Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 92

Thread: Stupid lawsuit of the week

  1. #51
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I'm going to try to get this family's address so you can all tell them what dumbasses they are. It would be a nice Christmas present for them:

    Family Recounts Back-Up Tragedy

    NEW YORK, Aug. 4, 2004

    SUV Blindspots Kill Kids

    "It happens so quickly, I mean seconds, and they are behind a car or in front of a car, and there is nothing you can do."
    Shannon Campbell


    Steve Campbell, who wants to spare other families the pain his suffered after he backed over his son.

    On Easter Sunday 2003, Steve Campbell was backing up his truck in the driveway, thinking his 2-year-old son Drew was in the house. But Drew had gone outside to see his dad and got caught in Steve's blindspot.

    "When I backed my truck up and got out of my truck, he was laying right about here," recalls Campbell. "I started screaming hysterically, and I went to grab him, picked him up, thinking, 'He's all right, he'll be all right.'"

    But Drew wasn't all right. He died on the way to the hospital.

    Drew's mother, Shannon, recalls, "It happens so quickly, I mean seconds, and they are behind a car or in front of a car, and there is nothing you can do."

    The Campbells had no idea just how many other children were dying the exact same way. Safety experts say at least one child is killed every week in this country in a back-over accident. It's know as the "bye-bye syndrome." Children run outside to wave goodbye to their parents. Their parents never see them coming.

    "Nowadays, people tend to buy large pickup trucks or large SUVs which have a very large blindspot around them, so kids, big blindspot, big problem," says David Champion, auto director Consumer Reports.

    Just how big are blindspots? The Early Show had Champion put four popular family vehicles to the test: a sedan, a minivan, an SUV, and a pickup truck.

    The blindspots went from 13 feet on the sedan - to nearly 30 feet on the pickup.

    Looking in the mirrors, nothing was visible behind the pickup truck ? even though four small children were standing behind it.

    Safety experts say the most effective device to prevent these accidents is a rear-mounted camera that will let you see exactly what's behind you when you're backing up. But only a handful of car makers offer these on their vehicles.

    After their son's death, the Campbells had a camera installed on their minivan, a device they believe should be mandatory on all vehicles.

    "It shouldn't take this many children for us to realize we need something like this," says Shannon.

    The Campbells are on a mission to warn drivers about blindspots, hoping no other parent has to go through their tragedy.

    "Some days are very hard and you think about him a lot. Some days, you just...think to yourself, 'That's the way God wanted it to be,' and some days you think, 'Why us? Why did it have to happen to us?'" says Steve.

    ?MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  2. #52
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Get a load of this dumbass. He's doctor, so maybe he should pay for one of those back-of-the-head eye implants trav was talking about:

    Call To Eliminate SUV Blind Spots

    NEW YORK, July 21, 2004

    SUV Blind Spots Are Deadly



    (CBS) SUVs are big vehicles. And they have big blind spots as well.

    At least 91 children were killed last year by vehicles, many of them SUVs, that backed over the young victims. That?s according to a troubling report from the advocate group Kids and Cars.

    A bill in Congress aimed at reducing these numbers is named after 2-year-old Cameron Gulbransen who died when his father accidentally backed over him with his SUV. It was about two years ago when the accident happened.

    On Wednesday, Dr. Greg Gulbransen described the nightmare on The Early Show.

    ?My wife and I had returned home one evening,? Dr, Gulbransen said. ?It was a Saturday evening and we?d gone in the house. Our two children were asleep with the baby-sitter. My wife was inside. I stepped back outside temporarily to move the car - it was an SUV- from the street back into the driveway.

    "My children were inside. The door was closed. While I was doing that, my 2-year-old son woke up and inadvertently got out of the house. As I was backing up the vehicle from the street into the driveway, I ran right over him. I did not see him. I did use rearview mirrors. I remember vividly, I looked out the rear window, backed in and felt that bump and looked out and saw that I?d run over him. And he died of massive head injuries.?

    Dr. Gulbransen, who is a pediatrician, knew right away there was not much that could be done.

    ?I did my best,? he said. ?I did call for help. I knew it was too late. I just knew that this was something that was senseless, so easy to avoid. I did my best as a father and pediatrician. I don?t want anyone else to go through this. It was difficult.?

    So Dr. Gulbransen enlisted the help of Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), who on Dec. 8, 2003, introduced the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2003 to alleviate some of these unnecessary deaths.

    ?I give him credit for taking a terrible tragedy and pulling it into something positive,? said King about Gulbransen. ?The bill itself would require the Department of Transportation to keep records on how often this happens and to test and monitor equipment, such as sensory devices, video cameras, both of which would work dramatically to help to eliminate this from ever happening again.?

    A conference committee of House and Senate members is currently considering requiring the safety measures as part of the final transportation bill that will go to the president.

    The Senate-approved Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act of 2004 (SAFETEA) included provisions requiring the federal government to: collect data on non-traffic, non-crash incidents; issue a safety standard that requires child-safe power windows; and to evaluate backup warning devices to see which are most effective in detecting small children behind vehicles. The House version of the transportation bill does not include any of these safety provisions.

    The Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act is attached to the transportation bill, stalled in committee, Rep. King explained. ?While it did not make it through the House, it made it through the Senate. Right now, it?s in a conference committee and it?s part of the transportation bill. If we can get it out of the conference committee, and a handful of people are debating this and negotiating this, it would come back to the House, to the Senate as part of the overall transportation bill and would pass.

    "So right now," the legislator said, "we?re using all our records to get the conferees on this bill to approve it. I talk to people and hear everybody says, ?For the grace of God that could have been me.? Think how many times for a moment your child is out of your sight. That?s what we?re talking about here.?

    Dr. Gulbransen points out the blind spots on some SUVs range from 20 to 80 feet. ?Depends on the height of the driver and the type of vehicle you?re discussing,? he said. "SUVs have such large blind spots and they?re obviously here to stay. We?re all hooked on these things as families for certain features that they have.?

    But he added that it's a problem that can be solved. He said, ?I think it?s important for everybody, from the government down to the automobile manufacturers, the dealerships and, you know, families and drivers themselves, we have to all step in and take responsibility and realize that we can address this situation.

    "It?s easy to take care of. This happened to me. It shouldn?t happen to anyone else," he said. "It?s happened twice on Long Island in the last 12 weeks here. It?s ridiculous. It shouldn?t be. It?s usually an SUV, driven by a parent, and it involves a small child. If you had a camera, it would certainly eliminate this.?

    Congressman King said there are different technologies available to eliminate the problem, but he has found resistance from the automotive industry.

    ?The auto manufacturers do not want it,? he said. ?Ironically, they do have it in the European cars, not in the cars that are made for American consumption. We have to put pressure on the auto manufacturers. I believe once people find out about this, they?ll implore their congressmen and senators to vote for it. It?s essential.?

    The bill includes the following regulations.

    Evaluation of devices and technology to reduce child injury and death from parked or unattended motor vehicles.


    Creation of a database for tracking the number and types of injuries and deaths in non-traffic, non-crash events.


    Evaluation of motor vehicle back-over prevention technology.


    Requirement that backup detection devices be part of motor vehicle safety standards


    Adoption of motor vehicle safety standards for power windows and power sunroofs.

    ?MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  3. #53
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    And one more. The NHTSA does not track non traffic car fatalities:

    LINK

  4. #54
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    This thinking, of course, is ridiculous. No one is more for safety than me. But as with all things, there is an inherent margin of error that must be accounted for. Perfection should be aspired to, granted, but never expected. Even with these sensors you mentioned, no one should be so naive to think that will mark the end of vehicles running over people. Employing the drunk driver analogy, what good is a sensor or a video camera if a drunk is behind the wheel?
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Never in my posts did I say anything about expecting perfection. Nowhere. That isn't even part of the discussion, which makes me wonder why you spent so much time discussing it as if I were making it an assertion. You've completely missed the entire discussion.

    2. The drunken driving analogy is entirely different in this context. I'm sure you have to realize this. A drunken driver who gets incinerated from highly flammable materials inside his car after it collides is different than a drunken driver who runs over a child despite having all the tools at his disposal to avoid such an accident.

    3. If you read my posts, you'd see that the toddlers who are getting run over tend to be run over by their parents - who think their child is safely inside the house. These aren't drunken drivers. These are people much like the ones on this board - except they have hearts and aren't cold robots.

    4. It is my understanding that these safety features are placed on these vehicles in Europe, but not here.

    <font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2004 10:42 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

  5. #55
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    You mentioned the Pinto problem. That was due to the failure of Ford to install a bladder that would have added about $2 to the cost of the car, clearly reasonable and a horrible failure on the part of Ford. But say only 1 out of every 100 million Pintos was likely to explode, and the proposed safety measure would add $2,000 to the price of the car. You tell me, is it worth it? And Should people have a choice?
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're kidding us, right?

    That paragraph is so factually incorrect it's a jaw dropper. It is nowhere close to being right.

    The Ford Pinto

    <font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2004 11:56 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

  6. #56
    Inactive Member Lew's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 2nd, 2001
    Posts
    1,393
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Reason-

    let's not delude ourselves into ignoring the realities of the world. And one of those realities, that has fallen under severe attack over the past 50 years, is the concept that accidents happen. There is a mindset out there that believes there is no such thing as an "accident."

    This thinking, of course, is ridiculous. No one is more for safety than me. But as with all things, there is an inherent margin of error that must be accounted for. Perfection should be aspired to, granted, but never expected. Even with these sensors you mentioned, no one should be so naive to think that will mark the end of vehicles running over people. Employing the drunk driver analogy, what good is a sensor or a video camera if a drunk is behind the wheel?

    I think about lawn mowers, and how far they have come in terms of design safety. And it's true, the mowers of today are far safer than their counterparts from 30 years ago. But, every year, there are people who lose limbs to lawn mowers. Sometimes it's the operator's fault. Sometimes it's the mower's fault. And newsflash, sometimes it's just a good old-fashioned accident.

    You mentioned the Pinto problem. That was due to the failure of Ford to install a bladder that would have added about $2 to the cost of the car, clearly reasonable and a horrible failure on the part of Ford. But say only 1 out of every 100 million Pintos was likely to explode, and the proposed safety measure would add $2,000 to the price of the car. You tell me, is it worth it? And Should people have a choice?

  7. #57
    Inactive Member Boo Boo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    241
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Just how big are blindspots? The Early Show had Champion put four popular family vehicles to the test: a sedan, a minivan, an SUV, and a pickup truck.

    The blindspots went from 13 feet on the sedan - to nearly 30 feet on the pickup.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought this was a very interesting point. Evidently the pickup truck has the worse blind spot. Damn...how long have pickups been around? And all of a sudden it's NOW a problem?
    My best guess is, years ago, if this happened, the parents saw it as an unfortuate accident. Their "who can we sue" instincts of today's society did not even pop into their head.

    Bottom line is:

    The parents bought their Suv without the camera option. If they walked through the showroom and saw the model with the camera feature included, they may have opted for the cheaper model. If they even looked at the brochure that show the options....the camera feature wasn't important at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

  8. #58
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by Oldie Blonde Kenobi:
    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just how big are blindspots? The Early Show had Champion put four popular family vehicles to the test: a sedan, a minivan, an SUV, and a pickup truck.

    The blindspots went from 13 feet on the sedan - to nearly 30 feet on the pickup.

    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought this was a very interesting point. Evidently the pickup truck has the worse blind spot. Damn...how long have pickups been around? And all of a sudden it's NOW a problem?
    My best guess is, years ago, if this happened, the parents saw it as an unfortuate accident. Their "who can we sue" instincts of today's society did not even pop into their head.

    Bottom line is:

    The parents bought their Suv without the camera option. If they walked through the showroom and saw the model with the camera feature included, they may have opted for the cheaper model. If they even looked at the brochure that show the options....the camera feature wasn't important at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.
    </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pick ups have been around forever...but the safety technology has not. Think it through next time.

    I'll get back to the original point I've been making - and you choose to ignore - you DON'T know how these safety features are marketed by auto manufacturers, and you DON'T know how they were marketed to these folks in particular.

    An interesting article in yesterday's Enquirer addressed this very topic. It paints a very different perspective than your uninformed opinion above.

    Pick ups have been around forever...but their utilitarian function has rendered their usage different than an SUV. I dare say a soccer mom with small children is far more likely to go buy a Big Ass SUV than a pick up truck, don't you think, Oldie? We've now got an entirely new class of driver tooling around in these commercial-sized vehicles without understanding the true dangers of the product they are using. They think they are buying safety - and to a certain extent they are - but they are also buying dangers about which they are unaware.

    And maybe it is NOW a problem. Or maybe it was a problem and no one realized it. Or maybe it's become a problem because we now have people people driving ever larger vehicles unlike the past.

    The government doesn't even keep stats, and is only now addressing the problem. Maybe it's time.

    <font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 13, 2004 08:30 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

  9. #59
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    You mentioned the Pinto problem. That was due to the failure of Ford to install a bladder that would have added about $2 to the cost of the car, clearly reasonable and a horrible failure on the part of Ford. But say only 1 out of every 100 million Pintos was likely to explode, and the proposed safety measure would add $2,000 to the price of the car. You tell me, is it worth it? And Should people have a choice?
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I want to clarify that Lew was right in that the cost to fix the problem was small - something like $5 per vehicle.

    But he was grossly incorrect by speculating the problem was confined to 1 out of 100 million Pintos exploding. I respectfully submit that this so grossly misrepresents what actually happened I found myself questioning whether Lew was uninformed on the topic or he was intentionally trying to mislead.

  10. #60
    Sheriff jumper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    1,950
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Post

    Reason,

    You seem to be advocating that it is business's responsibility to educate, advise, and inform potential consumers about every potential safety issue that may or may not come into play during the course of ownership.

    I, on the other hand, think that the responsibility lies with the consumer to research and educate themselves as to exactly what they are buying. It it MY responsibility to know what my vehicle can and cannot do and, as it applies to this debate, where the blind spots are on my vehicle.

    I appreciate you playing devils advocate but all of your protestations to the contrary, this tradegy was an accident and well within the control of the parents to avoid. That you are so condensending to other posters attitudes who espouse personal responsibility is bullshit.

    My $.02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •