Wrongful Death Lawsuits

[HeavyStick]

Tobacco Industry lost

OJ lost

Distributor's of guns lost


Why haven't the Manufacturer's of Automobiles been sued for excess speed?

Here's the intent of the thread.

Driving is not a right. It's a privilege. It is a voluntary taxation (license fee) to operate the vehicle. In California there are very strict emissions that manufacturers have to meet. It's the law. Well the "speed limit" is also a law.

Automoblie manufacturer's have the means to prevent a vehicle from going 120mph+ (195kph+).

The benefits of forcing automobile manufacturer's to preset the limitations are numerous. fuel savings, loss of life, lower insurance rates (after a decrease in accidents), and safer roads for all.

 

[Guest]

I'd ban cars all together, except public transports.

 

[HeavyStick]

Well CV that's too radical of a change. Soon the world may be facing an oil crisis that could dwarf that of the '70's. SUV's are a big hit on efficiency. Lots of cars with only one passenger on the road. I'm not suggesting forced carpooling.

 

[peachykeen]

I'm not suggesting forced carpooling.

Oh, I am.

 

[70/30]

I'm not a big lawsuit fan but Congress can start by regulating SUVs and Trucks the same way cars and minivans are regulated. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=1

**********************************
Since SUVs and light pickups are now Detroit's most profitable products--owing to their popularity, they command price premiums and sell at considerable mark-ups--an unholy alliance of conservatives who oppose federal energy-efficiency rules and Democrats from United Automobile Workers (UAW) states consistently blocks legislative attempts to do nothing more radical than require SUVs and pickups to meet the same standards as regular cars...

Perhaps most important from the marketing standpoint, during a trade war with Japan in the late 1970s SUVs won a special import tariff of 25 percent against their competition. This occurred back when Japan was cleaning Detroit's clock and the UAW was worried... The tariff on pickups exists to this day, grandfathered into World Trade Organization agreements, while the SUV tariff lasted until two years ago, when it was removed after Detroit achieved market dominance in this category....

For the purposes of securing regulatory advantage, the manufacturers of SUVs falsely claim that their products are trucks, but there is one sense in which they really are trucks: most SUVs have been built on truck underbodies....But since almost all buyers use SUVs the way they would use a car--only 1 percent of SUVs are ever driven offroad, Bradsher notes--the truck undercarriage was the beginning of a safety nightmare.

The most recent comprehensive study of SUV performance and safety, published last July by the National Research Council (NRC), an affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences, found that occupant deaths were slightly higher in SUVs as a class than in cars as a class.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

I tend to agree with forcing the issue. Its amazing to me how adaptable people can be.

When the earthquake hit San Francisco in 1989, the main commuter road into S.F. was cut by the collapse of the Bay Bridge.

People began using ferries, mass transit, etc. For a period of time after the bridge re-opened, people were afraid to use it. What was interesting was there was little traffic, less pollution, in short all the benefits of having many of the cars off the road, but people were still able to get to work, get to the city, etc.

I think things are doable, but it is going to take something major to break the existing inertia.

 

[HeavyStick]

I'm not trying to pick out a single model of vehicles.

A turning point will be how the wallet is affected.

I'd like to see gas stations have scales on each pump. Let the weight of the vehicle determine the price of gas.

 

[70/30]

Ford should be sued... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=3


One of the many practical jokes about SUVs is that as big and imposing as they appear, they cannot carry much more than regular cars. The maximum safe load for the pre-2002 Explorer was 1,300 pounds, the same limit as for the mid-size Ford Taurus... In this golden age of American obesity, four passengers alone can come perilously close to the 1,300-pound maximum safe load. Add lots of stuff and your SUV is over its rated weight, which adds to the risk of tire failure and loss of control...

Ford did not list the safe load anywhere on the vehicle or even in the owner's manual. Instead the maximum gross weight--vehicle and load combined--was stamped inside the doorjamb. This number is completely useless unless you know what the SUV itself weighs. Preposterously, owner's manuals instructed buyers that they were to find some way to weigh the vehicle, then subtract that number from the gross weight to determine safe load.

 

[HeavyStick]

Ford should be sued... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=3


One of the many practical jokes about SUVs is that as big and imposing as they appear, they cannot carry much more than regular cars. The maximum safe load for the pre-2002 Explorer was 1,300 pounds, the same limit as for the mid-size Ford Taurus... In this golden age of American obesity, four passengers alone can come perilously close to the 1,300-pound maximum safe load. Add lots of stuff and your SUV is over its rated weight, which adds to the risk of tire failure and loss of control...

Ford did not list the safe load anywhere on the vehicle or even in the owner's manual. Instead the maximum gross weight--vehicle and load combined--was stamped inside the doorjamb. This number is completely useless unless you know what the SUV itself weighs. Preposterously, owner's manuals instructed buyers that they were to find some way to weigh the vehicle, then subtract that number from the gross weight to determine safe load.

Another important factor is the competency of the driver. Most drivers don't realize that a heavier vehicle needs more distance to stop.

SUV's have a higher center of gravity and are prone to rollovers on normal road conditions than any other vehicle.

IMO the biggest risk about the SUV is the driver and the false confidence they develop.

 

[sheath]

I'm not trying to pick out a single model of vehicles.

A turning point will be how the wallet is affected.

I'd like to see gas stations have scales on each pump. Let the weight of the vehicle determine the price of gas.

Now THAT is an ingenious idea. And workable. Those of us who make a conscious choice to drive a lighter, more streamlined and fuel-efficient vehicle are subjected to the same costs of someone who chooses to drive a big monster of an SUV. Yet the smaller cars cut down on pollution and are generally safer on the road for numerous reasons, most of those reasons already named in this thread.

Weight for price: rewards for being environmentally responsible. Ever thought about pitching that to an environmental lobbyist?

S.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

A reduction in top speeds seems like a logical step. We have speed limit laws, after all, so why should cars be able to go twice that fast? It is pretty much a fact that someone driving 145 miles an hour is likely to be a danger to others. 70 is the top speed most places...make a car capable of doing 90(for passing) and that's it.
As far as fuel efficiency and the government...hasn't the government been supporting more SUVs with tax breaks? I wouldn't say to ban SUV's, but I think that the companies could be just as successful with a vehicle that didn't play into the worse attitudes of humanity.

 

[sheath]

Or why not make the companies responsible? If a driver speeds and the accident is directly caused by that excessive speed, then let the insurance companies sue the car company for each and every case. Make them accountable to the public, but more importantly, to themselves.

Nothing makes more of an impression than a swift kick in the pocketbook...

S.

 

[HeavyStick]

Or why not make the companies responsible? If a driver speeds and the accident is directly caused by that excessive speed, then let the insurance companies sue the car company for each and every case. Make them accountable to the public, but more importantly, to themselves.

Nothing makes more of an impression than a swift kick in the pocketbook...

S.

True, reducing the speed of the vehicle increases reaction time and fuel efficiency.

If the upcoming war with Iraq is about oil, then the people protesting the war can do a service to humanity by trading in their SUV's for a more fuel efficient vehicle.

 

[Silverlily]

I disagree.

People do things because they choose to. I do not want McDonald's telling me I can't have french fries, because they might get sued, and I don't want GM telling me there will only be four cylinder engines for the same reason.

There has to be a point when this sort of nonsense stops. If we're going to hold the car companies responsible, why not the tire companies? Tires carry a rating that tells what speeds they are good to, I've seen tires rated to 155 mph. And if the tire companies are liable, why not the states for not putting in more traffic calming devices or timing the lights to discourage accelleration?

Why don't we make Zora Duntoff, Larry Shinoda, Carole Shelby, the Pettys, the Earnhardts, and the Fitapaldis responsible for showing folks how much fun speed can be and getting them hooked?

Law suits won't stop anything, it will only increase the costs involved and that won't stop a whole lot. Cigarettes are a perfect example, folks aren't exactly quitting in droves because of the price.

 

[christophe]

and lets not forget the alcohol companys. the amount of deaths and lives disrupted from the abuse of alcohol ranks up there.
dwi
drunk and disorderly conduct
vehicular homicides that are alcohol related
homicides in general that are alcohol related
domestic violence related to alcohol abuse
the list can go on and on......

 

[HeavyStick]

I disagree.

1People do things because they choose to. I do not want McDonald's telling me I can't have french fries, because they might get sued, and I don't want GM telling me there will only be four cylinder engines for the same reason.

2There has to be a point when this sort of nonsense stops. If we're going to hold the car companies responsible, why not the tire companies? Tires carry a rating that tells what speeds they are good to, I've seen tires rated to 155 mph. And if the tire companies are liable, why not the states for not putting in more traffic calming devices or timing the lights to discourage accelleration?

3Why don't we make Zora Duntoff, Larry Shinoda, Carole Shelby, the Pettys, the Earnhardts, and the Fitapaldis responsible for showing folks how much fun speed can be and getting them hooked?

4Law suits won't stop anything, it will only increase the costs involved and that won't stop a whole lot. Cigarettes are a perfect example, folks aren't exactly quitting in droves because of the price.

Excellent post, silverlily.

1. There are speed limit laws, not cholesterol laws. A person has the ability to alter thier diet before they die. Speed limit laws are in every state. At the most the top speed of a car should be +10mph to enable passing another motorist. There is now restriction on horsepower. People can pull whatever boat or motor home they want.

2. Tire companies are being held responisble. Tire MPH rating is in relation (among other things) the slippage the tire goes thro9ugh when accelerating.

3. Those people are speeding on private property it's legal and under controlled circumatances.

4. Good point. Costs will go up. However after profit and earning statements are posted, if the manufacturers continue to gouge customers, there would be a public outlash.

 

[HeavyStick]

and lets not forget the alcohol companys. the amount of deaths and lives disrupted from the abuse of alcohol ranks up there.
dwi
drunk and disorderly conduct
vehicular homicides that are alcohol related
homicides in general that are alcohol related
domestic violence related to alcohol abuse
the list can go on and on......

seperate thread possibility.

 

[Ishmael]

Nope

I'm dead set against state regulation. Yes, speed is a contributing factor in most accidents. Not not necessarily 'speeding'. Further, restricting an automoble to say 90MPH as has been suggested would do nothing if that 90MPH was being achieved in a 35MPH speed limit commercial area, or residential area.

Most of these fatalities are not taking place on Interstate highways, but in Urban/Suburban area's. And while speeds in excess of the speed limit may be involved in many, we are NOT talking about 90MPH or even 70MPH. Generally we are talking maybe 50MPH in a 30MPH zone.

So for your idea to work we'd have to install transmitters on all the streets to 'tell' the vehicle what the legal limit is and of course there would have to be a receiver in all the vehicles to detect this signal and act on it. How would this be paid for?

And what if you had a legitimate emergency? I sick or injured child? A wife about to deliver? Or any number of other possible emergencies? Would the manufacturers be immune to lawsuits whereby the vehicles lack of speed was responsible for a death?

As to the gas by weight idea??? It's a tax. Pure and simple. A tax on business and people that need larger vehicles. A lower middle class couple struggling to get by with 5 children would be taxed on their SUV, which they arguably need with a family of that size. But the upper middle class couple with no children and an Escort skate?

The state of Florida has done that very thing, albeit in a different way. You pay for your license tag pro-rated on your vehicles gross weight. The reasoning is sound. The heavier the vehicle, the more stress on the pavement itself. The more stress on the pavement the more repairs it will need. All license fees are earmarked for infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

Ishmael

 

[Silverlily]

1. There are speed limit laws, not cholesterol laws. A person has the ability to alter thier diet before they die. Speed limit laws are in every state. At the most the top speed of a car should be +10mph to enable passing another motorist. There is now restriction on horsepower. People can pull whatever boat or motor home they want.

And those speed limit laws already carry penalties, let's try inforcing them for real first. Example, I recently got a ticket for 44 in a 35. Where I live, I spent a few hours in a court room, paid $60, and got no points, no conviction. Lesson learned - this state doesn't give a damn about correcting behavior, they only want my money. In fact, they're even going to make sure my license ins't threatened.

The entire idea implies that we are too stupid to think for ourselves, therefore someone else should to it for us. No thanks.

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Nope

1I'm dead set against state regulation. Yes, speed is a contributing factor in most accidents. Not not necessarily 'speeding'. Further, restricting an automoble to say 90MPH as has been suggested would do nothing if that 90MPH was being achieved in a 35MPH speed limit commercial area, or residential area.

2Most of these fatalities are not taking place on Interstate highways, but in Urban/Suburban area's. And while speeds in excess of the speed limit may be involved in many, we are NOT talking about 90MPH or even 70MPH. Generally we are talking maybe 50MPH in a 30MPH zone.

3So for your idea to work we'd have to install transmitters on all the streets to 'tell' the vehicle what the legal limit is and of course there would have to be a receiver in all the vehicles to detect this signal and act on it. How would this be paid for?

4And what if you had a legitimate emergency? I sick or injured child? A wife about to deliver? Or any number of other possible emergencies? Would the manufacturers be immune to lawsuits whereby the vehicles lack of speed was responsible for a death?

5As to the gas by weight idea??? It's a tax. Pure and simple. A tax on business and people that need larger vehicles. A lower middle class couple struggling to get by with 5 children would be taxed on their SUV, which they arguably need with a family of that size. But the upper middle class couple with no children and an Escort skate?

6The state of Florida has done that very thing, albeit in a different way. You pay for your license tag pro-rated on your vehicles gross weight. The reasoning is sound. The heavier the vehicle, the more stress on the pavement itself. The more stress on the pavement the more repairs it will need. All license fees are earmarked for infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

Ishmael

1. I'm not saying state but federal, sorry for not saying.

2. It's an initiative that the companies could take that may rub off on the consumers.

3. Not my idea. Initially hold the companies responsible for allowing excess speed. Over time if/when economically feasible then initiate a program to curb speeding in residential areas.

4. In an emergency how fast does aperson need to go? I've done high speed pursuits (120+mph) it's takes a great uninterrupted distance to go that fast. (unless you have a true sports car) A person in a rural area has the reasoning for going that fast. A person in a urban area has more resources available to them.

5. people pay for their pleasure. It would be a tax that is created by thier own demons.

6. Indiana is the same way. They have a formula based on each tire and the weight of the vehicle. very fair for everybody. I wonder how they would treat busybody's half track from WWII.

 

[HeavyStick]

1And those speed limit laws already carry penalties, let's try inforcing them for real first. Example, I recently got a ticket for 44 in a 35. Where I live, I spent a few hours in a court room, paid $60, and got no points, no conviction. Lesson learned - this state doesn't give a damn about correcting behavior, they only want my money. In fact, they're even going to make sure my license ins't threatened.

2The entire idea implies that we are too stupid to think for ourselves, therefore someone else should to it for us. No thanks.

1. In your case it was enforced. You abided by the rules and paid the price. I'm not in favor of a police state, the last thing I want is a camera and radar on every corner. (I'm not saying you meant that) At what point and time does the government act before it's considered a violation of civil liberties?


2. you knew you were speeding, some people don't acknowledge that. They blame everyone but themself.

 

[Silverlily]

It was an ineffective lesson. Sixty bucks was nothing, and the fact I could pay some money and suffer no long term consequences made the whole thing laughable. The threat of a speeding ticket stops no one around here. Had they stuck with the original penalty ($125 and two points), that might have been a deterrent. Insurance companies get pissy when you have points.

Yes, I admit I was speeding, even plead guilty in court. I did it, I was responsible. The real problem isn't that cars go too fast, rather that people do not want to take responsibility for themselves. All the external changes in the world will never truely solve anything until that sad fact is rectified.

 

[HeavyStick]

It was an ineffective lesson. Sixty bucks was nothing, and the fact I could pay some money and suffer no long term consequences made the whole thing laughable. The threat of a speeding ticket stops no one around here. Had they stuck with the original penalty ($125 and two points), that might have been a deterrent. Insurance companies get pissy when you have points.

Yes, I admit I was speeding, even plead guilty in court. I did it, I was responsible. The real problem isn't that cars go too fast, rather that people do not want to take responsibility for themselves. All the external changes in the world will never truely solve anything until that sad fact is rectified.

the fact you owned up to it says a lot. I bet you wore that bra in court huh? ;-). Seriously. Some people will not admit to anything and someone else is to blame. I'm in support in putting responsibility in the individuals hand after removing it from the people who provide the means.

 

[christophe]

the fact you owned up to it says a lot. I bet you wore that bra in court huh? ;-). Seriously. Some people will not admit to anything and someone else is to blame. I'm in support in putting responsibility in the individuals hand after removing it from the people who provide the means.

BINGO

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Nope

1. I'm not saying state but federal, sorry for not saying.

2. It's an initiative that the companies could take that may rub off on the consumers.

3. Not my idea. Initially hold the companies responsible for allowing excess speed. Over time if/when economically feasible then initiate a program to curb speeding in residential areas.

4. In an emergency how fast does aperson need to go? I've done high speed pursuits (120+mph) it's takes a great uninterrupted distance to go that fast. (unless you have a true sports car) A person in a rural area has the reasoning for going that fast. A person in a urban area has more resources available to them.

5. people pay for their pleasure. It would be a tax that is created by thier own demons.

6. Indiana is the same way. They have a formula based on each tire and the weight of the vehicle. very fair for everybody. I wonder how they would treat busybody's half track from WWII.

1. The federal government has gotten out of the speed limit business. Thank God. What works in DC doesn't in Montana. One size doesn't fit all.

2. The companies want nothing to do with anything that increases the cost of thier product with no real marketable benefit.

3. The assumption here is that it is the companies fault that I choose to speed? Are you sure you aren't REDWAVE in disguise?

4. In an emergency one may have to exceed the speed limit. That's what we're talking about isn't it?

5. The lower middle class family of 7 didn't buy the SUV because of pleasure. It's a necessity with a family that large. Or do you propose that the state 'judge' each case as to it's need?

6. If one has already paid some fee based on weight, why should the individual keep paying? This eliminates the need for #5 above.

Ishmael