[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Happens in all cars.... Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email] (#32) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Fri, 2 May 2014 10:27:50 In Reply to: Happens in all cars...., Mike Lynch [Profile/Gallery] , Thu, 1 May 2014 18:33:06 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
> When you slam on the brakes and then hit something is it the manufacturers fault that they didn't spend an extra $1.50 on better brake pads that might have avoided the accident?
Actually, yes, it might be. If it can be shown that a better technology existed and the manufacturer was aware of that technology but discounted that technology purely on a cost basis, you have a case.
The landmark case here happened maybe 15 years ago, when that infomercial guy who developed the table saw that stops when you touch it approached some big manufacturers to sell his technology to them, and they showed him the door. A few years later, dude lopped his hand off with a table saw. It was shown in court there was an inexpensive technology (guy wanted pennies per saw) available which would have prevented the injury and the manufacturer went DOWN. IIRC, it was Black & Decker but I'm not sure. It's easy to google.
There is a *very* fine line between cost cutting and negligence and that line shifts were crap functionality turns into putting life and limb at risk. It's no different from saving a few bucks on a tuner and ending up with a very bad radio vs. saving a few bucks on metal and ending up with a step ladder prone to collapsing.
GM clearly built a product with a known potential to put human lives at risk that was readily fixable without affecting their position or competitiveness in the market. That fact that during the design process and engineer said "this is not a good idea" puts them far closer to the bad ladder end of the spectrum than the bad radio.
Yeah, it's a slippery slope in both directions, but I don't think I know a single person who would say, "Yeah, that .01% increase in price is going to affect my buying decision," and that's where GM screwed up. They *formally* recognized a problem, they *formally* recognized a fix, and they *formally* found a price of $1.50 (or <.01% the price of the car) and they decided not to go forward. I can't say I know anyone who would agree with that train of logic.
posted by 12.195.130...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.