So the GM ignition switch issue in the US
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
In the US anyone can be held responsible for anything, even if they were not involved.
-
In the US anyone can be held responsible for anything, even if they were not involved.
Seems that way. Because if it isn't mandatory to fit airbags then they could remove them, and not be held responsible for 300 deaths. Of course many thousands would additionally die....
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars?
Yes. Since 1998 in the US[^] all new cars must have them. (In the UK that's also the case, and it is a vehicle test failure if the SRS indicators do not come on with the ignition then go off a few seconds later)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars?
Yes. Since 1998 in the US[^] all new cars must have them. (In the UK that's also the case, and it is a vehicle test failure if the SRS indicators do not come on with the ignition then go off a few seconds later)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
Yeah, I wondered if it had become law. The fact remains though that they are not responsible for killing these 300, but for not saving them. And there is a big difference if you ask me between those two.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
Actually, a part of the problem is that when they learned of the defect they didn't address it until things got really bad. Then, it seems, they replaced the defective switch with another of the same (defective) kind. This is often an economic decision - like Ford letting the Pinto be a firey death trap in rear-end collisions because they calculated the cost of law suits vs. lower sales due to a price increase. Sadly, they were not punished for what amounted to criminal willful negligent homicide. Imagine if you or I allowed a deliberately dangerous condition to persist even if it were in our power (and responsibility) to remedy it. Should we not be held accountable? If someone dies as a result, are we not responsible for their death? Alas, although corporations in the US have been (insanely) granted the same rights as people, they don't seem to enjoy the same responsibilities.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
In the US anyone can be held responsible for anything, even if they were not involved.
-
Yeah, I wondered if it had become law. The fact remains though that they are not responsible for killing these 300, but for not saving them. And there is a big difference if you ask me between those two.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
That's where lawyers love to tread (because it means so very, very many billable hours)! Is it negligent to ship a faulty safety device? It's an argument I'm sure the lawyers will use. Certainly, if I change a wheel for you, forget to re-tighten the nuts, and the wheel falls off at speed as a result I'm liable for any damage it causes. So if a safety device doesn't work in an emergency then there is a pretty good argument that it's the manufacturers fault - particularly if it happens several times.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
That's where lawyers love to tread (because it means so very, very many billable hours)! Is it negligent to ship a faulty safety device? It's an argument I'm sure the lawyers will use. Certainly, if I change a wheel for you, forget to re-tighten the nuts, and the wheel falls off at speed as a result I'm liable for any damage it causes. So if a safety device doesn't work in an emergency then there is a pretty good argument that it's the manufacturers fault - particularly if it happens several times.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
And even more particularly when they learn about it and don't fix it until forced to do so. Then, add to that, replacing the defective part with a new one of the same type. Lawyers cause all sorts of mischief - yet, when you are the one that's been royally screwed with a splintery broom handle, it good to have a good lawyer.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Unfortunately you could get a judge to take the suit. If I had any money, I would have to spend it to defend myself or you would automatically win.
-
Actually, a part of the problem is that when they learned of the defect they didn't address it until things got really bad. Then, it seems, they replaced the defective switch with another of the same (defective) kind. This is often an economic decision - like Ford letting the Pinto be a firey death trap in rear-end collisions because they calculated the cost of law suits vs. lower sales due to a price increase. Sadly, they were not punished for what amounted to criminal willful negligent homicide. Imagine if you or I allowed a deliberately dangerous condition to persist even if it were in our power (and responsibility) to remedy it. Should we not be held accountable? If someone dies as a result, are we not responsible for their death? Alas, although corporations in the US have been (insanely) granted the same rights as people, they don't seem to enjoy the same responsibilities.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Pinto
Different issue. The pinto actually contributed to/caused death, lack of air bags is a failure to stop death.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Imagine if you or I allowed a deliberately dangerous condition to persist
Lack of airbags is not a dangerous condition any more than cars themselves are dangerous, and I mean that literally, not glibly. A dangerous condition would be an overhanging tree that is known to be about to fall, and is left, or a building. These are the causes of death. In a car crash the cause of death is the driver, or the another driver. The lack of airbags is not the cause of death. So, is someone responsible for not preventing?
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Pinto
Different issue. The pinto actually contributed to/caused death, lack of air bags is a failure to stop death.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Imagine if you or I allowed a deliberately dangerous condition to persist
Lack of airbags is not a dangerous condition any more than cars themselves are dangerous, and I mean that literally, not glibly. A dangerous condition would be an overhanging tree that is known to be about to fall, and is left, or a building. These are the causes of death. In a car crash the cause of death is the driver, or the another driver. The lack of airbags is not the cause of death. So, is someone responsible for not preventing?
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
Well - that then implies that anything which you can get away with is OK, so long as it doesn't show under normal usage. No more real safety glass in the windows. Only important, as with airbags, in the event of an impact. Hell. Get rid of the fuse box, too. It's only useful if you overload a circuit. Or, at least, use 50-Amp minimum fuses so that they don't blow. Only overloading the circuit will damage the equipment or start a fire. Not just cars. In your home, too. And don't worry if the circuit's grounded - it's not part of the real circuit (that's the common's job) - so you don't really need one unless there's a problem or you do something wrong. Relying upon safety equipment? What a waste of time! You shouldn't need it, anyway. And if you do, it didn't do anything wrong - it just didn't prevent any problems.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
That's where lawyers love to tread (because it means so very, very many billable hours)! Is it negligent to ship a faulty safety device? It's an argument I'm sure the lawyers will use. Certainly, if I change a wheel for you, forget to re-tighten the nuts, and the wheel falls off at speed as a result I'm liable for any damage it causes. So if a safety device doesn't work in an emergency then there is a pretty good argument that it's the manufacturers fault - particularly if it happens several times.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
The wheel is the cause of the accident though. The air bag isn't. That's the difference.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
Apparently the air bags didn't go off due to a failure in the switch and 300 people died. Now, question, is it mandatory for a manufacturer to fit air bags in their cars? Did the air bags gong off kill the people or was it the fact they crashed, die to their own, or someone elses bad driving? Can GM be held responsible for the death by failing to prevent it, rather than causing it? Of so, how many of the rest of us can be held responsible by failing to prevent a death? You see a guy jumping off a bridge, you fail to prevent him, are you now a murderer? I don't see GM as being guilty of anything more than trade descriptions act, their goods didn't act as advertised. That's all.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
They're guilty of not fixing a known issue with a required component intended to reduce the number of fatalities from accidents. At the very least they're down for knowing shoddy compliance with airbag laws. I'd be really surprised if they were actually found guilty of the deaths, and far more likely those deaths will be used as justification for inflating the penalties assessed for failure to comply with the law as it's unknowable how many are their fault. Still, if you make something and your safety features don't work you're going to get a civil suit even if you didn't know about it. If you know about it you deserve every last bit of it.
-
Well - that then implies that anything which you can get away with is OK, so long as it doesn't show under normal usage. No more real safety glass in the windows. Only important, as with airbags, in the event of an impact. Hell. Get rid of the fuse box, too. It's only useful if you overload a circuit. Or, at least, use 50-Amp minimum fuses so that they don't blow. Only overloading the circuit will damage the equipment or start a fire. Not just cars. In your home, too. And don't worry if the circuit's grounded - it's not part of the real circuit (that's the common's job) - so you don't really need one unless there's a problem or you do something wrong. Relying upon safety equipment? What a waste of time! You shouldn't need it, anyway. And if you do, it didn't do anything wrong - it just didn't prevent any problems.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
And where did I say airbags should be removed from cars? If you want to have that argument, go find someone who made that statement.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
They're guilty of not fixing a known issue with a required component intended to reduce the number of fatalities from accidents. At the very least they're down for knowing shoddy compliance with airbag laws. I'd be really surprised if they were actually found guilty of the deaths, and far more likely those deaths will be used as justification for inflating the penalties assessed for failure to comply with the law as it's unknowable how many are their fault. Still, if you make something and your safety features don't work you're going to get a civil suit even if you didn't know about it. If you know about it you deserve every last bit of it.
Quite, yet to hear the way the media is going on about it...
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
-
The wheel is the cause of the accident though. The air bag isn't. That's the difference.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
The airbag should have deployed as required by law and it didn't. It may have saved the lives lost and possibly reduced injury in other accidents. The point isn't how many people died, it's that the company knew a required feature didn't work and did nothing to fix it. That's what they'll be held liable for.
-
The wheel is the cause of the accident though. The air bag isn't. That's the difference.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
I disagree - the wheel was the instrument of the accident: the first symptom. The cause was the negligence in failing to tighten the wheel nuts.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Quite, yet to hear the way the media is going on about it...
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
