Motorcycle and Bicycle Crash Analysis – Wobble, Weave and
Capsize

Motorcycles and bicycles stay upright for the same reasons,
so they also crash for the same reasons. This is true despite their difference
in weight and the difference in the speed at which they commonly travel. Although
the rule holds true for crashes which involve two wheeled cycles  and other participants such as pedestrians
and other drivers, in this discussion we are talking only about crashes that
involve a bike, unaffected by the actions of people other than the rider and
any passenger who may be aboard.

The most simple form of bike crash is called a capsize. It
happens when the center of gravity of the bike and rider get so far outside of
the contact points between the tires and the ground that the operator cannot
overcome the force of gravity. A capsize is really just a form of falling over
sideways. As simple as it is, understanding the basics of the capsize is
necessary to understanding the more complex forms of crash.

The three critical components of the capsize are the two
places where the tires meet the road and the one single point where the center
of gravity of the rider/bike combination is located. Starting with a non-moving
two-wheeled bike standing straight up with a single rider, it is easy to
visualize these three components. The places where the tires meet the road will
be patches that are roughly square. They are where tires are slightly squashed
against the pavement, and are roughly square because gravity pulls the bike and
rider down and the compressed air pumped into the tires is, by design, not
powerful enough to maintain perfect roundness of the tires. The force of the air
in the tires makes them hard enough to avoid going entirely flat, but soft
enough to provide a cushioned ride, so the tires go slightly flat and are
slightly spread out on the road. Theoretically, the two contact patches are of
equal size, as both tires share the burden of holding everything up. However,
assuming that the tire pressures are equal but the rear of the bike is loaded
more heavily than the front, the rear contact patch is probably a little bigger
than the front one. Also, assuming that the combined weight of the bike and
rider is evenly distributed to the left and right, the tire/road contact patches
will be centered on the front-to-back centerline of the bike.

Having visualized the two tire/road contact patches, the
center of gravity is remains to be considered.  The center of gravity is the point around
which the combined bike/rider would balance in every direction if the
combination could be supported there (which can only occur in theory). To visualize
it, consider any two-wheeled bike sitting on a flat roadway and viewed from the
side. The left/right position of the center of gravity will be close enough to
the middle of the space between the two wheels (or road contact patches) that
there is no chance of the bike tipping over frontwards or backwards (not so
with a unicycle!). Considered from the front or rear, the center of gravity of
this bike will be directly above the bike’s front-to-back centerline (if you
suspended a lead weight from the center of gravity, it would hang straight down
to the left/right centerline of the bike). As long as gravity is pulling the
rider/bike straight down on the front-to-back centerline of, the gravitational
pull will be aligned with and resisted by the two road/tire contact patches and
the bike will stay upright. If the rider leans left, he or she moves the center
of gravity to the left of the front-to-back centerline of the road/tire contact
patches, and the contact patches can no longer overcome the pull of gravity.
The rider will have to put his left foot down, or the bike will fall over in a
capsize.

Beyond a bike capsize from a stationary position, the
mechanism of single bicycle and motorcycle crashes get more complicated fast. The
same three components, two road/tire contact patches and the center of gravity
of the bike/rider, are the critical factors, but there is a lot of changing
going on with a moving bike.

For example, when the bike is still, the shape and size of
the road/tire contact patches does not change. When the bike is in motion, it
changes constantly. When the bike accelerates, the load on the front wheel
drops (which is what makes the “wheelie” possible). As the load on the front
wheel drops, the rear contact patch gets bigger and the front contact point gets
smaller (until, in a wheelie, there is no front contact patch at all). When the
bike leans to the right, the contact patches move to the right (part way up the
sidewall, similar to what happens when a sailboat heels- that part of the hull
which is supports a heeling boat is different than that which supports a boat at
rest). The angle of lean (or heel) and the front/back weight distribution are
just two things that affect the size and shape of the contact patch. Wind and the
hardness, flatness, roughness, and stickiness of the road surface, which also
vary constantly, all change the shape of the road/tire contact patches and
affect the stability of the bike.

Wobble and weave are two specific forms of instability which
are characteristic and virtually unavoidable in two wheel bikes and
motorcycles. They will be explained in more detail later.

Few motorcyclists or bicyclists think about or understand
the dynamics of capsize, wobble or weave, but they all have an instinct as to
how to manage them to avoid crashing. When a crash does occur, an engineer or
other expert may be called upon to re-create or reconstruct the events leading
to the crash. Did the bike go down strictly due to operator error, or was a
defect in a tire,  or the design of the bike
play a significant role? If wind and road conditions play a part in a bike
tipping over, it is not hard to see that fork construction, tire performance
and bike suspension also play a big role. A crash reconstructionist must be
prepared to analyze all of these factors, as well as issues of maintenance and
repair, to be able to explain the cause of a bike or motorcycle crash.

If you or a close friend or loved one have been hurt in a bike
crash, be sure that your case is evaluated by an engineer and an attorney who can
identify the factors that lead to crashes and properly analyze them. At Berman
& Simmons, we have the experience, resources and will to understand your
case and to pursue all of the remedies that are available under the law. We are
happy to answer your questions about your potential case and our expertise. All
of our work is done on a contingent fee basis, which means that there is no
cost to you unless and until we win.

If you have suffered a serious physical injury at work, you will probably be entitled to wage benefits to help you through your period of disability and medical benefits for as long as you need medical care to treat your work injury. In most Maine cases, wage benefits are calculated as 80% of your post-tax average weekly wage. Similar calculations are made in most states, including our northern New England neighbors, New Hampshire and Vermont, although every state uses a slightly different formula. No injured worker gets lost income benefits that equal his or her take home pay, which is one of the reasons why being out on workers comp benefits is so hard on workers and their families.

One common question associated with workplace injuries is why an injured worker cannot sue an employer for negligence. In most states, employers are immune from basic negligence claims when an employee of the company is the injured party. This rule, which also bars suits against co-workers, dates to the early 1900s, when workers compensation statutes became law in most states. Before that, if a worker was injured on the job, he or she could sue the negligent employer. However, such claims had to be pursued through the courts just like every other personal injury claims. For at least two reasons, that approach does not work too well for injured workers. First, personal injury cases cannot be evaluated and should not be settled until the worker is fully healed. Healing can take years, and injured workers cannot wait that long to have their medical bills paid or to have an income. Second, personal injury claims filed in court are fault-based claims—the injured person must prove that the defendant’s carelessness caused the injury. In some work injury situations, it is not possible to prove that the injury was caused by the fault of the employer.

Examples of work injuries not caused by the fault of the employer abound, but some of the obvious ones are gradual injuries from repetitive motion, back injuries caused by lifting, and vehicle accidents caused by careless drivers who are not co-employees with the injured worker. In all of these cases, if there were no workers comp system, the employee would get nothing from the employer.

Another example of an injury caused by something other than the employer’s fault is a product liability claim based on a machine malfunction or product defect. Without the workers compensation system, there would be no medical payments or wage replacement benefits when an improperly filled gas cylinder explodes, when a saw blade or grinding wheel flys apart due to defects in manufacture, or when a vehicle transmission unexpectedly slips into gear. Ladder failure, chair failure, electric arcing from poor system design and mislabeled chemicals are all sources of work injuries where the employer may not be at fault. In such cases, workers comp benefits are an important lifeline for the injured worker and his family.

In some of these cases, such as those caused by negligent drivers and faulty products, it may be possible to get immediate assistance with medical bill and income replacement and to also pursue a case in court against the person or entity responsible for the injury. Such cases are known as “third party” cases because they are brought against someone other than a co-worker or the employer—someone remote enough under the law to be considered a third party.

Some cases are complicated by a combination of third party fault and a share of employer negligence. For example, if there is a defect in a transmission or punch press but the employer allows its use despite the problem, the employer might deserve some criticism and some blame for allowing the unsafe product to be used and thus contributing to the injury. It is in these cases that injured employees may legitimately ask, “How can they get away with this?”

The only answer to that question is the one mentioned above. When the workers comp system was set up about a hundred years ago, a basic trade was made. The employer gained immunity from a negligence suit, but took on the obligation to make immediate payments for lost income and medical payments. That legislative trade is not perfect, and it does not work out well in every case, but for most injured workers it is a far better arrangement than one in which the employer pays nothing if it is not at fault, and the employer pays only after being proven guilty of wrongdoing, which may not occur until years after the injury.

Twenty years ago, NHTSA, the federal government agency charged with overseeing vehicle safety, changed the official name of the child’s car seat from “child restraint system” to “child safety seat.”  Every parent and grandparent will tell you that child safety is what they expect when they buy and use these special seats.  But what is the difference between child restraint and child safety?

Child safety in a car seat starts with the idea of restraint. First the seat must be restrained in the car and then the child must be restrained in the seat.

The safest way to restrain a child’s car seat is to belt or tether it to the vehicle at both the base and the top.  Child seats that are not designed to be secured top and bottom are more likely to move within the car during a crash. This creates obvious and avoidable risks of injury.

When it comes to restraining the child in the seat, studies show that the safest approach is the five point harness, which secures the child across both shoulders, both hips, and at the crotch. Other restraint systems, including the three point harness, the tray shield, and the T-shield, are not as effective because they both allow more movement within the seat and increase the risk that a child will strike a sharp edge or a hard object during a crash. 

Child safety does not stop with a good restraint system. A good car seat will also be rugged enough so that it does not break or bend too much during a crash event and will have adequate padding so the when the child is thrown against the seat back or sides (or suspended upside down)  during a crash event the crash forces will be soft enough that no injury occurs.

Attention to padding and seat integrity in child car seats are extensions of the concepts of crashworthiness which have dramatically altered all aspects of automobile design since the advent of the seatbelt. Cars are much safer today, and child seats should be also. Recognition of this fact was the driving force behind the name change from “child restraint system” to “child safety seat.”  

A car seat that does not have adequate straps to hold the seat securely in the car or the child securely in the seat, or which allows a child to suffer lacerations or head or neck injury  in a crash may be a defective product.

If you or someone you know believes that a child’s car seat did not perform as a safety seat should, you should promptly contact to a lawyer who understands crashworthiness cases. It is very important to move quickly to secure and protect all of the critical evidence so that the case can be fully and properly evaluated.

John Sedgewick and Berman and Simmons have handled such cases, mostly in Maine but also in other states. Mr. Sedgewick is listed in Best Lawyers in America under the Plaintiff’s Product Liability section, and Berman and Simmons has been named by U.S. New and World Report as Maine’s best Plaintiff’s Product Liability law firm.

In the context of information exchange in a lawsuit, called discovery in civil cases, defendants often exaggerate the scope of information they claim to be a trade secret and demand that  plaintiff keep the information hidden as condition of producing it. For example, if a component part of a machine has been modified to eliminate a defect, the manufacturer may claim that the new design is a  trade secret which should be kept from the public. However,  legimate trade secret protection does not to extend to information that has been otherwise publicized.  Replacement parts on equipment sold publicly can be seen, measured and tested by anyone who is aware that the parts are present. The only benefit to keeping details about replacement parts secret is that people injured by the prior version of the product may not realize that they were injured by a defect that has now been eliminated from the product. This kind of secret is not what the law or the courts intend to protect.

In the context of settlement, the secrecy problem is worse.  Once plaintiff has gone to the expense and trouble of bringing a lawsuit to convince the defendant that he or she can prove the product to be defective, and after trying to defeat the plaintiff in every way possible, the defendant may agree to settle.  Often, such settlement agreements are conditioned on the plaintiff’s promise of secrecy and the demand that all evidence of defect, all proof such as test results, alternative designs, deposition transcripts, expert reports, and damaging photographs, be destroyed. In such cases, an injured plaintiff’s resources and energy may be exhausted and the will to fight for the protection of other victims may be overcome by the need for peace,  the need for resolution of conflict, and, frankly, the need for settlement money. At that point, there is no one looking out for the public interest in the free flow of information. The defendant often takes advantage of its market power and clamps a demand for secrecy on all that the plaintiff has learned.

Individual plaintiffs have a hard time fighting for the broader public interest in limiting confidentiality orders and secrecy demands to information which can legitimately be labeled secret. Protecting the broader public interest requires the attention and efforts of those of us not directly involved as parties to a particular case. To join the fight against secrecy in litigation,  read the postings on the dangers of excessive court secrecy at www.publicjustice.net

Public Justice is a great organization dedicated to protecting every individual’s right to access to the courts and the information that flows from enforcement of individual rights. It is one of the leaders in the fight against courtroom secrecy.  You can join the fight against secrecy by supporting Public Justice or by joining as a member.

If you talk with other lawyers about us, they will say:

- Berman and Simmons has more experience representing injured people in products liability cases than any other firm in the state;

- Berman and Simmons has more resources available to help people injured by defective products liability than any other firm in the state;

- Berman and Simmons has more jury trial experience in personal injury cases than any other firm in the state.

If you would rather settle your case than go to trial, why do you need an experienced trial lawyer?

- Although most personal injury cases settle before trial, insurance companies and their lawyers know which lawyers are ready, willing and able to try a case and which are not. If your lawyer is not respected by the other side, or is not really ready to try the case to a jury, he or she is highly unlikely to get the best possible settlement offer from the defense. At Berman and Simmons, we prepare our cases to be tried and our opponents know that.

Here is a county by county description of some of the product liability cases we have worked on:

Androscoggin County

-Ladder failure- fall, multiple fractures

-Metal bold failure- eye injury

Aroostock County

-Hay baling machinery- death

-Potato harvesting machinery- arm entanglement

Cumberland County

-Carbon monoxide leak- brain injury

-Farm machinery- hand crush injury

-Ladder failure- fall, skul fracture, brain injury

Franklin County

-Medication defect- failure to warn, birth defect

Knox County

-Soda bottle explosion- loss of an eye

-Bucket loader- transmission control crush injury leading to death

Oxford County

-Rifle defect- drop fire, bullet wound

-Safety equipment failure- severe laceration from chain saw

-Ski binding failure- paralysis

Penobscot County

-Hydraulic cylinder explosion- burns

Sagadahoc County

-Gas explosion- burns

Somerset County

-Gas explosion- burns leading to death

York County

-Saw mill saw blade fragmentation failure- severe lacerations

State of New Hampshire

-Safety equipment failure- defective design of insulated work platform for electrical worker, electrocution, burns leading to amputation and death.

Common uses of the rivet have included connecting the steel girders of skyscrapers, the steel plates of ship hulls, and the aluminum skin of airplanes.

Rivets may fail because they are made from material that is weaker than specified, because the shafts are not fully upset and shortened, because the overall joint design is flawed, or for a combination of these reasons.

As noted above, the theory of riveting is that the ability of the rivet material to withstand stretching forces is greater than the forces trying to tear the connected joint apart.  An example of poor joint design would be a circumstance where an engineer miscalculates the stretch resistance of the rivet material. If that is overestimated, the stretching forces produced by the connected parts while they are in use may be greater than the rivet can bear, leading to joint failure.  Poor quality material might cause the same problem.

Failure to properly shorten the shaft of the rivet during installation causes a slightly different problem.  If the rivet is not shortened enough, the joint between the connected parts will not be tight. If the joint is not tight, it is likely that the forces on the rivet will not be limited to a either a “straight pull” or stretching force or a perpendicular or shearing force as anticipated by the design engineer. In a loose joint, the forces on the rivet probably include a diagonal or bending force as the connected parts move in response to the various forces they encounter. In a skyscraper, the forces could come from wind or earthquake. In a ship, the forces could come from wind, waves, or cargo loads. Once the forces on a joint deviate from a “straight pull” or a shear, the stretch resistance or shear strength of the rivet material are no longer the critical strength issues. With bending forces on the joint, the engineering analysis of the strength of the rivet material must be entirely different. It is not possible to use a rivet to reliably overcome bending forces because there are too many unknown factors that can lead to joint failure.

Riveted joints are designed to hold together on the assumption that the components that they connect will remain close and firmly held to each other.

Rivet failure has been known to cause personal injury in many circumstances, and can be the basis for a successful product liability case. One example from a real case involves a handle which broke off of a delivery truck door. The driver was assuming that the handle would remain firmly attached as he pulled down on the door to get it closed. When it suddenly came off in his hand, he lost his balance and fell from the back of the truck onto pavement and suffered broken bones and nerve injury.

Whenever there is a rivet failure leading to personal injury, it is helpful, and maybe necessary to proving the case, to recover the broken parts.  Analysis of those parts can reveal whether the failure resulted from defective rivet material, bending, stretching or other factors. Understanding the cause of the failure is critical to proving a product defect. Was it the raw material of the rivet, the design of the joint, the construction of the riveted joint, or perhaps a failure of maintenance that lead to the injury?

If the broken parts are not available, prompt inspection of the remaining parts may help prove the case. For example, in the case of the handle that broke free from the delivery truck door, the door was a sandwich of materials (an inner and outer aluminum skin covering an strong but weather-pervious core material) which was held together by similar rivets. Inspection of the door revealed a pattern of rivet failure, leading to discovery of similar problems in other doors, and helping to prove that the basic door design was defective and its construction technique was negligent. The rivets were not strong enough for the purpose for either holding the basic door together or keeping the handle in place, and they were poorly installed. There was a history of other similar incidents, and the seller of the door failed to warn customers that a string of similar doors had failed.

If you or someone you know is injured by the failure of a rivet or other fastener, whether it be a screw, a bolt, or a nail, contact a lawyer with experience in similar cases. Getting the right lawyer and engineering expert involved early in the case may be critical to a successful outcome.

Risks to front seat passengers from seat back collapse include permanent brain damage or other head injuries and neck injuries. These occur because the occupants fall backwards as the seat collapses and they strike someone or something in the area of the back seat. Rear seat passengers, particularly children and older adults, are also at risk of serious injury and death as a result of being struck by the collapsing seat or by a front seat passenger.

The New York Times reported on April 23, 2010 that Ford is recalling about 33,000 of its 2010 cars and sport utility vehicles because the front seats may collapse rearward, the automaker told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The models are the 2010 Explorer, Explorer Sport Trac and Mercury Mountaineer as well as the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan.

Ford said the problem is that the “gear plate teeth” on the manual recliner mechanism may have been built “out of dimensional specification” and the seat will not pass the federal safety standards for strength. 

Ford, which said it had no reports of accidents or injuries, said the problem was noticed by a worker at an assembly plant who felt the seat move back. In its report, the automaker told the safety agency that it would immediately begin notifying dealers and owners but that it did not plan a press release on the seat problem. A Ford spokesman, Wes Sherwood, said later that the company did not ordinarily issue news releases on safety recalls.

In other recent automotive recall news:  

 • Porsche has recalled approximately 3,200 2010 Panameras because “the restraint function of the safety belts can no longer be guaranteed. ” Porsche told N.H.T.S.A. that when the front seats are moved forward “ … to an extreme position” it is possible that the seat-belt mount “could detach from the anchoring system.”

  • BMW recalled about 735 of its 2010 X5 Ms because power cables were not connected to power the side-marker lights.

   • Volvo is recalling almost 2,500 of its 2010 XC90s due to a risk of leaks in a pressurized fuel line.

  • Braun is recalling certain Dodge Caravans and Chrysler Town and Country “Entervan” minivans with wheelchair access due to a fire hazard. Braun told N.H.T.S.A. that the fuel filler pipe may rub against the left rear tire and cause a leak.

Previously, Braun recalled about 5,000 vans after discovering that a defective weld could allow the rear axle to loosen.  To make those vans wheelchair-accessible,  conversions were performed on the 2005–8 Buick Terraza Entervan, Chevrolet Uplander Entervan and Pontiac Montana Entervan. 

For more information or to report a safety problem go to the government Web site.  

For more information, please visit the Berman & Simmons website on our products liability page.

As Six Sigma has become a powerful tool for industry, understanding it can be a powerful advantage for a plaintiff’s lawyer in a product liability case.

Six Sigma Basics

Six Sigma is based on the premise that manufacturing processes can be systematically improved to the point where defects are reduced to as few as 3.4 defects per million opportunities. It is distinguished from earlier quality engineering programs by the intensity of the planning, goal setting and discipline it requires from employees at every level of the companies which adopt it. Six Sigma demands an unwavering commitment to measurement, feedback, analysis and improvement. While expensive to implement, Six Sigma has consistently produced business results which prove that no modern manufacturer or seller can afford to be without it.

Six Sigma as a Tool for Plaintiff’s Lawyers

Six Sigma can be useful to plaintiffs’ lawyers in product liability cases in a number of ways.

First, understanding Six Sigma can help in controlling discovery costs. Six Sigma companies engage in a vigorous regime of defining problems, measuring critical elements of the production process, analyzing results and changing features that produce bad parts.  Using discovery requests to obtain the right data, and knowing how to read and use it, is much cheaper than wading through days of depositions trying to gather background facts on the product in question.

Second, one of the fundamental challenges in many products cases is to fully understand what the product, or a failed component, was designed to do. Because Six Sigma is based on measuring products against a specific and detailed standard, documentation available through a Six Sigma program should lead counsel to the product specifications, the sole purpose of which is to articulate the defendant’s design expectations. If the product did not meet the specifications, the plaintiff may be able to prove the defect by comparison of the product to the defendant’s own standards.

Third, although Six Sigma is most often used to eliminate the production of defective parts in manufacturing operations, its principles can be used to improve the design process, as well. A thorough understanding of those principles will help a plaintiff’s lawyer analyze and critique a defendant’s design efforts.

Finally, if the defendant has not adopted Six Sigma as a quality control system, it is likely that it either has no systematic quality control at all, or that its system is poorly run and ineffective. These facts can support arguments on both unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant and product defect theories: bad products got into the marketplace because the defendant did not care enough to watch what it was selling. It is very difficult for any company to justify having an ineffective quality control system in today’s business environment.

Conclusion

Six Sigma brings discipline and systematic improvement to smart companies. Smart lawyers will understand Six Sigma concepts and use them to win the best possible results for clients injured by defective products.

The motor, which was sold as part of an inexpensive household fan,  overheated and caused a fire. Several years after the fan was made and sold, Lasko Products, Inc., the seller, discovered the defect, and learned that the defect also was present in thousands of similar fans. In 2004, Lasko changed the design to eliminate the defect from some of its fans, but did not alert the public or recall the defective fans.  The child died in 2004, and Lasko subsequently initiated a recall of the defeective fans.

If this case had been filed in Maine, the plaintiff might have been blocked from introducing the evidence of the 2004 re-design based on the “subsequent remedial measures” rule. That rule  is intended to encourage defendants to improve dangerous situations by  assuring them that safety improvements made after discovery of a problem or after an injury will not be introduced into evidence to prove that the product was defective to begin with. This rule is based on the public policy decision that it is better to encourage defendants to remedy defects than to encourage them to deny that there is a problem.

One way to avoid the obviously unfair impact of that rule on injured people may be to include a “post-sale duty to warn” count in the case.  While in some states there is no duty to warn users about defects or  “repairs” that become known after a product is sold,  judges in Maine have rejected that position, at least in one case, and have held manufacturers to a higher standard.

If there is evidence of a post-sale design improvement, and if no recall or warning has been issued, plaintiff’s attorneys should include a post-sale duty to warn count. This will provide a basis for discovery on the re-design/modification, what warnings and notice of defect were provided to the public, and whether proper notice to the public, or a product recall, would have prevented the injury. If the facts support the argument, then the trial court should allow the evidence of “subsequent remedial measures.” To do otherwise would be to prevent the plaintiff from proving his or her case. The public policy of protecting consumers injured by defective products, particularly those known to the defendant to be defective, should outweigh the defendant’s interest in hiding evidence of its subsequent product improvement.

Toyota and Truth

Is Toyota committed to telling the truth? That big question goes unasked as the news outlets splash recall, factory shut down, and apology stories across their front pages, websites and TV news shows.

Four people died in a speeding Lexus in August of 2009. A woman died when her family’s Camry accelerated across a parking lot and over a cliff as her husband tried to brake. Are these cases of driver error, or are the families of these people among those to whom Toyota now extends its apologies for delay in addressing unwanted acceleration?

Denial and dishonesty is not new in the automobile industry. In the case of Davis v American Honda, Honda was defaulted after a trial judge found that its defense team destroyed evidence and lied about it during trial of a civil case filed by a young woman rendered quadriplegic in the crash of an allegedly defective Honda Civic. More recently, in Magana v. Hyundai Motor America, a judge in the State of Washington  ordered the entry of a default judgment against Hyundai for withholding critical information in a lawsuit alleging defects in the design of the seats in a Hyundai Accent.

Injured people and their lawyers face tremendous obstacles in product liability cases because manufacturers are well-organized and well-funded, they have a lot to lose if a jury finds one of their products defective, and they are experienced litigators. They know how to defend by giving up as little information as possible. We are fortunate in America in general, and in Maine in particular, to have open court rooms and judges willing to call dishonesty what it is and to mete out appropriate punishment to dishonest defendants. Still, for an injured person to get a hearing against a manufacturer committed to withholding information is a significant challenge, legally and financially.

Toyota should take this opportunity to not only pledge to re-focus its corporate culture on quality, but also to commit its corporate culture to honesty and openness. One simple way it can do this is to make the data in its black box data recording devices available to the public. Like the black boxes in airplanes, these devices record information such as pre-crash speed, throttle position, seat belt use, and braking. Ford, GM and Chrysler have made this information accessible in their products for years. Toyota has refused, keeping the key to reading its software secret on the ground that the data collected by the computers in its cars and trucks is unreliable.

It is hard to believe that Toyota,  which first successfully commercialized regenerative braking, which has built some of the world’s most efficient and successful robotized factories, and which claims to be a leader in stability control and other safety technology, cannot accurately collect speed, time and distance data in its on-board computers. Despite its denials, one would think that Toyota can record electronic data as well as its competitors.  If Toyota really lacks confidence in its ability to record data in its vehicles, it can certainly license reliable technology from another company.

Rather than withholding data, Toyota should provide its dealers, its customers and the U.S. government the key to reading the data collected its vehicles. Disclosing the translation software and providing access to the data should help explain the many accidents and injuries now attributed to acceleration, steering and brake system defects in Toyota products. Maybe the data will show that some accidents arise from driver error, and that some arise from defects which Toyota should have fixed long ago.Why not let the truth come out?

By committing itself to an open and truthful culture, Toyota will honor its customers and the families of those who seek to understand violent and tragic accidents. By failing to commit to openness and honesty, Toyota dooms itself and its customers to costly replays of mistakes of the past.