Hyundai Admits Major Airbag Problem

Sure we do... You have a stroke from eating five cheeseburgers a day
and become a vegetable at 40 then our tax dollars will have to support
you at some point. Even if you are ungodly rich and can afford 30
more years of care society pays because we loose your contributions.
So... only green beans from now on.

Steve B.

 

It is called the "Supplemental Restraint System" for a resaon, fasten your
seat belt if you are worried about the bag not deploying. The passenger
side dashboard has been padded for decades and seatbelts save lives.

The whole problem stems from the heroic effort needed to save the life of
a 90th centile male who refuses to buckle up. Even though I am probably
at least a ninetyeth centile male (6'4", 260 pounds), I still say "Let them
die".

 

Because you getting killed may increase my insurance premium, if an
insurance company paid a benefit. Also, if you are not killed, you may
be on some form of social assistance, which raises my taxes. Personally,
I like the idea of benefits and social assistance (it might be me, or my
family that needs them), but I want the costs to be kept down.

Before you come down on me for suggesting mandatory insurance, consider how
happy you will be if I slam into your car, and my insurer cuts you a cheque,
when the other scenario is you try to get your costs from me personally,
but due to student debts, among other things, I have none to give you.

 

And you having a cheeseburger may increase my insurance premiums. Do
we need a law regulating how many cheeseburgers you can have?

Mandatory insurance make sense. If I screw up and hit your car then
you should be made whole again. I can understand any situation where
my action can cause damage to you and some here have made a good point
that by not wearing a seatbelt I might loose control of the car in a
situation where I would not loose control of the car were I belted in.
Thats an excellent point. I just can't buy in to all the "for your
own good" stuff.

**Disclaimer - As I have already mentioned I think any person would be
crazy to ride in a car without fastening their seat belt.

Steve B.

 

bullshit, what data are you relying on for this?

 

That's not what the NHTSA website says:

Safety belts should always be worn, even when riding in vehicles
equipped with air bags. Air bags are designed to work with safety belts,
not alone. Air bags, when not used with safety belts, have a fatality-
reducing effectiveness rate of only 12 percent.14

cut and pasted from:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/buasbteens03/

Jeannie

 

There is public relations, and there is reality. The reality is that
US spec airbags are more powerful than they should be. This is because
of the passive restraint requirements daniel mentioned.

The above is a very carefully worded statement that is the truth but
gives a different impression. Sure, they were designed to work with
seatbelts. They simply fail to mention they were also designed to work
without seat belts.

 

You can't tell the difference between eating cheeseburgers for years and
having a vehicular collision without restraint or protection? To
you those two things are one and the same; the results of each activity
as statistically certain as the other?

And yet you still have a drivers license?

Why not go a little further and claim that just being alive is even MORE
dangerous than being unrestrained and unprotected in a high-speed
collision? After all, fully 100% of living people die.

 

The were too busy helping folks who got busted in the head with
police flashlights.

 

OK, you found the PR. Now go read the actual requirements for US airbags
contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 and you'll see that
the reality doesn't match the PR BS.

-DS

 

2 more Mitsubishi Motors vehicle engines catch fire
http://news.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=2&id=303561

 

It didn't say what engines caught fire. Are they engines used on vehicles
sold in North America? If so, what vehicles in North America have these
engines, and why are they catching fire? -Dave

 

So why is this newsworthy?

There are vehicles whose engines catch fire all over the world. Here in
Harris County alone I am sure there must be more than 2 per year.

If one considers these two vehicles as a percentage of all Mitsu ingines
sold, is that indicative of a widespread problem?

 

neither car is sold in america.

mitsu is going up in flames, though. theyre the weakest of the japanese
automakers and have the fugliest cars. since the takeover,
daimler/chrysler broke most ties to them.

theyre even stooping to hyundai-style warranties, too.

 

That's loosely stated, but more or less accurate. D/C got a $180
million refund on its investment in Mitsubishi Fuso, has refused to
make any additional investments, and is contemplating further
lawsuits. Their approach has not helped the $4.3-billion bailout from
other sources that is in the works. Assuming the bailout still goes
through, D/C's stake will be diluted from 37 percent to some 23
percent, buyout specialist Phoenix Capital will own some 40 percent,
and Mitsubishi will still be some $6 billion in debt and losing $2
billion a year, more or less.

D/C will also be divesting its 10% stake in Hyundai. Those whose taste
runs to boardroom gossip see the collapse of D/C's Asian investments
as the handwriting on the wall for Schrempp.

A Southern California Mitsubishi dealer was quoted to the effect that
their marketing is in total collapse: they can't give cars away. The
US situation may still be an improvement on Mitsubishi's troubles in
the Japanese domestic market, where sales are down 56%, 56,000
customer complaints have been reopened, some 540,000 Mitsubishi Fuso
buses and trucks are being recalled (and all 1.3 million in service
are being inspected), and police are investigating the possibility
that 13 accidents were caused by defects.

 

I never said I was against freedom of choice, I just opined that not
wearing a seat belt is stupid. Whether it's legal doesn't change that.
Here in NH, we don't have a seatbelt law and you can ride a motorcycle
without a helmet, too. Both behaviors are blatantly stupid, but
perfectly legal, as they should be.

What pisses me off is when people exercise their right to be stupid,
then turn around and try to blame the consequences of that choice on
someone else and cash in on it. The flipside of personal freedom is
personal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

 

YAY! A sane person.

You are right, unfortunately,as long as there are lawyers and lawsuit
lotteries
(that's the only incentive for blaming anyone else for your choice) there
will be those people.

Michelle
Italy

 

Actually a (relatively) free state. We also have no income tax or sales
tax. As one would expect, state services are limited to what's necessary
and we're not burdened with the "welfare" mentality. You can't move to
NH and expect to live off the public dole, as there isn't much of one.
That all suits me just fine, thank you.

Exactly. "Lawsuit lotteries" is a good way to put it. What was it that
Shakespeare said: "First, kill all the lawyers."? While I can't say I
subscribe to anything so Draconian, thinning the herd would certainly be
beneficial. When you have a country with ten lawyers for every engineer,
something is seriously wrong.

 

same thing down here in florida. to be helmetless on a motorcycle you only
need $10k in insurance. Dang if you wack your head and live my tax dollars
will be helping you out for the rest of your life.

 

We just had a fatal bike accident of a young woman on the back of a
motorcycle who was wearing a helmet....she didn't have it strapped though.
they were traveling about 120kmh. She was thrown off the back-her skull was
broken open she died but probably wouldn't have if she had just strapped the
helmet. It took along timefor the blood to get out of the concrete- it
served as a reminder for a longtime.

Michelle
Italy