Honda Car Forum

In article <2p39q3p0644fq63oghjvmtfe290lugb7b9@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
> 5000, something was wrong with it.

Did you ever notice how after the first time someone claimed to find a
needle in a can of Pepsi, there were ALL SORTS of other reports about
the same thing?

If you look hard enough, and if your journalist's notepad is yellow
enough, you can find anything.

In article <ZO_oj.222$xE.148@trnddc01>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > No, they manufactured it.
> >
> > Such has been demonstrated since, by experts in the field who don't have
> > yellow journalism to deliver.
>
> Your evidence, please.

Let me go back to my Car and Driver collection and find that.

All this bull crap for a simple question. Check your brake switch as it is
probably bad or intermittent.

<mindfulnessnow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcb7635f-309c-4f6f-8bb2-37f4e8bfd320@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I just had my 2007 Civic lock itself in park several times and I
> was barely able to get it back to Drive so I could get to and from
> work today.
>
> I dug through the manual and found the little trick called the Shift
> Lock Release, which is a little slot right above the shift lever. You
> remove this cover - about 1/8" x 3/4" and push the key into it and
> then you can move the lever into neutral, start the car, then put it
> into reverse or drive.
>
> My question is, how common is this problem, what causes it, and why is
> it SO common that Honda even put this little slot there so you can
> deal with the problem relatively easily? Apparently this is a problem
> they have been having for some time, so they invented this little slot
> to help the owner over-ride the problem at least temporarily. So how
> long has this been going on?
>
> The manual says this is an indication that something is going wrong
> with the transmission.
>
> What should I expect when I take it into the shop on Monday?
>
> I bought Honda because it is supposed to be so reliable. Having a
> problem like this one year in, isn't a good sign...
>

Woody wrote:
> All this bull crap for a simple question. ...

What else do you expect on the internet???

On 2/2/2008 9:52 AM Gordon McGrew spake these words of knowledge:

> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>

>>
>>I personally owned a 1979 Audi 5000S, and a little later a 1980 Audi
>>5000S. As a result, I got to know a fair number of other Audi owners
>>and drivers. I never once had a problem, nor did I ever hear of anyone
>>else who had a problem with 'unintended acceleration' outside of the
>>news stories.
>>
>>This is anecdotal, I understand. But it seemed clear to me that there
>>wasn't any problem with the cars; the problem, if it existed, was with
>>the drivers. It seemed to me.
>
> It may well have been the drivers - probably was. But that is scant
> consolation when you just crushed your kid to death.
>
> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
> was a good solution. Cheap, effective and it in no way interferes
> with normal operation of the car (barring mechanical failure which can
> occur with any system in the vehicle). Note that unintended
> acceleration accidents have practically disappeared from the news. How
> many lives have been saved by the 60 Minutes expose, even if the
> actual cause was not strictly mechanical?
>
> Some people just like to bitch and moan about how this is
> idiot-proofing, but as long as we are allowing idiots to drive cars...
> If this (idiot-proofing) is really such a problem, we should ban
> automatic transmissions altogether. If you are too stupid,
> incapacitated or uncoordinated to drive a manual transmission, take
> the bus.

I can't really argue with that, Gordon; I can't really see that it's
hurt anything, after all. I do note that unintended acceleration
accidents were not prevalent in the news for the 70 or so years of
driving before the interlock either, except for the brief flurry of Audi
stories and lawsuits.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being
overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you
try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price
is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -- Rudyard
Kipling

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/2008 6:45 AM Jeff spake these words of knowledge:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <bcb7635f-309c-4f6f-8bb2-37f4e8bfd320@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> mindfulnessnow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I just had my 2007 Civic lock itself in park several times and I
>>>>> was barely able to get it back to Drive so I could get to and from
>>>>> work today.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dug through the manual and found the little trick called the Shift
>>>>> Lock Release, which is a little slot right above the shift lever. You
>>>>> remove this cover - about 1/8" x 3/4" and push the key into it and
>>>>> then you can move the lever into neutral, start the car, then put it
>>>>> into reverse or drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is, how common is this problem, what causes it, and why is
>>>>> it SO common that Honda even put this little slot there so you can
>>>>> deal with the problem relatively easily? Apparently this is a problem
>>>>> they have been having for some time, so they invented this little slot
>>>>> to help the owner over-ride the problem at least temporarily. So how
>>>>> long has this been going on?
>>>> Um....let's see.....over 20 years now, ever since 60 Minutes
>>>> manufactured the Audi "problem" so they could sell advertising.
>>> They didn't manufacture the problem. They reported it. And, I think,
>>> having the lock is a good idea.
>> I personally owned a 1979 Audi 5000S, and a little later a 1980 Audi
>> 5000S. As a result, I got to know a fair number of other Audi owners
>> and drivers. I never once had a problem, nor did I ever hear of anyone
>> else who had a problem with 'unintended acceleration' outside of the
>> news stories.
>>
>> This is anecdotal, I understand. But it seemed clear to me that there
>> wasn't any problem with the cars; the problem, if it existed, was with
>> the drivers. It seemed to me.
>
> It may well have been the drivers - probably was. But that is scant
> consolation when you just crushed your kid to death.
>
> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
> was a good solution.

no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
shift interlock does damn-all to address this.


> Cheap, effective and it in no way interferes
> with normal operation of the car (barring mechanical failure which can
> occur with any system in the vehicle). Note that unintended
> acceleration accidents have practically disappeared from the news. How
> many lives have been saved by the 60 Minutes expose, even if the
> actual cause was not strictly mechanical?
>
> Some people just like to bitch and moan about how this is
> idiot-proofing, but as long as we are allowing idiots to drive cars...
> If this (idiot-proofing) is really such a problem, we should ban
> automatic transmissions altogether. If you are too stupid,
> incapacitated or uncoordinated to drive a manual transmission, take
> the bus.
>

In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
> > 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
> > there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
> > was a good solution.
>
> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.

If there was a problem with the car itself, and if many people were
having the problem, and if it wasn't solely an Audi problem, then the
potential for the problem is still there.

That is, once the car is out of Park and into a gear, then the car could
still accelerate unintendedly.

So they mandate that the car can't go out of Park unless the brake pedal
is pressed--and the problem went away completely??

Which tells us that the problem wasn't the car at all, that there is no
such thing as unintended acceleration. The problem is and always was
idiots not operating the car correctly.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>>> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>>> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>>> was a good solution.
>> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.
>
> If there was a problem with the car itself, and if many people were
> having the problem, and if it wasn't solely an Audi problem, then the
> potential for the problem is still there.
>
> That is, once the car is out of Park and into a gear, then the car could
> still accelerate unintendedly.
>
> So they mandate that the car can't go out of Park unless the brake pedal
> is pressed--and the problem went away completely??
>
> Which tells us that the problem wasn't the car at all, that there is no
> such thing as unintended acceleration. The problem is and always was
> idiots not operating the car correctly.
>

indeed.

unfortunately, this whole sorry episode is symptomatic of the way
detroit "competes". when it does so, it's not by addressing product
competence, it always does it politically. because it's cheaper.
[while that buys time, ultimately, it will be the cancer that kills the
us domestic vehicle manufacturing industry.]

red rear turn signals? amber ones cost a little more, so a few bucks
invested in lobbying ensures the nhtsa shut up and freeway fatalities
caused by signaling confusion are quietly forgotten. suv rollovers?
simply lobby for financial relief using inflated costs of product
redesign vs. the cost to gdp of killing the wage earners that typically
drive them. [and blame a tire manufacturer who's not smart enough to
grease palms.] want to nix a spectacular new product that would crush
the highly profitable 4wd market [which the japanese were mostly not at
that time interested in]? create a product scare about it and threaten
recalls! easy.

audi created a sensation in europe with their 4wd quattro. it was a
major threat to detroit if sold here. that threat had to be eliminated.

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:35:26 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <2p39q3p0644fq63oghjvmtfe290lugb7b9@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>> 5000, something was wrong with it.
>
>Did you ever notice how after the first time someone claimed to find a
>needle in a can of Pepsi, there were ALL SORTS of other reports about
>the same thing?

Did you notice how none of those needle-in-the-Pepsi reports involved
needles being extracted from peoples' throats? The unintended
acceleration reports invariably involve a car smashed into a garage or
other unlikely object (and not a few deaths BTW.)

>If you look hard enough, and if your journalist's notepad is yellow
>enough, you can find anything.

The journalist's job is to dig up dirt. A lot of them end up getting
buried as a result. Journalists are as important to freedom and
democracy as the military.

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:47:52 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/2/2008 6:45 AM Jeff spake these words of knowledge:
>>>
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <bcb7635f-309c-4f6f-8bb2-37f4e8bfd320@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> mindfulnessnow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, I just had my 2007 Civic lock itself in park several times and I
>>>>>> was barely able to get it back to Drive so I could get to and from
>>>>>> work today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dug through the manual and found the little trick called the Shift
>>>>>> Lock Release, which is a little slot right above the shift lever. You
>>>>>> remove this cover - about 1/8" x 3/4" and push the key into it and
>>>>>> then you can move the lever into neutral, start the car, then put it
>>>>>> into reverse or drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is, how common is this problem, what causes it, and why is
>>>>>> it SO common that Honda even put this little slot there so you can
>>>>>> deal with the problem relatively easily? Apparently this is a problem
>>>>>> they have been having for some time, so they invented this little slot
>>>>>> to help the owner over-ride the problem at least temporarily. So how
>>>>>> long has this been going on?
>>>>> Um....let's see.....over 20 years now, ever since 60 Minutes
>>>>> manufactured the Audi "problem" so they could sell advertising.
>>>> They didn't manufacture the problem. They reported it. And, I think,
>>>> having the lock is a good idea.
>>> I personally owned a 1979 Audi 5000S, and a little later a 1980 Audi
>>> 5000S. As a result, I got to know a fair number of other Audi owners
>>> and drivers. I never once had a problem, nor did I ever hear of anyone
>>> else who had a problem with 'unintended acceleration' outside of the
>>> news stories.
>>>
>>> This is anecdotal, I understand. But it seemed clear to me that there
>>> wasn't any problem with the cars; the problem, if it existed, was with
>>> the drivers. It seemed to me.
>>
>> It may well have been the drivers - probably was. But that is scant
>> consolation when you just crushed your kid to death.
>>
>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>> was a good solution.
>
>no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>shift interlock does damn-all to address this.

The only way for you to hit the windshield is to drive the car into
something. Seat belts do damn-all to address this.












>
>
>> Cheap, effective and it in no way interferes
>> with normal operation of the car (barring mechanical failure which can
>> occur with any system in the vehicle). Note that unintended
>> acceleration accidents have practically disappeared from the news. How
>> many lives have been saved by the 60 Minutes expose, even if the
>> actual cause was not strictly mechanical?
>>
>> Some people just like to bitch and moan about how this is
>> idiot-proofing, but as long as we are allowing idiots to drive cars...
>> If this (idiot-proofing) is really such a problem, we should ban
>> automatic transmissions altogether. If you are too stupid,
>> incapacitated or uncoordinated to drive a manual transmission, take
>> the bus.
>>