GM To Face Civil Trial Over A Faulty Ignition Switch On January 11th

Last year I purchased a 2008 Grand Prix for my teenager as a second hand purchase from an older guy for a dam good price.  I really like the car and so does he.  We took it in this week finally for an ignition switch recall, and after having it at the dealer for most of the day, I observed the fix.  The keys were originally made with slots for ring holders.  They plugged them with inserts that convert it to a simple round hole instead.  When I asked the service tech as to why exactly, he did not know.  My guess, it prevents the potential for a slight cantilever moment at one end of the slot, that could rotate the ignition.

Wow.  

Yawnnnnnnn

Last year I purchased a 2008 Grand Prix for my teenager as a second hand purchase from an older guy for a dam good price.  I really like the car and so does he.  We took it in this week finally for an ignition switch recall, and after having it at the dealer for most of the day, I observed the fix.  The keys were originally made with slots for ring holders.  They plugged them with inserts that convert it to a simple round hole instead.  When I asked the service tech as to why exactly, he did not know.  My guess, it prevents the potential for a slight cantilever moment at one end of the slot, that could rotate the ignition.

 

Wow.  

 

Only some of the vehicles get that fix, other replace the entire lock cylinder.  It depends on which vehicle you get. 

The reason for the insert is this:

 

A GM spokesman, Alan Adler, said a combination of excessive weight on the key and a jarring event could pull the key into “accessory” mode. If that happens, the engine cuts off and airbags are disabled.

“The ignition switch is slightly out of spec; however, the whole system is in spec,” Adler said. “We don’t have a bad part that we’re replacing. The issue is more external.”

So I'm guessing you're right in that putting the insert into the key prevents leverage from switching the key position to Acc. 

1. If he feels it aint safe for his offspring....he could sell said GM product.

2. Id he decides to keep said GM car...its because he feels it safe...therefore there is no WOW at the end of his "comment"

3. .....

4. He finally took it in during holiday season? How convenient it is for him...

5. ....

.

MAybe its a nice engineering fix....but there is no WOW at the end of that!

It is a wow in that it is a simple fix.   The GP is one of the GM cars with the ignition on the dash, a key with a slot in it rather than a single hole would be at an angle when in the run position.  If the driver has a lot of heavy weight on it tugging down, that weight could notch the key vertical (to Acc.) when hitting a bump.  The insert into the key would prevent that movement from happening.

Edit:  And I have been mostly off from work in December 12th.  I've had two recalls done on my Honda, inspection, ball join repair, and had the Oldsmobile inspected and some repairs, plus re-doing an apartment that I plan to offer for lease next month..... lots of us use this time of year to catch up on things.

Yup, the 'wow' was that it was such a simple fix.  I figured there was an inspection done as well, but seeing as how the car has over 100K miles on it now, I bet that was considered into the decision.

By the way, the Grand Prix is an excellent used vehicle to consider for family who are shopping for used and affordable.  The market is flooded with them, and although the car had it's faults, I recall shopping around and there were many with nearly 300K miles on that trusty Series III 3.8L.  The engine is rough when pushed, but it's torque down low makes up for most of that.  Ours was spotless from original retired owner, and I swear, nobody ever even sat in the back seat. 

And the reason I purchased used is simple.  Insurance costs.  If you have a teen, you know what I mean.  

And olds......really?

Whatever Wings.

I see right through you.

But...Im not gonna be Charles Bronson anymore...

Just so you know, you dont fool me!

I forgot...I have access to cute little emoticons. So Ill just start using them, like I did when I first joined up here.

Last year I purchased a 2008 Grand Prix for my teenager as a second hand purchase from an older guy for a dam good price.  I really like the car and so does he.  We took it in this week finally for an ignition switch recall, and after having it at the dealer for most of the day, I observed the fix.  The keys were originally made with slots for ring holders.  They plugged them with inserts that convert it to a simple round hole instead.  When I asked the service tech as to why exactly, he did not know.  My guess, it prevents the potential for a slight cantilever moment at one end of the slot, that could rotate the ignition.

 

Wow.  

 

Yup, the 'wow' was that it was such a simple fix.  I figured there was an inspection done as well, but seeing as how the car has over 100K miles on it now, I bet that was considered into the decision.

 

By the way, the Grand Prix is an excellent used vehicle to consider for family who are shopping for used and affordable.  The market is flooded with them, and although the car had it's faults, I recall shopping around and there were many with nearly 300K miles on that trusty Series III 3.8L.  The engine is rough when pushed, but it's torque down low makes up for most of that.  Ours was spotless from original retired owner, and I swear, nobody ever even sat in the back seat. 

 

And the reason I purchased used is simple.  Insurance costs.  If you have a teen, you know what I mean.  

 

And olds......really?

I currently have 2 GM products with my name on the title, and one mopar.  I have personally owned / leased over a dozen GM products in my days, and I was raised in GM products.....and I still qualify for GM discounts through my retired GM father.  I have also owned several Honda's, Subaru and even Nissan.  

Olds, are you suggesting I would never own GM as a Ford employee?  Actually, never mind.  I don't know what you are suggesting, and honestly don't care.

Happy New Year anyway, you crazy Greek you.

Happy New Year to you to, Wings...

Hopefully after decades of the same 'ol same 'ol routine of yours on the internet of being less than truthful of your intentions....you will change your ways...

Like I said, I see right through you!

Im like the oracle of Delphi.

PS: Im not the one who followed a handful of MT posters in this website just to continue the less than truthful intentions, Wings.

Id look in the mirror before Id start calling someone else twisted...

The Greek part.

Well, the part of Greece my mom comes from, yeah, they are a tad twisted, so no harm in you saying that, its the truth...

However, If I was you, Id seriously take a reflection of what it is you do for the past 2 decades in internet forums and Id change it...

^

How charming olds.

Thanks anyway

Eh. Much ado about bupkus.

Good. 

Yeah, they changed up my Cobalt keys as well.....

The Cobalt ignition switch was really the only ignition that was significantly substandard, because it was not only designed on the cheap to start with, but the 3rd party manufacturer built the design to an even lower standard, but the price was right and GM accepted it without scrutiny.

GM recalling a few million w-bodies and gen 5 Camaros over zero deaths and just a dozen or so shutoff complaints was more about saving face with the public.

The modified key with the hole in the middle is a very practical fix, it's logically sound to remove twisting leverage from the load of the keychain, since people can't be held responsible for keeping two pounds of keychains hanging on their fob. Ask any mechanic the sort of keychains they get from customers, especially ones with ignition problems.

These ongoing trials are now a sh*t show for money grubbing lawyers.

The Cobalt ignition switch was really the only ignition that was significantly substandard, because it was not only designed on the cheap to start with, but the 3rd party manufacturer built the design to an even lower standard, but the price was right and GM accepted it without scrutiny.

 

GM recalling a few million w-bodies and gen 5 Camaros over zero deaths and just a dozen or so shutoff complaints was more about saving face with the public.

 

The modified key with the hole in the middle is a very practical fix, it's logically sound to remove twisting leverage from the load of the keychain, since people can't be held responsible for keeping two pounds of keychains hanging on their fob. Ask any mechanic the sort of keychains they get from customers, especially ones with ignition problems.

 

These ongoing trials are now a sh*t show for money grubbing lawyers.

Are you suggesting of the 169 deaths and hundreds more injured, that it only involved Cobalt?  I did not know.  I mean, I know there were many vehicles recalled, but if that is true, that is a bit surprising to go to such lengths to save face.

 

The Cobalt ignition switch was really the only ignition that was significantly substandard, because it was not only designed on the cheap to start with, but the 3rd party manufacturer built the design to an even lower standard, but the price was right and GM accepted it without scrutiny.

 

GM recalling a few million w-bodies and gen 5 Camaros over zero deaths and just a dozen or so shutoff complaints was more about saving face with the public.

 

The modified key with the hole in the middle is a very practical fix, it's logically sound to remove twisting leverage from the load of the keychain, since people can't be held responsible for keeping two pounds of keychains h anging on their fob. Ask any mechanic the sort of keychains they get from customers, especially ones with ignition problems.

 

These ongoing trials are now a sh*t show for money grubbing lawyers.

 

Are you suggesting of the 169 deaths and hundreds more injured, that it only involved Cobalt?  I did not know.  I mean, I know there were many vehicles recalled, but if that is true, that is a bit surprising to go to such lengths to save face.

 

There are two primary recalls over the ignition switch problem.  The "main" one where the entire switch itself is replaced only involves the Chevy Cobalt and HHR, Pontiac G5 and Solstice, and Saturn Ion and Sky.  Those are the only ones with a part number specifically linked to any injuries or fatalities.   

There is a second group of recalls that involve the fix you got Wings, where just the keys are modified. This recall involves a different part number and no injuries or fatalities.  This is the "saving face" recall where GM is extending an extreme level of caution just to be on the safe side.  This recall involves the final generation W-Body cars (Lacrosse, Intrigue, Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix), the N-Body cars (Early Malibu, Grand Am, Alero), the G-Body (Lucerne, Deville, DTS), and some of the early Sigma cars (CTS, Early SRX, but NOT STS), and the Camaro. 

The total number of vehicles recalled around 6 million in this country.   Another point to be made is that the percentage of crashes where the airbags did not deploy due to this issue is well below the rate of non-deployment industry wide.  Even the Department of Transportation states that the airbags fail to deploy in up to 2% of crashes.    Even if 0.5% of the total of the recalled GM vehicles (30,000) were involved in a crash where the airbags should deploy, 169 vehicles where the airbags didn't deploy would be just 0.56%.... there would have to be 3.5 times as many instances of this situation happening just to meet industry average.

Naturally, GM should be making sure that their vehicles are as safe as can be engineered for, but at the same time this is a very large mountain built from mole hills, and it doesn't surprise me at all that GM will defend itself where it can. 

Edit:  Actually, I made an error above.  The total number of vehicles recalled for the ignition is 17.3 million, not 6 million (which seemed too low and why I went and checked more).  I'm not going to redo all of my percentages, even at 6 million, my point has been more than made. 

Thank you for that clarifying post, Drew. The Cobalt's sales volume and publicity dwarfed the other related models involved in the primary ignition case, so I tend to gloss over them.

@wings - I hope his post answered your question.

[...] Even if 0.5% of the total of the recalled GM vehicles (30,000) were involved in a crash where the airbags should deploy, 169 vehicles where the airbags didn't deploy would be just 0.56%.... there would have to be 3.5 times as many instances of this situation happening just to meet industry average.

Naturally, GM should be making sure that their vehicles are as safe as can be engineered for, but at the same time this is a very large mountain built from mole hills, and it doesn't surprise me at all that GM will defend itself where it can. [...]

As mentioned, not all "ignition switch" recalls are the same. Most of them involved the design of the key and were made out of extra-caution.

The "real" faulty ignition switch recall actually involve 2,6 million vehicles.

The 2% from the study is not the % of cars with non deploying airbags in the market, but the % of fatalities where the airbags didn't work.

So

a) You can't compare this 2% vs "0.56% of GM vehicles". It's rather 2% (market) vs 100% (GM faulty switch) of fatalities where the airbags didn't work.

b) The 2% involve unknown causes which might include defect, but mostly design vs certain types of accident (the purpose of the study being to improve design and efficiency, as shown by improvement noticed between first, second and third gen airbags). GM where third gen rendered inoperative by a known mechanical design flaw. It's hardly "mountain built from mole hills" and, commendably, GM recognized it.

Where GM has to defend itself in three areas :

a) Trials from some of the 91% complaints GM deemed as not related to the ignition switch but as part of this "2%" the whole industry has to work on.

b) Cases other than airbag related fatalities, going from annoying situations (car switching off without further consequences) to "who knew and how could this have happen".

c) Some always willing to sue whatever...

I don't follow your reasoning for your first item a.  In that study, 2% of fatalities happened when the airbags didn't deploy, but were expected to have deployed. You cannot compare that to just the ignition related fatalities and not take into account the number of airbag deployments that did happen.  It's not 2% vs 100%.  

If you want to look at just the main ignition recall numbers, that's fine too.  Assuming a rate of 0.5% of the 2,600,000 recalled vehicles have a crash that deploy the airbags, 169 where the airbags didn't deploy is still less than 2% ringing in at 1.3%.  What makes it hard is that both this study, and the 169 fatalities only count fatalities and not crashes that happened where no one died, but the airbags still did not properly deploy.   If you start to compare all injury claims on GM from this issue, you cannot then compare it to the 2% number from the DOT because that only counts fatalities. 

In your first item b, you make an incorrect assumption.  The study was specifically looking at fatalities in frontal crashes. 

From the study:

 

The study examined only front seat occupants involved in frontal collisions, the type of crash in which front airbags are designed to provide protection. Each database had a different method of coding crash type. In FARS, frontal crashes were defined as having a principal impact of 11, 12, or 1 o’clock;

Yes, it is a design flaw. Yes GM must fix it.  However, the "mountain made from mole hills" comment refers specifically to the rate of occurrence of this issue compared to airbag non-deployments industry wide.  Further, 169 fatalities is a drop in the bucket in relation to the over 30,000 fatal car crashes each year.   I don't want to sound like I am minimizing the 169 deaths that might have been prevented, but that number over 13 years when over 30,000 a year are dying in traffic accidents, one has to keep things in perspective.

18 times as many people die just from not using seat belts each year (3,353 - 2010 : 3,394 - 2011 : 3,031 - 2012) than died from the total 13 years of this ignition switch issue. 4.5 times as many people die each year from not wearing a motorcycle helmet. (708 - 2010 : 706 - 2011 : 781 - 2012)

Drew, I agree with your remarks, except for your minimization of the 169 deaths and nearly 300 injuries.

You simply can't do that.  That would be analogous to excusing a mass shooting because a person might have gone insane combined with the fact there are already many deaths and shootings in a given time frame anyway.  The victim's families could care less about numbers or relativity, they just want justice.  GM is not innocent here, of course, but regardless of how willing and honest and forthright they are now to make this go away, a lot of suffering has taken place.   

And I know it is in the country's best interest to have GM move forward from this, and I think Mary B. has handled this exceptionally well, but the past mistakes do exist, and it is those mistakes and the ensuing justice that needs to be managed through all this.  And I also know that I was harsh in my remarks in the past toward GM on this, but credit where it is due.  GM is a great company, and that greatness is rising up from this terrible point in their history,  That's all one can do.

Drew, I agree with your remarks, except for your minimization of the 169 deaths and nearly 300 injuries.

You simply can't do that.  That would be analogous to excusing a mass shooting because a person might have gone insane combined with the fact there are already many deaths and shootings in a given time frame anyway.  The victim's families could care less about numbers or relativity, they just want justice.  GM is not innocent here, of course, but regardless of how willing and honest and forthright they are now to make this go away, a lot of suffering has taken place.   

 

And I know it is in the country's best interest to have GM move forward from this, and I think Mary B. has handled this exceptionally well, but the past mistakes do exist, and it is those mistakes and the ensuing justice that needs to be managed through all this.  And I also know that I was harsh in my remarks in the past toward GM on this, but credit where it is due.  GM is a great company, and that greatness is rising up from this terrible point in their history,  That's all one can do.

I don't think I minimized anything regarding their death nor is it my intention to.   I am minimizing the hysteria that exists around the issue. 

By bringing up volumes of auto related deaths as 'perspective' and relating it as a 'drop in the bucket' you actually are.

The huge percentage of those deaths are driver error, or weather related or involve alcohol, etc.  A small percentage are mechanical failures, and a tiny, tiny fraction are caused from manufacturing defects.  That is the percentage you should probably compare.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying but not with your statistical comparison which is apples and oranges.

Your 0.56% or 1,3% would be the % of fatalities vs number of cars with non-deploying airbags.

The 2% in the study is about the % of fatalities vs total fatalities (not cars) related to non-deploying airbags.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying but not with your statistical comparison which is apples and oranges.

Your 0.56% or 1,3% would be the % of fatalities vs number of cars with non-deploying airbags.

The 2% in the study is about the % of fatalities vs total fatalities (not cars) related to non-deploying airbags.

Well.. no... my 0.56% or 1.3% is the percent of airbag non-deployment fatalities vs number of all recall affected cars involved in a crash.

We simply don't have enough statistical data from a control group and the recall group to get much closer than this. 

Well I am an owner of one of the cars that received the new key and cylinder. The leverage was one reason the other was a fast easy way to tell if it had been fixed.

As for the issue while you hear and some count 169 deaths they leave out a lot of what really happened in many of these counted deaths and the conditions and circumstances.

First off millions of these cars were built.

Second many of the death would have happened even if the key had not had an issue. Many of the deaths the Air Bags were not going to save the driver or passengers.

Note I investigated the first 13 reported deaths. Being I owned a car I wanted the truth and the whole truth not just from GM but the Media. What they fail to tell you is in the first 13 reported deaths only two could even be considered likely that the GM fault was in play. And only then do I list these as in play because there was not any info on one and the other there was a great lack of info to the point I could not determine the issues that lead to the deaths. The others it was pretty clear what happened in most of them. Speed, Under the Infulance of drugs or alcohol and no seat belts were prime factors.

I do not have the info here handy but I found the crash reports on the web and it was clear what happened to most of them.

Examples.

One girl was over the limit and driving in a 25 MPH zone to a dead end at 63 MPH and unbelted. She hit a tree and died on impacts. The bag in this case would not have saved her.

3 girls went off the road and hit a tree again. No belts with the driver and back seat passenger. I am not sure on the survivor in the front. They died and the bag for sure would not have saved the back seat passenger as she was thrown into the dash. She may have done more damage to the passenger up front than the crash.

Two boys in Indiana. 70 Plus MPH, Drunk and no belts. Off the road and hit a tree. They impacted so hard they had to remove the drivers legs as they went through the floor as the tree came into the front seat area.

One woman had a medical emergency. She had a seizure and hit the gas with no belt and crashed.

I can go on as this repeats over and over and over.

Why does GM not fight these. Well for several reasons. One they did cheap out on the ignition so weather they people would have lived or died they made a mistake. Second the pay out is cheaper than trying to defend all these cases. Most lawyers know that many of these cases are bogus but they know GM will pay to make them go away. That is why many are taking what is offered as if they had a better case they could get more money. Finally the one big reason. PR. TO fight this the media already did not play fair and if GM fought this the media would bake them in the press. They have a habit of not reporting all the facts and making hero's and villains that draw attention. It goes back to the if it bleeds it leads mentality.

The world as the web reports it is not always as it seams. I would recommend the book What does Jesus Drive. It is not a religion book but a book from a guy that worked in the auto industry mostly for Ford, Nissan and Chrysler and it tells how these crisis work and what all companies face in dealing with them. It tells of dirt on both sides but the media is a lot more dirty than most think.

So when ever you see someone defending the GM side keep in mind there was a lot more to this story than reported. That is part of the reason GM got off easier than many anticipated.

In this country people are innocent till proven guilty. In the media the larger corporations are guilty till proven innocent.

Also with the way our legal system is you do not have to be guilty to have to pay out on a law suit. Most lawyers know they will not win but they will hope to settle and that is good with them. That is why they take so many cases even bad ones as they know the odds are they will get paid to go away. In this deal the loser does not have to pay and because of it this sets up cooperate blackmail. The laws will not change as most people in office are lawyers or take money from lawyers to not change the laws.

But the bottom line is that in many of these crashes the air bag was the least of their issues that caused the crash or death.

Note too that the Steering in these cases did not lock and was still fully able to turn the cars. The brakes did not lose power assist as you have normally several good pumps before the vacuum is used up. The keys in these cases just went to the off setting not locked. The dirty little truth only Car and Driver published and few other media outlets did.

And again the key chains in many cases were loaded up. That is why not all of the cars had any issues as well as there was an improved model out there but they did not know where they were since it had the same part number. It is possible that some of these crashes even had the better cylinders.

There was just a lot more too this and the media just had a field day in most of the cases.

I really think this was a good thing for GM in the long run. Mary was still getting some of the old GM culture fighting her on changes they were trying to make. When this came along it gave her the ammo to go after the old culture people that created the conditions that let this happen and made many leave or go silent. I truly think that GM will benefit from this in the long run and will keep them from repeating this. Thing have really changed inside but She is still not done yet.

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

The case to be made is that each incident has to be looked at individually. 

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

I only detailed the first 13 but I that does not mean I looked into other random ones and found similar patterns.

I am not going to say they are not all legit but so far I have yet to see one that the driver did not play into some part of their actions or inaction contributed to their deaths.

Hear me clear I am not saying GM did not mess up here and not make a bad part. They DID. But the matter of life and death also fell into the hands of the drivers that did not make use of safety gear and were not operating the vehicle under conditions safe to drive in.

The pattern is clear and there were contributions by both parties here in what I have looked at. The other cases the info is harder to get as the media did not report on them as extensively.

What I am saying before you totally condemn GM for the whole thing you need to really look at the details too often left out by the media and legal representation.

We have seen it time and time again where automakers are attack for failings of the operators or others not named in the media.

The simple fact is too that must be remembered. These cars are not rendered un drivable with the key in off. They still steered and at speed they are harder but not impossible to drive. We drove for many years with out power steering. As for brakes they worked too. They contain a check valve that retains vacuum that provides enough power assist to stop the car. The steering does not lock with this defective ignition and it would have to pass another detent.

Also keep in mind an air bag used with out a seat belt can also do more damage as in some cases it has broken necks.

My point is yes this was a problem but the public was not clearly made aware of all the facts here. Like too many other things in life we only get half the story.

The media and the web are not always to be fully trusted and we should always seek more than one source. Car and Driver did a story that was very balanced and one of the best as it presented all the facts not just what they wanted to do.

the one girl Amber that the media got ahold of her birth mother. She was making a big stink about this on a daughter she had just met 16 years after giving her up for adoption. She was in the media and they gave her all the time in the world to pour out her grief and hate of GM. Well she really had not been a part of her daughters life till right before the crash. Even then the family that raised her and adopted her had already received a pay out. She was in it for the money but yet the media did not tell you that till we got word her adopted family was paid. She vanished real fast from the TV then. This was the girl that was speeding into the dead end street drunk after fighting with her boyfriend. Her crash was not one that many would have survived with an air bag or even a 5 way harness. Trees in your lap are a killer.

We saw the same thing on the truck fires for Chevy. NBC tried to make a big deal of it but yet could not reproduce the problem. So they faked it and used a model rocket engine and spilled fuel to make it appeal to have failed. That made big news till it was proven fraud. Then it was reported in the back pages it was not a true test.

Audi was hit for unintended acceleration. There was never anything wrong with the cars. If anything the pedals were close and drivers stepped on the wrong pedal. It was driver error. 60 Min never took back their damaging claims. It took Audi 5-10 years to recover.

There many other deals. Like I said read the What Would Jesus drive as it is a very good read and shows you just how these things work on the inside. This guy is out of the PR business and tells the whole deal. Also he adds some really good marketing stories too. I had heard about it from Autoweek and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the car industry.

As for how this happened in GM I would recommend Lutz book on GM when he got there. Car Guys VS. Bean Counters. He talks of the damaged culture at GM. You would not believe some of the stories on how bad he found it. That is why he pushed for culture change that Mary today is still pushing hard. I think they are mostly cleared up but there is still work to do and to continue doing to make sure it never happens again. GM really did more damage to themselves as half the time the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. GM really did a lot of internal damage in the way they empowered people and how they reported to each other.

For instance panel gaps were horrible when Lutz arrived. He asked why GM could not match even Hyundai. The engineer in charge said he could. Lutz asked then why are we not doing it. He said he was not told to do it. Yes he could not ask to do this and was only allowed to do what he was old by someone over him that had no clue. This his how a deal like this ignition could vanish inside GM. If someone found an issue or screwed up they would not or could not report it and no one would know unless told there was a problem. I am sure a handful of people knew but how high up and how large of a group I suspect was limited. This was a time GM was buying a bearing that was the same bearing under 5 different part numbers at 5 different prices. Like I said really messed up.

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

 

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

Are you implying that even in situations like those that have been described, the driver bears no responsibility?

Yes, the land of the free... payout for when I behave badly and don't want to accept responsibility.

Yeesh

 

 

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

 

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

 

Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric.

First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim).

Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it.

The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

 

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

Sorry if you are drunk you are drunk and your reactions are deamed not up to their best. You may not feel that way but when you hit the guard rail with a slow reaction 2 beers are enough.

If you forget your belt and die that is driver error. You if you crash and die you contributed to the choice of life or death.

Not sure how a break in factors in here. Now if I shoot the intruder and he dies it is his fault because he made the choice to break in just as if someone chose not to wear a belt or drink.

The fact is in most of these cases most have actions that they did or chose that contributed to their deaths.

The fact alone that the number and what ever number you chose to pick say 169 is only a small fraction of all the cars involved here so that is why the count of driver DUI and unbelted are so high.

The truth is most people that experienced this issue were not drunk and were belted. So they did not crash and they did not die.

Again the cars fully were steerable. This issue did not lock the column.

Again this issue did not stop the power assist to the brakes as they have a check valve that holds more than enough assist to stop the car.

Again the cars with people fully in control could be restarted with in a second or two with a fast bump to neutral and hitting the key.

As I stated GM did screw up and I never denied it. But what killed many of the people were their own actions. I am a firm believer that people should be held responsible for their own actions and not rewarded. While they can sue GM they should not get the same amounts for not wearing a belt.

It is like the girl in the back seat of the car GM paid off the family on for her death. She was not belted in the back seat. Even if the bag had worked it would have started to deflate before she even hit it. Dash air bags are timed for the front seat with a belted passenger not a back seat as one is being thrown clear.

To me it is just sad lawyers can go after companies and I mean them all just to get a settlement to go away. Case in point a local man was 2 times the limit here and hit a tree in his Blazer at 90 MPH. It caught fires and he was burned to death. The family went to court and the judge would not let GM show he was speeding at a very high rate and could not disclose he was 2 times the limit. I don't care but you hit a tree in anything at 90 MPH you are going to have a good chance of buring to death. GM had to settle as it was cheaper than to fight.

Ford faces the same issues and we all have to pay for this because some of us are greedy and some of us think it is noble. But yet you get stuck with the tab.

 

 

 

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

 

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

 

 

Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric.

 

First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim).

 

Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it.

 

The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

 

Regarding the beer count, 

Meh.....I drink tall beers that are usually about 7-8% Alcohol content.  Granted, sure, small 12% cans of lite beer at 4% content, take about 4 qty.  I don't drink those at the bar.  So that is my baseline. I could do the math a bit more for my 185lb frame, and it would easily be around 2-3 tall beers (around 18oz), but my point was not how many, but the fact everyone does it and that those who do, are not criminals who are burglarizing a home.....to contradict your burglary analogy.  And sorry, no, that is a freaking pathetic example.  Same goes for a belt that someone forgot to put on.  It happens.  And yes we know that belts must be worn to be effective.  Duh.  How you can compare daily decisions by thousands, with that of someone who takes a gun to rob you.....is, well.....pathetic.

And sorry my good sir, I will give my opinion all I like on the matter.  All you can do is agree, disagree or contest.  Thus far, contesting seems to not be your forte.

Hyper,

you based all that on just 13 of the many hundreds of incidents?

What exactly should we gleam from this opinion of yours?

 

Those were the cases publicly presented at the GM trial. I read the same case files. To me, it was DISGUSTING to see families of "victims" pawing for money after the person in question drove drunk and/or without seatbelt. We are a society becoming devoid of personal responsibility and that has become a travesty of the justice system.

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

 

Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric.

 

First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim).

 

Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it.

 

The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

 

Regarding the beer count, 

 

Meh.....I drink tall beers that are usually about 7-8% Alcohol content.  Granted, sure, small 12% cans of lite beer at 4% content, take about 4 qty.  I don't drink those at the bar.  So that is my baseline. I could do the math a bit more for my 185lb frame, and it would easily be around 2-3 tall beers (around 18oz), but my point was not how many, but the fact everyone does it and that those who do, are not criminals who are burglarizing a home.....to contradict your burglary analogy.  And sorry, no, that is a freaking pathetic example.  Same goes for a belt that someone forgot to put on.  It happens.  And yes we know that belts must be worn to be effective.  Duh.  How you can compare daily decisions by thousands, with that of someone who takes a gun to rob you.....is, well.....pathetic.

 

 

And sorry my good sir, I will give my opinion all I like on the matter.  All you can do is agree, disagree or contest.  Thus far, contesting seems to not be your forte.

Yes you have a right to your opinion but we do too.

You can deflect on this with how much you can drink or burglars but in the end it comes down to personal responsibility not only on the corporation but the customer too. You can vilify the so called Evil Corporation's all you like but in the end it is lack responsibility on all our parts corp and personal that create many of the messes we are in.

The fairs fair and why GM should pay for their actions others should be held to the same standards and if they fail to follow due coarse of using their safety equipment, following the rules of the road and driving not under the influence they should not be fully rewarded.

I really wish you would buy and read the book what would Jesus drives as if mostly is about Ford and the price they paid on several of their problems and much of it was not of their own doing. They pretty much fell on the sword for the Explorer Firestone deal. Firestone was really the one at fault but it did more damage to Ford because Firestone would not owe up to it. Also the fact the Firestone family had married into Ford that Ford would not go after them. There were other issues with fuel tanks and the like that they had to swallow that many of the victims did them selves in.

If you are ok for people being rewarded for poor behavior then you get what you deserve.

 

Yes you have a right to your opinion but we do too.

You can deflect on this with how much you can drink or burglars but in the end it comes down to personal responsibility not only on the corporation but the customer too. You can vilify the so called Evil Corporation's all you like but in the end it is lack responsibility on all our parts corp and personal that create many of the messes we are in.

The fairs fair and why GM should pay for their actions others should be held to the same standards and if they fail to follow due coarse of using their safety equipment, following the rules of the road and driving not under the influence they should not be fully rewarded.

I really wish you would buy and read the book what would Jesus drives as if mostly is about Ford and the price they paid on several of their problems and much of it was not of their own doing. They pretty much fell on the sword for the Explorer Firestone deal. Firestone was really the one at fault but it did more damage to Ford because Firestone would not owe up to it. Also the fact the Firestone family had married into Ford that Ford would not go after them. There were other issues with fuel tanks and the like that they had to swallow that many of the victims did them selves in.

If you are ok for people being rewarded for poor behavior then you get what you deserve.

 

Of course you do, never said you can't, and I am now contesting your remarks, because I did not deflect anything.

And I do not need to read a book about the Firestone debacle, because I lived it. Daily.

Thanks

I love the line you used "everyone does it". Now that is pathetic.

That may be part of the problem. If you want to drink then drink but don't drive. If you drive and kill someone then we should cut your nuts off. Sorry this is right or wrong result and just because many do the wrong thing does not make it right.

Good god I sat home the last two weeks on vacation and how many lawyer commercials did I have to see where all they say is we will make them pay!

This whole deal has taken the intent of the law and put it right down the $h!ter.

Lets pose this.

Say if your family is coming home and someone has a few beers and they are not able to handle as well as you then you would be ok if they go left of center and hit your family head on killing several be cause everyone does it?

Well if that was the case then it is ok for GM to make a bad ignition to as all the car makers make a bad part or defective car. They all do it so that must mean that is ok to?

Lets pose this.

Say if your family is coming home and someone has a few beers and they are not able to handle as well as you then you would be ok if they go left of center and hit your family head on killing several be cause everyone does it?

Well if that was the case then it is ok for GM to make a bad ignition to as all the car makers make a bad part or defective car. They all do it so that must mean that is ok to?

That's quite a leap you are posing.

Look, I simply objected to analogy someone gave.  

That's pretty much it.

I fear this thread has gone into some nonsensical theatrics mode.

Anyways, to nip it in the bud, kill it before it is grows any further, squeeze the life out of it...

The criminal trial is done and over with. These civil suits are for people who still have grievances. GM already accepted culpability for the criminal cases.

Here however, the plaintiffs will have to make their own individual case. 

We won't know what the outcome of those trials (6 of them) are until they are over one at a time...any speculation or support of or against them is ultimately a dead-end. 

I just felt my IQ shrink reading some of the crap passing for logic in this thread.

Appalling. Simply appalling.

The money GM set aside for the settlement fund is what their culpability should be, based in the court's decision. This stuff, on the other hand, has a distinct whiff of ambulance chaser about it.

It would appear to be edging into "personal attack" territory of you put it that way, wouldn't it?

The major problem I have with debates is when one participant is unable to separate themselves as an individual from their argument. Dealing with such arguments, and the ones who put them forth, just becomes an exercise in frustration. I'd prefer not to play online piñata in such discussions, but that's just me.

GRRRREAT!!!

We FINALLY got to the conclusion to which I alluded from the get go!!!

It took 3 pages...but we got there...

I must admit, the fix to fix the Pontiac Grand Prix`s master was indeed...WOW!!!

Tooo bad he aint a Chicago fan and he is a Detroit fan...Id post a Blackhawk Down movie poster...

Or a resident of Washington D.C....Id post an Olympus Has Fallen movie poster.

Id prefer the Olympus Has Fallen version as he is of Greek Decent.

LOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING!

 

 

 

 

 

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

 

Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric.

 

First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim).

 

Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it.

 

The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

 

 

Regarding the beer count, 

 

Meh.....I drink tall beers that are usually about 7-8% Alcohol content.  Granted, sure, small 12% cans of lite beer at 4% content, take about 4 qty.  I don't drink those at the bar.  So that is my baseline. I could do the math a bit more for my 185lb frame, and it would easily be around 2-3 tall beers (around 18oz), but my point was not how many, but the fact everyone does it and that those who do, are not criminals who are burglarizing a home.....to contradict your burglary analogy.  And sorry, no, that is a freaking pathetic example.  Same goes for a belt that someone forgot to put on.  It happens.  And yes we know that belts must be worn to be effective.  Duh.  How you can compare daily decisions by thousands, with that of someone who takes a gun to rob you.....is, well.....pathetic.

 

 

And sorry my good sir, I will give my opinion all I like on the matter.  All you can do is agree, disagree or contest.  Thus far, contesting seems to not be your forte.

 

 

I presented a well thought out argument with facts and references to the actual trial, and an analogy that makes perfect sense with the reasoning that I laid out TWICE (and at least one other member agrees with it). You call it "pathetic" without presenting any support or reasoning.

 

You come back with nonsense about how you drink 20 oz 8% beers so 2 beers is the correct number. Are you kidding me? Any logical person thinks of two beers at a bar as a 12 oz glass and your run-of-the-mill 4.0-5.5% content. If you're drinking 20 oz servings of high-octane beer, you better believe driving safe is STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY even if you only have 2 or 3.

 

I take no issue with you presenting your opinion, no matter how biased or ill informed, I WILL take issue with you or anyone else presenting an opinion as "truth" or fact in a condescending manner. Your greatest argument seems to be telling me how "pathetic" mine is.

 

Does not really matter how many times you "laid out your reasoning" because it is a horrible analogy.

Driving after a few drinks and/or not using a belt should NOT preclude one to losing their rights in the same vein as robbing a house.

That is a terrible analogy, easily the worst I have ever heard in my life, and I have to apologize if your feelings are hurt.

Why?

Because most people drink at some point and then get behind the wheel, and many may or do forget their belt. Not arguing that is somehow OK or right, but to remove culpability from the responsible manufacturer for a failed defect that has also killed or injured many hundreds of people as well, simply won't get you far.  And to attribute that to armed robbery......welll, nuff said.

But hey, I do wish GM luck in getting closure on this matter, as I have repeatedly said already.

My fiance actually KNEW one of the victims because they were going to grad school together. The person fell asleep at the wheel and wrapped the car around a tree. The family tried filing suit against GM to blame the car once or twice prior to the ignition scandal, but failed to get their "justice" until the scandal broke national headlines. To suggest anyone else was responsible for that death but the driver of the car is total insanity.

 

I don't think an individual driving drunk or without a seatbelt in an at-fault accident (or falling asleep at the wheel) has any more right to an injury claim than a burglar getting shot in someone's house.

 

If you stop off at the bar on the way home and have 2 beers, that is about the amount to declare you drunk.

Or lets say your forgot to put your belt on, does either of those events, or a combination of them....which happens frequently.. put you in the same league as a burglar robbing your house, to take away your rights?  

 

Of course not.  Thus that is a bad analogy.

 

Truth is, GM was at fault for the vast majority of those injuries and deaths, so I am not so sure it is justice to pick several incidents out of a list and exploit them.  People died because of a known failure that should have been fixed long ago.  That is what everyone is lawyering-up for, and yes, some of it is disgusting as it's like blood in the water.  But GM shed the blood, let's not forget.

 

Don't sit there and say "truth is" while you put forth your opinionated anti-GM rhetoric.

 

First off, two beers is not the legal drinking limit, that's roughly .04 blood alcohol. We're talking about accidents CAUSED by drunk driving (which is ILLEGAL). You don't drink "two beers" and accidentally drive twice the speed limit in the rain, sideswipe a car out of control, and veer off the road into a tree (actual case presented against GM, and awarded as a victim).

 

Secondly, a seatbelt is REQUIRED for an airbag to work as engineered as it keeps your body in the right place to protect. That belt is the #1 safety device in a car above all else. You don't "forget" to put on a seatbelt, and if you do (which is also ILLEGAL so we're clear), you sure as hell can't blame THE CAR for your death in an **at fault** accident. Did you catch that part? At fault? Because I said it the first time and you glossed over it.

 

The burglar analogy is perfectly legitimate because it requires the same logic that the person made a series of illegal choices that directly lead to their demise, but they or their family want compensation from the car manufacterer aka home owner because this individual didn't necessarily HAVE to die when their number was called. The insanity comes in when so many of these fatal crashes were incredibly unlikely to have been survivable with perfectly functioning airbags.

 

Regarding the beer count, 

 

Meh.....I drink tall beers that are usually about 7-8% Alcohol content.  Granted, sure, small 12% cans of lite beer at 4% content, take about 4 qty.  I don't drink those at the bar.  So that is my baseline. I could do the math a bit more for my 185lb frame, and it would easily be around 2-3 tall beers (around 18oz), but my point was not how many, but the fact everyone does it and that those who do, are not criminals who are burglarizing a home.....to contradict your burglary analogy.  And sorry, no, that is a freaking pathetic example.  Same goes for a belt that someone forgot to put on.  It happens.  And yes we know that belts must be worn to be effective.  Duh.  How you can compare daily decisions by thousands, with that of someone who takes a gun to rob you.....is, well.....pathetic.

 

 

And sorry my good sir, I will give my opinion all I like on the matter.  All you can do is agree, disagree or contest.  Thus far, contesting seems to not be your forte.

 

I presented a well thought out argument with facts and references to the actual trial, and an analogy that makes perfect sense with the reasoning that I laid out TWICE (and at least one other member agrees with it). You call it "pathetic" without presenting any support or reasoning.

 

You come back with nonsense about how you drink 20 oz 8% beers so 2 beers is the correct number. Are you kidding me? Any logical person thinks of two beers at a bar as a 12 oz glass and your run-of-the-mill 4.0-5.5% content. If you're drinking 20 oz servings of high-octane beer, you better believe driving safe is STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY even if you only have 2 or 3.

 

I take no issue with you presenting your opinion, no matter how biased or ill informed, I WILL take issue with you or anyone else presenting an opinion as "truth" or fact in a condescending manner. Your greatest argument seems to be telling me how "pathetic" mine is.

 

 

Does not really matter how many times you "laid out your reasoning" because it is a horrible analogy.

 

Driving after a few drinks and/or not using a belt should NOT preclude one to losing their rights in the same vein as robbing a house.

That is a terrible analogy, easily the worst I have ever heard in my life, and I have to apologize if your feelings are hurt.

 

Why?

Because most people drink at some point and then get behind the wheel, and many may or do forget their belt. Not arguing that is somehow OK or right, but to remove culpability from the responsible manufacturer for a failed defect that has also killed or injured many hundreds of people as well, simply won't get you far.  And to attribute that to armed robbery......welll, nuff said.

 

But hey, I do wish GM luck in getting closure on this matter, as I have repeatedly said already.

Please don't take anything yesterday personal. To me it was just a debate and nothing else. I like to debate with you and like to keep the door open for more civil discourse. We may not agree always but this was nothing for either of us to get mad over. I was not upset and hope you were the same.

I hope I did not mash your toe too hard!