A new GM steering issue...but no recall

General Discussion
41

^
Exactly!
People still remember the Pinto problem, and will probably be talking about both GM’s ignition switch defect and Toyota’s recent-vintage safety issues for years.

In view of the relatively low cost of downloading new software, why would GM risk more lawsuits and more adverse publicity in the event of crashes that can be tied to this steering issue? They are currently doing it only for those who complain of steering problems, but inevitably somebody is going to complain after a collision, rather than after a scary close-call.

42
People still remember the Pinto problem

And that right there is evidence that pure capitalism does not work to keep consumers safe. Ford KILLED people. On purpose!

They murdered people because they decided that paying out wrongful death lawsuits for the people that they knew would die, was cheaper than fixing the problem that would kill them.

Ford murdered people with the Pinto because they figured paying out wrongful death lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing the design flaw.

If the free market worked the way it’s touted to, then no one would ever buy a car from these murderers again and Ford would not exist today. But it does, and it’s a very healthy company to boot, which proves that the free market is not guaranteed to cause self-regulation or cause malicious companies to go out of business.

43

Like I said before I was going about 70 in -10 weather when my belt came off and no power steering. I made it. Just pay attention.

44

Bing, I had a similar experience in a 1996 Jeep Cherokee when I was 17 or 18 years old. I was coming down the interstate going around 70-80 at midnight. As I’m cruising along, a pulley sheared clean off which of course meant I lost the belt and everything else. I REALLY didn’t want to get stuck at the side of the interstate at midnight an hour from home, so I managed to wrestle the now power steering-less car off at the next exit and into a parking lot before it overheated. Fortunately it wasn’t -10!

45

Governments built the highway system. 33,000 people a year die on the roadways. Governments are KILLING people. On purpose!

;-]

46

All partisanship aside, it seems to me that it must be very difficult to determine when a problem deserves a recall. For those keeping score, I said the same thing about the Toyota unintended acceleration issue. The manufacturers don’t want to turn customers off and I don’t think any of them want to hurt anyone. It’s easy for us since we have only one group to look after: consumers. The auto manufacturers have several: employees, investors, government, and consumers. They balance the issue differently than we do, and I don’t think they should be derided for having a wider point of view.

47
Governments built the highway system. 33,000 people a year die on the roadways. Governments are KILLING people. On purpose!

Please do point to the design flaw analogous to the exploding gas tank that is causing the highways to kill people.

No one would blame Ford for making a car that someone got drunk and died crashing in. But when Ford knows that its design will kill people, and covers it up rather than fixing the design, that’s quite a bit different from building infrastructure on which people irresponsibly crash.

48

It’s well to remember also that the interstate highway system was crucial to our being able to ramp up our manufacturing infrastructure to be able to win WWII.

I blame the government for a lot of ills, but the interstate highway system was one of its great successes. Ironically, it would be impossible to do today due to the EPA. The environmental impact studies alone would kill the project. A bovine cannot pass gas today without the EPA wanting to measure its methane.

49
Please do point to the design flaw analogous to the exploding gas tank that is causing the highways to kill people.

Guard rails that impale people, for one.

The lack of guard rails where they’re needed, for two.

50

"It’s well to remember also that the interstate highway system was crucial to our being able to ramp up our manufacturing infrastructure to be able to win WWII. "

How, when the IHS wasn’t started until 1956?
It is true that roadways were improving and expanding at a rapid pace after WWI.

51

Circuitsmith is correct.
The Interstate Highway system was begun during the Eisenhower Administration.

When Ike was a young, lower-ranking officer, he was part of an army caravan that traveled across the country, and that journey–over the patchwork of roads that existed at that time (the '20s, IIRC)–was so arduous, and took so long, that he realized the crummy roads of that era were a detriment to national defense.

Then, during WW II, when he saw the German Autobahns, it cemented the idea in his head that The US needed a unified system of high-speed expressways. Thus was born the Interstate Highway system during his presidency.

52

My long held belief stands corrected. I bow my head to greater knowledge.
When I’m wrong, I’m wrong. There’s no arguing with the facts.

53
Guard rails that impale people, for one.

Removing them would kill more people as they tumble off cliffs.

And the government has actually addressed this problem. You’ll note that a large number of guardrails that might potentially impale people now have water barrels, crush barriers, or other safety features in front of them.

Had Ford taken this stance, and addressed the fuel tank problem on the Pinto, we wouldn’t be having this argument right now.

54

As usual, there’s always another side to a story…(from Wikipedia):

In a 1991 paper, "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case", for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary Schwartz[5] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[25][26]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto’s production figures (over 3 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed “smoking gun” document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford’s callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford’s potential tort liability.

Schwartz’s study said:

* The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
* The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
* The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
55

Unfortunately, nothing in that side of the story changes anything. Whether hundreds or “only” 27 people died, people still died as a result of the car’s design.

Whatever Ford’s motives for producing the memo, the fact is that they produced it. They do not get a free moral pass to kill people and justify it in memos just because they are hiding behind corporate-friendly laws that let them get away with it.

Further, a reading of the paper in question will reveal this quote, early on in the document:

“The vulnerability of the gas tank was increased by other design features. One problem was that only nine inches of “crush space” separated the gas tank and the rear axle. The Pinto’s bumper, moreover, was essentially ornamental. The rear structure of the Pinto was without the reinforcement provided to many cars by horizontal cross-members and longitudinal side members known as “hat sections.” Several bolts protruded out of the differential housing in a way that threatened the gas tank in the event of a collision. Finally, the fuel filler pipe was designed in a way that entailed a chance of disconnecting from the gas tank in the event of a rear-end collision, resulting in the spillage of gasoline.”

So, it’s not just the position of the gas tank but the design of the tank and everything around it that kills people.

Plus, really, all of this is wholly irrelevant. The proposal is that the free market will regulate itself when consumers refuse to buy products from companies that kill them. Whether Ford actually did anything wrong or not (I maintain that they did, and one paper from a lawyer interested in arguing the other position is not going to convince me), the public perception is that they did wrong.

The paper even acknowledges that the public thinks Ford killed people on purpose. So then why does the public continue to buy Fords?

The free-market-regulation without the need for government intervention idea is obviously wrong, because the public thought Ford was a murderously bad actor, yet the public bought Fords anyway.

56

idea is obviously wrong, because the public thought Ford was a murderously bad actor, yet the public bought Fords anyway

I would argue that your supposition is incorrect based on the empirical evidence…

57

I would argue that almost every time you mention the Pinto people laugh and make jokes about gas tanks made of flint, and therefore the public did think that Ford made a bad product that blew up and killed people, and bought Fords anyway.

58

The last Pinto was built 35 years ago. I hope we can agree that all auto manufacturers, Ford included, have come a long way since then.

59

<bOld Timers Know…

“* The Pinto’s fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was “commonplace at the time in American cars” (p. 1027).”

“Unfortunately, nothing in that side of the story changes anything. Whether hundreds or “only” 27 people died, people still died as a result of the car’s design.”

"I hope we can agree that all auto manufacturers, Ford included, have come a long way since then. "

Many cars back in that era had very rear-mounted gas tanks. Our 74 Omega (and if I recall correctly, our 76 Toronado) both had gas caps/fuel neck/fuel tank immediately behind the license plate, which had to be hinged down to access the cap. It was common then. That was the least of your life’s problems Viet Nam, Cold War…).

Both my VW Beetles had a gas tank in the nose (Corvairs, too), in front of the driver, not a smart move by today’s standards.

Go back a few years before that and cars had single-circuit drum bakes. A few years before that, non-collapsible steering columns, non-safety glass, and so on…

Helmets weren’t worn when I road my motorcycle, public trampoline parks were everywhere (with lots of injuries), football helmets had no face guard, hockey players didn’t were helmets (except Goalies), I ran with scissors!

Beating up on Ford over the pinto? Let it go. Hey, life was dangerous then. We’ll look back on this era and think the same thing. Like JTsanders noted, "The last Pinto was built 35 years ago. I hope we can agree that all auto manufacturers, Ford included, have come a long way since then. "

Those of us that were around and driving back and are still here have a good understanding and perspective on the history of auto safety. I still have my original Jarts in the garage. I’m not about to blame any company from back then for posing any safety hazards. It’s water over the dam, crying over spilled milk, time to move on…

CSA

60

Define “Sticking”.