Adam sent me this and I am just going to put the discussion here.
http://a.msn.com/r/2/BBmiABS?a=1&m=EN-US
The accusation is that somehow that some interaction between the electronic power steering system and stability control system failed, and caused this accident. AND, that GM knew about it (issued a recall just after her accident, coincidentally).
Woman trapped for days after car crash sues General Motors
Re: Woman trapped for days after car crash sues General Moto
I don't understand the interaction between the stability control and the power steering. I don't think the EPS is actually engaged to actively correct the steering. That makes no sense. The entire basis for the reaction of the stability control system is a DELTA between the direction of steering (intended path) and the actual path. The driver is already providing the inputs (via the steering wheel) that makes the stability control activate. How could manipulating the steering help anything? You need individual wheel braking - the steering itself is, by definition, not enough to keep the car on the intended path. The car makes no assumption as to the intended path. It doesn't see a curve and steer for you. Not in a 2009 Malibu anyway.
Possible malfunctions that could lead to a loss of control that pertain to the steering system:
- Steering wheel angle sensor malfunction (without this, the system is completely unable to measure intended direction of steer)
- Power steering assist failure (makes it harder to steer but at 63 mph, I would wager that it is highly unlikely that the loss of assist would result in a huge change in steering effort)
- There COULD be some logic that increases assist in a specific direction to coax the driver into correcting for an over-steer condition, and perhaps THAT feature could have been malfunctioning. But this one is more conjecture on my part than the first two I listed.
In the overall stability control system, it is possible (and has happened) for erroneous sensor outputs to cause the system to falsely react when there is no actual slip condition. Both C5 and CTS-V1 folks I know have experienced these symptoms. It can be the EBCM, yaw sensor or steering wheel position sensor typically. The system may jerk so hard that you actually change lanes before it catches the out of bounds condition, throws the light and disables the system. But that failsafe logic is present in every single electronically managed system that there is. Another example would be a intermittent wheel speed sensor failure that causes the ABS to pulsate (and prevent you from slowing down) when none of the wheels are actually spinning at different speeds. The system should quickly detect this and disable itself.
Weird shit can happen. Cars are complicated. I guess it maybe is politics that drive whether you think you should go after the OEM as if that was a negligent incident, or if it was really a circumstantial incident (especially when dealing with cars that are like 7 years old and have 100k or more on them).
Possible malfunctions that could lead to a loss of control that pertain to the steering system:
- Steering wheel angle sensor malfunction (without this, the system is completely unable to measure intended direction of steer)
- Power steering assist failure (makes it harder to steer but at 63 mph, I would wager that it is highly unlikely that the loss of assist would result in a huge change in steering effort)
- There COULD be some logic that increases assist in a specific direction to coax the driver into correcting for an over-steer condition, and perhaps THAT feature could have been malfunctioning. But this one is more conjecture on my part than the first two I listed.
In the overall stability control system, it is possible (and has happened) for erroneous sensor outputs to cause the system to falsely react when there is no actual slip condition. Both C5 and CTS-V1 folks I know have experienced these symptoms. It can be the EBCM, yaw sensor or steering wheel position sensor typically. The system may jerk so hard that you actually change lanes before it catches the out of bounds condition, throws the light and disables the system. But that failsafe logic is present in every single electronically managed system that there is. Another example would be a intermittent wheel speed sensor failure that causes the ABS to pulsate (and prevent you from slowing down) when none of the wheels are actually spinning at different speeds. The system should quickly detect this and disable itself.
Weird shit can happen. Cars are complicated. I guess it maybe is politics that drive whether you think you should go after the OEM as if that was a negligent incident, or if it was really a circumstantial incident (especially when dealing with cars that are like 7 years old and have 100k or more on them).
Re: Woman trapped for days after car crash sues General Moto
A comment:
Sadly they may end up paying money regardless of actual culpability since that's kind of how these things works. Then that becomes a precedent and people look back and say, well, they paid, they must have done something wrong.
But that is the job of her attorney. His argument is that something bad happened to this lady, and that it was caused by this deficiency that GM knew about prior to her accident. And I guess that they should have fixed it faster. The recall process isn't instant, and they clearly were already initiating it.
It's going to be difficult to prove that a malfunction caused the problem at the exact moment of loss of control, rather than a simple circumstantial loss of traction (which limits the effectiveness of the stability control)."According to another site, she was traveling 63 mph per blackbox data, and the speed limit was said to be "varying from 55 to 65" along that road. But someone also posted: "I travel that route several times a year and know for a fact that the speed limit where she went off the road is 40 mph. It's a sharp left hand turn. Vehicle stability programming has limits, due, you know, to physics. She would have encountered severe understeer in which GM's, or anybody else's, stability programs would become useless as the front tires no longer had traction. Stability programs requires tires having traction or being able to get traction." Sorry for her injuries whatever the cause. She's lucky to be alive. A mom with no legs is better than no mom."
Sadly they may end up paying money regardless of actual culpability since that's kind of how these things works. Then that becomes a precedent and people look back and say, well, they paid, they must have done something wrong.
But that is the job of her attorney. His argument is that something bad happened to this lady, and that it was caused by this deficiency that GM knew about prior to her accident. And I guess that they should have fixed it faster. The recall process isn't instant, and they clearly were already initiating it.