It’s been, as they say, a long, strange road, but the results are in from the exhaustive NHTSA/NASA (yes, NASA) study on the Toyota ‘Unintended Acceleration’ problem, and the results are: it basically doesn’t exist:

NASA engineers studied Toyota’s (TM) electronic throttle for 10 months and found “no electronic flaws” that could have made the vehicles accelerate out of control, a report that came out today says. Toyota cheered the review, saying it “should further reinforce confidence in the safety of Toyota and Lexus vehicles.”

NASA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) put Toyota’s cars and trucks through the wringer. They examined 280,000 lines of code for flaws, bombarded vehicles with electromagnetic radiation, as well as testing the cars’ mechanical components.

“NASA found no evidence that a malfunction in electronics caused large unintended accelerations,” said Michael Kirsch, Principal Engineer at the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC).

To be precise; yes, Toyota sold some floor mats that an idiot could let get so tangled up around his/her feet that the brake pedal physically cannot depress to the floor. And yes, they had some pedals that themselves were slightly sticky, and wouldn’t bounce back from being pressed as fast as they should. Neither problem causes, from the car’s perspective, ‘unintended’ acceleration; in the first case, driver error leads to a floorboard too cluttered to depress a brake pedal, and in the second, you *did* intend to accelerate, the pedal didn’t press itself, it just doesn’t unpress fast enough afterward.

About this time last year, the media was awash in literally hysterical reporting about this ‘Unintended Acceleration’ problem. Mainstream outlets like ABC and NBC would report as fact the allegations of paid anti-Toyota hired guns like a Professor who rigged cars to do what he wanted by rewiring them, then claimed it was relevant to cars on the road, or obvious frauds who faked incidents to try and cash in via lawsuits.

At the same time, and to the lefty blogosphere’s eternal shame, people like Marcy Wheeler of Fire Dog Lake were engaged in outright scaremongering, if not race-baiting, against Toyota, alleging fantastic conspiracy theories (completely without evidence, as it turns out, since there was no evidence to be had, per NASA testing):

Witness David W Gilbert, an engineering professor at Southern Illinois University, was able to show that there are some errors in Toyota’s ETCS that do not generate an error code. As a result, in such a case, the car would never enter into failsafe mode.

Now Gilbert immediately informed Toyota of his finding–my best guess is he did so last November. But his finding was not among the things that Exponent tested, starting in December. However, when Toyota learned that Gilbert was testifying (those evil tricksy Democrats added him at the last minute) Exponent did middle of the night tests Monday night and managed to replicate his finding.

Mind you, Toyota consistently misrepresented what Gilbert had found. At first, Lentz said Toyota had not replicated his error, and only later admitted they not only had, but he knew about it. Then they claimed, both politely to the Committee and more rudely to Republicans, that he had hacked into their ECTS and therefore broken it. They consistently avoided discussing the evidence there is a dangerous error in their ECTS error system.

I find this bit really telling. Toyota got this information last year some time. They deliberately did not have their whitewash firm replicate it–though when they learned Gilbert could present his findings in a public forum, they were able to replicate the problem almost as quickly as Gilbert did (three and a half hours). Once again, this is evidence that Toyota has a number of things they are deliberately not looking for.

…

The advanced brake override system

I still can’t figure out why Toyota is ignoring all this–what is either so expensive or so damaging that they don’t want to admit to the real problem. But there’s a hint in the way they’re dealing with the brake override systems. As Lentz described, all new models will be fitted out with what–per Sean Kane–is an absolutely critical feature for Toyota given its problems with unintended acceleration. And they will retroactively put that feature onto seven of their models.

As it turned out, they weren’t ‘ignoring’ or hiding anything. There was nothing to hide, nothing to ignore, and Gilbert’s incredibly obvious hackery had no real world implications.

Toyota was right, and Marcy Wheeler and the many hysterical and conflicted American-car pushers/boosters in Congress eager to demagogue the issue were wrong. Period. Absolutely, categorically, unambiguously wrong.

I was right, on the other hand, and tried to warn her in particular off the evidence-free scaremongering; needless to say, that didn’t work out.

Now watch them ignore these findings.

Yet another critical flaw in the Exchange based system of ‘health care reform’ pushed by our industry captured President and his idolatrous fanboys(and girls):

THURSDAY, Feb. 3 (HealthDay News) — Under the new Affordable Care Act, the health reform package signed into law by President Barack Obama last March, millions of Americans whose income fluctuates during the year may lose health insurance for periods of time as their eligibility for different programs changes.

The authors of a new study appearing in the February issue of Health Affairs estimated that as many as 28 million U.S. adults might “churn” in and out of health insurance programs during the course of a year, sometimes losing coverage more than once.

“It’s a critical issue,” said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of The Commonwealth Fund, who was not involved with the study. “You could get a raise or lose a week of work or gain a week, and move in and out of coverage.”

…

By taking a look at U.S. Census data from the last five years, Sommers and a colleague estimated that in the first six months, 35% of families with incomes below 200% of the poverty level will change eligibility while half (28 million) would have crossed the threshold at least once during the first year.

An estimated one-quarter of beneficiaries will likely have their coverage disrupted by crossing the income dividing line at least twice in one year, and 39% will over the span of two years, the authors added.

Within four years, up to 38% will have their coverage disrupted four times or more, they predicted.

…

“It would be easier to fine-tune if it was a continuous program,” Schoen said, and it would reduce costs.

Yes, Medicare for all really *would* be better, in that it would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of actually working.

But hey, good job, Balloon Juicers. Now not only have you helped turn us into an official corporatocracy, but millions of people will be constantly losing health coverage, which they probably won’t be able to afford to use anyway, every year.

It’s like the O-bots built a machine to kick people in the teeth, over and over again. Fantastic.

So this happened:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

That idiot John Cole thinks this is inherently ridiculous, but for all the wrong reasons; Atrios doesn’t think it makes sense either. But here’s the thing: of course it does, if you agree with the ‘logic’ of HCR.

Here’s how that ‘reasoning’ goes: everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, therefore it’s a necessary function. Instead of providing that necessary function via government, it is legal to FORCE your citizens to pay private companies up to 20% of their income, annually, who are then not actually required to provide any meaningful care, not even the care necessary to keep them alive.

True story.

So the gun-nut version of that logic is: everyone needs *security* at some point in their lives. Sensible people would want to provide this security through a public option, ie, government operated police and military forces. But HCR shows us that you can instead force citizens to pay unreliable private companies for their necessary functions instead.

A slightly better analogy would be to abolish all police forces in the state and then force everyone to hire Blackwater mercs to patrol the streets, but otherwise it’s a spot on comparison. Actually, I take that back; Blackwater is bound by contract laws, whereas insurance companies routinely violate their policies with impunity.

So you’d get a better deal from Blackwater. (and no, I won’t call them ‘Xe’ or whatever Artist-Formerly-Known-As name they’re using this week)