None of this thread is true. There's no evidence about what caused the crash that 2007 crash. It's one of those things people insist on believing because they've decided to be irrational about it.
There's no evidence Toyota had a "sudden acceleration" problem to begin with. Instead what happened is that there was a big news story blaming Toyota for sudden acceleration. This caused some sort of observer effect, where sudden people started reporting more incidents.
Over all car models over the last few decades, we know what causes most "sudden acceleration" incidents: people getting confused/panicking. Most incidents are either people who have been driving less than a year, or people older than 70. Jean Bookout was 76 at the time.
Floomats is another common cause. Toyota knew they probably didn't have a problem, that it was probably just media hype, but of course, the public is stupid and demands a response any way, so Toyota blamed the floormats and issued a recall for them.
But then the Bookout lawsuit hired that Barr report. It's junk. It's obvious junk. It causes aspersions and innuendo to imply there might be a link but finds no smoking gun. In our business, you don't need smoking guns when innuendo will suffice.
If software flaws were responsible, then they would show up in statistics. No such evidence has emerged. Sure, the software might be flawed as heck, but statistically, the flaws would cause fewer problems that almost any other design choice in the car.
Cosmic rays causing a bit flip is still less likely than a poorly positioned chrome fitting cause a sun reflection temporarily blinding the drive, or example.
NASA ran the software through all sorts of tests. Their results couldn't prove that a software bug didn't cause this specific crash, but the results where robust enough to demonstrate that if bugs did cause crashes, they are exceedingly rare.
The reason Toyota got blame is because of the messed up way our society works without evidence. There was no statistical evidence that Toyota had any more problems in this area than any other manufacturer. 
Instead evidence, it's virtual evidence. You can create any story you want and convince the media, or a jury of your (ignorant) peers, without any real evidence.
It's a trope you already believe, that a car company will allow lives to be lost in order to save 30 cents in the cost of the car, then spend millions to cover it up. You don't need much evidence to confirm your belief.
