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

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

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
>> <invalid.DeleteThis@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.DeleteThis@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> mindfulnessnow.DeleteThis@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.
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:47:52 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
>>> <invalid.TakeThisOut@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.TakeThisOut@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> mindfulnessnow.TakeThisOut@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.

wow!!! potm!!!



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop.TakeThisOut@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>,
>> jim beam <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@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.
>
> Which is why the interlock was a good solution.
>

if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts
accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:21:27 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>,
>> jim beam <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@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.]

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

>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.

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

>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.]

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.

> 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.

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.

>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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:46:42 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <elmop.TakeThisOut@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>,
>>> jim beam <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@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.
>>
>> Which is why the interlock was a good solution.
>>
>
>if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts
>accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:46:42 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>> <elmop.TakeThisOut@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>,
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@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.
>>> Which is why the interlock was a good solution.
>>>
>> if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts
>> accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???
>
> 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.
>
>

it would be more effective to put an i.q. interlock on the ignition.
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem? 

Jeff wrote:
> Your evidence, please.

How about that the interlock is only on US cars?

-SP
 >> Stay informed about: Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem?