john
2009-11-06 05:05:22 UTC
http://www.freep.com/article/20091104/BUSINESS01/911040368/1207/BUSINESS0104/Some-dont-buy-mats-at-fault-for-Toyota-accidents
Some don't buy mats at fault for Toyota accidents
N.C. couple say their car sped, caught fire
BY GREG GARDNER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Toyota Motor Corp.'s campaign to get customers to remove or replace
floor mats, which the Japanese automaker is blaming for unintended
acceleration cases, isn't convincing to some of its drivers, such as
Grover and Barbara Walton.
More than 300 complaints have been filed with federal regulators about
the problem, including at least six involving fatalities, and Toyota
says the floor mats are to blame.
But that's not what the Waltons believe. The couple from Boiling
Springs, N.C., were driving to Murrells Inlet, S.C., Oct. 9 when their
2008 Toyota Prius surged on a marshy four-lane highway.
It all started when, after slowing down through a small coastal town,
Walton said he hit the resume-acceleration button on his cruise
control.
"All of a sudden, we were flying and I hadn't touched the pedal," said
Grover, a retired property manager.
He said he hit the brakes, which slowed the car. But when Walton
released the brake pedal, he said his Prius surged again.
"Before my husband could safely get the car off the road, he had
ridden the brakes so hard to avoid an accident that flames were coming
from behind both front wheels where the brakes had caught fire,"
Barbara Walton said.
After exiting the car, Grover scooped up several hands full of sand
and threw it on the brake pads until the flames went out. They called
a Toyota dealership in Myrtle Beach to tow it. The Waltons picked up
their car three days later and drove home.
While Toyota is defending lawsuits from people whose spouses or loved
ones were killed in cases of unintended acceleration, the Waltons were
not injured and said they have not sued.
But they are convinced that a floor mat did not cause their perilous
experience.
The car did have a rubberized all-weather floor mat that was fastened
to the underlying hooks and was so firm that Walton said he could not
bend it enough to interfere with the accelerator. He removed it after
last month's incident.
Toyota executive Bob Carter said Monday that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration had closed six investigations into
complaints of Toyota or Lexus vehicles that accelerated faster than
the driver intended. All six cases, he said, concluded with NHTSA
finding no defect other than an unsecured or incompatible floor mat.
One of those complaints was filed by Jeffrey Pepski of Plymouth,
Minn., who last April reported unintended acceleration in his 2007
Lexus ES350. NHTSA has received 64 similar complaints for 2007 Lexus
models.
On Oct. 29, NHTSA concluded 50 of those incidents, including all 15
cases in which someone was injured, were caused by floor mat
interference. It denied Pepski's request for further investigation,
but said that its decision does not constitute a finding ... that a
safety-related defect does not exist."
NHTSA reiterated that to the Free Press on Tuesday.
"Removal of the mats is simply an interim measure," said NHTSA
spokeswoman Karen Aldana. "NHTSA will be discussing with Toyota what
the appropriate vehicle remedy or remedies will be."
Some don't buy mats at fault for Toyota accidents
N.C. couple say their car sped, caught fire
BY GREG GARDNER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Toyota Motor Corp.'s campaign to get customers to remove or replace
floor mats, which the Japanese automaker is blaming for unintended
acceleration cases, isn't convincing to some of its drivers, such as
Grover and Barbara Walton.
More than 300 complaints have been filed with federal regulators about
the problem, including at least six involving fatalities, and Toyota
says the floor mats are to blame.
But that's not what the Waltons believe. The couple from Boiling
Springs, N.C., were driving to Murrells Inlet, S.C., Oct. 9 when their
2008 Toyota Prius surged on a marshy four-lane highway.
It all started when, after slowing down through a small coastal town,
Walton said he hit the resume-acceleration button on his cruise
control.
"All of a sudden, we were flying and I hadn't touched the pedal," said
Grover, a retired property manager.
He said he hit the brakes, which slowed the car. But when Walton
released the brake pedal, he said his Prius surged again.
"Before my husband could safely get the car off the road, he had
ridden the brakes so hard to avoid an accident that flames were coming
from behind both front wheels where the brakes had caught fire,"
Barbara Walton said.
After exiting the car, Grover scooped up several hands full of sand
and threw it on the brake pads until the flames went out. They called
a Toyota dealership in Myrtle Beach to tow it. The Waltons picked up
their car three days later and drove home.
While Toyota is defending lawsuits from people whose spouses or loved
ones were killed in cases of unintended acceleration, the Waltons were
not injured and said they have not sued.
But they are convinced that a floor mat did not cause their perilous
experience.
The car did have a rubberized all-weather floor mat that was fastened
to the underlying hooks and was so firm that Walton said he could not
bend it enough to interfere with the accelerator. He removed it after
last month's incident.
Toyota executive Bob Carter said Monday that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration had closed six investigations into
complaints of Toyota or Lexus vehicles that accelerated faster than
the driver intended. All six cases, he said, concluded with NHTSA
finding no defect other than an unsecured or incompatible floor mat.
One of those complaints was filed by Jeffrey Pepski of Plymouth,
Minn., who last April reported unintended acceleration in his 2007
Lexus ES350. NHTSA has received 64 similar complaints for 2007 Lexus
models.
On Oct. 29, NHTSA concluded 50 of those incidents, including all 15
cases in which someone was injured, were caused by floor mat
interference. It denied Pepski's request for further investigation,
but said that its decision does not constitute a finding ... that a
safety-related defect does not exist."
NHTSA reiterated that to the Free Press on Tuesday.
"Removal of the mats is simply an interim measure," said NHTSA
spokeswoman Karen Aldana. "NHTSA will be discussing with Toyota what
the appropriate vehicle remedy or remedies will be."