|
Yep, it is all those people with muscle cars. 
|
|
|
|
|
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
modified 9-Apr-14 11:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I meant,, yes.
"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 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: And where did I say airbags should be removed from cars?
From the Post I replied to:
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 clear implication is that if the device is defective it still didn't cause the problem and therefore there's no responsibility.
I point out how there is, indeed, responsibility, by giving examples and "running with them" to where they lead.
A defective device is worse than no device.
| "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: 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?
Does not say 'air bags should be removed'
And perhaps you should read this. http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=4797055#xx4797055xx[^] People hung so much junk off their keys that it turned off the ignition while driving.
Now, that's GMs fault is 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
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't they take some of that responsibility when they decided to create a car that is by law forced to have an airbag as security device? They may not be the cause of death, but they have their share in it.
Munchies_Matt wrote: So, is someone responsible for not preventing?
Actually, kinda, yes. There is a law for everyone to provide assistance to a person in peril ("duty to rescue", "failure to provide assistance", etc. [^]). You can get punished if you just walk away. That may not be the case in the US (I didn't check  ) but it is in many european countries. If you don't provide help and that person dies, you are still responsible for not having tried to prevent the death (You may not be accused of murder etc. but still you have that responsibility). For me a car componay that refuses to replace non-functioning airbags because "it would cost them more" or "because they didn't got time for that" or whatever other reason, sounds like a person walking away from a person that is seriously wounded.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: That may not be the case in the US
Nor the UK. If some twat wants to jump of a bridge we start taking bets about how big a mess he will make. But we are cynical, hard bastards in the UK. 
(When David Blane did his 'how long can I live in a Perspex box suspended 20 ft off the ground without food or water' in London a few years back, people turned up with camping stoves and started cooking bacon right underneath him.
Some others turned up with golf clubs and hit balls at his box.
Got to love the British sense of taking the piss....
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
The laws surrounding air bags are obviously retarded[^] (outdated source, it'll be worse now).
But GM is a company, don't feel sorry for it, it can't even feel sorry for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, well, that's the media. Not much to do about that other than laugh and see if they have a tech article that's more inaccurate than their legal ones.
|
|
|
|
|
The actual condition was that the switch could easily be turned off (bad detent - too easy to turn it off). This happened if you had a heavy load of junk hanging off of the key chain, and hit a bump in the road, or bumped it with your knee. This turned off the ignition, which also turned off the air bags. The loss of the engine power caused the loss of the power steering and the driver lost control of the car (my guess he was trying to determine what had happened and was not looking at the road). When the car ran off of the road and crashed into a tree, the airbags did not deploy.
I read some reports that some people did recover by turning the key on again which re-enabled the air bags, some actually re-started the engine and totally recovered, others crashed but were saved by the re-enabled airbags.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
