chrisp@oliven.UUCP (Chris Prael) (05/25/84)
>>I maintain that these people were not irresponsible, and could reasonably >>have expected their cars to stay put when they shifted them into park. >>.... It's one of those "bug/feature" arguments. >>Jim Shankland This discussion really belongs in net.legal or net.flame. HOWEVER, if you really believe that the "victims" in your two examples were "not irresponsible" you have NO business behind the wheel of a motor vehicle of any sort! In both cases, the "victim" clearly failed to take reasonable and prudent precautions. And that is irresponsible! 1. It is not reasonable and prudent to leave the engine of an unattended vehicle running. 2. It is not reasonable and prudent to leave an unattended vehicle without setting the parking brake. I don't see any functional difference between the two people you cited and the drunken slob who crashed the Porsche 930 in San Diego. In each case the operator of the vehicle did not bother to pay attention to business. (Only an ignoramous would call any of these people drivers.) And that is what kills people. This does not mean that Ford did not muck it up thoroughly. Obviously they did. But Ford's foulup does not releave the nerds who got caught out by it from responsibility for their stupidity. Chris Prael
mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (05/27/84)
Chris Prael: In both cases, the "victim" clearly failed to take reasonable and prudent precautions. And that is irresponsible! 1. It is not reasonable and prudent to leave the engine of an unattended vehicle running. 2. It is not reasonable and prudent to leave an unattended vehicle without setting the parking brake. Perhaps the government should require all automakers to put an interlock on the car which (1) shuts the engine off whenever the driver leaves the car and (2) sets the parking brake at the same time? I don't see any functional difference between the two people you cited and the drunken slob who crashed the Porsche 930 in San Diego. In each case the operator of the vehicle did not bother to pay attention to business. (Only an ignoramous would call any of these people drivers.) And that is what kills people. This viewpoint follows logically from the previous paragraph. However, I think that most people would have a more sympathetic view of these victims (which does not necessarily mean that they are owed anything by Ford, but calling them names seems rather hostile). Related to this matter, I recently saw a posting in this newsgroup which claimed that Ford could have fixed this problem for a cost of 3 cents per car. I assume this means only the cost of modifying cars in production? I would find it hard to believe that for 3 cents per car sold, Ford could track down and notify the owners and have their cars repaired at a dealer. (This does not mean I think Ford should not have made the repairs, but I like people's numbers to make some sense.) -- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzal
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (05/28/84)
#R:oliven:-14600:trsvax:55200061:000:816 trsvax!mikey May 28 11:32:00 1984 I disagree. I have yet to see a Ford that the parking brake held in reverse as well as it held in forward. As for expecting Park to hold the car stationary, in the owners manual doesn't it say that Park locks the car stationay??? I know I have gotten out of my car may times with the engine running. Can YOU tell me that you have never gotten out from behind the wheel without shutting off the engine. I always used to when I had two 68 mustangs, but they were standard shift, and the pull type parking brake on them was worthless at over 1 degree of slope. If you have an automatic, I'm sure you expect it to WORK, and it DOES hold the car in Park. I don't think Ford should be nailed on this one though, not when GM is getting away with legal manslaughter on the 1980 X-body brakes. mikey at trsvax
pmk@spuxll.UUCP (P. Kelliher) (05/29/84)
But the United States justice system has releived them from this responsibilities. Justice, is blind; just ask Arlo Guthrie. P Kelliher AT&T-ISL S Plainfield, NJ
opus@drutx.UUCP (ShanklandJA) (06/04/84)
I recently saw a posting in this newsgroup which
claimed that Ford could have fixed this problem for
a cost of 3 cents per car. I assume this means only
the cost of modifying cars in production? I would
find it hard to believe that for 3 cents per car sold,
Ford could track down and notify the owners and have
their cars repaired at a dealer.
Correct. The point is that they knew for over a decade that their
cars had a "feature" that was killing people and causing lots of
property damage; that the engineer who pointed this out included in
his memo a very simple fix that would have raised their production
costs by about 3 cents per car; and that they couldn't be bothered to
do anything about it.
I find arguments that this is all the victims' fault a little hard to
fathom. If I start my car idling and get out and raise the hood in order
to adjust the idle, am I being reckless and foolish in assuming that the
car will not shift itself into gear and drive away? If so, there are a
lot of reckless (not wreckless!) mechanics around! The parking brake
issue is a red herring. With a parking brake that is slightly out of
adjustment and a slightly high idle, these big US cars with their automatic
transmissions are perfectly capable of taking themselves for a ride with
the parking brake on.
In any case, just how reckless these people were in leaving their engines
running is not the point. The point is that LOTS of people did it,
that Ford knew about it and could have easily prevented the problem from
recurring, and that they did nothing. Within reason, machines that will
be operated by humans should be designed so as to make human error
unlikely. Ford could have saved some 80 lives by showing minimal concern
for the safety of their customers.
Jim Shankland
..!ihnp4!druxy!opuskitten@pertec.UUCP (karen hettinger) (06/06/84)
In regards to the Ford transmissions, try this little test. It works the same, whether you drive a manual or automatic: 1. Do this in a place where no one can get hurt. With your emergency/ parking/hand brake on, put it in reverse and back up. 2. Now, slowly try to move forward. Little difficult now, eh? Maybe stalled out? Emergency/parking/hand brakes are such that it allows the car to move in reverse (although it's not good for the brakes), but not very easily in forward gears. So in my opinion, the point of having one'sbrake on is mute. Many people need to have there cars running for legitimate purposes: mechanics, DIY's, people giving jump starts, etc. For an automatic, PARK is (supposively) the safest thing to do, as it (supposively) locks the transmission so the car can't move, as opposed to putting it in NEUTRAL. I rest my case. kitten