The P5: What Would You Change?

[Frim]

I have two tennis balls. One for the wife and one for the daughter. Of course, I get to park in the rain.

The tennis balls keep the freezer full of deer from getting crushed.

 

[slinches]

I lived through that great experiment during the "gas crisis" .... 55 mph speed limits work fine in highly developed areas where population pressures demand such a speed .... for folks who live in a large part of our country where it can be 50 , 75, or more miles to the nearest hospital or significant shopping such a limit inflicts hardship ... no way I want to go back to that .... if preventing deaths by motor vehicle accidents is the goal, the speed limit would have to be dropped to the speed of a slow walk .... I don't hear anyone advocating doing that

Agree, otherwise we should still have someone walk out ahead with a flag.

The minute someone backs an Elio over a child, Elio will be slapped with a defective product lawsuit for lacking a rear view camera and having no ability to look directly behind the car, especially given Elio's framing of the vehicle as a "car." Such a lawsuit could cripple or bankrupt the company. I'd rather they include one in as a standard feature than risk losing it all.

And what if they run over someone going forward? Is the car "defective" because it didn't stop the driver from running someone over going that way?

Instead, how about we take some personal responsibility and stop blaming the tools for entirely preventable problems.

 

[floydv]

Agree, otherwise we should still have someone walk out ahead with a flag.


And what if they run over someone going forward? Is the car "defective" because it didn't stop the driver from running someone over going that way?

Instead, how about we take some personal responsibility and stop blaming the tools for entirely preventable problems.

I have no issue with taking personal responsibility, and I would hope Elio drivers do the same. But this is a litigious country, and the one suing likely won't be the Elio owner (except for contribution or indemnification); it will be the 3rd party victim.

All I'm saying is that if $100 per vehicle is the cost of a rear view camera, a jury in a such a case may not view that cost in favor of the manufacturer when someone is hurt badly or killed. Don't shoot the messenger; that's the world we live in.

 

[Hotscoots]

I lived through that great experiment during the "gas crisis" .... 55 mph speed limits work fine in highly developed areas where population pressures demand such a speed .... for folks who live in a large part of our country where it can be 50 , 75, or more miles to the nearest hospital or significant shopping such a limit inflicts hardship ... no way I want to go back to that .... if preventing deaths by motor vehicle accidents is the goal, the speed limit would have to be dropped to the speed of a slow walk .... I don't hear anyone advocating doing that

I lived through the same nonsense . Just another ill-advised intrusion by the federal government into an area traditionally reserved to the states.
It was never a safety issue at all . It was a knee jerk action to theoretically save fuel during the 1974 oil crisis. As it turns out , the percent of gasoline consumption saved is exactly equal to what can be realized by increasing the pressure of radial tires from 24 to 26 pounds .

 

[Ekh]

Agree, otherwise we should still have someone walk out ahead with a flag.


And what if they run over someone going forward? Is the car "defective" because it didn't stop the driver from running someone over going that way?

Instead, how about we take some personal responsibility and stop blaming the tools for entirely preventable problems.

Whoa! Hold on! Yes people should take individual responsibility. Floydv, however, is absolutely correct -- no direct rear view = lawsuit. Far cheaper to put one in, and it is likely to cost closer to $25 than $100 to do it. Don't confuse your feelings with factual observations. One of you is correct on moral grounds, the other correct in observing the way the world currently works.

 

[CheeseheadEarl]

Whoa! Hold on! Yes people should take individual responsibility. Floydv, however, is absolutely correct -- no direct rear view = lawsuit. Far cheaper to put one in, and it is likely to cost closer to $25 than $100 to do it. Don't confuse your feelings with factual observations. One of you is correct on moral grounds, the other correct in observing the way the world currently works.

So, by that logic I should have sued GM when one of their vehicles WITH a rear camera, mirrors, and warning beeper, backed into mine? They could have prevented it by locking out reverse for drivers too stupid to use it.

It was said above, we need to bring back personal responsibility - unfortunately tort reform is probably the only way to do that, we as a country are over that edge already in my view.

 

[slinches]

True, I wasn't trying to imply that potential for lawsuits shouldn't be considered. If the likelihood of a lawsuit and the potential cost are more than installing cameras (and cameras are effective at preventing the lawsuit), then it's a better business decision to include that feature. That doesn't mean that decision is the best overall for society, though. Reduced cost means more people can purchase a vehicle which will improve their lives through more efficient mobility. The real question is how many people backed over does it take to be worth excluding a related number of people who can't afford a vehicle to get to their jobs, but no one seems to want to answer that. Instead we focus on "this $15 feature could have saved John Smith's life" because that's more relateable and "compassionate".

/rant

 

[NSTG8R]

So, by that logic I should have sued GM when one of their vehicles WITH a rear camera, mirrors, and warning beeper, backed into mine? They could have prevented it by locking out reverse for drivers too stupid to use it.

It was said above, we need to bring back personal responsibility - unfortunately tort reform is probably the only way to do that, we as a country are over that edge already in my view.

Case in point: I'm coming home from work today. Green light for me crossing Banshee Rd. and Lindberg Ave. (by the Int'l airport in St. Louis). The truck in front of me is about 70' ahead of me because I had to stop for a stop sign before making the intersection. Some clown in a white Nissan blasts through the intersection, just missing the truck in front of me, and had I not seen the white flash out of the corner of my eye and let off the gas, would have ate the front of my truck. Close enough to make eye contact with the idiot, but she was too busy looking at her f*cking phone to notice that she blew the intersection.

Personal responsibility? How about "driving" while you're "driving".

You can't fix stupid, and no amount of "technology" will save you from idiots.

 

[floydv]

So, by that logic I should have sued GM when one of their vehicles WITH a rear camera, mirrors, and warning beeper, backed into mine? They could have prevented it by locking out reverse for drivers too stupid to use it.

It was said above, we need to bring back personal responsibility - unfortunately tort reform is probably the only way to do that, we as a country are over that edge already in my view.

I enjoy debating tort reform as much as the next guy, and I do think there's significant potential for reforming the system. But that's somewhat an academic exercise when it comes to the backup camera in the Elio:

1) Elio markets its vehicle effectively as a "car," touts car-like safety features and test results, etc.;
2) There's a federal law requiring backup cameras for most new cars by 2018;
3) "Automakers haven't been previously required to include these systems but NHTSA did recommend it, saying it can save many deaths and injuries from backover crashes. There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year, the agency said. About a third of those deaths are children, and many are caused by parents, it said. Rear facing cameras, including those that automakers already offer, would save between 59 and 69 deaths a year, NHTSA said." http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/autos/rear-facing-cameras/
4) Someone buys an Elio in 2018 and backs up into a child, killing her;
5) In a personal injury/defective product lawsuit, Elio will have a hard time overcoming the reasonable standard of care: it was required for all new cars and Elio didn't install it (per se negligence), or at least it was recommended by NHTSA, and Elio should have known it would be good to install it given its limited rear visibility design, particularly if the cost was not overly burdensome.

I don't know about you folks, but those are not the sort of facts I would want to be facing in a lawsuit against me as a manufacturer.

 

[JEBar]

does anyone seriously believe that attorneys working for EM haven't reviewed this and other potential liabilities .... I well remember that all talk of a trailer hitch option ended when attorneys assessed the liability .... we can sit and play "what if" all day but EM is most certainly doing it for real