I think it's time to finish touching Doolibae.

I think it's time to finish touching Doolibae.

In fact, I have done a sudden acceleration case myself. This time, I personally questioned the master, who also appeared, and a professional researcher at the National Forensic Service also questioned the witness in court. I learned something from that case.

First, almost all of the incidents claiming to be sudden unintended acceleration are caused by pedal misoperation.

I'm in favor of installing a black box camera on the pedal part to accurately determine the responsibility, but in fact, it's not as difficult as you think to check whether the pedal is operated incorrectly even if you don't wear a black box camera.

Because of the "shoe print" in this article.

In most "suspected sudden unintended acceleration" cases, this shoe print appears. I learned this from the National Forensic Service myself. I mistook the accelerator for a brake and stepped on it, so when the car suddenly went off, the driver would pedal with all his might in fear. In many cases, the pedal pattern would remain on the shoe, and the pedal would go crazy enough to smear the sole on the shoe.

DEAR ABBY: Most drivers may be suspicious. You might be wondering if hard soles can leave pedal prints on them. However, the case I did was that the pedals were clearly marked even though the driver was wearing hard soles for women. That's how desperate he was to pedal. So the car literally has to rush.

So, when a suspected sudden acceleration occurs, the National Forensic Service checks the pedals and the soles of the driver's shoes, and at this stage, most sudden acceleration cases are closed.

Second, the mechanism by which sudden acceleration occurs is still unclear.

The main cause of sudden acceleration is more than the engine's electronic control devices such as ECUs. However, no experts have yet clarified why these devices are abnormal and how they lead to sudden acceleration.
You might think, "No, isn't that something that the manufacturer has to explain?" But it's not that simple, from an engineering perspective.

Most proponents of sudden acceleration say that during sudden acceleration, the car is speeding at an abnormal speed. The incident I did also assert that the car in the accident had far exceeded the maximum speed possible by design. According to this argument, because of ECU problems, the engine is far exceeding design performance. If this is possible, it should be the car company that wants to know the cause of the sudden acceleration most. It means that you can extract much more powerful force from the same engine.

In my case, it was argued that the crash site was downhill and that it was speeding up, so the judges in the same car ran an on-the-spot inspection, sprinting down the same road. Of course, the judge himself confirmed that it wasn't going to be that fast.

In this regard, the "master," whose name also appeared this time, claimed that it happened because of the ECU's cold lead, but he couldn't explain at all why the cold lead resulted in abnormally high engine performance.

Third, the master actually has some problems.

I don't doubt his sincerity, but he has no expertise in matters related to sudden unintended acceleration.

The master is a master of automobile repair. When it comes to repair, the nation's best expert is probably right. However, sudden acceleration is a matter of automobile design and mechanism, not repair. If a repair expert is also an expert in design, all repair experts will have to be in design and automobile development at an automobile company at a high annual salary, and all those who have done design at automobile companies will have to work in industrial history after retirement. However, everyone knows this is not the case.

What I noticed during his analysis and witness questioning was that he had no expertise in the areas in which he claimed responsibility for rash actions. Still, it's certainly problematic that he's given too much authority because he's a "master general."

Fourth, there is a problem with some people who claim sudden acceleration.

To be more precise, there are people who approach the people who have been involved in the accident by claiming to be "citizens" groups, etc. They claim to be civic groups that fight to uncover the truth of sudden unintended acceleration, but in reality they are often brokers. I've heard that some of them are notorious.

They intervene by claiming to be quick-tempered professionals and offering advice. And they base their efforts on one side or another. Being exposed to the media and treated as a professional is a clear plus, and I can only speculate -- perhaps they will be paid part of the money in advisory fees, sponsorship benefits, etc.

Given that rash becomes a social issue and a good prey to the media for sensational stories, the emergence of such "brokers" may be natural. But it's certainly problematic that "experts" distort, complicate matters and increase social costs.

I'm not claiming that rash doesn't exist. However, most of the current "rush" claims have serious problems, and failure to properly filter them out makes it harder to analyze the existence or cause of the real problem.

This issue is entirely a matter of engineering, not of faith and public opinion. The problem can be solved by abandoning the prejudice that automakers are unconditionally evil and that all those who have been in accidents are unfair.

I think the problem of sudden acceleration requires a scientific and rational approach.

I wondered if I needed to use it because it was about to be criticized, but I think it's good to use it at least once, so I tried it while the results of this work came out.