The linked trial testimony says otherwise. The engineer states he found bugs, and theoretically it might be possible he was unable to reproduce. Further, he evaluated the software against his own coding standard which was a variant of another.

The engineer was questioned:

" Q. Now, you have not reproduced in vehicle testing your 25 theory that there's a software bug that opens the THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD 30 1 throttle and then the task dies, have you? 2 A. No."

From page 245. Further reproduction questions were all answered with a no further.

To get a successfully task death failure (what the engineer wanted to happen) the engineer had to modify the source code.

Further in the limited testing even with modifications, the failsafe triggered 100% of the time.

Your statement is incorrect.

I'm rereading, and I think you are right. I misremembered.

Is it what people call fake news nowadays?

I once had a project with a major lobbying organisation with links throughout the automotive industry. The one that published regular reports on real vs declared emissions discrepancies long before the VW scandal.

They were unanimous when asked about the unintended acceleration bug. It was a case of mass hysteria.

Is it possible that the timing on your contact with them made a difference? It seems that NASA/NHTSA concluded in 2011 that it was a mechanical defect, but research concluding in 2013 showed that it was totally possible to have been caused by the software.

At least according to the summary based on sources used for Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle...

Hey,

The page you refer to has a section "NHTSA and NASA Investigation Verdict" and it says nothing about the software bugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle...

Perhaps have a look at Koopman https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... and Barr http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUB...