Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:30:10 GMT From: milt brewster <milt73nopsamc.net> Subject: Re: Tire Complaint
In article <bjl5c6$jrvbm$1nopsam34476.news.uni-berlin.de>, davehinznopsamcop.net says... > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 18:00:18 GMT, milt brewster <milt73nopsamc.net> wrote: > > > > I didn't go to NHTSA or the tire rack two years ago because I > > didn't know I would need to. > > Have you reported your problem to the NHTSA? Are you planning to? > > > I didn't realize it was a big-deal safety issue at that point. I > > hadn't collected information yet. > > And you still haven't. > > > Now I have a little more data from other people, and I do indeed > > believe that Michelin tires on 2001 Saab 9-3s are a safety issue > > worth reporting. Tires matter: Particularly on smaller cars that > > are designed to run on low-profile tires that can fail so > > suddenly under normal use and care. I now believe that at the > > very least, Saab made an unconsciably poor OEM tire choice for > > their 2001 9-3s. > > You're moderating your point from "criminal" to "poor choice" now? > Are you planning on contacting the NHTSA and filing a complaint, or > do you just want to make noise? > Stop quibbling, David. You aren't good at it. I think you want to make this personal because you know I'm right. I explained earlier what I meant by "criminal." Don't be such a child: It's boring. Honor my posts. *** Under US Law, a company that fails to consider a product safety issue that it knows will put product users at risk of injury has committed a Criminal act. The question here isn't just what Saab knew; it's also what Saab has a legal duty to know. I am using the term appropriately. mb
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
