Yes, the NASA study that found:
"NASA analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctions in the electronic throttle control caused large unintended accelerations, as described by some consumer reports..."
The National Academy of Sciences also did their own study, culminating in a 132-page report. To summarize:
"Last week, a report by the National Academies of Sciences put another nail in the coffin of this theory [of unintended acceleration], concluding that all the data available indicated that there was no electronic or software problem in Toyota vehicles and that NHTSA was justified in closing its investigation...."
Most conclusive of all was the exhaustive NHTSA investigation of every single vehicle involved in such a claim, only to find that in each and every case, the vehicles had no failed or defective parts, and functioned perfectly when examined by investigators.
Actually, I'm a defender of the truth. Why not try it some time? This ignorant incident of mass hysteria resulted in a waste of tens of millions of dollars of unnecessary investigations into a problem that existed only in the minds of 60-IQ lackwits. That waste of time, money, and resources didn't help consumers. It hurt them.
Your truth defending does not include reading the actual materials you cite. Let's go to the original document, shall we?
"NHTSA does not have reason to believe that pedal misapplication is a cause of the relatively few, prolonged, high speed UA incidents that present the greatest safety risk."
Same document:
"NASA's study confirmed that there is a theoretical possibility that two faults could combine under very specific conditions to affect the ETC systems so as to create UA but did not find evidence this had occurred in the real world or that there are failure mechanisms that would combine to make this occurrence likely".
The report subsequently states that NASA actually found smaller faults which could cause small throttle openings but I'm not going to cite the whole thing. By the way NASA's original report from Jan 18th 2011 has 179 pages. Only a few of those pages namely the Executive Summary are available to the public at large as the rest contains proprietary data and require an NDA.
In true scientific fashion NASA concluded:
"Because proof that the ETCS-I caused the reported UAs was not found it does not mean it could not occur".
Any safety conscious engineer would indeed continue to consider all the aspects of this technology and of its implementation in search of things that could possibly have been missed.
And indeed NTHSA followed with the following document:
Functional Safety Assessment of a Generic Accelerator Control System With Electronic Throttle Control in Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles.
Here's the abstract:
"This report describes the research effort to assess the functional safety of accelerator control systems with electronic faults, such as errant electronic throttle control signals, following an industry process standard. This study focuses specifically on errant signals in motor vehicles powered by gasoline internal combustion engines. This study follows the concept phase process in the ISO 26262standard and applies a hazard and operability study, functional failure modes and effects analysis, and systems theoretic process analysis methods. In total, this study identifies 5 vehicle-level safety goals and 179 ACS/ETC system safety requirements (and output of the ISO 26262 and STPA processes). This study uses the results of the analysis to identify potential opportunities to improve the risk assessment approach in ISO 26262."
So, invective tossing aside, you're only cherry-picking what supports your argument and conveniently discard the rest. That looks more like defending a faith than defending the truth.
I have no doubt that you will provide a lengthy and dismissive reply to this, because, as a true evangelist of course you have to.
I lost enough time to your tr0ll1ng however. Don't expect me to answer to you anymore.
