Skip to main content

View Diary: Driving Chrysler or GM Cars? Better Beware! (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One slight correction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In almost all cases such as this the components, not design is at fault.

    In almost every case the driver, or the opposing driver is at fault for causing the accident to begin with. Often one or both of the above are drunk. Even more often one or more of the above are uninsured or minimally insured.  Hence the recourse for the catastrophically injured is to pursue the "deep-pocket" manufacturer.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:41:31 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think that's too extreme the other direction. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      To suggest that the car maker is almost never at fault is ludicrous when there have been numerous major exposes of design flaws in cars and parts, leading to huge recalls. The shredding Firestone tires in 2000 was the most recent such event I can think of, but more notably were the Pinto and the Corvair.

      •  The Pinto has been out of production (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for 30 years. There are none left on the road. Ditto the Corvair, and several hundred other models.

        The Firestone issue has been well-examined.

        This, however:

        •    seatbelts that fail and strangle children;
        •    seat backs that collapse and cause brain injury;
        •    unstable vehicles that flip and roofs that cave, crushing occupants;
        •    cars with gears that "self-shift" from park to reverse and run someone over; and
        •    gasoline tanks or brake fluid containers that are improperly positioned and catch fire or explode, severely burning or killing the occupants

        is a generalized plea for compensation by the Trial lawyer Bar, as is the website cited by the Diarist.

        Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

        by Dartagnan on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When they happened is not the point. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen, JesseCW

          The point is that they have happened and will likely happen again. Car companies are not wholly benevolent organizations. They cut corners, sometimes dangerously, to save money just like everyone else. And sometimes it's cheaper to get sued than to spend a little extra on that last bolt.

          •  Corvair and Pinto (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, Hannibal, chrome327

            While the mainly liberal, also mostly college crowd, vilified the Corvair and Pinto; they happily kept driving the Beetle. Same rear swing axle tuck under problem AND alleged excessive fire danger in head on collisions, or if a Beetle tail ended another car. Two fer one I guess.

            I had my '62 Beetle almost "hop" me off an embankment, while taking a turn a tad too fast. Can't ecall any fires with the Beetle fuel tank, neither in Brasil or in Germany,and they had lots of Beetles.

        •  And, of course, sometimes there is a design flaw (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          which didn't show up in testing. That is also a possibility.

    •  Not all accidents are driver or condition related (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arken, dolphin777, JesseCW

      witness the Ford Exploder (I mean Explorer) and Firestone tire problem.  Firestone wanted a higher pressure, Ford wanted lower.  Ford won, and the result lead to heightened risk of tire separation and rollover.

      I had a Pontiac which had the ABS rear brakes directly below the AC line, resulting in water penetration destroying the hub.  If that had lead to an accident (spin out, or bearing lock-up) that clearly would not have been based on driver failure.

      Perhaps 1 accident in a hundred is caused by vehicle failure; they do publish the rates, I'm too busy to look it up right now.

      •  IIRC... (0+ / 0-)

        Ford wanted the lower pressure because it actually reduced rollovers, I believe the Explorer failed the federal safety test with the pressure Firestone recommended.

        There is no goal in the "War on Drugs" that couldn't be more effectively met by legalization & regulation.

        by EthrDemon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site