Forum Discussion
80 Replies
- kaydeejayExplorer
lbrjet wrote:
OK point taken, BUT the main issue here is that the ignition switch did not CAUSE the accidents that are hitting the headlines - that was already in progress when the key got turned off by a heavy key chain swinging violently after the vehicle has already left the road.
If an accident caused by this switch happened to a member of your family you would be singing a different tune. I could say more about your post, but won't stoop down to your level.
That resulted in no air-bag deployment which I agree is not a good thing, but with no seat belt, the air bag is no guarantee of survivability.
As for "stooping to my level", I believe I have stated facts, not opinions. Do you have facts to contradict what I have said?
It's too bad that GM is so publicity shy that they won't make the same statements, but have chosen to pay up and ride it out.
(And before you jump on it, they are NOT hiding behind the bankruptcy for the injury cases, they HAVE asked for clarification of the bankruptcy protection against all the claims that owner's cars have lost value as a result of this situation.) - Turtle_n_PeepsExplorer
hescominsoon wrote:
mooky stinks wrote:
Didn't a lot of Fords drop into gear when unoccupied? Oh and what about those Pintos that blew up when rear-ended? With so many things in this world to despise, I wouldn't think an American company, with thousands upon thousands of American jobs at stake, would be one of them. Jus sayin'.
the pinto rear end explosions was later proven to be a stunt by abc news for ratings and discredited. My mom was in a pinto and hit in all 4 qudrants during an accident(front, drivers side, pass side and rear)..her rear decklid was inside her backseat..no fire in her car.
How could so many facts get so screwed up in one post? :R - kaydeejayExplorer
hescominsoon wrote:
Please check again, the "rigged" fires involved Chevy pickup trucks with side saddle gas tanks.
the pinto rear end explosions was later proven to be a stunt by abc news for ratings and discredited. My mom was in a pinto and hit in all 4 qudrants during an accident(front, drivers side, pass side and rear)..her rear decklid was inside her backseat..no fire in her car.
I believe also it was NBC who did it and, apart from paying a bucket load of GM's legal costs, there were a few NBC staffers who were unemployed after that.
The "explosion" was set off with a radio controlled incendiary device.
The close up of the "fire" as shown on TV looked dramatic, the footage the public did not see was shot from further away and the fire was so insignificant the the on-site fire chief said "What are we supposed to do - stomp it out?"
That time our "sensationalist media" got caught. I wonder how many times they have not! - kaydeejayExplorer
BillyW wrote:
Just hold on a minute....
I hope GM comes out of this a much better company. However the responsibility for this mess rests squarely on their shoulders and not on their dead or injured customers. I can't believe how some of you try to spin it any other way.
GM is certainly not blameless in this whole fiasco but two of the major casualties that hit the headlines (one of them in Canada) involved kids who were either angry or drunk and drove like bats out of hell without putting their seat belts on.
They lost control and their cars left the road, hitting curbs/ditches/trees etc, at which point (according to analysis of the on-board computer) a heavy keychain swung the ignition off, disabling the airbags.
The cars were already out of control and heading for an impact of some sort. Don't tell me GM was to blame for those circumstances - there has to be some portion of the responsibility to be placed with the driver. Or have we become so risk averse that it is never the responsibility of the person involved?
At this point in the accident, the issue is whether or not airbag deployment (without a seat belt) would have avoided the fatality. It ain't necessarily so, airbags are designed to work WITH the seat belts, not alone.
Again, GM is not blameless but I really struggle with how they were supposed to predict the outcome of the situations described. - TurnThePageExplorerI hope GM comes out of this a much better company. However the responsibility for this mess rests squarely on their shoulders and not on their dead or injured customers. I can't believe how some of you try to spin it any other way.
- fla-gypsyExplorerThis is the first time I ever started a thread that was negative to a truck maker. Make what you want of it because I really don't care. After the incessant Ford bashing that a few perpetrate I think it was time to give it back to you. Their (GM) activity was criminal in my view and this is just the start of a long row they must hoe. This is a long way from being over.
- lbrjetExplorer
kaydeejay wrote:
Ya know, I was a GM engineer (now retired).
Not trying to defend the questionable activity behind switch changes etc which apparently took place.....
BUT
In my world there was no standard or test that covered kids driving drunk or angry (or both) with a hunk of keys on the keychain where the switch got turned off when the car left the road/hit a ditch/bounced off a tree.
Seems to be the case in many of the accidents where the key turning off was identified. Based on on-board computer log analysis some of the accident reports at least suggest the ignition was turned off AFTER the vehicle was out of control.
AFAIC this is what makes it a bit of a gray area. Not sure how an engineer with ANY car company could predict that!
Combined with the old reports that were never made public about switch specs and unauthorised changes, it sort of backed GM into a corner that they can't cleanly get out of without doing what they are now attempting to do - replace 2.6 million switches with a stiffer detent.
But now they are being criticised because they don't have 2.6 million switches sitting on a shelf somewhere and it's going to take months of 3 shift/7 day operations for Delphi to make them all.
Just seems the World is being a little hard on GM over this one. It's unfortunate that 13 people have died in the last 10 years as a result of switch "failure" - c'mon, we kill 40,000 people a year on our roads. 1.3 a year hardly registers on that scale!
And how many would not have survived even if the air bags had deployed?
OK, flame suit on!
If an accident caused by this switch happened to a member of your family you would be singing a different tune. I could say more about your post, but won't stoop down to your level. kaydeejay wrote:
Ya know, I was a GM engineer (now retired).
Not trying to defend the questionable activity behind switch changes etc which apparently took place.....
BUT
In my world there was no standard or test that covered kids driving drunk or angry (or both) with a hunk of keys on the keychain where the switch got turned off when the car left the road/hit a ditch/bounced off a tree.
Seems to be the case in many of the accidents where the key turning off was identified. Based on on-board computer log analysis some of the accident reports at least suggest the ignition was turned off AFTER the vehicle was out of control.
AFAIC this is what makes it a bit of a gray area. Not sure how an engineer with ANY car company could predict that!
Combined with the old reports that were never made public about switch specs and unauthorised changes, it sort of backed GM into a corner that they can't cleanly get out of without doing what they are now attempting to do - replace 2.6 million switches with a stiffer detent.
But now they are being criticised because they don't have 2.6 million switches sitting on a shelf somewhere and it's going to take months of 3 shift/7 day operations for Delphi to make them all.
Just seems the World is being a little hard on GM over this one. It's unfortunate that 13 people have died in the last 10 years as a result of switch "failure" - c'mon, we kill 40,000 people a year on our roads. 1.3 a year hardly registers on that scale!
And how many would not have survived even if the air bags had deployed?
OK, flame suit on!
Well said... In addition it's obvious that 1 Dodge and 1 Ford fanboy's have posted on this topic seams to have a alternative motive on a public forum.- bigdoggerExplorer II
Cobra21 wrote:
Yes, all manufacturers have had problems. This is different in that it appears GM knew of the problem and covered it up. Again, this is not unusual. But to stack problems onto problems, the cover-up apparently continued through the bankruptcy filing which effectively prohibited people who suffered injuries and losses from the ignition failure from filing a claim against GM if those losses and injuries occurred before the bankruptcy filing. If you got injured before, you are SOL, had a wreck after GM emerged from bankruptcy, you have standing to file a claim. If GM management actively hid known liabilities (potential claims by injured parties) to effectively leave more assets to satisfy other creditors and allow themselves to emerge from bankruptcy as a more viable entity, that is fraud. When you figure the amount of the potential claims, it runs into the millions of dollars, so that fraud is a big fraud, the kind of fraud that earns the participants free government housing for the next few decades. And it is the kind of fraud that might just make the current GM liable for those hidden liabilities and that will effect the bottom line.
All vehicle manufacturers get hung with something sooner or later.
I don't know how a vehicle maker can plan for some people to hang
5 lbs. of stuff from a key chain, or maybe tow a 5,000 lb. trailer
with an Aveo or Corolla? It is very hard to plan on what people
do with their stuff.
Brian - Cobra21ExplorerAll vehicle manufacturers get hung with something sooner or later.
I don't know how a vehicle maker can plan for some people to hang
5 lbs. of stuff from a key chain, or maybe tow a 5,000 lb. trailer
with an Aveo or Corolla? It is very hard to plan on what people
do with their stuff.
Brian
About Travel Trailer Group
44,046 PostsLatest Activity: Aug 02, 2025