Sorry, but I think your comments are a bit out of date.
1. Most cars these days use CANBUS as the main communication system. As a result the interconnections between each of the main Electronic Control Units within the car are transmitted via a differential signal, that is designed to be less susceptible to EM interference. Anyway, many digital circuit (even in cars and aircraft) operate at less than 5V these days due to the fact that modern microprocessors need lower voltages in order to operate faster. Ensuring that the electronic control unit is correctly installed is more of a problem; while the production line workers are highly trained to install the units properly in the car, the weakness is that after the car warranty has ended, virtually anybody can replace the electronic control unit.
2. Static electricity is more of a problem during construction of a unit rather than the operation. The problem is that static electricity will normally induce a latent failure that may take time to propagate itself. In order to avoid this, car electronic manufacturers take extreme caution in production cells to ensure that exposure to static electricity is kept to an absolute minimum (ground straps, conductive plans, restrictive access to production facilities etc...). The finished unit will almost certainly have lightening protection on external connectors that will clamp static electricity, so special installation facilities are not needed in the factory/garage.
3. While the operation range of under bonnet/hoot is typically -40 to +100C, automotive electronics today are built using high reliability components (for example components manufactured to one of the AEC-Q standards, that are in many cases now superior to MIL-Standard components in reliability and construction) that can in some circumstances operate up to 150C (for example the recent introduction of X8R dielectric for automotive applications).
4. In the setting of the inside of an electrical control unit, these kinds of problems would be identified and designed out during the development stage. This requires a lot of work, not only in ensuring that the PCB is laid out correctly, but testing of the unit to ensure that common interference such as mobile/cell phones, TV transmitters does not affect operation of the unit, while ensuring that the unit does not generate excessive interference. Unfortunately this does not always work, as the test environment may not necessarily be representative of the final installation. Therefore, in all cases the unit design will be re-tested installed in a vehicle under operating conditions using a vehicle EMC test chamber (a heavily screened room that contains a rolling road/Chassis Dynamometer). The object of these tests will be to ensure that to the best of the knowledge available, the vehicle design will not be subject to known electrical interference risks. However, what this cannot do is consider the implication of a poorly fitted control unit (as I explained in item 1)
The basic premises with all products, whether electrical or mechanical controlled, is economic risk. It is a fact that you cannot eliminate risk, but you can take action to reduce it. To be honest, as an electronic engineer whom has experience in the Military, Automotive Test and Aerospace industries, I think that the problems with the Toyota cars are down to a number of complex issues that few people can really appreciate. A lot of people will point at software, as this is a relatively poorly understood industry and most peoples experience is through Microsoft products, which are not normally used on equipment where there is a risk of personal injury or death. But in the end even here there are a number of problems that are not appreciated (control of which peripherals are connected, different graphics cards, motherboard type etc..) which can have an impact on system reliability.
The article referenced in this thread actually relates to a facility to which I am aware of (TRIMUF), as I happen to work with one of the leading specialists in the effects of atmospheric radiation in the aerospace industry. The problem is that the journalist in question does not understand the principles of the what he is explaining in that the following factors need to be considered:-
1. The feature size of the electronic components (i.e. typically where feature sizes are less than 200nm)
2. Materials used in the semiconductors (in particular Boron-10, which make the devices more susceptible)
3. The altitude at which the equipment is being operated
4. The design of the system and it tolerance to error and its ability to correct itself when they occur
5. The background radiation currently generated from space (i.e. solar activity)
From these factors, it would appear that unless a large proportion of the failures were happening in areas of high altitude (i.e. somewhere like to the Rockies, the Alps or Mexico City) during a known high solar activity (it is currently very low) and the failure mechanism affecting a large number of different cars (no car manufacturer produces semiconductors, so the likelihood is that Toyota use control units that contain the same electronics as other vehicle manufacturers). As can be seen this information would be statistically obvious, but since no evidence has been forthcoming, based on information provided, this cause of problems appears unlikely.
As an owner of a Toyota that was not affected by the recall relating to the pedal, I am certain that if there is a problem relating to electronics, it may be a combination of factors that have not be properly considered. I have seen suggestions that the problems may be related to EMC, poor programming, poor system design/lack of redundancy, lead free solder (tin whiskering), lack of control of third party suppliers, rush to increase size of business etc... However, part from the known problems with accelerators, I have seen no evidence from investigation into these effects, some of which could be independently verified. Until this information is forthcoming, I take everything as a bit of speculation.