On 9 Mar 2010, at 10:34, Bob Landman wrote: >> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-canaries8-2010mar08,0,1192458.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20MostEmailed%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Most%20E-mailed%20Stories%29&utm_source=feedburner Particularly little to do with tinwhiskers I think! more like media finding a bandwagon. I am sure you will find incidents like this in any company, "I told you so." What really interests me is the drift into practices which may become dangerous from an unanticipated angle. The continuous development of engine controls (which is no doubt only one example) does not lead to clearcut decision points, at which someone should have held a review and considered a wider picture. That is a little more like the situation with banning lead, where - as I see it - some group has made a global decision without actually being in a position to solve the resulting issues, "never mind the details - we are sure the engineers will solve them once them see the incentive." That is a drift, because there are clear cases where lead is bad, as in paint and gasoline, and the dividing line between significant and workable bans and "the law of unintended consequences" is hard to see. regards, Rod rod.dalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx