• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Volume 6, Issue 3 Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. June / July 2009 T HE SAFETY RECORD Chrysler, GM Bankruptcies Concluded, Defect Victims Cheated INSIDE THIS WASHINGTON, D.C. – The designation under the FTC’s 1985 you is a source of pride, then ISSUE Obama administration’s drive-by Used Car Rule, which was promul- Chrysler’s chest must be puffed out bankruptcies have left the victims gated to prevent used car dealers so far that the buttons are popping Chrysler, GM Bankruptcies 1 of defect-related crashes to eat from misrepresenting or failing to off its pinstriped jacket. The bank- Concluded, Defect Victims their dust, but consumer advo- mention to buyers important facts ruptcy has wiped away all current, Cheated cates are turning to other strate- about warranty coverage, via a pending and future claims against gies to force Chrysler and Gen- Buyer’s Guide sticker displayed on vehicles manufactured by the ‘old Sudden Unintended Acceleration 1 eral Motors to do the right thing. the vehicle. Chrysler,’ said Safety Research & Redux: The Unresolved Issue Consumers for Auto Reliability Strategies president Sean Kane. and Safety, along with Consumer The bankruptcy and sale of the Action, Center for Auto Safety, once-innovative American car- General Motors, which completed NHTSA’s Rulemaking Priorities 5 Center for Justice & Democracy, maker Chrysler to Fiat SPA con- its bankruptcy nearly a month later, to Include Ejection Mitigation th and Seat Belts on Motorcoaches and National Consumers League, cluded on June 10 , with $6.6 bil- had sought the same freedoms from have petitioned the Federal Trade lion in federal financing. In just 42 product liability. But the company Commission to require labels days, the government pushed the was taken aback by the highly pub- U.S., EU Have Opposing Views 5 informing buyers of a used major players over the finish line licized efforts of consumer advo- on Daytime Running Lights Chrysler’s unique liabilities. The and successfully fended off at- cates and attorneys representing label they’ve suggested goes like tempts from investors and victims defects victims to retain their rights this: of Chrysler defects to re-jigger the to seek compensation via the state deal. The owners of the “new” tort system. There were news re- Judge Rejects Malibu; Awards 7 “WARNING This vehicle was Chrysler are a union retirees’ trust, ports about the victims GM was $21 Million in Roof Crush Case produced prior to the date when with 55 percent, Fiat, with a 20- leaving behind and television ad- the Chrysler bankruptcy was percent share that could grow to 35 vertisements opposing GM’s move approved. If you buy this vehicle percent, and the U.S. and Canadian to shed all liability. Twelve state and are injured or killed, even if governments, which hold minority attorneys general from Connecti- your injuries were caused by the stakes. cut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minne- manufacturer, you or your survi- sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North NHTSA Unveils Tire Fuel Effi- 7 vors will not be able to recover In a June 11 New York Times story, Dakota, Vermont, Illinois, Califor- ciency Consumer Information your losses by taking action an anonymous Treasury official nia, Kansas and Ohio objected to Proposal against the manufacturer. If your said: “This morning’s closing the sales, arguing that the bank- passengers are injured or killed, represents a proud moment in ruptcy court overstepped its legal even if their injuries were caused Chrysler’s storied history. The authority in granting the elimina- by the manufacturer, they and Chrysler-Fiat alliance has now tion of successor liability. GM / Chrysler Bankruptcies: 8 their survivors will not be able to exited the bankruptcy process and What’s In What’s Out recover their losses by taking is poised to emerge as a competi- GM and the White House’s Auto action against the manufacturer.” tive, viable automaker.” Task Force, headed by Steven Rat- ner, who has since stepped down, The California-based advocacy “If shirking your due care responsi- came to an eleventh-hour agree- group CARS is asking for the bilities to customers who trusted (Cont. on p. 8) Sudden Unintended Acceleration Redux: The Unresolved Issue SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA – On February 5, 2007, once, coming to rest in the surf. Anne Ezal however, continued speeding down the ramp, Bulent and Anne Ezal were headed to lunch at died of her injuries in the crash. Bulent Ezal across the road at the bottom, and finally came the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach, later recovered. to rest with its nose in an embankment. Schwarz California. The restaurant is nestled on the edge died of her injuries; Bookout spent two months of a cliff, affording dramatic views of the Pacific Seven months later, Jean Bookout and her recovering from head and back injuries. Ocean below. The parking lot was downhill of friend Barbara Schwarz were exiting Interstate the restaurant, so Ezal rode the brakes of his Highway 69 in Oklahoma – also in a 2005 Same make; same model; same problem. Two 2005 Camry as he approached a parking space. Camry. As she sped down the ramp, Bookout, severe crashes; two deaths; two cases of serious He was at a complete stop, when the Camry sud- the driver, realized that she could not stop her injury. According to the National Highway denly accelerated, jumping a small curb, crashing car. She pulled the parking brake, leaving a Traffic Safety Administration, however, the through a fence and over the bluff. The vehicle 100-foot skid mark from right rear tire, and a Toyota Camry doesn’t have a problem with fell 70 feet to the rocks below, and turned over 50-foot skid mark from the left. The Camry, (Cont. on p. 2) Page 2 Volume 6, Issue 3 Sudden Unintended Acceleration Redux: The Unresolved Issue (Cont. from p. 1) cannot or will not tease out the products rely on electronic systems ing SUA unless there are mechani- causes of SUA. in understanding the myriad ways cal or driver error issues, which sudden unintended acceleration their microprocessors and electron- only complicates matters.” (SUA). In between these horrific “We know this is happening out ics components can fail. NHTSA, crashes, the agency denied a peti- there,” he says. “Unfortunately, if the authors conclude, has also Short People Can’t Drive Audis tion requesting a defect investiga- the person is elderly they are going failed miserably in its attempts to tion from the owner of a 2006 to certainly going to blame them find a cause other than a floor mat In the 1980s, Audi became the Camry, who complained that the for causing the accident, when we or driver error, because the agency poster child for Sudden Unintended engine of his current car and the know that’s not the case. Instead of employs an arbitrarily narrow defi- Acceleration. And in many ways, 2005 Camry that he previously trying to fix the problem, they nition of SUA – that it must occur this vehicle’s SUA problem be- owned repeatedly surged. blame the driver.” from a standstill –and has con- came the model of how these prob- NHTSA’s Office of Defects Inves- ducted its investigations on incor- lems would be investigated by tigation briefly looked into the Indeed, the history of sudden unin- rect assumptions and illogical rea- NHTSA, defended by the industry complaint, but came up empty. tended acceleration is studded with soning. and used as the sine qua non of poor research, regulatory omissions SUA myth-busting. “ODI has not identified a vehicle- and industry success in holding off Drivers have been complaining based defect that would have pro- any serious outside examination of about sudden unintended accelera- More than 1,000 consumers alleged duced the alleged engine surge in malfunctions within a vehicle’s tion events for a quarter of a cen- that their Audi 5000 vehicles had the petitioner’s vehicle, nor was it electronic systems. tury and continue to lodge these accelerated without driver input; able to witness such an event when complaints with manufacturers and 175 had been injured,and four died road testing the petitioner’s vehicle. Sudden unintended acceleration is NHTSA. Yet, NHTSA has made in SUA crashes. The company Evaluation of a suspect throttle a complex problem. There are mul- virtually no substantive progress denied that there was anything actuator removed from the peti- tiple causes when a vehicle shoots toward understanding how elec- wrong with the vehicle and blamed tioner’s vehicle did not reveal a forward or back in apparent contra- tronic systems housed in an envi- the problem on shorter than aver- component problem, warranty and diction to the driver’s commands: ronment subject to heat, vibration, age drivers who did not have much parts sales of the actuator are unre- design defects which induce driver sudden shocks, various levels of experience driving an Audi. These markable. These data do not sup- error – such as poor pedal place- electromagnetic interference, mois- small, confused drivers had mistak- port the existence of a wide-spread ment, the lack of a shift interlock, ture, and other corrosive conditions enly depressed the gas pedal when defect or ongoing concern,” the floor mat interference, mechanical could fail; or how they could be they meant to step on the brake, agency said in its April 2007 deci- or electromechanical defects and detected; or what appropriate coun- Audi said. The response was a sion. electronic defects. The latter – termeasures must be instituted public relations and marketing which is the most difficult to pin- other than expecting drivers to nightmare. Audi sales plunged, and Another SUA inquiry closed with a point – is nonetheless a more likely somehow overcome an open throt- the complaints continued.

Load more

  8

Copy Link