Toyota Recall: Scandal, Media Circus, and Stupid Drivers - Editorial
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Cant find the Corolla I need - what else will work?
Next: Toyota's Lentz to say electronics not to blame for acceleration problems
From: jim beam on 25 Feb 2010 23:40 On 02/25/2010 08:42 AM, C. E. White wrote: > "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:b_udneb-1N3iNBnWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > >> so how much do you charge ed? seriously. you post in office hours, >> so either you're being paid to do it or you're doing it on your >> employer's time - another ethical issue. my money's on the former >> since none of what you write is either factual or original. and you >> steadfastly avoid the elephant in the room: why you can post >> bullshit about toyota while ignoring the much more substantial and >> ethical challenge of why frod can deliberately [and profitably] kill >> hundreds without your slightest censure. > > I have disputed this many times. no ed, you've bullshitted and tried to deceive many times. not the same thing. > I posted links that disporove you > allegations. You ignore those and just repat the same nonsense. As far > as Explorers are concerned the facts are clear: no, you've merely posted stuff that's convenient to you, nothing that disproves the facts. > > 1) Explorers from the 90's had lower than average accident, injury and > death rates (compared to all vehicles, not just SUVs). You can verify > this by checking the data available at teh IIHS website. and yet the nhtsa's own website, using the much more relevant facts of single vehicle rollover fatalities, contradicted you. > 2) Explorers had lower rollover rates and lower rollover death rates > that other comparale midsized SUVs from the same era. You can confirm > this by reviewing previously posted links. the exploder had a kill rate 3x that of it's nearest competition. > 3) NHTSA confirmed that Explorers had accident, injury, and death > rates similar (or better than) comparable vehciles from the time > period. mushed in among all accident modes. single vehicle rollovers, which cannot be confused with anything other than the vehicles intrinsic flaws, show otherwise ed. but you're paid to steadfastly ignore that. > 4) The engineering memo's trial lawyer (and you) like to quote weren't > hidden by Ford and didn't even apply to post 2004 Explorers. deliberate deceit ed. the exploders in question are 2001 and earlier. i've stated this several times, and you still keep trying to twist your way to avoidance. > The > defective tires were installed on Explorers with completely different > suspension than the models referenced in the engineering documents. > I've pointed you to sources that confirm this. You ignore that > inconvenient truth. see above ed. and the tires are a total red herring to the fact that the vehicle rolls regardless of WHICH failure mode. > > Most SUVs are not as stable as cars. Despite this, most SUV have > better death and injury statistics than most cars. see above ed. the exploder killed 3x it's nearest rival in single vehicle rollovers. > Explorers actually > have very good accident and injury statistics. no, they have massaged statistics. > Go check the facts. > Explorers had better accident statistics than 4Runner from the same > era, and had stronger roofs than 4Runners from the same era. no ed, see above. stop ignoring the facts. [as if the subpoenaed frod memos weren't evidence enough.] > One more > thing, mid-90's 4Runner had the same tire pressure recommendations as > Ford Explorers. so freakin' what???? both vehicles tires are black too - it's no more relevant! > If you think Ford should be punished for the design of > Explorers, what should be done to Toyota for selling the far more > dangerous 4Runner at the same time? Answer that.. here's a rhetorical question for you ed: why are you able to somehow ignore the hundreds that died in single vehicle frod rollovers, despite the facts and paper "trial", yet somehow contend that toyota make cars that are deadly, despite the apparently two vehicle fatalities, neither of which can be distinguished from driver error? is it because you're a paid shill and part of this ridiculous political smear campaign? > > Ed > > -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Clive on 26 Feb 2010 05:50 In message <4--dnVVttsAx0BrWnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> writes >did they not find that the vehicle still continued to roll and kill >it's occupants, /regardless/ of the tire manufacturer or it's failure >mode? I don't know. It's quite rare for a car to get media attention but that one did, because of it's high death rate, but once it had made the main news the vehicle seemed to disappear, perhaps Ford didn't want to take on world attention because once under investigation the findings are usually made public. I do remember seeing a program about six months later. I don't think that they were actually blaming the tyres, but Firestone said they could identify their tyres and these had no internal stamp where Firestone said it should have been. (Between some of the laminations). -- Clive
From: jim beam on 26 Feb 2010 10:19 On 02/26/2010 02:50 AM, Clive wrote: > In message <4--dnVVttsAx0BrWnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, jim beam > <me(a)privacy.net> writes >> did they not find that the vehicle still continued to roll and kill >> it's occupants, /regardless/ of the tire manufacturer or it's failure >> mode? > I don't know. It's quite rare for a car to get media attention but that > one did, because of it's high death rate, but once it had made the main > news the vehicle seemed to disappear, perhaps Ford didn't want to take > on world attention because once under investigation the findings are > usually made public. I do remember seeing a program about six months > later. I don't think that they were actually blaming the tyres, but > Firestone said they could identify their tyres and these had no internal > stamp where Firestone said it should have been. (Between some of the > laminations). the tires were cheap - frod spec cheap. but that's not the point. the /vehicle/ rolled because of a flat. what /caused/ the flat is irrelevant. and not only did the vehicle roll, its cabin crushed killing the occupants. the roll propensity and the cabin crush were both known to frod executive prior to vehicle production because it showed up in prototype testing. but frod execs decided to continue regardless, [and they wouldn't even spend the $20 or so per vehicle to make the roof columns stronger] because that vehicle was cheap to make and would net then $10k per vehicle. $10k was one heck of a margin [the highest in the industry], and was by far their most profitable vehicle. with a few million in sales, and with bereaved payouts in the low six digits, the decision was easy for frod to make - suspending of course any requirement to behave ethically and not sell vehicles known to kill. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: C. E. White on 26 Feb 2010 19:37 "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:k6GdnZjb1OE_zRrWnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> Most SUVs are not as stable as cars. Despite this, most SUV have >> better death and injury statistics than most cars. > > see above ed. the exploder killed 3x it's nearest rival in single vehicle > rollovers. LIAR. Ed
From: jim beam on 26 Feb 2010 22:38
On 02/26/2010 04:37 PM, C. E. White wrote: > > "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:k6GdnZjb1OE_zRrWnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >>> Most SUVs are not as stable as cars. Despite this, most SUV have >>> better death and injury statistics than most cars. >> >> see above ed. the exploder killed 3x it's nearest rival in single >> vehicle rollovers. > > LIAR. > > Ed raw nerve ed? do you not get paid if you're dumb enough to be exposed as an astroturfer? -- nomina rutrum rutrum |