Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!opus From: opus@drutx.UUCP (ShanklandJA) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Who is Liable?? Message-ID: <382@drutx.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-May-84 23:01:39 EDT Article-I.D.: drutx.382 Posted: Wed May 23 23:01:39 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 11:50:07 EDT References: <2729@alice.UUCP> uw-june.1347 <2827@utah-cs.UUCP> <1492@uw-june> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 44 > Regarding the Ford automatic transmission-- > 1) You've left a running car unattended > 2) You've failed to make use of existing backup systems > I'd say your contributory negligence is at least as great as > any errors Ford may have made! Sorry, but it's not quite that simple. First of all, leaving a running car unattended is perfectly justifiable under some circumstances. (I'll get more specific in just a second.) Second, an emergency brake (I assume that's the "existing backup system" referred to) may well not be enough to stop a Detroitmobile that decides to shift itself into reverse. Case 1: A woman is about to drive off to work, and realizes she has left her lunch sitting on her front stoop. She puts her car in park, jumps out, gets her lunch, and finds that her car is now a block down the road, having caused substantial property damage, but fortunately injured no-one. Case 2: A retired Florida Supreme Court judge is driving his Ford pickup truck, and sees some people whose car is stuck in mud. He backs his truck up to near the stuck car, puts it into park, and gets out with a chain. As he is attaching the chain to the stuck car, his truck shifts itself into reverse, running into him and killing him. I maintain that these people were not irresponsible, and could reasonably have expected their cars to stay put when they shifted them into park. If you insist they were irresponsible, well, you have a right to your own opinion. It's one of those "bug/feature" arguments. What is truly shocking is that Ford KNEW that these accidents were occurring frequently, and knew of a fix that would cost them approximately 3 cents per car to implement. An engineer's memo from (I believe) the mid-60's stated, in striking corporate doublespeak, that this feature :-( was resulting in "actual high accident incidence". In English, that means that lots of people were being injured and killed because of it. Last I heard, around 80 or 90 people had lost their lives because of this feature. Personally, I think it's Ford's fault, and not the victims'. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves, but it will be a cold day in hell when I buy a Ford. Jim Shankland ..!ihnp4!druxy!opus