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


"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

In The Netherlands every car older than 3 year has to be checked
every year by a garage who has their qualifications to do so.
So every year in September I hope my 16 years old Renault 19 will
make it. If something is wrong it has to be fixed, if not you may
not drive that car anymore.
I think its a good thing, you don't see rusty vehicles on the road
any more.

I somewhat often see cars so crappy they are actually a danger to
those around them. Bald tires, fascias hanging literally, smoke
pouring out the tailpipe, everything. Sad.

Thats new for me, I thougt safety came first in the USA.
But go to Ireland or Poland and other east-European countrys, I
think its even worse than in America.

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?!

But, I do not think that ANY state is any near as tough as you're
saying The Netherlands is, nor do I think any are as tough as I
remember the inspection for my car in West Germany when I bought it and
when I needed a re-inspection before selling it. We just don't do much.
And, while the police DO inspect vehicles involved in injury or fatal
accidents, it takes something pretty bad before the driver is ticketed.
However, car companies are routinely sued by drivers, passengers, or
surviving relatives in serious injury and fatality accidents not for
safety per se but for alleged product liability, i.e., the plaintiffs
allege the accident was caused by faulty design and/or manufacture.
Most are dismissed or the car company wins but there are notable
exceptions.

--
HP, aka Jerry

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

"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

In The Netherlands every car older than 3 year has to be checked
every year by a garage who has their qualifications to do so.
So every year in September I hope my 16 years old Renault 19 will
make it. If something is wrong it has to be fixed, if not you may
not drive that car anymore.
I think its a good thing, you don't see rusty vehicles on the road
any more.

I somewhat often see cars so crappy they are actually a danger to
those around them. Bald tires, fascias hanging literally, smoke
pouring out the tailpipe, everything. Sad.

Thats new for me, I thougt safety came first in the USA.
But go to Ireland or Poland and other east-European countrys, I
think its even worse than in America.

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

But, I do not think that ANY state is any near as tough as you're
saying The Netherlands is, nor do I think any are as tough as I
remember the inspection for my car in West Germany when I bought it and
when I needed a re-inspection before selling it. We just don't do much.
And, while the police DO inspect vehicles involved in injury or fatal
accidents, it takes something pretty bad before the driver is ticketed.
However, car companies are routinely sued by drivers, passengers, or
surviving relatives in serious injury and fatality accidents not for
safety per se but for alleged product liability, i.e., the plaintiffs
allege the accident was caused by faulty design and/or manufacture.
Most are dismissed or the car company wins but there are notable
exceptions.

If I'm informed well, sueïng is a hobby in the USA and the amounts of money
they ask for minor things are high.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

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.

--
HP, aka Jerry

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

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

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"

"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...
snip
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.

We have a sayïmng he "A small hole does a large ship sink".
That is possible with language too.
I simply meant I'm not interested in several story's about sueïng and and
how things ended.
Sorry for writing a word wrong so it had a total different meaning.

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

This was a joke Jerry, Urban Ledgends never happened.


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.

Wow what one word can do;-(
Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated for me
and I'm not interested enough.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

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

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.

We have a sayïmng he "A small hole does a large ship sink".

Like the Titanic, right?

That is possible with language too.
I simply meant I'm not interested in several story's about sueïng
and and how things ended.
Sorry for writing a word wrong so it had a total different meaning.

I think I once said "English is a language that is hard to understand
but easy to misunderstand". The original author is believed to be
George Bernard Shaw.

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

This was a joke Jerry, Urban Ledgends never happened.

How can anyone tell? By definition, urban legends are exactly the same
as rumors - completely believable yet impossible to either prove or
disprove. My wife just bought a bottle of some liquid from the DMSO,
Inc. company which her best friend swears is an outstanding spray or
wipe on topical pain killer, yet there are NO ingredients list
whatsoever and NO suggested uses cited. Moreover, the "instructions"
explicity say "do not apply to skin, eyes, or clothing, do not inhale
or swallow or use in any way not specifically mentioned on this label.
This product is strictly a solvent and should be used as such with no
express or implied warranty as to any fitness of purpose whatsoever."

Now, I am aware of a powerful drug call DMSO, which means
DiMethylsSulfOxide, and comes in 50ml bottes by physician prescription
only, and has the only function to attempt to relieve pain caused by
bladder IC (Interstitial Cystitis). DMSO is inserted into the bladder
by a temporary urinary catheter and is held in for as long as possible
until the burning gets too much for the patient to bear. Guess how I
know this?

So, the DMSO, Inc. company CLEARLY knows this and has probably put
distilled water in the bottle without even a flavor or aroma in the
hopes that sufferers of anything at all might shell out six bucks for
it, and yet the company attempts to indemnify itself from any legal
liabililty for use or misuse.


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.

Wow what one word can do;-(
Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated
for me and I'm not interested enough.

GRIN Be careful of what you wish for, Bouler, you may get it (that
is, you may imply or appear to imply that you are asking a question or
making a comment and someone like me will come along and write a major
paper on the subject).

--
HP, aka Jerry

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

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

Wow what one word can do;-(
Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated
for me and I'm not interested enough.

Single misguided words have started wars, numbnuts! I can understand when
a technical discussion is too complicated for your simple pedagogue mind,
so you're better off quitting when you're already behind.

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove
all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"