge that new evidence merits a new trial.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35589163/ns/business-autos/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2010 MSNBC.com
Gov Rell Linda and Jon Grossman
Connecticut will be ready for the leaf
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Highway Institute Loves the Nissan Frontier
First time Institute rates small pickups for rollover protection;
only one model rates good in test that assures strength of roof
ARLINGTON, VA — The Nissan Frontier has the strongest roof and the Chevrolet Colorado the weakest among 5 small pickup trucks, all 2010 models, that recently were tested for rollover protection by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Frontier, also sold as the Suzuki Equator, is the only pickup in the group to earn the highest rating of good. The Ford Ranger is rated acceptable while the Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tacoma, and Colorado (also sold as the GMC Canyon) earn the second lowest rating of marginal.
The rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as the minimum required under the current federal safety standard. The ratings, products of the Institute's new roof strength testing program, add to consumer information tests that rate vehicles' front, side, and rear crashworthiness. The rollover test is designed to help consumers pick vehicles that will protect them the best in one of the most serious kinds of crashes..
"As a group, small pickups aren't performing as well as small cars or small SUVs in all of the Institute's safety tests. None of the ones we tested is a top-notch performer across the board. In fact, no small pickup earns our TOP SAFETY PICK award," says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. The Frontier came close to winning the 2010 award, but it's rated acceptable instead of good for protection against neck injury in rear crashes. To earn TOP SAFETY PICK, a vehicle has to earn good ratings for protection in front, side, rear, and rollover crashes. It also has to have electronic stability control.
Nearly 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk of injury from contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent people, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof deformed. Roofs that don't collapse help keep people inside vehicles when they roll.
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. In 2008 almost half (47 percent) of all pickup occupants killed in crashes were in trucks that rolled over. This compares with 58 percent of deaths in SUVs and 25 percent in cars.
The best occupant protection is to keep vehicles from rolling in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles roll, side curtain airbags help protect people. Safety belt use is essential.
Roof strength-to-weight ratio within 5 inches of crush
In the Institute's roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 corner of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, a roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. For an acceptable rating, the minimum strength-to-weight ratio required is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5, and anything lower than that is poor. The Frontier withstood a force of just over 4 times its weight. This compares with 2.9 times weight for the Colorado. A strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in serious or fatal injury risk in single-vehicle rollover crashes, compared with the current federal standard of 1.5.
In April 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ended numerous delays by unveiling a new rule that raises the federal roof strength requirement, currently a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5, to 3 for vehicles with weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds. Roofs on vehicles with weight ratings 6,000 to 10,000 pounds will be required to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times their unloaded weight, whereas these vehicles' roofs are not regulated under the old standard. Another requirement is that roofs maintain sufficient headroom during testing. For the first time, the government will require the same performance on both sides of a roof when tested sequentially. Phase-in begins in September 2012, and all vehicles must comply by September 2016.
"The long phase-in of the new standard means roofs won't have to get stronger right away," Zuby points out, "so we plan to continue rating vehicle roof strength for the foreseeable future. We want to reward manufacturers who are ahead of their competition for protecting people in rollovers."
In addition to the new roof strength ratings, the Institute conducted side tests of small pickup truck models. Earning good ratings are the Frontier, with standard front and rear head curtain airbags plus front torso airbags. Also earning good ratings are the Ranger, with standard front-seat mounted combination head and torso airbags, and the Tacoma, which the Institute tested in 2008.
In contrast, the Colorado is rated poor for occupant protection in side crashes. It's equipped with standard curtain side airbags but lacks additional airbags designed to protect a driver's torso. The Colorado's poor structure, along with poor protection for the driver dummy's chest and pelvis, contributed to its poor rating overall. Plus the dummy's head came close to moving around the curtain airbag during the impact by the intruding barrier.
"A slightly different crash configuration could have resulted in a direct hit from the barrier on the dummy's head," Zuby explains.
The test of the Dakota produced a different problem. Its optional curtain side airbags failed to deploy. This is the first time this has happened in an Institute side test. Chrysler engineers say they've identified a problem with the computer program algorithm that calculates when to fire the airbags and are working on a remedy. When the computer program is fixed, the Institute will conduct another test of the Dakota and publish the results.
Zuby notes that "the Dakota is the only 2010 small pickup the Institute tested that has optional rather than standard side airbags. Most of the auto industry pledged to get standard side airbags in every new passenger vehicle by now."
Chrysler was among 15 manufacturers who got together in 2003 and agreed on the first set of rules designed to reduce the risks for people in front and side crashes involving larger and heavier SUVs and pickup trucks. Although the compatibility agreement specified performance criteria and not features, the idea was to make safety improvements like installing side airbags in all passenger vehicles more quickly than would have been the case with a government regulation.
"Chrysler is the only manufacturer we know of that isn't living up to the spirit of the 2003 agreement," Zuby says.
Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of another pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing 5th percentile women, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.
only one model rates good in test that assures strength of roof
ARLINGTON, VA — The Nissan Frontier has the strongest roof and the Chevrolet Colorado the weakest among 5 small pickup trucks, all 2010 models, that recently were tested for rollover protection by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Frontier, also sold as the Suzuki Equator, is the only pickup in the group to earn the highest rating of good. The Ford Ranger is rated acceptable while the Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tacoma, and Colorado (also sold as the GMC Canyon) earn the second lowest rating of marginal.
The rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as the minimum required under the current federal safety standard. The ratings, products of the Institute's new roof strength testing program, add to consumer information tests that rate vehicles' front, side, and rear crashworthiness. The rollover test is designed to help consumers pick vehicles that will protect them the best in one of the most serious kinds of crashes..
"As a group, small pickups aren't performing as well as small cars or small SUVs in all of the Institute's safety tests. None of the ones we tested is a top-notch performer across the board. In fact, no small pickup earns our TOP SAFETY PICK award," says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. The Frontier came close to winning the 2010 award, but it's rated acceptable instead of good for protection against neck injury in rear crashes. To earn TOP SAFETY PICK, a vehicle has to earn good ratings for protection in front, side, rear, and rollover crashes. It also has to have electronic stability control.
Nearly 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk of injury from contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent people, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof deformed. Roofs that don't collapse help keep people inside vehicles when they roll.
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. In 2008 almost half (47 percent) of all pickup occupants killed in crashes were in trucks that rolled over. This compares with 58 percent of deaths in SUVs and 25 percent in cars.
The best occupant protection is to keep vehicles from rolling in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles roll, side curtain airbags help protect people. Safety belt use is essential.
Roof strength-to-weight ratio within 5 inches of crush
In the Institute's roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 corner of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, a roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. For an acceptable rating, the minimum strength-to-weight ratio required is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5, and anything lower than that is poor. The Frontier withstood a force of just over 4 times its weight. This compares with 2.9 times weight for the Colorado. A strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in serious or fatal injury risk in single-vehicle rollover crashes, compared with the current federal standard of 1.5.
In April 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ended numerous delays by unveiling a new rule that raises the federal roof strength requirement, currently a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5, to 3 for vehicles with weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds. Roofs on vehicles with weight ratings 6,000 to 10,000 pounds will be required to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times their unloaded weight, whereas these vehicles' roofs are not regulated under the old standard. Another requirement is that roofs maintain sufficient headroom during testing. For the first time, the government will require the same performance on both sides of a roof when tested sequentially. Phase-in begins in September 2012, and all vehicles must comply by September 2016.
"The long phase-in of the new standard means roofs won't have to get stronger right away," Zuby points out, "so we plan to continue rating vehicle roof strength for the foreseeable future. We want to reward manufacturers who are ahead of their competition for protecting people in rollovers."
In addition to the new roof strength ratings, the Institute conducted side tests of small pickup truck models. Earning good ratings are the Frontier, with standard front and rear head curtain airbags plus front torso airbags. Also earning good ratings are the Ranger, with standard front-seat mounted combination head and torso airbags, and the Tacoma, which the Institute tested in 2008.
In contrast, the Colorado is rated poor for occupant protection in side crashes. It's equipped with standard curtain side airbags but lacks additional airbags designed to protect a driver's torso. The Colorado's poor structure, along with poor protection for the driver dummy's chest and pelvis, contributed to its poor rating overall. Plus the dummy's head came close to moving around the curtain airbag during the impact by the intruding barrier.
"A slightly different crash configuration could have resulted in a direct hit from the barrier on the dummy's head," Zuby explains.
The test of the Dakota produced a different problem. Its optional curtain side airbags failed to deploy. This is the first time this has happened in an Institute side test. Chrysler engineers say they've identified a problem with the computer program algorithm that calculates when to fire the airbags and are working on a remedy. When the computer program is fixed, the Institute will conduct another test of the Dakota and publish the results.
Zuby notes that "the Dakota is the only 2010 small pickup the Institute tested that has optional rather than standard side airbags. Most of the auto industry pledged to get standard side airbags in every new passenger vehicle by now."
Chrysler was among 15 manufacturers who got together in 2003 and agreed on the first set of rules designed to reduce the risks for people in front and side crashes involving larger and heavier SUVs and pickup trucks. Although the compatibility agreement specified performance criteria and not features, the idea was to make safety improvements like installing side airbags in all passenger vehicles more quickly than would have been the case with a government regulation.
"Chrysler is the only manufacturer we know of that isn't living up to the spirit of the 2003 agreement," Zuby says.
Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of another pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing 5th percentile women, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)