Fan in San Diego Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Exactly. I think you can even "bump" back up into neutral. That is, you don't have to push the safety button in. NOW, I think you have to push the safety button down to get it into D, low 2, low 1... But bumping back up into a higher gear and into drive, then neutral is just a bump up. Of course getting in reverse requires the button. I forget now, but will check it out on my way home. I think this way is mandatory. Now: Older cars with the shifter on the column, the shifter is pulled forward... I still think you can bump those the same way. But, who makes a shifter on the column anymore? I drive a Jeep and have tested this on a freeway, put the Jeep in neutral going 60 mph and put it back in drive again. No problem. I think people panic when the gas pedal sticks and forget this simple solution to safely stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I drive a Jeep and have tested this on a freeway, put the Jeep in neutral going 60 mph and put it back in drive again. No problem. I think people panic when the gas pedal sticks and forget this simple solution to safely stop. Yeah, easy to do. If throttle sticks at something less than WOT it doesn't take much brake pressure to steady or slow the car down so using the brakes can work also. I think a lot of people would be freaked out if they throw the car in neutral and the engine starts banging off the rev limiter while the are trying to figure out what the heck is going on. What's best to do is gonna depend upon the situation. Most people probably way outside their comfort zone regardless of how they try to resolve it. As a nation we're pretty crappy drivers overall IMO. Luckily a struck throttle is extremely rare. Edited March 9, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 And where was this common sense back in 2010 when Toyota was effectively shut down and forced to recall millions of autos for a phony problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I find it interesting that the full force of the federal government and the national media was brought to bear against Toyota for a single "accident" where a "design flaw" "caused" the deaths of four people. Of course it was at a critical time when the future of GM was a stake, their corporate bondholders were illegally removed from their primary bankruptcy claimant status, and cash-for-clunkers was "stimulating" sales of US made cars and trucks (which tanked the used car industry for two years), all of which gave the federal government a much needed feel-good "win" in the public's jaundiced eye. Now, that same GM is (using the same standard) guilty of thirteen deaths and nary a peep out of the main stream media. Oh well. Al Qaida is on the run and GM is alive. forward reset never-mind This. I'm not usually a "yeah that" guy, but... THAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I find it interesting that the full force of the federal government and the national media was brought to bear against Toyota for a single "accident" where a "design flaw" "caused" the deaths of four people. Of course it was at a critical time when the future of GM was a stake, their corporate bondholders were illegally removed from their primary bankruptcy claimant status, and cash-for-clunkers was "stimulating" sales of US made cars and trucks (which tanked the used car industry for two years), all of which gave the federal government a much needed feel-good "win" in the public's jaundiced eye. Now, that same GM is (using the same standard) guilty of thirteen deaths and nary a peep out of the main stream media. According to the President of GM, this is the new post-bankruptcy GM cleaning up the mess left by the old pre-bankruptcy executives. So...completely different situation, no double-standard here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) here's the answer to the issue and gm has already addressed it: http://www.autoblog....nsmission-vehi/. hit the brakes and problem solved. Edited March 10, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 here's the answer to the issue and gm has already addressed it: http://www.autoblog....nsmission-vehi/. hit the brakes and problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 here's the answer to the issue and gm has already addressed it: http://www.autoblog....nsmission-vehi/. hit the brakes and problem solved. I don't know why I even bother clicking on your links. A 4 year old article that doesn't address the main point of this thread? Don't you see how irrelevant this makes you? If you hadn't figured it out, the government treated Toyota a lot different than they treated Government Motors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't know why I even bother clicking on your links. A 4 year old article that doesn't address the main point of this thread? Don't you see how irrelevant this makes you? If you hadn't figured it out, the government treated Toyota a lot different than they treated Government Motors. I didn't even click and I already knew it was probably BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I didn't even click and I already knew it was probably BS Probably? I might just click for the laughter factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't know why I even bother clicking on your links. To see how hilariously wrong he can be? He just managed to prove he doesn't even know what the thread is about, which is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 To see how hilariously wrong he can be? He just managed to prove he doesn't even know what the thread is about, which is awesome. I fear for his patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I fear for his patients. Obamacare will make his patients well taken care of--according to the new standards he is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 And what is the problem with an American company getting preferential treatment over a foreign company? What kinda patriots are you guys? Anway, Tom addressed the problem above... But oh the outrage! An American company getting priority on American soil! What do people have? Stock in Toyota? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't know why I even bother clicking on your links. A 4 year old article that doesn't address the main point of this thread? Don't you see how irrelevant this makes you? If you hadn't figured it out, the government treated Toyota a lot different than they treated Government Motors. it addresses the point of the thread that i had an interest in. it addressed the question that tom, characteristically, thought there was only one valid answer to and also characteristically, was incorrect. but if you want to ignore the fact the the nhsta is currently going guns blazing at gm over this potential air bag issue, then carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 And what is the problem with an American company getting preferential treatment over a foreign company? What kinda patriots are you guys? Anway, Tom addressed the problem above... But oh the outrage! An American company getting priority on American soil! What do people have? Stock in Toyota? So, you want different safety standards for foreign companies than domestic companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 So, you want different safety standards for foreign companies than domestic companies? No. That's not what's happening. GM is getting the benefit of doubt to fix the problem. It is all going to get fixed no matter who the company is. They are are going to live up to the same safety standards. One company is just going to get preferential treatment and pay less of a penalty. They will be held accountable, just in different ways. What is so hard to understand? Same end safety results except one pays a bigger price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 it addresses the point of the thread that i had an interest in. it addressed the question that tom, characteristically, thought there was only one valid answer to and also characteristically, was incorrect. but if you want to ignore the fact the the nhsta is currently going guns blazing at gm over this potential air bag issue, then carry on. "I don't want to discuss this topic, I want to discuss my own! In this topic!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 "I don't want to discuss this topic, I want to discuss my own! In this topic!" anticipated. you're very predictable. have you looked at the thread title? a discussion on runaway cars, emergency manuevers and toyota's versus gm's response to the problem seems appropriate as did a personal story on a stuck gas pedal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No. That's not what's happening. GM is getting the benefit of doubt to fix the problem. It is all going to get fixed no matter who the company is. They are are going to live up to the same safety standards. One company is just going to get preferential treatment and pay less of a penalty. They will be held accountable, just in different ways. What is so hard to understand? Same end safety results except one pays a bigger price. You want to make companies not want to import their products here? Or charge us a higher price because they are held to a different standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts