Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Who wants to buy Takata?

Apparently Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) does.

I’m not sure how that would work. IIRC, foreigners can’t own Japanese companies, but I’m sure KKR won’t do anything like this unless they can make a huge return. If the cost is low enough, they could make money selling Takata’s assets. Still, Takata needs over a billion dollars (trillion yen!) to stay in business. An interesting turn of events.

Ah what a tangled web we weave by demanding absolute safety and perfection.

Interesting comment, George. I’m inclined to agree.

Actually that was something that concerned me some. You can’t run three shifts producing millions of parts for several years with no revenue and not expect to go belly up. So if they would cease operation, millions of cars would be affected.

Having had a car with the passenger side bag in the recall, I can’t say that I was terribly concerned given the age and Minnesota climate, but still knowing that bag could go off like a bomb where the wife was sitting just wasn’t too comforting. The last girl killed in Texas from a fender bender was kind of the last straw. So I guess I don’t see it as an expectation of perfection, just reasonable performance.

Personally I would like a delete airbag option on a new vehicle purchase or else change the chemistry on the inflating charge .

As far as the “delete airbag option” . . . I see many big lawsuits waiting to happen

When somebody gets in an accident, maybe he’ll “conveniently” forget that he chose the delete air bag option. And if somebody shows him his signature, indicating he didn’t want airbags, he’ll claim his signature was forged. Or he’ll say it wasn’t fully explained to him just what he was agreeing to

I can just see some lawyers eagerly rubbing their palms :smirk:

Well on the other hand what about the lawsuits from the people injured by the "airbomb " explosion inches from their face?There is no good answer to this dilemma we cannot be saved from ourselves,In the 20 years these things have been mandatory ,I have never had one deploy and I tell you this ,I am not looking forward to the experience,when people (who look like Casper the Ghost after these things explode.
They tell you how unsettling the the experience was ,I would sooner take my chances with a 3 or 4 point restraint and if they are so good ,how come NASCAR doesnt mandate them ?
This is just my opinion ,but they can keep their ,auto braking ,airbags systems , ABS etc ,not saying they are not better ,but as Von Richtofen said “its not the machine but the man in the machine”.
The root cause of most accidents or crashes is carelessness or driver inattention,perhaps driverless cars will be better.

One thing for sure, air-bags are about to become much more expensive…

As to the original question: Not me!


My brother is a pretty bad driver. He’s had MANY at-fault accidents

I remember one particular accident . . . if the car had not had an airbag, he would have been a bloody mess. Probably would have shattered his skull

As far as the "delete airbag option" . . . I see many big lawsuits waiting to happen

I know GM was sued (early 80’s maybe??) because they DIDN’T offer airbags in a particular car model after they did offer them as a option in several large luxury cars in the middle 70’s.

D@maned if you do and D@amed if you don’t…

@Mustangman Interesting situation! At the time (in the 60s/70s)when many Americans were fighting all those safety items in their cars as “an infringement of their democratic “rights””, many Europeans were trying to sue the car companies there for failing to install these “life saving” devices. Europe was well behind the US at that time.

A different perspective I imagine. Here we had a guy drive around city hall in his pickup with the seat belt dangling out of the door as he wanted to get arrested and have his day in court fighting the new mandatory buckle up laws. Not sure if being a rodeo cowboy influenced his decision. But he was a “rugged individualist”.

I don’t have a problem with people not wearing their seatbelt. What I do have a problem with is those same people getting seriously injured in an accident and the rest if us paying for it (higher premiums or his trip to the ER when he doesn’t have auto or health insurance).

@Docknick I do agree! In my former state, when seatbelt laws were enacted, we were promised not wearing a seatbelt would not be a reason for a traffic stop. Now it is in most, if not all states.

About that same time mandatory helmet laws were repealed in many states. You could be a “rugged individualist” on a motorcycle but not in a car?? Completely contradictory! Makes no sense at all. You should take responsibility for your own safety, the government shouldn’t force that on you.

My Libertarian views drive that opinion. If you eat the windshield or pop your noggin like a Gallagher watermelon while crashing your bike, sad for your family but YOU made that choice for yourself. The “severely injured but not dead and we have to pay for you” argument resides in the grey as that can happen with or without safety devices.

I wear my helmet and my seatbelts. But that’s me. I don’t want to force that decision for someone else. I also think if you sue, you should have a little skin in the game, too. “Loser pays the legal costs of the opposition” should be enacted. Keeps the snake-lawyers at bay.

"Who wants to buy Takata?"
I’ll buy it as soon as I get back from my next Tap-Dance lesson! :neutral:

My wife normally does not care how people conduct themselves. However, when it comes to highway safety she admonishes seat belt usage, having been an ER emergency nurse. Her argument is that those involved have to “be scraped off the pavement at PUBLIC expense” as well as the effect on insurance rates.

Our city will soon enact a bike helmet law; I’m not sure that’s necessary, although I wear one on long trips.

Yes I have more libertarian tendencies when it comes to continual creeping government intervention. My personal belief is that seat belt laws rather than being a safety issue, are a means to make a stop to detect other violations like drugs. If you look behind the law at who proposed it in the legislature and who supported it, anyway. It always amazed me that the patrol would stop a car for speeding on the metro freeway citing safety concerns, yet cause dangerous back-ups and near accidents in the process.

I suggest you keep researching. Seatbelts and airbags have been one of the insurance institutes largest lobbying efforts ever. They spent hundreds of millions lobbying for seatbelt and airbags along with other safety features.

I don’t think there’s any question that seat belts and airbags have saved thousands of lives or prevented seriously injury. Study after study has proven that.

Doing what you want is fine until it negatively impacts society in general. Individual rights are not always #1. Driving and riding a motorcycle are privileges and not rights anyway.

The thing is that most anything you come up with an argument can be made that it impacts someone else or society at large. To me its a moot argument unless it physically impacts someone else or their property. Building a house on the ocean in a hurricane zone has a negative impact on insurance rates, but its still allowed. Not every negative consequence should be illegal or we would not be able to move a muscle. Or so it seems to me.

Yeah and I saw a guy splatter his head against the back of a minivan driving his motorcycle. He was not wearing a helmet so that killed him. But the car that was following him ran up on top of the cycle too, so that would have killed him also. The cause was following too close and the not wearing a helmet just made death faster and maybe saved some hospital costs. Too bad too, he had a young family so should have slowed down and stayed in the right lane. Its not something you ever forget. It was such a nice day he decided to take his bike to work.