Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
Safety is paramount only for new cars. Car makers must certify to
very rigorous MVSS (Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). I'm not
familiar with individual state safety and emissions requirements
so beyond California's very strict rules from CARB (California
Air Resources Board) on tailpipe emissions, I'm sure there are at
least some states that also do safety inspections, but our
driver's licensing process is generally quite loose. e.g., in
Michigan, you literally CANNOT fail the 10 or 12 question written
test you must take only every 8 years. I asked which one(s) I
missed the last time I took it and the clerk told me it didn't
matter as EVERYONE passes! Then, what's the sense of a test?!

To give some people a job maybegrin

I was flabergasted when I heard that 6 years ago but after
reflecting for awhile, it occurred to me that the licensing process
is an easy money maker for the state as are plates and it is in the
state's best interest to have as many drivers on the road as
possible because they also buy gas which is taxed, they drive to
work which is good for jobs and business, and they drive to shop
which is also good for jobs, businesses, and taxes. So, I don't
think that you're right. I have to say, but with a big GRIN, that
your political leaning are creeping in here. We DO employ people
just to employ them, but not very damn much because there simply
isn't budget for planned inefficiency when the unplanned kind is so
obvious and plentiful.

If I'm informed well, sueïng is a hobby in the USA and the amounts
of money they ask for minor things are high.

I doubt that, also. "Sue the *******!" may be a good slogan and an
easy way to earn money by going after those with deep pockets, but
often people feel very strongly about alleged product liability
injuring or killing their loved ones and there are all too many
tragic examples of corporate greed and callous disregard for the
public's safety. I can tell you more off-line if you ask about it.

Not nessecaryly, I think people in the USA are sueïng faster and
more than in The Netherlands.

Do you mean "not necesarily" or "not necessary"? The former means you
disagree with my thesis while the latter means you're not interested in
talking about this anymore. Sorry, but this time I can't follow your
English.

The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and
the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the disclamer;-)

A better example is this one, in my baileywick [sp?]: Ford has been
sued to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which is still in
litigation, for Ford Explorer SUV roll-over accidents once it became
apparent it was somewhat unstable and even more so when somebody
figured out that its Firestone tires were more vulnerable to handling
problems than other brands. Plaintiffs sued on the grounds that Ford
and Firestone knew of the defective handling and tendency to roll over
yet dragged their feet for serveral years before they even tried to fix
it. Here's the most outrageous one I'm aware of that I think is still
winding its way on the way to the Supreme Court:

Some Michigan woman traveling over 85 mph on rain and rainy snow on a
limited access highway has to brake hard and change lanes violently to
avoid hitting another vehicle. The Explorer rolls over multiple times
and lands in the median strip. She is kills but NOT by the trauma of
the rollover. She was not belted and was ejected out the driver's door
window and killed when the Explorer literally rolled OVER her. Then,
after the police investigated, it was found she was driving on a
license suspended for too many speeding violations! Wait, it gets FAR
worse!

Ford damn near beat the first round lawsuit by bringing in expert
witnesses and its own MVSS certification engineers and did a computer
simulation and ejection at that speed would have been fatal even if the
vehicle had NOT rolled on top of her, but if she HAD been fully belted
with the combined lap and shoulder belts, the forces could be proven on
a proving grounds crash simulator to be LESS than fatal. So, the
plaintiff's family's attorney said that Ford should have made the
window glass strong enough to keep her in the car!

Now it really gets ludicrous because Ford them brought in expert
witnesses and proved that even if it were technically feasible to put
strong enough glass in the door - which it is NOT - the blunt force
trauma of whacking a piece of 1" or more thick glass would have
instantly killed the woman just from a cranial injury to the brain.

And, the jury STILL returned a verdict of guilty for Ford and awarded
something over $150 million in ordinary and punitive damages to the
woman's estate! This was over 10 years ago, I know that Ford appealed
but lost and I think has managed to tie this up in court ever since.

Now, Ford also has several HUNDRED lawsuits still pendind, a couple of
dozen of which are so-called class-action suits involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple injuries and deaths. Sorry to dive off the high
board on the technical crash engineering stuff but it is the only way
to explain how truly egegious this is.

So, please clarify what your sentence meaning is and how you'd like to
proceed here, if you do at all. Thanks, Bouler.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"