Exactly how did disabling your ABS improve its handling? I suppose you are one of those who thinks they can threshold brake perfectly in an emergency situation. I also suppose you didn't realize that your ABS likely controls your brake bias. FCUK....
Every time this story keeps popping up, everyone keeps getting this detail wrong. The requirement exists for a vehicle at rest. Brakes must be able to prevent a vehicle from starting to roll at full throttle. The physics involved when a vehicle is traveling at 50-80 mph and at full throttle are completely different. On many vehicles the brakes can not stop a vehicle in this situation; which is completely different from holding a vehicle at rest.
Think about this people - you can still do burn outs in modern cars; its just a lot harder to get started and get right. I don't know why everyone keeps getting this soooooo wrong. Plus, if everything could be made right by simply pressing the brake peddle, chances are very high we wouldn't be reading about this problem today.
Sp please stop spreading this misinformation. It largely does not pertain to the greater context.
But the fact of the matter is that EVERY proper test that has ever been done has shown that the brakes can stop the vehicle even one traveling at speed with the throttle wide open. See http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
It seems you are the one spreading mis-information.
Furthermore, I'd guess that probably nobody here except me has ever experienced an "uncontrolled acceleration" scenario, let me tell you that it is on of the most terrifying thing you can imagine, and it's impossible to react flawlessly. Everybody considers themselves a good driver (feh) but quick thinking under a life or death situation is completely different. The fight or flight reflex doesn't cover "shift into neutral and turn off ignition." You are not a professional driver, you are not the Knight Rider, you will probably crash before you get around to turning off the engine. It not stupidity, it's just the way our brains are built.
Actually, when all cars were outfitted with an actual throttle cable, unintended acceleration was not particularly uncommon, and was something that many drivers would experience over their lifetime. Perhaps the difference was that a higher percentage of those cars also had manual transmissions, meaning pushing the clutch in immediately disconnects the engine from the drive train. Even today, many older cars on the road have a physical cable that can become damaged and stuck open in any number of ways, especially as they age. I'd wager that there are FAR more instances of this happening in cars with a real throttle cable as opposed to drive by wire.
Citation needed. I've been doing what digging I can on my lunch hour, and haven't seen anything to prove or disprove this.
Don't have any handy, but several articles I have read over the last couple of months have pointed this out. The sheer volume of articles written about the recall efforts makes finding a specific article rather difficult. Here's one that I could find offhand from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/08/business/fi-toyota-recall8:
In a written statement, the NHTSA said its records show that a total of 15 people died in crashes related to possible sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles from the 2002 model year and newer, compared with 11 such deaths in vehicles made by all other automakers.
Sure, that's something to go on, but really, 15 deaths in 9 years??? That's hardly statistically significant. I could just as reasonably argue that it's because Toyota drivers are more prone to treating their cars like appliances and are less skilled drivers. Anyhow, even today, the number of verified cases of unintended acceleration is so small that it is hard to believe there is this much concern over it. There are plenty of other things that could be done with this much time, energy and money that would be far more effective at saving motorist's lives.
I did not say otherwise. So even if we take this as given -- most != all. Therefore assuming that an incident is due to user error and dismissing the possibility of any other cause remains the wrong conclusion to draw. I don't know about you, but I'd get fired or demoted if I refused to accept responsibility for flaws in my systems with no means to prove my assertion.
Sure, but what is happening now is that anyone who has an accident with a Toyota is blaming it on the supposed 'defect.' The media shares responsibility because they focus the vast majority of their efforts on blaming the car manufacturer and creating hysteria. If instead, they reported the truth, that it is unknown if there even *is* a problem, and repeated over and over how to safely deal with this 'issue' that could come about in ANY car, they'd be doing far more of a service. But nobody ever wants to suggest that a paying customer might be in the wrong.
I recall it vaguely, but it's also not really relevant to this discussion.
It is relevant, as it's much the same thing over again. Once you start looking for a problem, when you have a sample size of tens of millions of vehicles, you are going to find SOMETHING to support whatever conclusion you are looking for. The point is, reported cases of unintended acceleration are not new, they are just the issue that is currently under the microscope.
I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham