mistermodel Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Rick ,you missed my point .13 should never of happened.You made sound like 13 deaths due to cost saving is ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 and how many died in the Pinto's? I understand that's why I wrote that GM is not alone in negelgence You're right... in the '70s Ford tried to hide the fact that Pintos were unsafe in rear-end collisions. Ford knew about the problem and even had conducted internal crash tests in 1970 and considered several different fixes, but the Pinto was not officially recalled until 1978. Lee Iaccoca was at Ford at the time. In his book "Talking Straight," he wrote: Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late '70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot of gas tank fires. The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt. Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered. So this sort of thing is not confined to GM. There's plenty of blame to go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbox55 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Only 13 crashes resulted in death and of those 13 most were teenage drivers whome didn't have the experience to adapt to an engine being shutoff. At least one of those was partially caused by the driver being intoxicated, I recall is was about twice the limit, on top of being an inexperienced driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 At least one of those was partially caused by the driver being intoxicated, I recall is was about twice the limit, on top of being an inexperienced driver. The point isn't the state or skill of the driver, the point is how did the car react? Did the ignition switch off? Did the airbags deploy or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 At least one of those was partially caused by the driver being intoxicated, I recall is was about twice the limit, on top of being an inexperienced driver. These comments sound like what the defense attorney would say it court. Wasn't our defective product or the concealment of the problem it was the fault of the drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Another point is that we should put aside all rather obvious brand loyalties and consider why ANY auto manufacturer would allow this to happen. Our society needs to remember to learn from it's mistakes or history is gonna repeat, and that doesn't apply to car makers alone. Demo derby drivers...??? And as for those 13 victims... well, none of us know exactly how we would react under any circumstances at any time. Age doesn't matter, nor does experience. Example: Dale Earnhardt.. We might like to think we do and we might know what we should do, but reality has a way of changing things. Edited June 19, 2014 by johnbuzzed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbox55 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 These comments sound like what the defense attorney would say it court. Wasn't our defective product or the concealment of the problem it was the fault of the drivers. That's why I said "partially". Had she been sober, perhaps she could have reacted to prevent a fatal accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 No excuse for drunk driving, but had there not been a problem with the switch... maybe the driver would still be among the living. Some years back, I was a juror for a civil suit that involved a gasoline powered flatbed truck. The truck went into a corner too fast and the load in the bed caused the truck to roll onto it's side. The driver advised that the truck had stalled immediately before the incident. None of the other members of the jury- all experienced, adult drivers- realized that when the engine stalls, you lose power steering and brakes;; ergo, you lose much control of the vehicle (this was back in the early '90's; things might have changed with those systems since then). If those experienced, adult drivers didn't realize the effects, how could they possibly deal with the situation if it happened to them? Panic has a way of changing things, too. Even when you're stone, cold sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Van Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 To be somewhat relevant I can't see going back to Pinto days to show how bad someone else is. Like my kids when teens.....one would get into trouble and then remind me the other sibling wrecked his car last year.........NOT RELEVANT to what happened today!!!!!! Otherwise we dig up all the Corvair issues, or every other issue that happened LAST CENTURY. I don't even see an issue with recalls.......cover up I see an issue. No matter who or what.......Cars can have bigger negative outcomes than a junky cell phone or TV set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetShaker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Something to keep in mind herew. And I could be off base. However, a lot of recalls start out at as "TSB's", which are meant to be quietly taken care if when a vehicle is brought in for routine service. A bug lack of dealer return maintenance can snowball into bigger problems (This was the case with my 98 GTP). A lot of the recalls could stem from a TSB. Again I could also be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad0210 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 dave van. lets bring up the ford and firestone tire recall in the 2000's that was a coverup. is that this century. I think their was 250 deaths and over 2000 injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 What does this have to do with the topic and the problem at GM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad0210 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 what does half the answers on here do with the topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 GM’s decision to sell side-saddle fuel tanks in 10 million trucks between 1973 and 1991 is perhaps the worst crash-fire defect in the history of the US Department of Transportation. More than 1,800 people were killed in fire-crashes in these vehicles between 1973 and 2000. As a result of the Ivey memo, GM management refused to install safety devices that would have saved lives – but would have cost more than $2.20 per vehicle. During a deposition, Ivey was asked if there was a worse location for a gas tank than the side-saddle configuration. He responded, “Well, yes…You could put it on the front bumper.” http://gmvehiclefiredeaths.com/?p=20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad0210 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) dave was wanting cover ups in this century. that's what my answer was for. these things are always going to be a problem with a lot manufacturers. I don't ever see it ending as long as the top brass are making the money. it doesn't stop at just the auto industry either. Edited June 19, 2014 by bad0210 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTony8 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 People don't want to hear it (especially relatives of people who died at the wheel in car crashes because of some irresponsibility on the part of the driver who was killed-passengers are another issue) but sometimes the drivers ARE culpable in these accidents because of excessive speed or drunk driving or not having the seat belts buckled or some combination of these factors.If something on a car malfunctions or breaks while the car is in motion the driver needs to be able to try to get the car stopped and/or out of the flow of traffic. The fact that a company would knowingly cover up knowledge of substandard parts is a completely separate issue and reeks of inbred corporate stupidity and a "save the company money above all else and at all times" mentality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad0210 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 that pretty much sums it up. one reason I don't let my wife drive is because she is a very timid driver and wouldn't have the reaction time to figure out what to do. keeps her safe and the others on the road safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Geiger Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) that pretty much sums it up. one reason I don't let my wife drive is because she is a very timid driver and wouldn't have the reaction time to figure out what to do. keeps her safe and the others on the road safer. Not picking on your wife here, but you brought up a fact. There are people who don't have the driving gene. My wife's brothers all have had multiple accidents, mostly from judgement errors such as going too fast around turns and onto off ramps. And those smack in the back of the car in front of you accidents. Years ago one of them had his EZ-Pass suspended for going 45mph through the toll booth! The speed through those is 15mph. He was totally irate and couldn't figure out why they were picking on him. When he brought this up at a family event, I had to yell at him. He was clueless that he was navigating through an alley the width of his car, coming out the other end blind and not able to see what cars were just starting out from the manned lanes. Nor did he consider that the toll collectors regularly walked across the lanes and wouldn't anticipate him thundering through at 45mph! Absolutely clueless! And when those folks cause accidents, the attorneys always sue the car manufacturer as part of the law suit because they are 'deep pockets' and often will negotiate a settlement that will cost them less than going to court to defend it. In one of Lee Iococca's books he mentioned that the costs that went into a Chrysler vehicle... litigation was on top... more than steel! Edited June 19, 2014 by Tom Geiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 If we were allowed to talk politics here I'd get into the subject of tort reform, which is badly needed in this country. But we can't, so I won't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Geiger Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 If we were allowed to talk politics here... and I'd be complaining about Obamacare.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 and I'd be complaining about Obamacare.... So would a lot of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobraman Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I would . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I wouldn't, that's the only way I could get insurance, from both a financial standpoint as well as a not being told to get lost by insurers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthehobbyguy Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Obamacare has nothing to do with this topic. Deep pockets has nothing to do with topic either . However there are people that would make it seem like it. Bottom line GM made decisions in the interest of profit and failed to act in a moral way to prevent deaths.The result of those bad decisions are now happehing. From previous history there is no doubt that they will do it again because they haven't learned from the past and no doubt others will make the same mistakes. Until the people that make these decisions are held accountable for their decisions there will be no incentive to do otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thatswhatshesaid Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Is this a GM recall or defend the Pinto thread? Either way it's the way of the world these days. Greed, greed, greed. Money, money, money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.