My wife had a 2003 Vibe, they were contacting her about the airbag recall years ago. I'm not following why there's an update now? Isn't this the same recall?
I believe these vehicles were made in the same factory as a joint venture between Toyota and GM called NUMMI. There's a This American Life episode about it. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/403/transcript
Or they've calculated that there are few enough 2001 Camrys on the road 22 years later that the risk/reward for them does not justify doing a recall. Hooray?
That's not how that works. If Toyota doesn't do the recall they'll be forced by the NTSB. Recalls are how manufacturers avoid regulators cramping their style.
I'm pretty sure it's exactly how it works. If the NTSB was some sort of strict regulator who pushed ahead with recalling dangerous parts regardless of the risk and costs, they would have forced Toyota to commit to the recall announced today a decade ago. The risk of aging Takata airbags being explodey if moisture gets in has been a known issue for a very long time.
I assume today's announcement represents some factor in the equation changing. Takata is caught up and can make lower volume parts again? There was an uptick in these older airbags exploding? Some other random political or economic factor? One thing that isn't new is the knowledge that these airbags are dangerous. (to be fair, I have no idea if the 2001 Camry's airbags might have used a completely different technology)
"A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.
Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle."
Even the history of the Takata airbag saga alone is enough to illustrate that plenty of - generously - subjectivity or wiggle room is built into the application of the rules you're quoting on that page. If you were familiar with the history of the thing you'd know that the items which were recalled yesterday have been understood to be dangerous for over 20 years. The first study that showed this design tended to blow up came in the late nineties. Some sort of practical balance in an equation shifted to cause yesterday's recall. There wasn't a new engineering discovery made. Takata airbags using ammonium nitrate sometimes explode when they ignite! Something must be done!
That you've apparently discounted the possibility an American regulatory agency might not be fully living up to its stated principles is adorable, however.
I drive a 1997 acura CL and had the same thought. At first they sent me a letter saying it had to be recalled, then a few months later they said, "upon further review your car is not affected". There are very few of these cars on the road anymore and I'm sure they did the math and found it not worth it to fix.
The car manufacturers did all sorts of maneuvering to cope with the problem of Takata running at full capacity to service the need for replacements. I had something similar with a Toyota I owned, which was on a "everything is fine but some day in the future your car's airbag might be recalled" list. (it eventually was recalled)
Meh, there was never anything wrong with them. Immobilizers (or the lack thereof) have been on windows stickers as long as they've existed. Hyundai/Kia simply realized that their buyers DGAF about an immobilizer as much as they cared about being slightly cheaper than cars from other brands. And they were right, the cars sold well.
Slightly cheaper meaning $50 to $160 according to Google. That seems like a really stupid thing to skimp on, so don't blame the consumer for this dumb decision. That's like 1% (corrected from 0.1%) of the price of a new car or something like that! What dumb engineering, what was KIA thinking?!
--
Edit:
I understand the reality of capitalism means a constant race to the bottom, I just don't like it.
--
Edit 2:
I am "posting too fast" so here is a response to a post way further down than this, so I don't lose my text I tried to comment with (Also, what the fuck HN!? I'm not one of those flame-baiters!? This is one of the few places I am comfortable talking to strangers and I get this bullshit...)
I think you would have to define the minimum level of effort necessary to steal a car, then say that cars which do not pass that bar are probably defective. I would say the minimum bar should rise as tech changes, and today we could say the minimum is that an unskilled thief (a 'regular Joe') should not be able to steal a car without any specific knowledge. At least, I think that's reasonable.
In this case, meth addicts could break a window and use a screwdriver to steal a car without an immobilizer, so that seems like a defective product to me.
There's always some company that optimizes for the type of consumer who sorts by lowest price and chooses the item at the top of the list. This is that. These vehicles are aggressively priced.
Immobilizers were a great idea of what to skimp on. People are buying those cars based on creature comforts and price. People DGAF about immobilizers when they're buying a car. If it gets stolen next week it doesn't matter to the manufacturer, as long as they keep selling. Which they are. Hyundai Motor sales figures are very healthy and growing.
I wonder how many people check out the insurance premiums before pulling the trigger on their car purchase. If the answer is anything like 'most' then decisions like this will eventually cause people to steer away from Hyundai/Kia cars.
Hyundai changed their tune on this issue after some insurers threatened to stop insuring certain models at all, and they're now putting immobilizers in all of their models.
But I still don't think they made a mistake. They're just the victim of a social media trend. There's hundreds of other vehicle vulnerabilities out there just waiting to be the next trend. There's so many ways to maliciously mess with a car, it's mostly limited by people's imaginations.
All cars have serious security issues. The security features on any car mostly just mitigate the most severe/commonly/easily exploited issues.
Locks and electronic countermeasures merely discourage people from exploiting cars, or give the illusion of security, they don't actually provide very high security at all.
People are stealing luxury cars in American cities in large numbers right now and shipping them overseas to resell. It doesn't matter how many security systems the manufacturer has put into place. It doesn't take advanced techniques or esoteric tools. All it takes is a flatbed trailer and a hand winch from the hardware store.
Where's the line between security issue and defect? Is it a defect when it becomes popular to exploit? It is a defect when other manufacturers mitigate it? Seems like a matter of opinion to me, more than anything qualitative.
$100 a pop is pretty big even if it doesn't increase sales. Airlines save millions by slightly reducing the weight of the pamphlets they put in the seats.
True, but it's also the cost of ~3 gas tanks of gas, which to me is pretty small in the long-term ownership of a car versus the risk of dealing with it being stolen, which would take longer than the 3 weeks that gas would get you around for.
I guess I think about value differently than many consumers?
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a portion of their website with information on the Takata airbag recall and a VIN search. This really is a gigantic problem.
>Approximately 67 million Takata air bags (priority groups 1-12) have been recalled because these air bags can explode when deployed, causing serious injury or even death.
I had my Honda airbag replaced around 2018 due to this, I think. I found it quite funny to have work done by the dealership on an almost 15 year old car.
Got mine done last year (merc e). The 'do not drive' thing seems a bit excessive. There wasn't any of that from Mercedes. Apparently about 30 Merc drivers died from faulty bags, more due to them just not protecting people in the crash than the hand grenade effect.
this article links to https://toyota.com/recall but entering the VIN to my 2004 corolla and clicking submit does nothing but grey out the submit button.
Anyone have any insight into what's going on here?
I called Toyota dealer service center near me. Gave them my VIN and they said I already had my airbags replaced years ago. I have a 2004 Toyota Matrix. So there's nothing new? Maybe catching the last remaining ones that did not get serviced?
Takata also makes different types of inflators, and cars often have different types of inflators in them at the same time, and all of these airbag recalls have been on specific inflators made at specific times or specific lots that were known to be problematic. Some were also only recalled when the vehicle was sold or operated in humid areas.
I had a vehicle that was recalled once for the driver side airbag, and then later called back for a recall on the passenger side airbag. IIRC some cars early on were even recalled for the same inflator twice when it was found that the replacement inflator had issues.
I don't think you could call what happened to Brandon Lee "getting killed by a safety feature" so much as getting killed by negligence of the production crew.
Blanks are dangerous, especially if you're using them with an unmodified firearm. Even if there's nothing lodged in the barrel as was the case with Lee, a blank cartridge can kill you just with gas pressure if the barrel is held close enough to something important. That's part of the reason that blank-fire adapters used in live-fire military exercises plug the barrel.
The main reason for the blank firing adapter is to keep the gas from escaping out the end of barrel so it can go back and cycle the bolt and load the next round.
A live fire exercise would be using live rounds, not blanks.
You say that and the first thing I'm thinking is, surely revolvers must be safe to use without these adapters then? They eject gas around the cylinder and are cycled mechanically.
And yet, the Alec Baldwin fiasco:
> Dave Halls, assistant director on the movie, told investigators he failed to inspect every round in every chamber of every gun on set. In his affidavit, Souza said the gun went off during rehearsal of a scene in which Baldwin, seated on a church pew, pulls his firearm from its holster and aims directly “towards the camera lens.”
> According to the Los Angeles Times, half a dozen union camera-crew workers had walked off set in protest of working conditions just hours before Hutchins was shot. There had been three misfires of the prop gun before the one that killed Hutchins. “There were no safety meetings,” an unnamed crew member said. “There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.” The Times reported that someone texted the production manager, “We’ve now had three accidental discharges. This is super unsafe.”
> But a huge cache of documents the bureau released after the report suggest Gutierrez-Reed may have known live rounds had been detected on set ahead of the fatal shooting. In published text messages, Rust’s prop master tells Gutierrez-Reed she found “bad ones” in the box of ammunition. “Hannah advised she thought it meant possibly one or two rounds from the box, but Sarah told her it was more than half of the box,” the summary reportedly read.
Lesson learned: if you want to engineer an on-set firearm accident, use faulty revolvers, heavily contaminate the supply of blanks with live ammunition, and make sure everyone is rushing through everything at all times so crew is conditioned to ignore warning signs and nobody knows who to blame when tragedy occurs.
Well played, Alec. Next time just do Springtime for Hitler.
> There had been three misfires of the prop gun before the one that killed Hutchins. … “We’ve now had three accidental discharges. This is super unsafe.”
A "misfire" is when the gun should go off but doesn't, an "accidental discharge" is when the gun shouldn't go off but does.
There was a lot of sloppy reporting around the events, to where it's hard to tell what the facts actually were. The particular mistake I highlighted (the reporter saying "misfire" when their source says "accidental discharge") IMO makes whichever article you're quoting suspect as a whole.
It's also a safety thing. The main function is for the firearm to function properly with blanks instead of live rounds. Not all types of firearms need blank firing adapters to function properly with blanks.
Edit to expand on that:
Various types of autoloading firearms rely on the gas from the combustion of the powder in the round to be directed a certain way which provides the energy needed to cycle the bolt, which includes ejecting the spent round and feeding the next round. If that gas escapes out the end of the barrel then that action doesn't happen and remedial action must be performed on the rifle (in the case of an AR style rifle it means working the charging handle). With a revolver (at least mine), the cylinder is spun using the energy from squeezing the trigger so it doesn't matter if the gas escapes out the end of the barrel. I'm not sure how safe that would be to use a blank firing adapter on a revolver if there's no other way for the gas to escape.
My point was more being on the receiving end of a directed explosion is uncomfortable, be it airbags, rocketry or firearms.
Anything between you and the propellant becomes a bullet. See also that couple who tried to DIY pink-or-blue fireworks for their baby shower but inadvertently maimed attendees with a gender-neutral pipe bomb.
Thanks for the additional context though, I didn't know blank rounds required that much diligence.
Are those 35 counting the people who were asleep, trying to kill themselves, etc?
Because if they are from the same news outlets as reports the other Tesla crashes, those are not always due to Tesla issues, and it always comes out they weren't because they have data on everything.
And other cars catch on fire in crashes and people burn to death in ICE cars. Fires are not exclusive to EVs. Shrapnel airbags on the other hand...
Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death?
>Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death?
Safety features that exist in other cars too? A base-model Corolla has pedestrian detection and collision avoidance in it as well.
And plenty of other manufacturers have similar systems.
You said anti-Tesla articles are conditioning people to think there were recalls. But there were in fact recalls, which Tesla responded to with OTA fixes.
I had to take my 2004 Matrix in a few years ago for an airbag recall identical to this. When I went the next day to pick the vehicle up, I was informed that the new airbag they had installed caused the airbag light to turn on(!) and thus were now waiting for another replacement airbag from Toyota and stuck me in a rental car for an extra day because of the unforeseen delay.
Glad to know I was driving with an equally explosive shrapnel bag for a couple years after that until a low-speed collision that totaled it (and didn't deploy the airbags).
I had a Matrix as well, wish I still owned it because it was a nifty little 5- speed.
I remember bringing it in for airbag recalls at least twice in the years I owned it, and continued to receive recall notices for some time after selling it, which tells me there was at least one more recall for airbag issues.
Is there anywhere I can check my VIN for stuff like this? I have an Audi from around that era and am in Ireland.
I have been looking around, but there doesnt seem to be one place for this, eg. one person linked a .au domain.
98 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] threadhttps://apnews.com/article/toyota-takata-air-bag-explode-shr...
I assume today's announcement represents some factor in the equation changing. Takata is caught up and can make lower volume parts again? There was an uptick in these older airbags exploding? Some other random political or economic factor? One thing that isn't new is the knowledge that these airbags are dangerous. (to be fair, I have no idea if the 2001 Camry's airbags might have used a completely different technology)
"A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.
Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle."
https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
Section 3 lower on the page.
That you've apparently discounted the possibility an American regulatory agency might not be fully living up to its stated principles is adorable, however.
It felt great driving that thing.
--
Edit:
I understand the reality of capitalism means a constant race to the bottom, I just don't like it.
--
Edit 2:
I am "posting too fast" so here is a response to a post way further down than this, so I don't lose my text I tried to comment with (Also, what the fuck HN!? I'm not one of those flame-baiters!? This is one of the few places I am comfortable talking to strangers and I get this bullshit...)
I think you would have to define the minimum level of effort necessary to steal a car, then say that cars which do not pass that bar are probably defective. I would say the minimum bar should rise as tech changes, and today we could say the minimum is that an unskilled thief (a 'regular Joe') should not be able to steal a car without any specific knowledge. At least, I think that's reasonable.
In this case, meth addicts could break a window and use a screwdriver to steal a car without an immobilizer, so that seems like a defective product to me.
Immobilizers were a great idea of what to skimp on. People are buying those cars based on creature comforts and price. People DGAF about immobilizers when they're buying a car. If it gets stolen next week it doesn't matter to the manufacturer, as long as they keep selling. Which they are. Hyundai Motor sales figures are very healthy and growing.
But I still don't think they made a mistake. They're just the victim of a social media trend. There's hundreds of other vehicle vulnerabilities out there just waiting to be the next trend. There's so many ways to maliciously mess with a car, it's mostly limited by people's imaginations.
Locks and electronic countermeasures merely discourage people from exploiting cars, or give the illusion of security, they don't actually provide very high security at all.
People are stealing luxury cars in American cities in large numbers right now and shipping them overseas to resell. It doesn't matter how many security systems the manufacturer has put into place. It doesn't take advanced techniques or esoteric tools. All it takes is a flatbed trailer and a hand winch from the hardware store.
Where's the line between security issue and defect? Is it a defect when it becomes popular to exploit? It is a defect when other manufacturers mitigate it? Seems like a matter of opinion to me, more than anything qualitative.
These were very low end cars, much closer to $10k (1%) than $100k (0.1%).
I guess I think about value differently than many consumers?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30689585/ford-settlement-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/business/air-bag-recall/index...
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/takata-recall-spotlight
>Approximately 67 million Takata air bags (priority groups 1-12) have been recalled because these air bags can explode when deployed, causing serious injury or even death.
Anyone have any insight into what's going on here?
I've tried this in both Brave and Chrome.
I had a vehicle that was recalled once for the driver side airbag, and then later called back for a recall on the passenger side airbag. IIRC some cars early on were even recalled for the same inflator twice when it was found that the replacement inflator had issues.
There's all kinds of details in the weeds here.
Paging Brandon Lee...
No death is more indignified than getting killed by a safety feature.
Blanks are dangerous, especially if you're using them with an unmodified firearm. Even if there's nothing lodged in the barrel as was the case with Lee, a blank cartridge can kill you just with gas pressure if the barrel is held close enough to something important. That's part of the reason that blank-fire adapters used in live-fire military exercises plug the barrel.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/US_Navy_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum
A live fire exercise would be using live rounds, not blanks.
And yet, the Alec Baldwin fiasco:
> Dave Halls, assistant director on the movie, told investigators he failed to inspect every round in every chamber of every gun on set. In his affidavit, Souza said the gun went off during rehearsal of a scene in which Baldwin, seated on a church pew, pulls his firearm from its holster and aims directly “towards the camera lens.”
> According to the Los Angeles Times, half a dozen union camera-crew workers had walked off set in protest of working conditions just hours before Hutchins was shot. There had been three misfires of the prop gun before the one that killed Hutchins. “There were no safety meetings,” an unnamed crew member said. “There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.” The Times reported that someone texted the production manager, “We’ve now had three accidental discharges. This is super unsafe.”
> But a huge cache of documents the bureau released after the report suggest Gutierrez-Reed may have known live rounds had been detected on set ahead of the fatal shooting. In published text messages, Rust’s prop master tells Gutierrez-Reed she found “bad ones” in the box of ammunition. “Hannah advised she thought it meant possibly one or two rounds from the box, but Sarah told her it was more than half of the box,” the summary reportedly read.
Lesson learned: if you want to engineer an on-set firearm accident, use faulty revolvers, heavily contaminate the supply of blanks with live ammunition, and make sure everyone is rushing through everything at all times so crew is conditioned to ignore warning signs and nobody knows who to blame when tragedy occurs.
Well played, Alec. Next time just do Springtime for Hitler.
> There had been three misfires of the prop gun before the one that killed Hutchins. … “We’ve now had three accidental discharges. This is super unsafe.”
A "misfire" is when the gun should go off but doesn't, an "accidental discharge" is when the gun shouldn't go off but does.
There was a lot of sloppy reporting around the events, to where it's hard to tell what the facts actually were. The particular mistake I highlighted (the reporter saying "misfire" when their source says "accidental discharge") IMO makes whichever article you're quoting suspect as a whole.
Edit to expand on that:
Various types of autoloading firearms rely on the gas from the combustion of the powder in the round to be directed a certain way which provides the energy needed to cycle the bolt, which includes ejecting the spent round and feeding the next round. If that gas escapes out the end of the barrel then that action doesn't happen and remedial action must be performed on the rifle (in the case of an AR style rifle it means working the charging handle). With a revolver (at least mine), the cylinder is spun using the energy from squeezing the trigger so it doesn't matter if the gas escapes out the end of the barrel. I'm not sure how safe that would be to use a blank firing adapter on a revolver if there's no other way for the gas to escape.
https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News/Article/2051920/m2a1-ma...
Anything between you and the propellant becomes a bullet. See also that couple who tried to DIY pink-or-blue fireworks for their baby shower but inadvertently maimed attendees with a gender-neutral pipe bomb.
Thanks for the additional context though, I didn't know blank rounds required that much diligence.
First time I'd ever had an airbag deployed; I'm glad it didn't kill me :/
I know some people have been conditioned that software rollbacks are recalls due to all the anti-Tesla articles.
But yeah that facetiousness is why I said the statement above.
It's really easy to lookup Tesla safety ratings so I won't get dragged into what you're trying to do.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's also pretty low rate-wise.
I don't really know what the point of that statement is though. Reads like part of a Boeing spokesman's speech.
There's been more (~35) deaths due to Tesla issues (fires, self-driving, etc) in a few years than in the 2 decades this problem airbag has existed.
Because if they are from the same news outlets as reports the other Tesla crashes, those are not always due to Tesla issues, and it always comes out they weren't because they have data on everything.
And other cars catch on fire in crashes and people burn to death in ICE cars. Fires are not exclusive to EVs. Shrapnel airbags on the other hand...
Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death?
Safety features that exist in other cars too? A base-model Corolla has pedestrian detection and collision avoidance in it as well.
And plenty of other manufacturers have similar systems.
But if the positives of any safety system don't count, then the negatives don't count against Tesla.
Because all cars have safety systems that could kill or save you under that logic.
2012-2016 Tesla Model S
It simply means, your car will not roll this feature back itself because it's not a software recall. Go turn it in.
Turns out it's confusing to overload the term "recall", and downright dangerous when it comes to overloading safety terms.
We're always going on about how misleading AutoPilot is as a term to the hypothetically confused consumer. But overloading recall isn't confusing?
I cannot help that the government for some reason chose to overload this term.
Illegal alien is also a legal term that sometimes requires distinction.
It's a PHYSICAL recall. Normally the articles cover that important detail up, so all you see is recall.
Why would you need to help that? Is there some reason you have to not call it a recall?
I had to take my 2004 Matrix in a few years ago for an airbag recall identical to this. When I went the next day to pick the vehicle up, I was informed that the new airbag they had installed caused the airbag light to turn on(!) and thus were now waiting for another replacement airbag from Toyota and stuck me in a rental car for an extra day because of the unforeseen delay.
Glad to know I was driving with an equally explosive shrapnel bag for a couple years after that until a low-speed collision that totaled it (and didn't deploy the airbags).
I remember bringing it in for airbag recalls at least twice in the years I owned it, and continued to receive recall notices for some time after selling it, which tells me there was at least one more recall for airbag issues.