Posted on 03/13/2014 10:35:45 AM PDT by jazusamo
The New York Times hinted that the 11 year death toll for victims who drove defective General Motors' vehicles (that are just now being recalled) may rise from the current 12 confirmed fatalities. The Times reports, "Since 2003, GM has reported at least 78 deaths and 1,581 injuries involving the now-recalled cars, according to a review of agency records."
It is not clear how many of the accidents involving one of the 1.6 million now-recalled vehicles were caused by the defect. The article does state that "the records mention potentially defective components" and "regulators appear to have overlooked disturbing complaints of engine shutdowns."
The basis of the report is a new chronology of events regarding the recall. The chronology also gives evidence that now-GM CEO Mary Barra was likely aware of the problem in 2011. GM's response to the escalating scandal was to offer drivers of its defective vehicles loaner cars and $500 discounts towards the purchase of a new GM vehicle.
Mary Barra says that she will personally oversee the investigation to determine why motorists' lives were put at risk for years after the company knew of the problem. Considering that Ms. Barra was the head of product development in early 2011 and oversaw quality control, perhaps the investigation should include her accountability in not bringing the problem to light.
Regarding the deadly defect delay, the new chronology of events presented by GM states that, "In late July 2011, a meeting was held at GM involving Legal Staff, Field Performance Assessment ("FPA") and Product Investigations Personnel who would be involved in the Field Performance Evaluation ("PFE") process." Given Ms. Barra's position at the time, it is hard to believe that she was not aware of the issue. Ms. Barra's previous engineering roles may have made her aware at an even earlier date. The timeline of events clearly makes "New" GM accountable for the recall delay.
GM's response to its fatal recall delay has been deplorable. Only after media sources began to escalate the story did the company act as if it cared about getting to the bottom of why it took 13 years ( reports now point to 2001 as the year GM first became aware of the problems ) to recall vehicles that they knew were unsafe. GM's initial response was to recall only a portion of the dangerous vehicles that were on the road as the company cited alcohol, weather conditions and speeding as factors in accidents that killed drivers of defective GM vehicles. The company also blamed drivers for operating its defective vehicles with extra keys on the key chains.
The vehicles in question had defective ignition switches which turned off power to the cars under certain conditions, killing steering, power brakes and air bag systems. Only after the company was criticized for recalling just a portion of the deadly vehicles did the company expand the recall to include all of the defective cars. GM's attempt to now try and capitalize on the tragedy by offering discounts in an attempt to sell new cars is despicable.
The recent offer by GM of loaner cars and $500 off a new GM vehicle to drivers of the dangerous recalled cars is reminiscent of a scene from the movie Fargo, when a car salesman addresses a complaint from a car buyer who was charged $500 for "Trucoat," which the purchaser never agreed to. After saying he discussed it with a manager, the sleazy salesman's resolution was, "Well, he never done this before, circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat." Does the GM response to help drivers of defective vehicles by offering $500 off a new GM vehicle sound like a sleazy sales ploy? As they would say in Fargo, "Yah, you betcha!"
$500 off of a new GM vehicle will not resolve the deadly recall delay issue. Both GM and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have lots to answer for regarding the botched recall. Why did they allow deadly vehicles to remain on the road for years after complaints of defective ignition switches and fatal accidents were reported?
One of the most disturbing aspects of the GM recall scandal is the fact that American lives are entrusted to government agencies that work for an Administration that is in bed with a major corporation and then those same agencies are put in charge of regulating the crony company. It is a fact that President Obama ran a reelection campaign that focused on the perceived success of GM and the auto bailouts. His opponent, Mitt Romney, was lambasted for suggesting that the government should not have interfered to the extent that they did in bailing out GM.
The obvious conflicts arising from the executive branch of our government having a vested interest in the success of a major US industrial corporation warrants further debate. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money were spent to bail out the UAW, which then came out in force to help with President Obama's reelection bid. At the same time, regulating agencies like NHTSA, the Justice Department ( which is now in charge of a criminal investigation of GM ) and the SEC are placed in charge of overseeing crony corporations.
The determination as to how "successful" the auto bailouts really were will now have to take into account the lost lives of those who died in defective GM vehicles that were allowed to remain on the road by the bailed-out company and the regulating agency that should have made sure these vehicles were recalled long ago. Whether or not NHTSA was influenced by GM's crony status with the Obama Administration when they continued to overlook the company's deadly defect, it is hard to deny that the conflicts of interests are obvious.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
Many years ago, there were cars, that with regular enough maintenance checks and cheap parts replacements, didn’t have ignition systems shutting down at random without warning. Granted, mechanical fuel pumps did stop suddenly (as electric ones sometimes do today) but not if replaced often enough (very easy task). The older cars could also be tuned to run very clean.
BTW, I was not referring to the old, defective GM distributors at the backs of the engines near firewalls. ;-)
And everyone wore helmets while they drive...
Then the people who suffered whiplash and broken knecks from the additional weight from the helmet could berate the people who got concussions and brain damage from not wearing them.
Then why the $500 offer?
**************************
They’re not giving you or anyone else $500 ,, they’re offering you a puny discount on a $30k new car.. You will pay the same or more for that car “bottom line” than you will if you just walk into the dealership and make a deal without playing that card.
Then the people who suffered whiplash and broken knecks from the additional weight from the helmet could berate the people who got concussions and brain damage from not wearing them.
There is always a compromise between cost, convenience, safety, performance, etc. GM thought they had it with this thing and it turns out they didn’t. They fixed it in future cars. But the older cars were still safe at a 99.999% level, which is very high.
I hate GM, but this is a tempest in a teapot, just like the Toyota thing, the Audi thing and the Pinto thing.
“I consider this a more than acceptable risk, and the stats bear it out.”
Risking one life is immoral.
Risking one life is immoral.
Risking one life is immoral.
“Thing is, when you build a car you are, by definition, risking the life of every single person who buys one or rides in one.”
That argument is tendentious at best. It is clear that there is a vast difference between selling a car that one has every reason to think is suitable for its intended purpose, and selling a car that one *knows* is defective.
Did that really need explaining?
“But we’ve more precisely defined liability than that.”
Two approaches to this statement:
1. Yes, and selling a car that one *knows* is defective rises to any reasonable limen for liability.
2. Liability is one thing; morality may be another, if a system is corrupt.
It is immoral to sell a car that one *knows* has a defect that might kill the buyer. An adolescent might take the time to list possible exceptions to this rule—what if the buyer knows the car is defective, et cetera—but none of those exceptions applies here.
“Risking one life is immoral.”
“”Not true.””
Really? You believe that you could risk my life—by, say, selling me a car with a defect that you know causes fatal accidents—and that would not be immoral?
Horrible, if true.
Problem is, as best as I can tell, the car was no more defective than the Toyota with the gas pedal that could be controlled by a shifting carpet. The pin in the ignition worked as designed but could release sooner than was optimal for some circumstances. If they had sold only 1,000 of these cars, statistically, the “defect” would never have exposed itself.
“Problem is, as best as I can tell, the car was no more defective than the Toyota with the gas pedal that could be controlled by a shifting carpet. The pin in the ignition worked as designed but could release sooner than was optimal for some circumstances. If they had sold only 1,000 of these cars, statistically, the “defect” would never have exposed itself.”
Every statement in that paragraph is true, and yet it has no bearing on the question of culpability.
One could say that Stalin was no better than Mao without reflecting any credit on either of them.
There is no justification for putting the word “defect” in danger quotes. It was a defect.
The moral question only arises after someone has the opportunity to do the right thing, and fails.
Ever do any writing for a politician?
I honestly don’t see it as a defect.
Keep in mind I’m coming from a position supported by the scant descriptions of the actual “defect” that are in the articles. Most of the information in the articles is just emotional tripe.
As a percentage of cars sold, the number of fatalities that are directly attributable to this part and nothing else is just too low to call this a defect, IMO.
I bought a 2012 Equinox last november, I absolutely love the car, its a 2.4 AWD, after putting Blizzak tires and converting all lights to HID and LED its fast becoming my favorite little car, though I bought it for my wife I snag it occasionally.
But it does have this proble, I cannot decrease the heater, I can stop the fan but its still full blast heat, even with the AC on its still hot, but in Alaska and in the winter I am putting up with it...for now.
I took it to the Chevy dealership, and though I have purchased an extended warranty they say I may still have to pay something, thats BS, I have been a mechanic long enough to know how to replace an HVAC air blend door actuator mysel.
Also is the Oil Life Monitor, which is saying my oil should last over 7500 miles, again that is BS, I will change before 3000 miles maximum. But get on a Equinox forum you get a ton of “superior minds” that say I am a fool wasting money if I change that oil too often..or by myself..
Its all about GM keeping its Service Departments open, they cannot comprehend a well built vehicle anymore, I can honestly say GM will design almost any of its vehicles with a key component that will fail at a certain point, all to create Service and parts revenue.
“As a percentage of cars sold, the number of fatalities that are directly attributable to this part and nothing else is just too low to call this a defect, IMO.”
It was high enough to be noticed.
It was high enough to be noticed.
“All were witch hunts.”
So this is, too?
Forget it. This is going nowhere.
Forget it. This is going nowhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.