PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Safety, Economy and Vehicular Perfection Please


MontrealMustang
03-27-2005, 01:48 PM
A lot of you probably don't remember but there was a HUGE controversy years ago about full sized vans and SUV's. Seems that if you're driving like 55mph (90kph) and suddenly attempt a u-turn it may... *drumroll* tilt over.<p>I don't get people who tried to sue the companies over this. Every vehicle can't be perfect. It's first purpose is to accomplish the task it was built for and then be at least 90% safe. No vehicle is 100%.<p>An Accord can't stop like an RX7 or a Porsche 911 simply because of physics. It's heavier than those cars thus won't stop as fast. Doesn't matter what kind of brakes you put on it, it will ALWAYS be slower than an RX7. It's not a mechanical issue, but a design restriction.<p>Just like an SUV. They're supposed to go offroad, so they need to be thin and tall and have a lot of ground clearance. So by nature, this vehicule can't handle like a sports car. It's just impossible. You can make it wider and lower and put on huge tires, but the only thing you'll do is turn it into a station wagon/break.<p>Same with a Van. It's made to transport cargo, not handle like an F1. Asking for a huge van FILLED with cargo to be perfectly safe to perform manouvers that would be scary in to do in an MR2 is a lot to ask.<p>So whatcha think? Should there be warning stickers on cars?

Nick
03-27-2005, 11:22 PM
I think people just need a reality check and need to realize that their cars can't do everything...but I have heard some crazy things that have happened...such as the guy who took an M3 at my local BMW dealership for a test drive and actually flipped it...but obviously your mini van won't handle like a sports car...your sports car is not going to have the comfort or capacities of an SUV...just because you have a huge SUV or even a jeep for that matter does not mean you can necessarily take it out rock crawling straight off the showroom floor...cars are meant to get from point A to point B...there are different types of cars which are made for different types of applications...your honda accord was never meant to be a racecar and should not be treated or regarded as such (example of my friend with his 2000 accord coupe v6)...now, what you do afterwards with modifications is a different story...I could make a corvette or even an S-class a capable off roader if I wanted to...I could make a datsun 510 outrun a porsche on the track if I wanted to...all cars are perfectly safe when they are driven within their limits, anything more is just carelessness on the driver's part...A van does what it is meant to do..Haul around sweaty muddy soccer kids comfortably with space for the groceries...it's not meant to pull1.5 G's around a bend...People just need to get a grip on reality...warning stickers shouldn't be put on cars...what has the car done wrong to deserve a warning sticker? If people are incompetent enough to not realize that their minivan is not a corvette then they deserve whatever they get for being a moron on the road...the bad part is they put other people in danger...

Santeno
03-28-2005, 07:14 AM
There should be a warning sticker on driver's licenses: "Stupid is as stupid does".

Smithie
04-04-2005, 02:16 PM
I can't help but think of the Ford Pinto gas tank explosions. (a side note: The Ford Mustang had the EXACT gas tank design but for obvious reasons was never publicized. Shhh). A car manufacturer can't be expected to foresee every possible problem with a design. There are always going to be shortcomings and compromises. If there weren't...our cars would be perfect. After the problem is brought to the manufacturers and publics attention and no action is taken, it's a different matter all together.<p> The Bridgestone tires where yet another story. The rollovers weren't caused by the fact the vehicle was a SUV but rather by a possible defect in the design of the tires. I think the law suits were centered around finding out if this was the case.<p> I remember in the 80's Suzuki's came with warning labels. lol

mzoltarp
04-15-2005, 06:08 AM
Litigation is a sport. Granted a company that produces something defective should be held accountable, but only for actual damages. However, if the driver is contributory with negligent behavior, I say twist in the wind. It was widely reported that while the Firestone tires of Ford Explorers were flying apart and causing wrecks, we have to ask (1) were the tires properly inflated? (2) When the blowout occurred did the driver slam the brakes to the floor causing weight transfer and instability? If the answer to either of those is "yes" then it's not entirely Firestone's problem. Because litigation is a sport we have to be nanny-fied. We have to be told that coffee is hot at Jack In the Box. We have to be told that a Porsche is capable of speeds in excess of the posted limit. Moreover, I would love to see lawyers have to pay the damages they seek from companies if they lose the case. You sue Ford for 5 million and lose, you owe Ford 5 million. Right now anyone can sue over anything. I think I will sue Ford for not putting the 4-headlight grille on the V6 Mustang because people will think less of my manhood if I buy the V6 and not the V8. My fragile self-esteem! Do you all feel my pain?

Smithie
04-15-2005, 07:54 AM
I agree but I don't think...say..."The Pinto Tank thing" falls into what you speak of. The drivers did nothing wrong (they were rearended), but at the same time I don't think Ford was responsible either...That is, unless it was found Ford's crash testing standards weren't up to par with the standards of the times. No car is perfect.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Distributor at 8:04 AM 4/15/2005</i>

SV
04-15-2005, 03:22 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Distributor</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> but at the same time I don't think Ford was responsible either.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>actually, i remember reading that ford was aware of the defect before the pinto came out, but didn't want to fix the design because it would cost $130 million (although, thinking back, that figure seems way too high, the source may have been unreliable but i can't remember where i read it anyway) or something like that.