San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

A woman has filed a lawsuit challenging a hospital's $20,211 emergency room bill, incurred after she was involved in an accident caused by a driver going the wrong way. According to an article in The Galveston County Daily News, the woman claims the large bill is unreasonable for the 4 hours of examination and diagnostic tests she received. Our San Francisco personal injury attorneys know it is not uncommon to see exorbitant emergency bills in accident cases, including auto collisions, falls, and similar situations.

The 23-year old woman was injured last spring in a three-car collision that involved a wrong-way driver. The police report stated that an SUV tried to avoid the wrong-way driver but was sideswiped by the driver's pickup. The wrong-way driver then struck another truck head on. The woman was a passenger in the truck that was hit head on. The police noted that the wrong-way driver could have fallen asleep at the wheel.

The injured woman had hired a injury attorney to file a claim against the wrong-way driver who caused the accident, and that suit settled for $30,000. Although the young woman received minimal treatment at the hospital, her bill totaled over $20,000. The lawsuit claims that the hospital initially charged a much lower amount but later increased its bill fivefold and made a claim against her insurance settlement. The woman's bill, which was originally $4,850, suddenly rose to $20,211. The hospital then made a claim on the woman's accident settlement for the entire bill.

Unfortunately, bad billing behavior like this happens more than you might think. The Bay Area accident lawyers at Callaway & Wolf have seen a lot of excessive emergency room bills in California automobile accident cases. Usually the hospitals have deals in place with all health insurers to accept much less, and they accept even lower reimbursement from Medi-Cal or Medicare. Also, if no insurance is involved, most hospitals will negotiate with an individual patient and offer a steep discount. However, sometimes if a health care facility knows that someone was in an accident, they try to collect a substantially larger amount--what the hospital calls the "gross amount." Other times, health insurance carriers will try to avoid paying accident-related bills altogether. On many occasions we have had clients say they were told that their health insurance does not cover bills resulting from an auto accident that was someone else's fault, which is false.

Hospitals and insurance companies may try to bully California accident victims over medical bills, because they know victims frequently feel overwhelmed by high medical costs and may be in pain and anxious to settle. Our San Francisco injury lawyers have a strong reputation with the major injury carriers, which allows us to settle a majority of cases quickly and favorably.

There is a two-year statute of limitations in a California automobile accident lawsuit. This time period runs from the date of the accident, so the case must be settled or filed in court before the two-year limit is up. Valuable time can be wasted attempting to negotiate with an insurance company because they typically try to settle for the lowest amount possible and may not even offer you enough money to cover your medical bills and lost wages--even if you were not at fault. Having an experienced personal injury attorney on your side can greatly increase your chances of obtaining a fair settlement. More importantly, it can provide you with peace of mind while you focus on what is most important--healing and getting better.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Settles $5M Lawsuit in Fatal Car Crash With LAPD

Car accident results in $43m verdict against Ford

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that a settlement was reached in a case involving a horrific 2009 car crash between the LAPD and a young woman. The woman, who died a few days later, was 25-year-old Devin Petelski. Petelski was driving home from her job as a counselor for troubled children. She suffered traumatic chest and head injuries. Following the accident her family filed a California wrongful death lawsuit against the city police, claiming that the patrol cop was driving at excessive speeds and failed to turn on the car's emergency lights and siren.

Despite the settlement, each side has provided drastically different accounts of the accident. The police officers involved were responding to the scene of a burglary in process. They claim that Petelski came flying out from a side street, causing them to slam into the driver's side of her BMW sedan. Both officers suffered minor injuries after swerving onto the sidewalk and hitting a tree. The first officer who arrived on the scene performed CPR on the young woman and stated he detected the smell of alcohol on Petelski's breath, a claim that was resoundingly dismissed when blood tests were done at the hospital shortly after the crash.

When a car or other type of accident causes a death in California, San Francisco accident lawyers know that many types of evidence can affect the outcome of a case. For example, eyewitness testimony can be extremely important in persuading a jury. In Petelski's case, witnesses provided varying accounts, with some saying the police were driving as fast as 80 mph. The officers claimed they were going approximately 50 mph.

Accident reconstruction can also serve as powerful evidence in a wrongful death case. According to the LAPD's Specialized Collision Investigation Detail, the officers were traveling at approximately 49 mph at the moment the brakes were applied. Members of the Detail measured the length and direction of the skid marks left by the tires, weighed the two cars, and determined where the cars ultimately ended up after the accident. However, when an independent expert completed tests on the police car's powertrain control module (a device similar to a black box on an airplane) they concluded that the police car slowed nearly to a stop and then rapidly accelerated less than 20 seconds before colliding with Petelski. After this evidence came to light, the LAPD and Petelski's parents reached a settlement.

As a San Francisco personal injury attorney, I have handled many accident cases involving public entities over the years. Public entities could include BART, Muni, or school buses. Such accidents have specific claims-filing requirements that are different from the general two-year filing requirements for standard personal injury cases, including wrongful death cases. Typically, if you become involved in an accident with a government entity, your claim must be filed with that entity within six months. Talking with a lawyer before that six-month period ends is crucial in cases where a public entity may be a defendant. Otherwise, your legal claims could be time-barred, which means that you may not be able to recover any form of financial compensation to cover medical expenses, lost wages, or other injuries.

Sadly, Petelski's death probably could have been prevented. When accidents happen, Bay Area accident lawyers know it can be reassuring to have a dedicated advocate on your side. The lawyers at Callaway & Wolf will give your case the professional, personalized attention you deserve.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Muni Accident Rate Down Due To Cameras Aboard Vehicles

Bike accident lawyer: Will speed limits on the Golden Gate Bridge reduce bike accidents?

A story in the San Francisco Examiner reports that San Francisco Muni accidents are down 50% with the installation of DriveCam surveillance systems in all of the Muni buses, according to a Muni study. The cameras are activated by sudden changes in velocity, such a sharp braking or steering. Each unit has two cameras: one showing the view ahead, and one trained on the driver. Apparently, just knowing that there will be an audio and video record has caused drivers to maintain a higher standard. For drivers who are captured on video driving badly, Muni uses refined training, and discipline.

The DriveCam system costs about $500 per vehicle-quite a bargain for a system that Muni believes caused accidents to drop from 964 in 2009 to 483 in 2010. Of coarse, the cost per vehicle should provide many years of DriveCam coverage. Now Muni is looking at using the cameras to reduce Muni streetcar accidents too, which I hope they will do soon.

No doubt, some of the Muni drivers must dislike the cameras, and feel that they are intrusive. In most jobs, though, there is at least some direct supervision and observation. Given the enormous public trust that goes to public transit drivers, I would be surprised to see drivers or their representatives taking issues with the DriveCams.

As personal injury lawyer, I have had many cases involving Muni over the years. The many protections afforded Muni drivers makes it very difficult to remove poor or mediocre drivers, unless they cause multiple injury accidents. Muni's work rules allow drivers to work considerable overtime hours, and permit drivers to commute in from long distances, so that they start a shift already haven driven one to two hours. As such, a system that increases safety and personal responsibility for Muni's drivers is welcome. As a Muni rider, I really like the idea that there is an additional level of oversight, and that it has had such a dramatic positive impact on driver safety.

Continue reading "Muni Accident Rate Down Due To Cameras Aboard Vehicles" »

In any personal injury case, the composition of the jury is extremely important. Even if the case can be settled, that settlement will be largely based on what the lawyers think a jury might decide, if the case went to trial. For Oakland injury accident cases, any jury trial will likely be in Alameda County Superior Court. A recent ACLU study showed that while African Americans represent 18% of the population in Alameda County, they represent only about 8% of the jurors. Thus, jury pools for Alameda County accident cases have less than half the amount of African Americans than they should. Hispanics also were underrepresented in jury pools, by a factor of 4%. Asian Americans were actually overrepresented in Alameda juries. What's the cause of these disparities? The ACLU study blamed outdated jury pool software, and Alameda County's poor follow up on jurors who fail to appear.

Here's why this matters to me: for African American or Hispanic clients, the reason is obvious-having other members of the same ethnic community on the jury is likely to help overcome any prejudice that others may have. But even for plaintiffs in injury cases who are not African American or Hispanic, this is a negative trend. Typically, jurors of various ethnicities tend to be more favorable in cases that involve placing a value on human suffering. This is one of the reasons that trial lawyers prefer to have injury cases case come to trial in an urban area, rather than a suburban or rural area.

Trial lawyers are not allowed to reject jurors based upon race or ethnicity. There have been numerous cases with successful appeals based upon findings that a lawyer struck a juror due to his or her race or ethnicity. But if the jury pool has not been managed properly, so that it reflects the diversity of the community, members of some groups are unfairly restricted before we even get a chance to select a jury. For these reasons, it is in the best interests of anyone with an injury case in court to have an ethnically diverse jury pool.

Continue reading "Oakland Accident Attorney: Alameda Jury Pools Do Not Reflect The Ethnic Balance of the Population" »

Ford Motor Corporation was in the Illinois Supreme Court this month trying to overturn a jury verdict of $43 million dollars in a case where a car accident resulted in the death of one man, and severe burns to his wife, according to news reports. The case was previously appealed from the trial court's verdict, which the appellate court justices unanimously upheld, in a 72-page opinion.

In the accident, a Lincoln Town car was hit from behind, causing a wrench in the trunk to fly into the gas tank, rupturing it and causing an explosion. This might seem like an unlikely occurrence, such that Ford might not be held liable. But the plaintiffs were able to show that Ford was aware of many, many prior similar instances of gas tank rupture, and had done nothing to prevent further explosions.

This case is an excellent example of the legal concept of foreseeability. In order to hold a person or company liable for damages caused by a product, the law requires that the damage which resulted to be something that was reasonably foreseeable. While a wrench flying into a gas tank might not have been considered foreseeable when this model originated, it certainly becomes foreseeable when the company can be shown to know that car accidents with explosions of this type have been occurring for years. Here, Ford had even warned police departments about this hazard, which was also present in the Ford Crown Victorias in police service. Additionally, there was evidence that Ford had known going back to the 1960's that the "behind the axle" location of the tank in these vehicles made it more vulnerable to rupture, and that the location could have been changed for about $10 per vehicle. It was this same fuel tank location that cost Ford millions in verdicts for Ford Pinto gas tank ruptures.

This verdict included $15 million in punitive damages. Challenges to punitive awards have had increasing success in the courts in recent years, on the basis that punitive damages should bear some reasonable relationship to the actual damages. Often a factor of ten to one is applied, and appellate courts hold that the plaintiffs should not receive more than ten times their "actual" damages in punitive damages. This argument won't work here, where the punitives were less than the actual damages, which were largely based upon extensive additional medical expenses. Coming up from a unanimous ruling from the court of appeal, I doubt Ford will have much luck in the Illinois supreme court in this case.

Continue reading "Car accident results in $43m verdict against Ford" »

The San Francisco Examiner reports that the San Francisco Fire Department has announced that it will soon begin charging cleanup fees for car accidents. The fees, of up to $500 would be charged to the driver at fault, according to the Fire Department spokesperson.

The idea of car accident cleanup fees has been around for some time, as has the idea to charge a fee simply for responding to an accident. Polling shows that a majority of Californians oppose such fees, and even more oppose them when they are told that the fees would be paid by drivers' insurance companies.

Given the budget problems we're facing in California, it's not surprising to see government looking for every chance it can get to increase the types and amounts of fees. This one has some appeal: if a person caused an accident, why should taxpayers have to foot some of the costs? This is consistent with some of the "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco, designed to make the purchasers help defray the societal costs of the health care costs associated with the products. But I think that this one is a bad idea.

For one thing, deciding who's at fault in a San Francisco car accident is often not so simple. We have taken on numerous cases where a police report stated that our client was completely at fault. (We have two such cases open as I write this.) Often the reporting officers do not interview all witnesses, or have all the facts. In many cases, the police do not even generate a report for a San Francisco car accident. Over the years, the San Francisco police have become more and more selective about the accidents where they are willing to come out and prepare a report.

Another issue to consider is where to draw the line between societal costs that we all share, and those for which we make people pay. Even if someone is careless in causing a fire at home, for example, the firefighters' services are "free." I think that we could set a bad precedent by starting down the road to charging people every time they avail themselves of emergency response service.

Continue reading "San Francisco Car Accidents: City To Begin Charging Drivers Cleanup Fees" »

In a San Francisco jury trial recently, the jury heard conflicting medical expert testimony about whether a car accident caused fatal injuries to a San Francisco police officer. As reported in a story in the S.F. Chronicle , an M.D. disagreed with a pathologist about whether the auto crash caused the officer's death.

I frequently see these causation questions in injury accident cases in San Francisco and around the Bay Area. Even where everyone agrees who caused an accident, the injuries caused by that accident can be hotly disputed. Oftentimes, even when an person had no pre-accident symptoms in an injured part of their body, insurance companies will dispute the claim, and hire a doctor to say that this was a "pre-existing injury." The trauma of an auto accident can also "exacerbate," or "light up" a pre-existing injury, which caused little or no problems before the accident. This San Francisco police case illustrates how even a death in a car accident can be challenged as to causation.

These disputes over causation of injuries can turn what may have seemed like an uncomplicated personal injury case into an expensive battle of experts. This is a prime example of a situation when having an experienced personal injury lawyer, with good knowledge of anatomy and the relevent medicine, can make all the difference. Knowing the best experts in orthopedics, neurosurgery, etc., is also crucial to assemblying a strong team to take on the many doctors who are extremely well paid to testify for the insurance carriers. In almost every significant injury case now, there is a "defense doctor" hired to minimize or challenge causation for the claimant's injuries. Thus another important job for personal injury attorneys is to keep tabs on these doctors. I serve on the Experts Committee of the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association, where we pool resources such as deposition and trial testimony transcripts, and medical reports of the doctors used frequently by insurance companies.

The many challenges of dealing with disputed causation in California personal injury cases highlights the importence of having a capable, experienced attorney on your side.

Continue reading "Experts disagree on whether San Francisco auto accident killed cop" »

A San Diego jury heard a case involving a Pizza Hut driver who blacked out while driving, resulting in a severe personal injury accident. The driver claims that she had no prior knowledge that she was subject to blackouts, and does not remember what happened in the accident. Under California law, a driver can be relieved of responsibility for an injury accident when unforseen medical condition causes a blackout.

This type of injury car accident, with a driver blackout, happens with some frequency here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Since the law will allow a party to avoid responsibility when the potential for blackouts was unknown, these cases involve much investigation into the driver's medical history, and exactly how the blackout happened. A San Francisco case that received a lot of attention a few years back involved an elderdly driver who lost control of his Cadillac while headed down a very steep hill, causing a severe accident. In that case, though, witnesses saw that the driver's eyes were open as he sped down the hill, and his estate was held responsible for all the personal injuries that the accident caused in San Francisco's Noe Valley.

In the San Diego injury case, the injured parties' lawyers knew that Pizza Hut and the driver might be relieved from responsibility due to an unforseen medical condition, so they added claims that Pizza Hut should have done more to make sure that the driver was fit to drive. The jury rejected those claims, since the driver had a license and a good driving record, but found that the driver had some prior knowledge of the medical condition which caused the seizure, and was therefore responsible for the personal injuries. This in turn made Pizza Hut responsible as the employer of the driver at fault. News reports state that the jury came back with a verdict of $10.8 million.

Continue reading "California Driver Blacks Out, Causes Injury Accident" »

From time to time I am asked if I can handle a personal injury claim for someone who lives here in the San Francisco Bay Area, but was injured in a car accident or other incident elsewhere. The answer is always yes. Personal injury cases are generally "venued" in the state where the injury occurred, or where the party at fault lives. To litigate a case outside California, local counsel are properly retained in the place where any necessary lawsuit will happen. Done properly, this will not increase the client's fee at all.

There are many advantages to hiring an attorney near home. Meeting with your attorney from time to time during a case is important. Having to travel to have an initial meeting and hire someone can be inconvenient for someone recently injured. When the injured person is asked about travel after an injury, as often happens, it will not sound good that the first trip post-injury was to seek a lawyer. By retaining someone locally, clients can have a professional find and hire any "local" counsel needed, and still have someone nearby with whom to work.

Over the years, we have worked with people whose cases are in various other states, and even in Canada. If the case must go all the way to a judge or jury trial, (as happens with less than 10% of injury cases) a California lawyer can also gain special, limited admission to the local bar so that he or she can represent the client in an out-of-state court.

The same principal applies to someone with a personal injury case in California, but far from the San Francisco Bay Area. Hiring someone close to home is even easier when the case is based in California, as local counsel may not even be necessary, and no special permission is needed.

Continue reading "Can My San Francisco Accident Attorney Handle My Out Of State Injury Case?" »

Of course no one wants to drive for even a minute without insurance against claims for personal injury caused by a car accident, and for damage to any cars in an accident. Here in San Francisco, car accidents can cost tens of thousands of dollars even if no personal injury is involved. Sometimes, people will delay taking delivery of a new car until they have notified their insurance carrier of the purchase. But, especially with used cars purchased on an evening or weekend, this is not always feasible. This can be especially inconvenient if the car you are buying is far from home. Fortunately, most major insurance carriers will cover you for damages caused by a car accident, including personal injury claims, when you buy a new or used car, even though you have not given them any advance notice. Typically, you must notify the carrier and confirm coverage of the additional car within 30 days of purchase. The coverage extended for "newly acquired" cars is usually the same coverage you had for your other car or cars.

Before you rely on this coverage, you should either look at your policy brochure, and/or call your agent to confirm that this type of coverage is included in your policy. Look in the Definitions section at the beginning of the policy for the phrase "newly acquired." Auto insurance carriers typically don't put their policy terms online, but here's a link to a recent State Farm Policy. Look on page 2 for the "newly acquired" terms. Here's an important warning though: If you have an older car, and have dropped collision and/or comprehensive coverage, you will need to make arrangements with your agent before you put your new car into gear.

After you confirm that your policy does include full coverage for "newly acquired" cars, you are free to shop, buy, and drive right off with the confidence that you are covered so long as you inform your insurance company within the 30 days specified. If the "newly acquired" car is replacing one of the cars on your policy, rather than adding an additional car, you may be covered even if you do not notify the insurer. To be sure you are covered for car accidents in California, though, you should always notify your carrier of a car purchase well within the thirty days.

Continue reading "Will My California Insurance Cover Me For Car Accidents In A New Car?" »

One question people injured in car accidents in San Francisco, Oakand, and all over the Bay Area have been asking me for many years is whether or not they should hire an attorney to handle their injury claims. Of course, they know that an lawyer is not an unbiased source of information on this question. But it's my duty to give the most even-handed advice I can. If I don't think I can add value to the client's bottom line recovery, I will not take a case. For some small cases, with a fairly quick, full recovery, the answer is no, you may not need an attorney. In that type of case, even the lower settlement you get may be about equal to what you could pocket after attorney's fees and costs were deducted from a higher settlement. Small claims court is another viable option for people who are comfortable presenting their case to a judge, and the recovery limit was raised to $7,500 a few years ago.

But for cases much beyond the small claims court limit, a good personal injury lawyer will most often be able to get you much more in your pocket than you could achieve on your own. Insurance carriers just don't take unrepresented injury claimants very seriously. They know that they won't be able to evaluate the true worth of the case, and that they will probably just settle for what they can get. Also, most of us who don't do it for a living are poor negotiators--just look at what happens at car dealerships. The major auto insurance carriers also rank lawyers, and settlements can vary depending on who you choose. They know that some lawyers like to settle other cases, and that others will take them to court and fight until their client's claim is compensated fairly.

Continue reading "How to decide if you need a lawyer for your San Francisco car accident case" »

Many San Francisco car accidents are caused by our streetcars, also known as light rail vehicles, or LRVs. Many people do not realize how much longer it takes streetcars to stop. There is essentially a double delay: LRV brakes do not even begin to work until a second or two after they are applied, then they stop the car much more slowly than a car's brakes would. On San Francisco cable cars, the primary brake is a pine block! Many San Francisco car accidents are caused by our streetcars, also known as light rail vehicles, or LRVs. Many people do not realize how much longer it takes streetcars to stop. There is essentially a double delay: LRV brakes do not even begin to work until a second or two after they are applied, then they stop the car much more slowly than a car's brakes would. On San Francisco streetcars, the primary brake is a pine block.

A recent accident, on April 6, 2010, was covered in a San Francisco Chronicle piece. The same story was picked up nationally in a Associated Press story. This injury accident was caused by faulty brakes on the streetcar. In this injury accident, the streetcar hit a bus from behind, pushing it into the streetcar, which then hit passenger cars.

Another factor in car accidents involving streetcars is the physics: since "light" rail vehicles are actually massive and heavy, they cause much more injury-producing forces at any given speed than a car would.

I think people can always use another reminder about the need to act quickly in a personal injury claim involving San Francisco, or any other town or city: there is a six-month claims filing deadline. This also applies to community hospitals, such as San Francisco General Hospital, and Highland Hospital in Oakland, as well as any claims against the State of California. Anyone injured in an accident that was caused by a government-funded employee should seek a personal injury attorney promptly, so that this crucial deadline, called the statute of limitations, will not bar the claim.

Continue reading "Another San Francisco Injury Streetcar Accident" »

Do you turn you head to check your blind spot before making a lane change? Here in congested San Francisco, turning your head even briefly away can increase your risk of being in a car accident. There's a way to reset your mirrors that makes head turning unnecessary. It's the Blindspot and Glare Elimination (BGE) mirror setting. The BGE was developed in 1996 by a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) named George Platzer. The BGE setting changes the view of your side mirrors to show your blind spots, rather than the view behind, which is already covered by your rear view mirror. An added benefit of the BGE setting is the elimination of glare from passing cars.

For drivers who are accustomed to the typical side mirror settings, switching to the BGE setting is a bit difficult initially, due to disorientation when looking at the side view mirror when the side of their vehicle is no longer visible, but after switching, most acclimate to the new settings and find it a better way to drive.

There are several advantages to the BGE setting:

The BGE setting involves tipping your mirrors out about 15 degrees farther than the typical setting. Here's how to do it:

Place your head against the driver's side window and adjust the driver's side mirror so you can barely see the driver's side of your car. (This is the view you would have on typical settings without moving your head.)

Move your head as close to the center of the car as possible and adjust the passenger's side mirror so you can barely see the passenger's side of your car.

To check your BGE setting, watch as a car passes you in an adjacent lane. It should enter your outside mirror before it leaves the rearview (inside) mirror. Also, the car should appear in your peripheral vision before it leaves the outside mirror.

Continue reading "California Driving: How to set your car's mirrors to really see your blind spots" »

Like many of us, I am still finding my way to a safe personal driving and talking policy here in San Francisco. Of course, California law now prohibits using a handset while driving, but we are one of just seven states with this restriction. Is it safe to talk and drive, even using a speakerphone or headset? The New York Times online has an entire section devoted to articles on the risks of driving and talking.

A U.S. News & World Report piece points to research that indicates that talking while driving can impair the brain's ability to process what a driver is seeing by 50%. Many reports are linking cellphone use with San Francisco car accidents . This piece also cites an interesting statistic: at any given time, about 11% of drivers are on the phone. A Wired Magazine online piece featured tests that showed only 1 in 40 drivers retained their full ability to reach quickly to changing road conditions while talking and driving. But those "supertaskers" were able to perform competently on driving tests while talking, leading the magazine to emphasize that for some drivers, talking and driving pose no added risk of harm.

Combining these two statistics-the 11% of drivers being on the phone, and the 1-in-40 who can so do without impaired driving ability-highlights the danger of combining the two. Of courses, many of us would like to think that we are the 1 in 40. It would be interesting to see how many people in a survey felt that they were among the "supertaskers" that Wired cites. Based on my experiences, I don't think that I'm one of them. I have noticed that my driving attention suffers when I am on the phone. For now, I have decided to avoid driving and talking while here in San Francisco, or any urban area, but I still do it on longer freeway drives in uncongested traffic. Being able to utilize that otherwise-wasted time is hard to give up. But I know that multiple studies show that it is taking something away from my reaction abilities.

For now, I still talk while driving on a limited basis, but I am open to limiting it even more, or giving it up entirely if I become convinced that it is always unsafe.

Continue reading "Driving and Talking in the San Francisco Bay Area" »

Having a car take off as if it has a mind of its own is pretty unnerving. It happened to me when I was in college, driving a friend's old Buick, and the accelerator stuck. I felt panicked at first, then shifted into neutral, which solved the problem. Fortunately, I didn't hit anything between the onset of the problem and deciding what to do. Now everyone's thinking about sudden acceleration, and, I would imagine, what they would do if it happened. Here's the Consumer Reports guide to how to deal with sudden acceleration.

Now we are all hearing about this problem on a daily basis because of the massive problems with Toyotas. First we heard that it was caused by sticking floormats, and Toyota had a big floormat recall. Then we heard that it was faulty accelerator pedals, and Toyota announced another recall. Now we are seeing reports that cars that have had "the fix" are still having the problem, and it's been suggested that the problem lies elsewhere--perhaps with electronics.

This isn't the first time that this has happened, of course. If you've been driving a while, you may recall the major problem Audi had with the model 5000 back in the 1990's. That acceleration problem was much less dangerous, because it usually occurred from a stop. It resulted in lockouts being installed on virtually all automatic transmission cars thereafter, requiring drivers to press the brake pedal before a solenoid releases the shift lever out of park. Already there is talk of the Toyota problems causing new regulations requiring a safety override that would kick in when the brakes are pressed.

As cars become laden with more electronic substitutes for direct mechanical operation of basic functions, the possibilities for these problems increase. Already, there are "drive by wire" and "brake by wire" systems, where the driver's actions have no physical connection to the wheels or brakes, only to electronic sensors that signal motors to do the work.

Hopefully Toyota owners will be reassured by a definitive solution to this problem. But going forward, drivers of all cars should be prepared with an action plan in the event of sudden acceleration.

Continue reading "San Francisco Bay Area Accidents: Sudden Acceleraton Can Always Happen" »