|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening.
|
On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening.
Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at.
Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business."
But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise.
Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too...
|
General Mills has reversed a controversial policy just a few days after posting new restrictions on consumers' ability to sue the food company, a move that stirred a media frenzy after The New York Times first uncovered the legalese.
The reversal, announced in a statement to Al Jazeera, came shortly after the network aired a segment about the issue Saturday. In the General Mills policy posted on its website, the company had said customers who downloaded coupons, joined its online communities or subscribed to email alerts would give up their right to file class-action lawsuits.
"We've reverted back to our prior terms. There's no mention of arbitration, and the provisions we had posted were never enforced. Nor will they be," General Mills told Al Jazeera on Saturday. "We're sorry we even started down this path ... And we do hope you'll accept our apology."
A growing number of companies have adopted similar policies since the 2011 Supreme Court decision, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, that paved the way for businesses to forbid class-action lawsuits with the use of a standard-form contract.
Source
|
On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too...
The government didn't think it was worth a recall either:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem.
Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen.
|
On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: Show nested quote +The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen.
Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto...
"According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!"
Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...?
Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives...
Summary Table:
BENEFITS
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million.
COSTS
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck.
Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million.
I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen?
Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making?
Source
|
On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source
The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like?
You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this.
Are you kidding??
|
On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? Show nested quote +You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding??
Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh?
Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit...
I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build...
|
|
|
Those awful ranchers are threatening our turtles! They ARE terrorists.
THINK OF THE TURTLES.
/sarcasm
|
On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build...
I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0....
I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the crash numbers, without comparative context, doesn't seem that bad. the article did mention complaints and warranty repair claims though, not sure if those numbers are out of line.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2014 18:21 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 12:34 aksfjh wrote:
It should be noted that it's not so much that minimum wage hasn't kept up as much in some cases. In terms of college education, those costs have outstripped minimum wage to such an absurd degree that it no longer becomes feasible. This has become true of many things actually. The necessities of life have all tracked well with wages, but the things that are encouraged in order to "get ahead" have become out of reach for those same wages. Education, housing, and investment have all become incredibly difficult for the average person to partake in to improve his/her plot in life. But how is this possible,there has been virtually no inflation.. and the wages didnt realy drop? I guess education and housing and meat are not considerd to be neccesities of life when it comes to calculating the inflation numbers. It is such a fking joke and scam. "we fear deflation because people will postpone purchases wich is bad for the economy" Like wtf realy? who is stupid enough to believe it. People are so dumb its incredible. Like i would not buy a car now if the car would be 3% cheaper next year, or like i would not go on a holiday now because the holiday would be 3% cheaper next year. Or like i would not eat this year because next year food will be 3% cheaper. 90% of the people spend all their monney every month no matter what the price level is. The only thing that people might postpone in purchasing due to deflation is a house (and housing prices are not even taken into account when calculating inflation lol!), but even that is doubtfull. Would you realy wait 1 year to buy your dreamhouse 3% cheaper next year? No clue how people have gotten so dumb btw,maybe its all the mindless tv,commercials and internet porn they are fed every day. Its fucking disgusting. deflation problem is more to do with distorted investment decisions
|
On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want?
How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous?
Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this....
"Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...?
|
On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...?
What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal.
|
On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal.
Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal.
+ Show Spoiler +PS: Are you going to get back to me on your models or no?
|
On April 21 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:
12 crashes and two injuries out of 335,000 faulty cars doesn't seem that bad to me.
Pretty sure this isn't Pinto 2.0, and it will blow over without much happening. Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at. Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise. Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too... The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal. Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal.
To the extent that Ford lied, that's wrong. I don't see doing a CBA as wrong, depending on how you do it. Also, accounts of Ford's CBA vary: 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. Source
|
On April 21 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2014 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well duh? It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at.
Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business."
But just a glance at the corporate world and it's not much of a surprise.
Oh, they really nailed Ford and those execs to the wall too...
The government didn't think it was worth a recall either: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government's auto safety watchdog, also didn't seek a recall of the compact car from the 2004 through 2007 model years even though it opened an investigation more than two years ago and found 12 crashes and two injuries caused by the problem. Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal. Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal. To the extent that Ford lied, that's wrong. I don't see doing a CBA as wrong, depending on how you do it. Also, accounts of Ford's CBA vary: Show nested quote +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. Source
Ok so you are on board with the facts that Ford lied (and that's 'wrong') and people died, so far.
What is it that you think Ford 'lied' about?
|
On April 21 2014 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2014 23:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The government didn't think it was worth a recall either:
[quote]
Car's won't have a 0% failure rate. Even if you are Ma-Ti from Captain Planet, shit's still going to happen. Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal. Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal. To the extent that Ford lied, that's wrong. I don't see doing a CBA as wrong, depending on how you do it. Also, accounts of Ford's CBA vary: 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. Source Ok so you are on board with the facts that Ford lied (and that's 'wrong') and people died, so far. What is it that you think Ford 'lied' about?
I'm not eminently familiar with the Pinto case. I'd have to do some more research to find out what Ford did or did not lie about as there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on the topic (including about the CBA). I'm not really willing to do that because as far as I'm concerned, this is a side issue. We were talking about a recent GM / Saturn recall and apparently you think laws need to be changed and people need to go to jail. So please elaborate on that - what laws would you like to see? Who should go to jail and for what offence?
From you earlier: It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at.
Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business."
As I pointed out before, you can't have a perfect car so at some point you have to stop adding in safety / correcting defects because it just isn't worth it. That means you have to do some sort of cost benefit analysis. If that doesn't sit well with you, than maybe this isn't a topic for you to be discussing.
|
On April 21 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Obviously this particular instance likely wasn't near as bad as the Pinto... "According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!" Yeah we know the government slammed dunked the Pinto problem too right...? Ford knew before the Pinto even hit sales floors in 1971 that it's poorly designed gas tank would kill people. But as late as 1977-78 Ford was still telling the government that the Pinto didn't explode or catch fire at a significantly different rate than comparable vehicles. Even though Ford KNEW why the Pintos were exploding and that is was definitively an engineering flaw that could of been prevented if only they had put a higher price tag on human lives... Summary Table: BENEFITSSavings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle. Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million. COSTSSales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck. Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Ford Pinto didn't happen or that CBA's like Ford did don't happen? Or if you are just pointing out that this particular case hasn't been proven to be linked to as much death and destruction as the Pinto disaster or "success story".... which isn't really relevant to the point I was making? Source The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like? You would think it wouldn't be so hard for someone to end up in prison when they sign off on stuff like this. Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal. Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal. To the extent that Ford lied, that's wrong. I don't see doing a CBA as wrong, depending on how you do it. Also, accounts of Ford's CBA vary: 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. Source Ok so you are on board with the facts that Ford lied (and that's 'wrong') and people died, so far. What is it that you think Ford 'lied' about? I'm not eminently familiar with the Pinto case. I'd have to do some more research to find out what Ford did or did not lie about as there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on the topic (including about the CBA). I'm not really willing to do that because as far as I'm concerned, this is a side issue. We were talking about a recent GM / Saturn recall and apparently you think laws need to be changed and people need to go to jail. So please elaborate on that - what laws would you like to see? Who should go to jail and for what offence? From you earlier: Show nested quote +It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at.
Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." As I pointed out before, you can't have a perfect car so at some point you have to stop adding in safety / correcting defects because it just isn't worth it. That means you have to do some sort of cost benefit analysis. If that doesn't sit well with you, than maybe this isn't a topic for you to be discussing.
In the Pinto case, Ford had existing knowledge that a lot of people would die. But they also calculated that the costs of changing the design would actually be greater than the cost to just pay the families of people who died. Because of this, they decided to continue production and let people die. It was essentially them saying $ > human lives
|
On April 21 2014 06:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 01:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2014 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2014 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The point I was making was that you can't legislate zero defects per car. So what new legislation would you like?
[quote]
Are you kidding?? Oh ok then, I guess since I wasn't suggesting legislating a zero defect car you didn't really need to do that huh? Yeah no the acquittal of Ford was too legit... I'm starting to suspect you live near a hay field with all the straw men you build... I'm not talking about the Pinto, I'm talking about the GM / Saturn recall. I don't know why you're referencing the pinto, you seemed to agree that this isn't pinto 2.0.... I'm not using a straw man. Cars can't be perfect, we have a regulator, warranties, civil lawsuits, etc. What more did you want? How about at least specifically making what Ford did illegal and punishable by prison? However, I never suggested I was going to write the bill...? I was just pointing out that I think it is a bit ridiculous it's essentially impossible to send anyone to prison even in cases like the Pinto which you seem to agree was disastrous? Oh yeah I forgot this is the only instance of GM doing something like this.... "Cars can't be perfect" that is the definition of a straw man...? What do you want them to go to jail for? Making a car less than perfect? Or beyond some subjective threshold? You aren't defining what you want to be illegal. Instead of blindly following you down this rabbit hole, how about you just say whether you think any of what Ford did surrounding the Pinto was counterproductive and/or ethically/morally wrong first? That way I have an idea where you stand before we try to flush out what part should be/of been illegal. To the extent that Ford lied, that's wrong. I don't see doing a CBA as wrong, depending on how you do it. Also, accounts of Ford's CBA vary: 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. Source Ok so you are on board with the facts that Ford lied (and that's 'wrong') and people died, so far. What is it that you think Ford 'lied' about? I'm not eminently familiar with the Pinto case. I'd have to do some more research to find out what Ford did or did not lie about as there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on the topic (including about the CBA). I'm not really willing to do that because as far as I'm concerned, this is a side issue. We were talking about a recent GM / Saturn recall and apparently you think laws need to be changed and people need to go to jail. So please elaborate on that - what laws would you like to see? Who should go to jail and for what offence? From you earlier: It's the clear pattern in the industry of calculating the law suits vs the fix in a cost benefit analysis absent the human element that I was pointing at.
Then when the individuals who are responsible for approving something they knew could/would be dangerous/deadly are challenged, they just point at the CBA and say "that's business." As I pointed out before, you can't have a perfect car so at some point you have to stop adding in safety / correcting defects because it just isn't worth it. That means you have to do some sort of cost benefit analysis. If that doesn't sit well with you, than maybe this isn't a topic for you to be discussing. In the Pinto case, Ford had existing knowledge that a lot of people would die. But they also calculated that the costs of changing the design would actually be greater than the cost to just pay the families of people who died. Because of this, they decided to continue production and let people die. It was essentially them saying $ > human lives
I'll reiterate - you can't make a perfectly safe, perfectly defect-free car. You can't say $ < human lives. It's an impossibility. You'd end up with zero cars. At some point you have to make hard decisions between safety, cost, design, performance, etc.
The CBA done by Ford was in response to the NHTSA looking into new regulations. Ford crashed some cars, collected the data, calculated costs and sent it over to the NHTSA. The $200K value of a statistical life number they used was the one used by the NHTSA.
Edit: it doesn't seem like the Pinto was particularly dangerous either:![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Pinto.JPG)
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
