406

Toyota-owned automaker halts Japan production after admitting it tampered with safety tests for 30 years (www.cnn.com)

submitted 11 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Daihatsu, the Japanese automaker owned by Toyota, has halted domestic production after admitting it forged the results of safety tests for its vehicles for more than 30 years.

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 195 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is no fine on earth that could be levied that would discourage others from doing this. If they have profits higher then who cares.

I'm in favor of forceful dissolution.

If you prove you cannot run a company safely, repeatedly violate safety violations and continue to do so for DECADES then you shouldn't be allowed to sell any product, ever again, to the public. The company should be scrapped and all assets sold off or let the government take it and start making cars but drop the cost massively and only sell to its citizens ala pharmaceuticals.

People get their drivers license taken away for far less than this. For pretty small things overall. Toyota laughed at customer safety for 30 years and has only admitted it when caught. Why the fuck is this company allowed to continue existing?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 59 points 11 months ago

Similar to the VW emissions scandal:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

That wasn't over 30 years though...

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

Was the first thing that came to mind. Also should have been scrapped.

If you're violating regulations you literally cannot be trusted on anything else.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I get the anger, but that's the worst possible solution.

Where do you think the people that have been pulling this off successfully for years are gonna go? To unemployment lines, or to the next big paycheck in some other company? Spoiler alert: publicly traded companies are the natural habitat of ambitious twats with zero scruples.

And how about the guys that actually work the shop floor, how likely are they to have some other work opportunity that pays as well?

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Translation: It is acceptable for a multi-national corporation to fuck over the general public safety of the entire fucking planet for DECADES because people will lose a job if they don't do it. Therefore you should levy some basic punishment that will not affect them at all.

Sorry. Not buying it.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Your hitting a straw man , but knock yourself out.

Nowhere was I advocating for "basic punishment". Take the fuckers who came up with this and give them good proper jail sentences. Do the same to every single guy above them who allowed this. Slap fines that are a % of the company's revenue, and not some weak ass random value. Go after the shareholders and make them pay the fine, not allowing the company bankrupt.

Closing down the company makes everything go away, the guys who benefited billions off of this get to walk away without a scratch. And you think that's the better idea... Oh man.

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Accusing me of hitting a strawman while you're actively making shit up, assuming and shoving words down my mouth trying to turn my position into something entirely different.

I do not respect you enough to put any more energy into talking with you. Bye.

[-] andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Capitalism..

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

Fines are just the cost of doing business to these bastards.

[-] Magrath@lemmy.ca 19 points 11 months ago

I don't think that's the way to do it. The workers who have nothing to do with it get shafted by losing their jobs and there is a little less competition in a world where there isn't enough in some industries. I think long jail sentences will the best deterrent. Fines only do so much. C-level executives needs to start going to jail.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

Shutter a company and instead of a fine force the company to continue paying those workers at full pay for a defined amount of time like 5-10 years.

[-] eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

where is the money going to come from if they can't sell anything?

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

If they don't have the cash on hand to survive payroll for 5 years they'll have to liquidate assets and let people know they won't be able to reopen so should try and find employment elsewhere while using the asset to pay them for the 5 year period wether they get a job elsewhere or wait to get a job after that 5 years.

[-] eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Doesn't that ultimately punish not the company, but anyone who lent money or sold material to the company? Usually assets would be liquidated to pay off creditors but if all the assets go to employees creditors don't get paid. This really hurts all the small businesses who sold supplies or materials to the company and haven't been paid for them yet.

And of course, this all ignores the fact that for most companies most of their valuation is in their intellectual property, mainly their brand identity and recognition. And for manufacturing company's, even most of the tangible assets are going to be things like factory buildings and equipment. Those things are all highly specialized so it's very difficult to get someone else to come in and use that space to the same level of productivity. That will result in major damage to the local economy when a huge source of tax revenue and jobs suddenly disappears.

I'm not saying all this because I think companies should get away with whatever they want. Not at all. I just want to give some context for why these "obvious solutions" aren't being used. It's not that the entire world is in some conspiracy. Many of these problems are legitimately very difficult to solve.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

It would require a large overhaul of how the system currently works but eventually things would be priced into the risk a company poses. History of unethical decisions, choice of CEO and board members, etc. where lenders would require higher rates. Also companies may instead be forced to sell their IP instead of liquidate assets. Also maybe 5-10 years might be overkill and more feasible lengths of time could be 1-2 months because people choosing companies to supply them will be less likely to choose those which could have a month long disruption to their supply.

Also I just thought of this in 5 minutes for a random comment. I'm sure there's plenty wrong with the idea but that doesn't mean there's not some form of the concept which could be feasible. It would probably require a committee of 10+ experts to write up something like that.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

5 - 10 years is a bit much, but liquidate the entire company, assets, buildings, real estate, etc. pay the executives $0, and continue salaries for as long as possible with those funds.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But that would encourage workers to speak up if they see their companies doing something wrong because it could make everyone lose their jobs. I think that would be a benefit overall.

I agree people should go to jail too. For sure

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

i agree but good luck enforcing that on capitalism

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is no fine on earth that could be levied that would discourage others from doing this. If they have profits higher then who cares.

when the punishment is a fine, it's only a crime if you're poor.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

At some point there needs to be physical punishments for shareholders. Like, "Oh, you invested in a company that's been willfully flaunting safety regulations for a generation? Yeah, you don't get to have hands anymore. Maybe you should have done some more due diligence."

Stumpify a few hundred thousand wall street types and maybe there'll be a culture change.

[-] Andrenikous@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Due diligence

What would due diligence be by shareholders in a situation like this?

[-] Granixo@feddit.cl 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's Daihatsu we're talking about.

Would you EVER feel safe inside a Daihatsu?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

If only, apparently some of the cars were sold as Toyotas...

[-] Justas@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

And Subaru. And Mazda.

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

How fast am I going, how empty is the road, and am I wearing a condom and prescription helmet?

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago

I got ⅔ of the way through the article, then I was like wait I drive a Toyota!

[-] criticon@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Do you drive a Daihatsu?

[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

They did make some branded as Toyota, so maybe. I haven't seen a complete list of affected models. What I have read makes me think the Toyota branded cars weren't available in the US though.

[-] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

List of affected models: https://www.daihatsu.com/news/2023/20231220-4_1.pdf

It's not just affecting Daihatsu and Toyota models, but also some Subaru and Mazda models. It's mostly compact / cheap vehicles though, if you drive an SUV chance that it's not affected.

I wonder why they felt the need to cheat the safety tests though, it's not like people buying these cheap super compact vehicles for their safety.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Apparently I don’t.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 14 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Daihatsu, the Japanese automaker owned by Toyota, has halted domestic production after admitting it forged the results of safety tests for its vehicles for more than 30 years.

The brand, best known for manufacturing small passenger cars, has stopped output at all four of its Japanese factories as of Tuesday, including one at its headquarters in Osaka, a spokesperson told CNN.

Last week, Daihatsu announced an independent third-party committee had found evidence of tampering with safety tests on as many as 64 vehicle models, including those sold under the Toyota brand.

The scandal is another blow to the automaker, which had admitted in April to violating standards on crash tests on more than 88,000 cars, mostly sold under the Toyota brand in countries such as Malaysia and Thailand.

In that case, “the inside lining of the front seat door was improperly modified” for some checks, while Daihatsu did not comply with regulatory requirements for certain side collision tests, it said in a statement at the time.

According to a report released last Wednesday by the investigative committee, 174 more cases were found of Daihatsu manipulating data, making false statements or improperly tinkering with vehicles to pass safety certification tests.

The original article contains 441 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] epyon22@programming.dev 9 points 11 months ago

I don't think there was, but we're there any models sold in the US? If any most likely under Toyota brand.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Just looking at the current list, it's all Indonesia and Japan, but then we'd also need to go back 30 years...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Daihatsu_vehicles

this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023

406 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39356 readers

2223 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.