記憶があるときから頭痛を経験しています。ただこの数年は酷かった。市販薬が効かなくなり、かなり強い痛み止めを飲んで、つい最近は頭痛外来に通い始めました。ところが、頭痛外来に通い始める一ヶ月前から薬の飲まなければやってられないほどの頭痛が起きていません。この3年ぐらいは月に3、4度は薬を飲んでいたのですが、この一ヵ月半に一度も飲んでいません。奇跡ですね。仕事は変わらず。天候は多少暖かい日が増えたか。食事・運動・睡眠も何も変わっていない。おそらくもしかしたら、ひょっとしたら、可能性があるのは枕を反対にして寝はじめたことか。 今まで凹凸のある低反発枕を裏の平らな側面にして寝たら、気持ち首が楽になった気がする。確かに首の骨が少し曲がっているとは整体の先生から指摘されていたが、すこしキツイSカーブから直線になる圧力が加わったことによって、何かが緩和されたからか。いずれにせよ、軽い頭痛は週に一度はまだ起きている。安心しないで、とりあえず頭痛外来へは通い続ける。だって薬一錠で1000円もするんだもんね（保険で300円にはなるけど）。
米ＡＢＣテレビは１２日までに、電子制御システムの異常でトヨタ自動車の車に急加速が発生する実験を放送したニュースで、映像を不適切に編集した「誤り」があったことを認めた。米メディアが伝えた。
ＡＢＣは２月２２日、電子制御システムの欠陥がトヨタ車のエンジン回転の急上昇を招く恐れがあるとする、南イリノイ大の准教授による実験の様子を放映。急加速するトヨタ車の映像と同時にエンジン回転数の急上昇を示すタコメーターの映像を盛り込んだ。
しかしタコメーターの映像は実際には停止状態のトヨタ車のもので、急加速するトヨタ車とは無関係だった。
ＡＢＣは「映像編集に関して誤った判断をした」と表明した。トヨタはＡＢＣの映像が「誤解を招く」と指摘していた。（共同）
☆前投稿と同様にこの元となったAP通信のNewsとリンクを記録させておきます。
ABCNewsも報道。
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10069414
2-Second Video Causes Headache for ABC News
ABC's insertion of wrong video in Toyota story causes problems
By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer
NEW YORK March 11, 2010 (AP)
For the want of a better two-second picture of a tachometer, ABC News has called into question its reporting on acceleration problems with Toyota vehicles.
The network's handling of a Feb. 22 "World News" story about potential problems with computer systems in Toyotas has created ethical questions and intensified bitter feelings the besieged automaker already had toward ABC.
ABC has admitted to a misjudgment and swapped out the brief dashboard video in its report, which continues to be available online. Its story illustrated a report by David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University professor who suggested that a design flaw in Toyotas might leave a short-circuit that could cause sudden acceleration undetected by the car's computer system.
Correspondent Brian Ross' "World News" report showed him driving a Toyota with Gilbert that was rigged to quickly accelerate. Even though he knew it was coming, Ross said the incident left him shaken, and he had a hard time getting the car to come to a stop.
Briefly during the drive, ABC cut to a picture of a tachometer with the needle zooming forward. The impression was that the tachometer was documenting the ride Ross was taking. Instead, that picture was taken from a separate instance where a short-circuit was induced in a parked car.
ABC said that editing was done because it was impossible to get a good picture of the tachometer while the car was moving because the camera was shaking. The camera shot was steady when it was taken in a parked car.
"The tachometer showed the same thing every time," said ABC News spokeswoman Emily Lenzner.
Toyota spokesman John Hanson disputes that, saying tachometers react much more dramatically when short-circuits happen in a parked car than a car that is moving. Tachometers measure engine speed.
It all points to problems that are created when visual journalists try to alter reality in order to get a better picture.
"Anytime you give the audience any reason to doubt the honesty of the piece, that's a serious problem," said Charlotte Grimes, a Syracuse University journalism professor who specializes in ethical issues.
"Do they honestly think that a company like Toyota, with all the resources that it has, would not be looking at these things?" Grimes asked.
Toyota recognized the differences right away: the shot showed the car's speedometer was at zero, the parking brake was on and no one was using the seat belts — while Ross wore one on the test drive, Hanson said. Online discussion of the differences began almost immediately, and the Web site Gawker.com wrote about it last week.
ABC edited the online version of its story shortly after that story appeared and wrote a note on its Web site explaining why.
"This was a misjudgment made in the editing room," Lenzner said. "They should have left the shaky shot in. But I want to make clear that the two-second shot that was used did not change the outcome of the report in any way."
The inserted tachometer shot still didn't specifically illustrate Ross' ride. It was from another ride made in order to create different camera angles. A camera person could not have captured the tachometer shot with Ross and Gilbert both in the car, Lenzner said.
Toyota's Hanson said it was next to impossible for the short circuit detailed by Gilbert to happen in real life. The automaker, which had to recall many of its cars because of problems associated with a depressed gas pedal, held a news conference on Monday to try and refute Gilbert's study. It depicted similar short circuits in other cars, none of which were detected by the vehicles' computer system.
Gilbert did not return phone or e-mail messages for comment, and a woman who answered the phone at his home said he was unavailable.
Hanson said he wished Toyota could have been invited to see the simulation conducted by ABC. "Simulation" is a word that brings back tough memories for TV networks: NBC's news president lost his job in 1993 after it was revealed that for a "Dateline NBC" study about alleged safety problems with General Motors trucks, the network rigged a truck with small explosives for a story. Lenzner said it was ridiculous to compare a two-second tachometer shot to the NBC case.
She said Toyota was given a chance to comment on the story the day it was aired.
"It was not like ABC was trying to alter the footage," she said. "There was no staging. There was no dramatization. It was an editing mistake."
Even before this report, relations between Toyota and ABC were on edge. More than 100 Toyota dealerships in the Southeast had agreed last month to pull advertising on local ABC affiliated because they were angry with Ross' aggressive reporting on the automaker's problems.
ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
その他リンク：
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_en_tv/us_toyota_recall_abc
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/03/11/entertainment-specialized-consumer-services-us-toyota-recall-abc_7426542.html
ＡＢＣは２月２２日、電子制御システムの欠陥がトヨタ車のエンジン回転の急上昇を招く恐れがあるとする、南イリノイ大の准教授による実験の様子を放映。急加速するトヨタ車の映像と同時にエンジン回転数の急上昇を示すタコメーターの映像を盛り込んだ。
しかしタコメーターの映像は実際には停止状態のトヨタ車のもので、急加速するトヨタ車とは無関係だった。
ＡＢＣは「映像編集に関して誤った判断をした」と表明した。トヨタはＡＢＣの映像が「誤解を招く」と指摘していた。（共同）
☆前投稿と同様にこの元となったAP通信のNewsとリンクを記録させておきます。
ABCNewsも報道。
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10069414
2-Second Video Causes Headache for ABC News
ABC's insertion of wrong video in Toyota story causes problems
By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer
NEW YORK March 11, 2010 (AP)
For the want of a better two-second picture of a tachometer, ABC News has called into question its reporting on acceleration problems with Toyota vehicles.
The network's handling of a Feb. 22 "World News" story about potential problems with computer systems in Toyotas has created ethical questions and intensified bitter feelings the besieged automaker already had toward ABC.
ABC has admitted to a misjudgment and swapped out the brief dashboard video in its report, which continues to be available online. Its story illustrated a report by David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University professor who suggested that a design flaw in Toyotas might leave a short-circuit that could cause sudden acceleration undetected by the car's computer system.
Correspondent Brian Ross' "World News" report showed him driving a Toyota with Gilbert that was rigged to quickly accelerate. Even though he knew it was coming, Ross said the incident left him shaken, and he had a hard time getting the car to come to a stop.
Briefly during the drive, ABC cut to a picture of a tachometer with the needle zooming forward. The impression was that the tachometer was documenting the ride Ross was taking. Instead, that picture was taken from a separate instance where a short-circuit was induced in a parked car.
ABC said that editing was done because it was impossible to get a good picture of the tachometer while the car was moving because the camera was shaking. The camera shot was steady when it was taken in a parked car.
"The tachometer showed the same thing every time," said ABC News spokeswoman Emily Lenzner.
Toyota spokesman John Hanson disputes that, saying tachometers react much more dramatically when short-circuits happen in a parked car than a car that is moving. Tachometers measure engine speed.
It all points to problems that are created when visual journalists try to alter reality in order to get a better picture.
"Anytime you give the audience any reason to doubt the honesty of the piece, that's a serious problem," said Charlotte Grimes, a Syracuse University journalism professor who specializes in ethical issues.
"Do they honestly think that a company like Toyota, with all the resources that it has, would not be looking at these things?" Grimes asked.
Toyota recognized the differences right away: the shot showed the car's speedometer was at zero, the parking brake was on and no one was using the seat belts — while Ross wore one on the test drive, Hanson said. Online discussion of the differences began almost immediately, and the Web site Gawker.com wrote about it last week.
ABC edited the online version of its story shortly after that story appeared and wrote a note on its Web site explaining why.
"This was a misjudgment made in the editing room," Lenzner said. "They should have left the shaky shot in. But I want to make clear that the two-second shot that was used did not change the outcome of the report in any way."
The inserted tachometer shot still didn't specifically illustrate Ross' ride. It was from another ride made in order to create different camera angles. A camera person could not have captured the tachometer shot with Ross and Gilbert both in the car, Lenzner said.
Toyota's Hanson said it was next to impossible for the short circuit detailed by Gilbert to happen in real life. The automaker, which had to recall many of its cars because of problems associated with a depressed gas pedal, held a news conference on Monday to try and refute Gilbert's study. It depicted similar short circuits in other cars, none of which were detected by the vehicles' computer system.
Gilbert did not return phone or e-mail messages for comment, and a woman who answered the phone at his home said he was unavailable.
Hanson said he wished Toyota could have been invited to see the simulation conducted by ABC. "Simulation" is a word that brings back tough memories for TV networks: NBC's news president lost his job in 1993 after it was revealed that for a "Dateline NBC" study about alleged safety problems with General Motors trucks, the network rigged a truck with small explosives for a story. Lenzner said it was ridiculous to compare a two-second tachometer shot to the NBC case.
She said Toyota was given a chance to comment on the story the day it was aired.
"It was not like ABC was trying to alter the footage," she said. "There was no staging. There was no dramatization. It was an editing mistake."
Even before this report, relations between Toyota and ABC were on edge. More than 100 Toyota dealerships in the Southeast had agreed last month to pull advertising on local ABC affiliated because they were angry with Ross' aggressive reporting on the automaker's problems.
ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
その他リンク：
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_en_tv/us_toyota_recall_abc
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/03/11/entertainment-specialized-consumer-services-us-toyota-recall-abc_7426542.html
急加速の原因はブレーキとアクセル踏み間違い ＮＹタイムズ紙で大学教授指摘
【ワシントン＝渡辺浩生】トヨタ自動車の大量リコール（回収・無償修理）問題に関連し、１１日付の米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズが、トヨタ車の急加速の原因を「ブレーキとアクセルの踏み間違いだ」とする心理学者、リチャード・シュミットカリフォルニア大学ロサンゼルス校名誉教授の寄稿を掲載した。
１９８０年代にドイツ車「アウディ５０００」の急加速が多発して大量リコールとなった際、調査に携わった同教授は、今回の急加速の背景について「ブレーキを踏むつもりでアクセルを踏む運転者によって頻繁に起きることにある」と説明。原因に疑われる電子系統の欠陥ではなく、「人的要素」を指摘した。
そのうえで、アクセルをブレーキと踏み間違えた結果、加速に驚いてさらにアクセルを踏み、車がますます急加速して事故に至る－という仮説を紹介。「（ノイズの多さなどから）人は意図するのと違う行動を起こす場合もある」としている。
米道路交通安全局（ＮＨＴＳＡ）は８９年、「アウディ５０００」の急加速の主な原因を「ペダルの踏み間違い」と結論づけ、アウディは解決策として自動シフト・ロックを設計、他のメーカーに広がった。今回も予防策として、米政府内ではブレーキがアクセルより優先される装置の搭載義務化が検討されている。
ただ、同教授は「運転手がブレーキに触れずにアクセルを踏む限り、役立たない」と警告。装置が普及しても事故が起き続ければ、運転者が非難されると述べている。
以上
☆情報に流される人は多いけど、その波が新しい現実を作りだす力を持っている。念のため以下に探してきた元の記事を掲載しておきます。
Braking Bad
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11schmidt.html
Marina del Rey, Calif.
THE Obama administration has said that it may require automakers to install “smart pedals” on all new cars. This kind of system — already used in BMWs, Chryslers, Volkswagens and some of the newest Toyotas — deactivates the car’s accelerator when the brake pedal is pressed so that the car can stop safely even if its throttle sticks open.
The idea is to prevent the kind of sudden acceleration that has recently led to the recall of millions of Toyotas. Federal safety regulators have received complaints asserting that this problem has caused accidents resulting in 52 deaths in Toyotas since 2000. Smart pedals might help prevent more such accidents if the cause of unintended acceleration turns out to be some vehicle defect.
But based on my experience in the 1980s helping investigate unintended acceleration in the Audi 5000, I suspect that smart pedals cannot solve the problem. The trouble, unbelievable as it may seem, is that sudden acceleration is very often caused by drivers who press the gas pedal when they intend to press the brake.
From the mid-1980s until 2000, thousands of incidents of sudden acceleration were reported in all makes and models of cars (and buses, tractors and golf carts). Then, as now, the incidents were relatively rare among car crashes generally, but they were nevertheless frequent and dangerous enough to upset automakers, drivers and the news media.
I looked into more than 150 cases of unintended acceleration in the 1980s, many of which became the subject of lawsuits against automakers. In those days, Audi, like Toyota today, received by far the most complaints. (I testified in court for Audi on many occasions. I have not worked for Toyota on unintended acceleration, though I did consult for the company seven years ago on another matter.)
In these cases, the problem typically happened when the driver first got into the car and started it. After turning on the ignition, the driver would intend to press lightly on the brake pedal while shifting from park to drive (or reverse), and suddenly the car would leap forward (or backward). Drivers said that continued pressing on the brake would not stop the car; it would keep going until it crashed. Drivers believed that something had gone wrong in the acceleration system, and that the brakes had failed.
But when engineers examined these vehicles post-crash, they found nothing that could account for what the drivers had reported. The trouble occurred in cars small and large, cheap and expensive, with and without cruise control or electronic engine controls, and with carburetors, fuel injection and even diesel engines. The only thing they had in common was an automatic transmission. An investigation by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration found no electro-mechanical defects to explain the problem. Nor did similar government studies in Canada and Japan or any number of private studies.
In the Toyota situation today, some have suggested that unintended acceleration has been caused by floor mats or sticking throttles, but there is considerable doubt about these explanations, and the search for the smoking gun continues. One thought is that computerized engine management systems or electronic controls may be to blame. And so it is interesting to note that unintended acceleration in the 1980s happened before the arrival of drive-by-wire controls and computerized engine-management systems.
Back then, many of us who worked in fields like ergonomics, human performance and psychology suspected that these unintended-acceleration events might have a human component. We noticed that the complaints were far more frequent among older drivers (in a General Motors study, 60-to-70-year-olds had about six times the rate of complaints as 20-to-30-year-olds), drivers who had little experience with the specific car involved (parking-lot attendants, car-wash workers, rental-car patrons) and people of relatively short stature.
Several researchers hypothesized how a driver, intending to apply the brake pedal to keep the car from creeping, would occasionally press the accelerator instead. Then, surprised that the car moved so much, he would try pressing harder. Of course, if his right foot was actually on the accelerator, the throttle would open and the car would move faster. This would then lead the driver to press the “brake” harder still, and to bring about even more acceleration. Eventually, the car would be at full throttle, until it crashed. The driver’s foot would be all the way to the floor, giving him the impression that the brakes had failed.
In the cases that went to court, jurors naturally asked, why would a driver with decades of driving experience suddenly mistake the accelerator for the brake? And why would the episode last so long — often 6 to 10 seconds or more? Wouldn’t that be ample time to shut off the ignition, shift to neutral or engage the parking brake?
First, in these situations, the driver does not really confuse the accelerator and the brake. Rather, the limbs do not do exactly what the brain tells them to. Noisy neuromuscular processes intervene to make the action slightly different from the one intended. The driver intends to press the brake, but once in a while these neuromuscular processes cause the foot to deviate from the intended trajectory — just as a basketball player who makes 90 percent of his free throws sometimes misses the hoop. This effect would be enhanced by the driver being slightly misaligned in the seat when he first gets in the car.
The answer to the second question is that, when a car accelerates unexpectedly, the driver often panics, and just presses the brake harder and harder. Drivers typically do not shut off the ignition, shift to neutral or apply the parking brake.
In 1989, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that the incidents of unintended acceleration by the Audi 5000 were mostly caused by this kind of pedal error — not some electro-mechanical defect in the vehicle. To fix the problem, Audi designed something called an automatic shift lock, which, when the car is being started, keeps the transmission in park unless and until the brake pedal is depressed. If the driver should press the accelerator instead of the brake, the vehicle remains safely in park.
(In a car with a manual transmission, a driver is naturally prevented from making a simple pedal error, because even if his right foot goes to the accelerator instead of the brake, the car still will not move unless he also intentionally lifts his left foot from the clutch.)
Audi ultimately gave the world’s other automakers the rights to the patent on the automatic shift lock and by the mid-1990s virtually all new cars had adopted the feature or some variant of it. Incidents of sudden acceleration when people started their cars dropped sharply. The shift lock not only made people safer but also provided evidence for the hypothesis that most of the problems had been caused by driver error.
Yet the automatic shift lock did not entirely do away with sudden acceleration incidents — as the Toyota problems illustrate. The fix now championed by the Obama administration could work in situations in which there is an actual vehicle defect. It would tell the car that if it receives signals to both accelerate and brake, the accelerator should go dead so that the brake alone will work.
But this smart-pedal system can be of no use if the driver is simply pressing the accelerator and not touching the brake. The unintended acceleration — and the crash — would still occur.
What the smart pedal may do, however, is finally give us a sense of whether sudden acceleration tends to stem from operator error. If the reports of acceleration continue (and the smart pedals work properly), then there will be nothing and no one left to blame but the driver.
Richard A. Schmidt is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
【ワシントン＝渡辺浩生】トヨタ自動車の大量リコール（回収・無償修理）問題に関連し、１１日付の米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズが、トヨタ車の急加速の原因を「ブレーキとアクセルの踏み間違いだ」とする心理学者、リチャード・シュミットカリフォルニア大学ロサンゼルス校名誉教授の寄稿を掲載した。
１９８０年代にドイツ車「アウディ５０００」の急加速が多発して大量リコールとなった際、調査に携わった同教授は、今回の急加速の背景について「ブレーキを踏むつもりでアクセルを踏む運転者によって頻繁に起きることにある」と説明。原因に疑われる電子系統の欠陥ではなく、「人的要素」を指摘した。
そのうえで、アクセルをブレーキと踏み間違えた結果、加速に驚いてさらにアクセルを踏み、車がますます急加速して事故に至る－という仮説を紹介。「（ノイズの多さなどから）人は意図するのと違う行動を起こす場合もある」としている。
米道路交通安全局（ＮＨＴＳＡ）は８９年、「アウディ５０００」の急加速の主な原因を「ペダルの踏み間違い」と結論づけ、アウディは解決策として自動シフト・ロックを設計、他のメーカーに広がった。今回も予防策として、米政府内ではブレーキがアクセルより優先される装置の搭載義務化が検討されている。
ただ、同教授は「運転手がブレーキに触れずにアクセルを踏む限り、役立たない」と警告。装置が普及しても事故が起き続ければ、運転者が非難されると述べている。
以上
☆情報に流される人は多いけど、その波が新しい現実を作りだす力を持っている。念のため以下に探してきた元の記事を掲載しておきます。
Braking Bad
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11schmidt.html
Marina del Rey, Calif.
THE Obama administration has said that it may require automakers to install “smart pedals” on all new cars. This kind of system — already used in BMWs, Chryslers, Volkswagens and some of the newest Toyotas — deactivates the car’s accelerator when the brake pedal is pressed so that the car can stop safely even if its throttle sticks open.
The idea is to prevent the kind of sudden acceleration that has recently led to the recall of millions of Toyotas. Federal safety regulators have received complaints asserting that this problem has caused accidents resulting in 52 deaths in Toyotas since 2000. Smart pedals might help prevent more such accidents if the cause of unintended acceleration turns out to be some vehicle defect.
But based on my experience in the 1980s helping investigate unintended acceleration in the Audi 5000, I suspect that smart pedals cannot solve the problem. The trouble, unbelievable as it may seem, is that sudden acceleration is very often caused by drivers who press the gas pedal when they intend to press the brake.
From the mid-1980s until 2000, thousands of incidents of sudden acceleration were reported in all makes and models of cars (and buses, tractors and golf carts). Then, as now, the incidents were relatively rare among car crashes generally, but they were nevertheless frequent and dangerous enough to upset automakers, drivers and the news media.
I looked into more than 150 cases of unintended acceleration in the 1980s, many of which became the subject of lawsuits against automakers. In those days, Audi, like Toyota today, received by far the most complaints. (I testified in court for Audi on many occasions. I have not worked for Toyota on unintended acceleration, though I did consult for the company seven years ago on another matter.)
In these cases, the problem typically happened when the driver first got into the car and started it. After turning on the ignition, the driver would intend to press lightly on the brake pedal while shifting from park to drive (or reverse), and suddenly the car would leap forward (or backward). Drivers said that continued pressing on the brake would not stop the car; it would keep going until it crashed. Drivers believed that something had gone wrong in the acceleration system, and that the brakes had failed.
But when engineers examined these vehicles post-crash, they found nothing that could account for what the drivers had reported. The trouble occurred in cars small and large, cheap and expensive, with and without cruise control or electronic engine controls, and with carburetors, fuel injection and even diesel engines. The only thing they had in common was an automatic transmission. An investigation by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration found no electro-mechanical defects to explain the problem. Nor did similar government studies in Canada and Japan or any number of private studies.
In the Toyota situation today, some have suggested that unintended acceleration has been caused by floor mats or sticking throttles, but there is considerable doubt about these explanations, and the search for the smoking gun continues. One thought is that computerized engine management systems or electronic controls may be to blame. And so it is interesting to note that unintended acceleration in the 1980s happened before the arrival of drive-by-wire controls and computerized engine-management systems.
Back then, many of us who worked in fields like ergonomics, human performance and psychology suspected that these unintended-acceleration events might have a human component. We noticed that the complaints were far more frequent among older drivers (in a General Motors study, 60-to-70-year-olds had about six times the rate of complaints as 20-to-30-year-olds), drivers who had little experience with the specific car involved (parking-lot attendants, car-wash workers, rental-car patrons) and people of relatively short stature.
Several researchers hypothesized how a driver, intending to apply the brake pedal to keep the car from creeping, would occasionally press the accelerator instead. Then, surprised that the car moved so much, he would try pressing harder. Of course, if his right foot was actually on the accelerator, the throttle would open and the car would move faster. This would then lead the driver to press the “brake” harder still, and to bring about even more acceleration. Eventually, the car would be at full throttle, until it crashed. The driver’s foot would be all the way to the floor, giving him the impression that the brakes had failed.
In the cases that went to court, jurors naturally asked, why would a driver with decades of driving experience suddenly mistake the accelerator for the brake? And why would the episode last so long — often 6 to 10 seconds or more? Wouldn’t that be ample time to shut off the ignition, shift to neutral or engage the parking brake?
First, in these situations, the driver does not really confuse the accelerator and the brake. Rather, the limbs do not do exactly what the brain tells them to. Noisy neuromuscular processes intervene to make the action slightly different from the one intended. The driver intends to press the brake, but once in a while these neuromuscular processes cause the foot to deviate from the intended trajectory — just as a basketball player who makes 90 percent of his free throws sometimes misses the hoop. This effect would be enhanced by the driver being slightly misaligned in the seat when he first gets in the car.
The answer to the second question is that, when a car accelerates unexpectedly, the driver often panics, and just presses the brake harder and harder. Drivers typically do not shut off the ignition, shift to neutral or apply the parking brake.
In 1989, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that the incidents of unintended acceleration by the Audi 5000 were mostly caused by this kind of pedal error — not some electro-mechanical defect in the vehicle. To fix the problem, Audi designed something called an automatic shift lock, which, when the car is being started, keeps the transmission in park unless and until the brake pedal is depressed. If the driver should press the accelerator instead of the brake, the vehicle remains safely in park.
(In a car with a manual transmission, a driver is naturally prevented from making a simple pedal error, because even if his right foot goes to the accelerator instead of the brake, the car still will not move unless he also intentionally lifts his left foot from the clutch.)
Audi ultimately gave the world’s other automakers the rights to the patent on the automatic shift lock and by the mid-1990s virtually all new cars had adopted the feature or some variant of it. Incidents of sudden acceleration when people started their cars dropped sharply. The shift lock not only made people safer but also provided evidence for the hypothesis that most of the problems had been caused by driver error.
Yet the automatic shift lock did not entirely do away with sudden acceleration incidents — as the Toyota problems illustrate. The fix now championed by the Obama administration could work in situations in which there is an actual vehicle defect. It would tell the car that if it receives signals to both accelerate and brake, the accelerator should go dead so that the brake alone will work.
But this smart-pedal system can be of no use if the driver is simply pressing the accelerator and not touching the brake. The unintended acceleration — and the crash — would still occur.
What the smart pedal may do, however, is finally give us a sense of whether sudden acceleration tends to stem from operator error. If the reports of acceleration continue (and the smart pedals work properly), then there will be nothing and no one left to blame but the driver.
Richard A. Schmidt is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
先日満員電車の中で座っていたのですが、よれよれのおじいちゃん＆ばぁちゃんがやって来たので、隣に座っていた人と同時に席を譲りました。「いいんです、いいんです」と意に反する日本人らしいコメントの後に二人とも座って、おじいちゃんは爆睡。おばあちゃんは両手で携帯メールか何かで連打しまくること20分。疲れたのか眠りに入った模様。年寄り、妊婦、ケガしている人には譲ってくださいと優先席付近にはあるけど、なんだか複雑な気持ちになった。まぁ正直携帯電話のマナーは一番分かりにくい。メールしてようが、電話で話してようが、Onの状態であれば何も違いがないような気がするのは私だけだろうか？携帯で話してはいけないのなら、電車はしゃべってはいけないところということか。唯一想像がつく理由はペースメーカー。本当に携帯がそれに影響を及ぼすか分かりませんが。まぁ電車の中にいる誰一人として（優先席に席を譲られた人含む）ペースメーカーのことなんて考えてないと思う。それが現実だけど、悲しいよね。ペースメーカーをつけている人にとっては命がけのリスクを負って電車に乗っているとしたら、心が沈む。
そんなこと誰も（もちろん首相も）こんなこと言っていませんが、現在騒がれている（と行ってもオーストラリアと日本だけで他の国では知られてないかも）日本の捕鯨VSシーシェパードですが、この前ケビンラッド豪首相が日本が捕鯨をやめない場合は国際裁判所へ訴える！と発言したのです。つまりタイトルは嘘ですが、中国を日本、犬を鯨にして鳩山をラッドにすると嘘じゃなくなります。
何が言いたいかって、視点によってものの見方大きく異なるということ。一点しか見ないと判断を誤りますよね。犬を食べる習慣があって誰も困らないならぜんぜんOKでしょ！絶滅するとか何か問題があるようだったら考えるべきだと思うけどね。価値観の違いは視点の違い。そしてそれは与えられた限りある情報により大きく影響を受ける。
なぜ今日はこんなことを書いたかというと下の記事をご参考。年間300万のカンガルーや野生のラクダを羊や家畜も守るためにライセンスを持ったハンターが撃ち殺している豪州。一人当たりCO２排出量世界トップレベル。過去に捕鯨をしていて鯨の油を輸出していたけど鯨の数が少なくなり商売が成り立たなくなった豪州*。そんな豪州でも引き続き美味しいオージービーフを日本へ供給し続けてほしいですね。吉野家ショック特需でたくさん精肉するのは大変かもだけど、その牛を守るためにも引き続きカンガルーは撃ち殺し続けてほしい！なんてね。結局裏には商業目的があるから政治家の言うことを真に受けても何も良いことはないね。
でも忘れちゃいけないのが、シーシェパードのビジネスモデルは侮れない。アピール→義援金→アピール 一体彼らの利益率はいかに！日本企業ももっと儲けるビジネスモデルを斬新に構築する時がきたのかも。
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/opinion/24iht-edbowring.html
Misguided Emotions
By PHILIP BOWRING
Published: February 23, 2010
HONG KONG — It must count as one of the more bizarre bits of diplomacy in recent times. Last week, on the eve of a visit by Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia threatened to take Japan to the International Court of Justice if it did not stop whaling in the Southern Ocean, the part of the Indian Ocean south of Australia.
One may dismiss this as a politician’s gesture aimed at a domestic audience that has taken to emotional “save the whales” campaigns. Though whale oil and bone had once been Australia’s biggest export, the nation had no tradition of eating whale meat, and a shortage of whales caused the closure of its last whaling station in 1978.
But such outbursts in favor of one member of the mammal kingdom by a major exporter of red meat is likely to do more damage to Australia’s image than to Japan’s. Most of Australia’s Asian neighbors — other than Japan — may not care much one way or the other about whaling. But the tone of moral superiority adopted by Australia — its apparent belief that it is the guardian of the Southern Ocean from Asian depredation — grates on many Asians who also resent environment lessons from a top carbon polluter.
From an Australian perspective it may seem reasonable that the largest, most advanced country in the Southern Ocean should assume some responsibility for it. But such assumptions of its rights and duties in international waters can easily keep alive lingering Asian resentments of Western colonialism — European expansionism that gave a small new nation with a population only a little bigger than Shanghai control over a vast, mineral rich landmass. Does Australia want to control the ocean too, some ask?
There may be scientific arguments about whether Japan’s harvesting of several hundred whales per year is endangering the stock in the Southern Ocean. But Australia’s “crusade” seems more couched in emotional than scientific terms. We see this also in the heroic status accorded the Australian and New Zealand campaigners who have harassed Japan’s whaling vessels.
Japan may be pushing the limits of the “scientific research” allowed by the International Whaling Commission in the “whale sanctuary” it declared in the Southern Ocean. But at least Japan still belongs to that body. Norway always refused to accept I.W.C. restrictions. Iceland walked out of the I.W.C. in 1992 (it returned in 2002 but largely on its own terms). Canada left earlier and has not returned.
Meanwhile, other countries with whaling traditions turn a blind eye to the organization. For example, whale hunting is illegal in South Korea but the meat of whales caught in nets or killed accidentally is sold freely. There is pressure to make hunting legal again. Other countries, including Russia and Denmark, allow it for “traditional” communities, which take hundreds of whales a year.
Even making allowances for all the unofficial catch it is still small compared with the numbers killed by ship collisions and nets.
In short, though the world needs properly regulated management of the oceans, Mr. Rudd’s antics discourage whaling countries from cooperating with the I.W.C. and make others reluctant to accept controls on fishing in international waters to stabilize rapidly depleting fish stocks.
Harpooning whales may be cruel and does excite emotions even among those who regularly eat red meat. But Australia is in scant position to complain when it shoots upward of 3 million wild kangaroos a year to protect crops and grazing for sheep and cattle. It recently announced a mass shooting of troublesome wild camels.
The kangaroo and camel culls may be justified. But local emotions are confused. Shooting kangaroos by licensed hunters has long been common in Australia’s outback. But a plan for a culling of the national symbol near the national capital raised a storm of protest to “save Skippy” (the pet kangaroo in a famous children’s TV program).
There is of course nothing unusual in battles between the heart and the head when it comes to attitudes to animals. For example, there is emotion, not reason, behind those in the West who are horrified with the consumption of dog in the East. In fact, there is no reason to treat whales differently from horses, which are still a table meat in some European countries.
Australia’s elevation of its selective emotion into a diplomatic feud with its major Asian ally is nothing short of ridiculous.
*豪州は1978年まで捕鯨をしていたそうです。下記HPが正しいか分からないけど、少なくとも最後の10年くらいで数万頭はその姿を油に変えたらしい。。。
http://www.bigvolcano.com.au/human/whaling.htm
何が言いたいかって、視点によってものの見方大きく異なるということ。一点しか見ないと判断を誤りますよね。犬を食べる習慣があって誰も困らないならぜんぜんOKでしょ！絶滅するとか何か問題があるようだったら考えるべきだと思うけどね。価値観の違いは視点の違い。そしてそれは与えられた限りある情報により大きく影響を受ける。
なぜ今日はこんなことを書いたかというと下の記事をご参考。年間300万のカンガルーや野生のラクダを羊や家畜も守るためにライセンスを持ったハンターが撃ち殺している豪州。一人当たりCO２排出量世界トップレベル。過去に捕鯨をしていて鯨の油を輸出していたけど鯨の数が少なくなり商売が成り立たなくなった豪州*。そんな豪州でも引き続き美味しいオージービーフを日本へ供給し続けてほしいですね。吉野家ショック特需でたくさん精肉するのは大変かもだけど、その牛を守るためにも引き続きカンガルーは撃ち殺し続けてほしい！なんてね。結局裏には商業目的があるから政治家の言うことを真に受けても何も良いことはないね。
でも忘れちゃいけないのが、シーシェパードのビジネスモデルは侮れない。アピール→義援金→アピール 一体彼らの利益率はいかに！日本企業ももっと儲けるビジネスモデルを斬新に構築する時がきたのかも。
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/opinion/24iht-edbowring.html
Misguided Emotions
By PHILIP BOWRING
Published: February 23, 2010
HONG KONG — It must count as one of the more bizarre bits of diplomacy in recent times. Last week, on the eve of a visit by Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia threatened to take Japan to the International Court of Justice if it did not stop whaling in the Southern Ocean, the part of the Indian Ocean south of Australia.
One may dismiss this as a politician’s gesture aimed at a domestic audience that has taken to emotional “save the whales” campaigns. Though whale oil and bone had once been Australia’s biggest export, the nation had no tradition of eating whale meat, and a shortage of whales caused the closure of its last whaling station in 1978.
But such outbursts in favor of one member of the mammal kingdom by a major exporter of red meat is likely to do more damage to Australia’s image than to Japan’s. Most of Australia’s Asian neighbors — other than Japan — may not care much one way or the other about whaling. But the tone of moral superiority adopted by Australia — its apparent belief that it is the guardian of the Southern Ocean from Asian depredation — grates on many Asians who also resent environment lessons from a top carbon polluter.
From an Australian perspective it may seem reasonable that the largest, most advanced country in the Southern Ocean should assume some responsibility for it. But such assumptions of its rights and duties in international waters can easily keep alive lingering Asian resentments of Western colonialism — European expansionism that gave a small new nation with a population only a little bigger than Shanghai control over a vast, mineral rich landmass. Does Australia want to control the ocean too, some ask?
There may be scientific arguments about whether Japan’s harvesting of several hundred whales per year is endangering the stock in the Southern Ocean. But Australia’s “crusade” seems more couched in emotional than scientific terms. We see this also in the heroic status accorded the Australian and New Zealand campaigners who have harassed Japan’s whaling vessels.
Japan may be pushing the limits of the “scientific research” allowed by the International Whaling Commission in the “whale sanctuary” it declared in the Southern Ocean. But at least Japan still belongs to that body. Norway always refused to accept I.W.C. restrictions. Iceland walked out of the I.W.C. in 1992 (it returned in 2002 but largely on its own terms). Canada left earlier and has not returned.
Meanwhile, other countries with whaling traditions turn a blind eye to the organization. For example, whale hunting is illegal in South Korea but the meat of whales caught in nets or killed accidentally is sold freely. There is pressure to make hunting legal again. Other countries, including Russia and Denmark, allow it for “traditional” communities, which take hundreds of whales a year.
Even making allowances for all the unofficial catch it is still small compared with the numbers killed by ship collisions and nets.
In short, though the world needs properly regulated management of the oceans, Mr. Rudd’s antics discourage whaling countries from cooperating with the I.W.C. and make others reluctant to accept controls on fishing in international waters to stabilize rapidly depleting fish stocks.
Harpooning whales may be cruel and does excite emotions even among those who regularly eat red meat. But Australia is in scant position to complain when it shoots upward of 3 million wild kangaroos a year to protect crops and grazing for sheep and cattle. It recently announced a mass shooting of troublesome wild camels.
The kangaroo and camel culls may be justified. But local emotions are confused. Shooting kangaroos by licensed hunters has long been common in Australia’s outback. But a plan for a culling of the national symbol near the national capital raised a storm of protest to “save Skippy” (the pet kangaroo in a famous children’s TV program).
There is of course nothing unusual in battles between the heart and the head when it comes to attitudes to animals. For example, there is emotion, not reason, behind those in the West who are horrified with the consumption of dog in the East. In fact, there is no reason to treat whales differently from horses, which are still a table meat in some European countries.
Australia’s elevation of its selective emotion into a diplomatic feud with its major Asian ally is nothing short of ridiculous.
*豪州は1978年まで捕鯨をしていたそうです。下記HPが正しいか分からないけど、少なくとも最後の10年くらいで数万頭はその姿を油に変えたらしい。。。
http://www.bigvolcano.com.au/human/whaling.htm