The recent Volkswagen “Diesel-gate” scandal has once again shaken the auto industry. This event is a culmination of actions and strategies Volkswagen implemented as it pursued the ambitious goal of surpassing Toyota to become the world’s leading automaker.
Indeed, Volkswagen announced in July that it had achieved this goal. However, by September, allegations surfaced regarding VW’s use of a defeat device to pass emissions tests, and these claims could no longer be overlooked.
The disclosure that Volkswagen cheated on emissions tests by manipulating the vehicle’s computer to recognize when it was being tested and then adjusting its emissions accordingly marks the start of an even darker chapter in the ongoing series of car and auto parts recalls.
While previous major recalls in 2014 and 2015 were due to inaction and a failure to recognize patterns between consumer complaints and defects, the Volkswagen scandal presents clear evidence of intentional actions to bypass regulatory measures that ensure vehicles meet manufacturers’ advertised capabilities.
Alarmingly, there is no reason to believe that similar methods couldn’t be applied to vehicle safety testing, as opposed to just emissions testing.
To better understand the defects and issues that have recently plagued the auto industry, and the practices that allowed these issues to persist, we will examine three of the most significant recalls in history—each of which occurred within the last decade.
1. Toyota Unintended Acceleration Defect
Toyota’s unintended acceleration defect (SUA) affected Toyota and Lexus vehicles produced from around 2000 to 2010.
Although an investigation into the problem was first launched in 2004, federal regulators failed to make the connection, and the investigation was closed by NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI).
The defect wasn’t fully understood until 2008, when it became clear that the upholstery in the 2004 Sienna minivan could cause the gas pedal to become stuck in the accelerated position.
Additionally, contrary to Toyota’s assurances, it was later revealed that issues existed within the vehicle’s electronic control systems.
This defect ultimately caused at least 89 deaths and 52 injuries. Due to its efforts to conceal the issue, Toyota was fined $1.2 billion under a deferred prosecution agreement.
Toyota’s awareness of two causes for the defect, its subsequent failure to act, and the resulting high death and injury toll make the SUA defect particularly appalling.
2. GM Ignition Switch Defect
The GM ignition switch problem has been widely discussed since February 2014, when GM first recalled 800,000 affected vehicles.
The issue involved ignition switches in several popular cars, trucks, and SUVs that could move out of the active position with very little force. Even something as simple as a heavy keychain or a small bump in the road could activate the defect.
When this happened, various problems could arise, such as a loss of power, loss of steering, and deactivation of airbags.
The defect significantly increased the risk of losing control of the vehicle, leading to accidents, and in many cases, the failure of critical safety features worsened the outcome of these crashes.
What makes this defect especially alarming is the number of missed opportunities GM had to address it. The company first identified the problem in 2001 during Saturn Ion testing.
In 2003, a GM technician observed the issue in a stalling Ion and pinpointed a heavy keyring as a factor. In 2004, GM again acknowledged the defect as it transitioned from the Cavalier to the Cobalt.
A fix proposal was rejected in 2005 due to cost and time concerns, and although GM issued a safety bulletin in 2005, it failed to recall the affected vehicles. This series of oversights ultimately contributed to 124 confirmed deaths due to the ignition switch defect.
Also Read: 10 Worst Recalls That Shaped the Automotive Industry and Consumer Safety
NHTSA also had knowledge of the faulty ignition switches as early as 2007. Yet, until 2014, the agency deferred to GM, allowing the defect to worsen until it became a full-blown crisis.
3. Takata Airbag Defect
The Takata airbag defect is another particularly egregious case, mainly due to the company’s strategy of individual settlements and its refusal to acknowledge issues with its airbag inflators despite mounting evidence.
The defect involves an ammonium nitrate propellant in many Takata airbags, which can deploy with excessive force, sending metal shrapnel into the face and neck of vehicle occupants.
The issue stemmed from Takata’s decision to replace more specialized propellants with ammonium nitrate, a substance commonly used in explosives, in order to reduce costs.
Ammonium nitrate is known for its instability, especially in humid conditions, which causes the inflators to deploy too forcefully. Initially, the recall was limited to high-humidity regions, but with pressure from NHTSA and Takata’s objections, it was later expanded nationwide.
This defect has affected many popular makes and models, including those from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Chrysler. So far, six deaths and at least 30 injuries have been attributed to the faulty inflators, with over 17 million vehicles in the U.S. being recalled.
4. The VW Defeat Device
While Volkswagen’s use of a defeat device was initially associated with emissions testing, one can easily imagine a scenario where a manufacturer could employ similar tactics to bypass safety tests. Imagine vehicle computers that detect when a car is being tested and could:
- Ensure that all airbags deploy on impact, despite issues with some sensors failing to trigger them.
- Adjust braking systems to optimize performance for the test, improving the perceived safety of the vehicle while not offering the same performance in real-world conditions.
- Alter settings in ways that are ideal for passing tests but impractical for everyday driving.
VW’s “Diesel-gate” is a stark reminder that computerized vehicles have significant drawbacks.
One of the largest risks is that parts manufacturers may use software to hide issues, and automakers can manipulate software to deceive government regulators and the public, creating an inaccurate portrayal of a vehicle’s performance.
This doesn’t even account for the potential harm caused by hackers exploiting these systems. In fact, GM recently released a patch to address a full-takeover hack discovered in its OnStar system—five years after it was first identified.
Also Read: 5 Quick Fixes to Repair Car Dents and Scratches While Saving Time and Money
5. GM Took 5 Years to Fix Full Control Hack in Millions of Vehicles Equipped with OnStar
In 2013, experts first raised alarms about the potential for hacking in new vehicles with complex computerized systems after security researcher Chris Valasek gained control of a Toyota Prius using a tethered (wired) exploit.
At the time, automakers dismissed the concerns, as the hack required a laptop physically connected to the car.
However, by 2014, Valasek and fellow researcher Charlie Miller demonstrated that the hack could be done wirelessly, over Bluetooth or WiFi.
With the increasing presence of WiFi, Bluetooth, and cellular 4G LTE radios in vehicles, including OnStar 4G LTE, it seemed likely that wireless vehicle hacking could become widespread in 2015.
Recent revelations show that remote vehicle hacking progressed much faster than anticipated. In fact, a functional remote control hack for GM vehicles was discovered and shared with the company in 2009.
Despite knowing about the hack for over five years, GM only took effective action recently, with previous attempts failing to fully address the issue.
This hack, which was tested on a 2009 GM Chevy Impala, was possible on any vehicle using OnStar’s Verizon CDMA voice network. By reverse-engineering the communication protocol, hackers could take control of the car, eventually accessing the vehicle’s CAN bus.
This hack allowed complete control over the car, with the ability to track, engage, and disable brakes. According to one of the researchers, “We basically had complete control of the car except the steering.”
The researchers emphasized that GM was not negligent, but rather ill-prepared to handle such sophisticated cybersecurity challenges. They believe that many automakers still lack the necessary experience and capabilities to effectively address these issues.
Finally, in early 2015, GM rolled out a fix that prevented the hack from taking full control over vulnerable vehicles. However, older OnStar models lacked over-the-air (OTA) update functionality, which would have required a recall.
To address this, GM remotely hacked its customers’ vehicles to enable OTA updates. As Jeff Massimilla, GM’s chief security officer, stated, “We provided a software update over the air that allowed us to remediate the vulnerability.”
While Massimilla acknowledged that the company’s organization was not optimally structured to handle such concerns five years ago, he believes that GM is now prepared to respond more quickly and effectively to cybersecurity threats.
The true test, however, will come when the company faces the next significant exploit, hopefully not one that leads to public harm.
Injured by a Defective Vehicle?
If you’ve been seriously injured due to a defective car, truck, or SUV, the experienced product defect attorneys at The Reiff Law Firm are ready to fight for you.
Whether the issue is a mechanical failure or a software glitch, we are here to help you secure the compensation you need for medical bills and other expenses. To schedule a free, confidential consultation, call our experienced legal team today at (215) 607-8085.