Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem?

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.[/QUOTE]

Which is why the interlock was a good solution.

 

Was the Audi 5000 a domestic product? I seem to recall that the
interlock appeared on all cars - foreign and domestic -
simultaneously.

So you favor a government mandate on lens colors to protect idiots who
are easily confused by flashing lights?

Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
problem. Lobbying against it would have been more expensive and would
have done nothing to reduce the problem.

SUVs are (were?) a cash cow and the redesign is expensive and
interferes with their intended use (i.e. looking macho and tough and
sitting high above other traffic.) So industry went the lobby route
on this one.

SUVs flipping over is a real problem. The media helped promote the
idea that these vehicles were safer than cars while sweeping real
safety concerns under the rug.

Are you talking about the Audi 5000 incident? SUVs were a niche
market back then and the quattro was hardly a threat to the Bronco.

 

if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts
accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???

 

wow!!! potm!!!

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
acceleration" problem???

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, Jim... The so-called "unwanted
acceleration" problem with the Audi (et al) WASN'T. It occurred due to
either driver error or, possibly, ergonomic design. Kinda like gun
deaths. It ain't the gun that kills, it's the person in whose hands it
lies that does the killing - intentional or otherwise.

Those "accidents" occurred when the vehicle was placed into gear and the
drivers, thinking they were putting their foot on the brake, instead
placed them on the accelerator. The interlock, requiring that the brake
pedal is depressed before the transmission can be moved from Park to
Drive or Reverse, at least insures that the "loose nut" behind the
steering wheel has their foot on the brake rather than the gas. What
happens after they get the car in gear and remove their foot from the
brake pedal is on them.

Anyone ever hear of a documented case of a car running wild after the
interlocks were made standard or, alternatively, somebody driving
peacefully down the road at 45 m/h and have their car suddenly red line
for no apparent reason?

 

yes, absolutely. and the interlock did damn-all to prevent it. my
grandmother had an intersection crash with her lincoln continental.
part of the dash panel in the footwell fell down and was bridging the
gas and brake pedals. the motor is stronger than the brakes.
inspection reveals this could easily happen on any of these vehicles.
neither ford corporate nor the local dealer would return her calls or
letters.

has anyone launched a smear campaign to stop them importing their filthy
"market-dominating, profit competing innovations" from mexico? no,
they're "domestic"! has there been a move for legislation to connect
the gas pedal to the child safety locks to prevent recurrence [or
something equally unrelated]? no. and both are totally unrelated to
ford's prolific lobbying...

 

The interlock means you can't shift in to gear without holding down the
brake.

The car can't surge forward from a standing start with the brake
applied. It's just that simple.

I don't believe there was a problem with non-driver initiated
acceleration. But there apparently was some problem with unintended
acceleration. At the time, we Audi owners speculated it had to do with
pedal placement, particularly on manual transmission vehicles.

However the acceleration occurred, it was made impossible by the
interlock. Irrespective of the cause of the acceleration, the interlock
worked, because the driver had his foot on the brake.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

eh??? on a stick??? now you're really losing all contact with reality.

you're not analyzing the facts. fact: the brake switch is activated
before there is any serious braking starts to happen. unless there are
two switches, one for the brake lights and one for the interlock that
operates only when the brake is full on, there's no way an interlock can
prevent the vehicle rolling. and interlocks work on the brake switch.
this ignores, of course, the question of whether there is any throttle
surge in the first place.

 

"unintended accelleration"(UA) occurred when the driver started the car
with their foot on or hovering over the GAS pedal instead of on/over the
brake,and when the car lurched forward,they stomped on the GAS instead of
the brake they -thought- they were stomping on,and the car accellerated
instead of stopping. "left-foot" brakers are more susceptible to this UA
problem.

Thus,even if their foot was not pressing enough to actvate the braking,the
foot was still OVER/on the brake pedal if the car lurched,so they would
stomp on the BRAKE instead of the gas.(right-foot brakers)

I've never heard of any manual shift cars in UA crashes.(because the car
doesn't lurch when shifting into gear,the clutch has control.)

 

Is there a problem with the idle control? If so, the interlock won't
help. But if the problem is and always was idiots [and others] not
operating the car correctly, the interlock reduces the problem.

 

Because, as we both agreed three posts ago, the engine computer isn't
the problem. The problem is people accidentally hitting the gas
instead of the brake. The first defense against this is good
ergonomic design to minimize the chance of this happening. The second
defense is the interlock which is cheaper, more quickly implemented
and more easily mandated by law, if necessary.

 

I think the problem was pretty much confined to AT cars.

 

it would be more effective to put an i.q. interlock on the ignition.

 

How about that the interlock is only on US cars?

-SP