So the GM ignition switch issue in the US
-
Read this: http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=4797055#xx4797055xx[^] They did work, its just that people hung so much junk off the ignition key it turned it off, locking the wheel, losing power tp the brakes, and turning off airbags. Yet I don't see them being sued for defective brakes or steering. Obviously its the users who are at fault.
"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
Yes, I've read about it, but that's apparently not always the case, I'll post a link if I can find it back.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Ferd Really wrote:
Depends on what you call excessive.
80000 of these switches out there, 300 dead. I would say that the average person clearly didn't hang too much, so clearly the 300 that died did.
"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
the issue is far greater than just air bags. they installed an ignition switch that was known to be prone to switching the car off, while the car was in motion. in this state all power systems (power steering, brakes, air bags, etc) would shut off, leaving the user struggling to control the vehicle. the deaths in question happened because cars that were already out of control because of this problem ended up colliding with something, and then the airbags also failed to go off.
-
Ahhh, I see. Well that makes it even less GMs fault. Clearly the ignition switch turning force is not mandated by law and thus any misuse (by hanging iPods etc off it) is the responsibility of the user. What is the expected, usual, reasonable, amount of stuff to have on a key chain? Clearly, this 300 exceeded that so it is their fault. The switch is NOT designed for this, and so GM are guilt free.
"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:
Well that makes it even less GMs fault.
the ignition switch was unable to stand up to normal use, and GM knew it; this is most certainly GM's fault.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Well that makes it even less GMs fault.
the ignition switch was unable to stand up to normal use, and GM knew it; this is most certainly GM's fault.
If it wasn't able to stand up to normal use then far more of the 80000 sold would be affected, since normal, by definition, will be the average. I see this as people in the US thinking they can hang an iPod off their key and not think it might cause it to turn.
"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
I think that if you supply safety equipment that is supposed to reduce the harm caused in a bad situation, and your equipment is defective so that it doesn't do that, then yes, you are in part responsible for that harm. GM aren't the only responsible party here – a vehicle crash is caused by human error or some other component failure, not an airbag failing to inflate. However, someone dying because they were in a situation for which their safety equipment was designed, but it didn't work, wouldn't have died if that equipment wasn't broken. So almost all of those 300 were killed by a combination of whatever caused the accident in the first place, and GM's airbags not working.
-
I think that if you supply safety equipment that is supposed to reduce the harm caused in a bad situation, and your equipment is defective so that it doesn't do that, then yes, you are in part responsible for that harm. GM aren't the only responsible party here – a vehicle crash is caused by human error or some other component failure, not an airbag failing to inflate. However, someone dying because they were in a situation for which their safety equipment was designed, but it didn't work, wouldn't have died if that equipment wasn't broken. So almost all of those 300 were killed by a combination of whatever caused the accident in the first place, and GM's airbags not working.
BobJanova wrote:
you are in part responsible for that harm
Yeah, this is my position too.
"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
-
If it wasn't able to stand up to normal use then far more of the 80000 sold would be affected, since normal, by definition, will be the average. I see this as people in the US thinking they can hang an iPod off their key and not think it might cause it to turn.
"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 fact that other cars do not suffer from the same problem is the evidence that these cars have defective parts. or, maybe there's something special about the people who bought this particular model of car that makes them more likely to do one of the following: A) to have exceptionally heavy keychains B) to nudge the ignition with their knees in ways no other driers do C) to drive over exactly the right kind of bumps that would disable a car's ignition for some unknown sociological reason, people who exhibit one or more of those conditions chose to buy this particular car over all others. if you can prove that's what happening, GM would probably love to know about it. because they seem to think they knowingly put out a car with a defective part.
-
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:
their goods didn't act as advertised.
One could state that, and one would be wrong. The product should at least do what it was designed for. And no, it's not the airbag-manufacturer that sold the car; the customer does not deal with subcontractors. Hehe, imagine a parachute or a nuke "not working as advertised". Due to a subcontractors fault :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
the fact that other cars do not suffer from the same problem is the evidence that these cars have defective parts. or, maybe there's something special about the people who bought this particular model of car that makes them more likely to do one of the following: A) to have exceptionally heavy keychains B) to nudge the ignition with their knees in ways no other driers do C) to drive over exactly the right kind of bumps that would disable a car's ignition for some unknown sociological reason, people who exhibit one or more of those conditions chose to buy this particular car over all others. if you can prove that's what happening, GM would probably love to know about it. because they seem to think they knowingly put out a car with a defective part.
Whats the car affected? Could be its an SUV, and has more space to hang junk off the key, in a saloon its gong to bash your knee all the time. Whats clear is that its not as black and white as the media, and radio, is putting out. Perhaps GM should have put out an ad to say ' don't hang junk off your key, it can turn the ignition off while driving'. Of course perhaps that's obvious....
"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
-
Whats the car affected? Could be its an SUV, and has more space to hang junk off the key, in a saloon its gong to bash your knee all the time. Whats clear is that its not as black and white as the media, and radio, is putting out. Perhaps GM should have put out an ad to say ' don't hang junk off your key, it can turn the ignition off while driving'. Of course perhaps that's obvious....
"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
Chevrolet: Cobalt 2005-2010, HHR 2006-2011 Pontiac: G5 2005-2010, Solstice 2006-2010 Saturn: Ion 2003-2007, Sky 2007-2010
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Perhaps GM should have put out an ad to say ' don't hang junk off your key, it can turn the ignition off while driving'.
perhaps they should just spend the $.75 and fix the friggin problem.
-
Ferd Really wrote:
Depends on what you call excessive.
80000 of these switches out there, 300 dead. I would say that the average person clearly didn't hang too much, so clearly the 300 that died did.
"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
Since you assume
Munchies_Matt wrote:
so clearly the 300 that died did
then there must be more of these people who
Munchies_Matt wrote:
hang too much
that drive other model cars and they didn't die because of a faulty switch.
You can go sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away
-
Chevrolet: Cobalt 2005-2010, HHR 2006-2011 Pontiac: G5 2005-2010, Solstice 2006-2010 Saturn: Ion 2003-2007, Sky 2007-2010
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Perhaps GM should have put out an ad to say ' don't hang junk off your key, it can turn the ignition off while driving'.
perhaps they should just spend the $.75 and fix the friggin problem.
Or change the key so the hole is on the pother side?
"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
-
Since you assume
Munchies_Matt wrote:
so clearly the 300 that died did
then there must be more of these people who
Munchies_Matt wrote:
hang too much
that drive other model cars and they didn't die because of a faulty switch.
You can go sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away
Whats the mandated resistance to turning of an ignition switch?
"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 think that if you supply safety equipment that is supposed to reduce the harm caused in a bad situation, and your equipment is defective so that it doesn't do that, then yes, you are in part responsible for that harm. GM aren't the only responsible party here – a vehicle crash is caused by human error or some other component failure, not an airbag failing to inflate. However, someone dying because they were in a situation for which their safety equipment was designed, but it didn't work, wouldn't have died if that equipment wasn't broken. So almost all of those 300 were killed by a combination of whatever caused the accident in the first place, and GM's airbags not working.
I would like to see the stats on how many of the fatalities also did not have their seat belt on (depended on their air bags only). We see it all the time out here (nearly daily in Phoenix), children and adults thrown out of the car in accidents, their siblings who were wearing their belts survived. Note that here is the law, you have to use your seat belt and can be ticketed by the police fo not doing so, the ticket is far less of a cost than the death or serious injury in case of an accident. Dave.
-
I would like to see the stats on how many of the fatalities also did not have their seat belt on (depended on their air bags only). We see it all the time out here (nearly daily in Phoenix), children and adults thrown out of the car in accidents, their siblings who were wearing their belts survived. Note that here is the law, you have to use your seat belt and can be ticketed by the police fo not doing so, the ticket is far less of a cost than the death or serious injury in case of an accident. Dave.
It's out there. It doesn't support some of the opinions expressed in this thread. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[^] USDOT[^]
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
In the US anyone can be held responsible for anything, even if they were not involved.
I'm holding global warming responsible.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
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
-
Yes, you'd lose some innocents in the early days. But...you'd also lose all the idiots of that generation, and the following generation would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a car is a lethal weapon. And the standard of driving would improve. True story: in introduction of seat belt laws in the UK caused more deaths than it saved - because people felt safer and the accidents were bigger, so when people died it was at the scene rather than in a hospital. And so their organs were useless for transplants...it's called "risk compensation" theory. Have a google: there is a large body of evidence that seatbelts don't even save many lives of drivers per year!
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 – ∞)
There is also an argument that seat belts have resulted in greater numbers of people surviving with injuries (some form of paralysis, brain injury, etc), that would otherwise have croaked at the scene, costing us all far more in the long... run.
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
-
It's out there. It doesn't support some of the opinions expressed in this thread. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[^] USDOT[^]
It was broke, so I fixed it.
I was specifically referring to the current GM fatalities, not general statistics. OBTW, in my car (SUV) everyone is belted. Haven't needed them, thank goodness. Dave.
