There are at least 2 more.

5- The road speed falling below ~35MPH.
6- The road speed falling more than ~5MPH below the CC set speed.

And maybe the following:

7- The road speed rising more than ~5MPH above the set speed.
8- TC activation.
9- VSC activation.
10- OAT below ~35F

IMMHO 8, 9 and 10 should be REQUIRED.

I wonder...

In an airplane many of the functions that a pilot would not want to inadvertently or casually activate have "guards" over the control switches. The guard must be removed, flipped aside, in order to activate the function.

Couldn't something like that approach be used to prevent unintentional SUA events..?? In this case if I wish to go WOT, or even dramatically increase the throttle opening, I must first move the "guard" aside..

With a manual transmission the driver would almost always downshift before going WOT or even going to a higher acceleration rate. So why not have a simple PB, Push-Button, control that must be depressed just momentarily prior to applying a substantial level of additional pressure to the accelerator pedal.

With these new sequential shifting automatic transmissions a quick, momentary downshift signal could be used to "arm" the WOT capability.

Along those same lines, thoughts, why not prevent cruise control from accelerating beyond a sensible road speed, say 65-70MPH, without the driver having first released CC "accel" mode and then re-engage the "accel" mode.

 

Steve Hansen writes:
Oh -- I have a Ph.D., and have taught graduate level courses in software engineering and software verification & validation, as well as in harder "language" topics. I have more than enough credential to call "bullshit", here. I'm not saying there is no bug in that software. That possibility is not excluded by the tests that have been described. I am saying that intentionally altering multiple elements of a system design so that it behaves differently from the original design, does not prove a fault in the original design.

Whoopie Ding!!! Rotfflmao

 

On the other hand what if EVERY time you wanted to increase your acceleration rate, DRAMATICALLY increase your acceleration rate, you had to momentarily depress a PB first..?? that would put a complete STOP to claims of driver unintentionally/inadvertently inducing engine runaway conditions.

Doing so, first depressing the PB, would soon become a learned trait, instinctive reaction, just as applying the clutch first before shifting gears is with a manual transmission.

We would then be left with only manufacturer design flaws as a possible
explanation for SUA.

Personally I think the PB start/stop is a REALLY bad design idea. What would be wrong with having to insert a "credit card" type of device, say the current remote code enable device, into a slot to enable the PB start. Removing the "card", or pressing the PB, would stop the engine.

"..why not a simple KILL switch..."

Like:

Have electrical contacts inside the slot so that the code device's internal battery must be present for initially "powering" the engine/tranaxle controller computer, or at least the BTO "segment". Once the engine is started a PWM (10/90 duty-cycle) recharge path could be provided for the code device's internal battery. No battery to recharge, no engine POWER.

This would also solve the current problem of walking away from the car with the engine still running and the remote in your pocket/purse.