Posted on 03/13/2014 10:35:45 AM PDT by jazusamo
The New York Times hinted that the 11 year death toll for victims who drove defective General Motors' vehicles (that are just now being recalled) may rise from the current 12 confirmed fatalities. The Times reports, "Since 2003, GM has reported at least 78 deaths and 1,581 injuries involving the now-recalled cars, according to a review of agency records."
It is not clear how many of the accidents involving one of the 1.6 million now-recalled vehicles were caused by the defect. The article does state that "the records mention potentially defective components" and "regulators appear to have overlooked disturbing complaints of engine shutdowns."
The basis of the report is a new chronology of events regarding the recall. The chronology also gives evidence that now-GM CEO Mary Barra was likely aware of the problem in 2011. GM's response to the escalating scandal was to offer drivers of its defective vehicles loaner cars and $500 discounts towards the purchase of a new GM vehicle.
Mary Barra says that she will personally oversee the investigation to determine why motorists' lives were put at risk for years after the company knew of the problem. Considering that Ms. Barra was the head of product development in early 2011 and oversaw quality control, perhaps the investigation should include her accountability in not bringing the problem to light.
Regarding the deadly defect delay, the new chronology of events presented by GM states that, "In late July 2011, a meeting was held at GM involving Legal Staff, Field Performance Assessment ("FPA") and Product Investigations Personnel who would be involved in the Field Performance Evaluation ("PFE") process." Given Ms. Barra's position at the time, it is hard to believe that she was not aware of the issue. Ms. Barra's previous engineering roles may have made her aware at an even earlier date. The timeline of events clearly makes "New" GM accountable for the recall delay.
GM's response to its fatal recall delay has been deplorable. Only after media sources began to escalate the story did the company act as if it cared about getting to the bottom of why it took 13 years ( reports now point to 2001 as the year GM first became aware of the problems ) to recall vehicles that they knew were unsafe. GM's initial response was to recall only a portion of the dangerous vehicles that were on the road as the company cited alcohol, weather conditions and speeding as factors in accidents that killed drivers of defective GM vehicles. The company also blamed drivers for operating its defective vehicles with extra keys on the key chains.
The vehicles in question had defective ignition switches which turned off power to the cars under certain conditions, killing steering, power brakes and air bag systems. Only after the company was criticized for recalling just a portion of the deadly vehicles did the company expand the recall to include all of the defective cars. GM's attempt to now try and capitalize on the tragedy by offering discounts in an attempt to sell new cars is despicable.
The recent offer by GM of loaner cars and $500 off a new GM vehicle to drivers of the dangerous recalled cars is reminiscent of a scene from the movie Fargo, when a car salesman addresses a complaint from a car buyer who was charged $500 for "Trucoat," which the purchaser never agreed to. After saying he discussed it with a manager, the sleazy salesman's resolution was, "Well, he never done this before, circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat." Does the GM response to help drivers of defective vehicles by offering $500 off a new GM vehicle sound like a sleazy sales ploy? As they would say in Fargo, "Yah, you betcha!"
$500 off of a new GM vehicle will not resolve the deadly recall delay issue. Both GM and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have lots to answer for regarding the botched recall. Why did they allow deadly vehicles to remain on the road for years after complaints of defective ignition switches and fatal accidents were reported?
One of the most disturbing aspects of the GM recall scandal is the fact that American lives are entrusted to government agencies that work for an Administration that is in bed with a major corporation and then those same agencies are put in charge of regulating the crony company. It is a fact that President Obama ran a reelection campaign that focused on the perceived success of GM and the auto bailouts. His opponent, Mitt Romney, was lambasted for suggesting that the government should not have interfered to the extent that they did in bailing out GM.
The obvious conflicts arising from the executive branch of our government having a vested interest in the success of a major US industrial corporation warrants further debate. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money were spent to bail out the UAW, which then came out in force to help with President Obama's reelection bid. At the same time, regulating agencies like NHTSA, the Justice Department ( which is now in charge of a criminal investigation of GM ) and the SEC are placed in charge of overseeing crony corporations.
The determination as to how "successful" the auto bailouts really were will now have to take into account the lost lives of those who died in defective GM vehicles that were allowed to remain on the road by the bailed-out company and the regulating agency that should have made sure these vehicles were recalled long ago. Whether or not NHTSA was influenced by GM's crony status with the Obama Administration when they continued to overlook the company's deadly defect, it is hard to deny that the conflicts of interests are obvious.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
It’s as bad as the sticking accelerators on Toyotas. No automobile is perfect. And every flaw could lead to a misshap. If we were talking about hundreds of deaths I’d feel a lot differently about this.
And yes, if it was one of my loved ones, I’d feel really bad, but I would if my loved one was the very first one to die before anyone even knew there was a problem.
This is not a high risk defect. The low number of deaths proves it.
“This is not going away, it’s snowballing on GM.”
Good.
The biggest problem is they knew about it right off and did squat about it when they could have prevented deaths and much damage.
I view that as criminal.
Five nines is a big deal in business. The gold standard for reliability and safety is 99.999%. It is rarely achieved, however.
And when you divide the number of deaths by the number of cars sold you end up with better than 99.999% safe. When dealing with an item that is sold in huge quantities, it is critical to focus not on the number of customers adversly affected, but rather the percentage.
Well, that’s probably a good thing.
The US auto consumer as well as US industry would be well served if GM were put out of business.
The biggest problem is they knew about it right off and did squat about it when they could have prevented deaths and much damage.
I view that as criminal.
So, if the government owned a fairly big piece of GM during all of this, and you can discover enough evidence that they knew about it and weighed in AGAINST the recall, then will the government allow a suit against them as the shareholder with controlling interest. Is there enough to pierce the corporate veil?
If you mean the behavior of the Government Motors, then yes, it is just as bad. The non existent sticking accelerator myth was used to attack a competitor of Government Motors, with the help of the MSM. Later investigations revealed that the accidents were all do to driver error, mistaking the gas pedal for the brake.
I’m not really sure what they were supposed to “know about”. I mean, I’ll bet they know that if you run over a board with a nail at highway speeds with a standard tire, that they are somehow criminla in not notifying the public of that even though .00001% of the purchasers of their cars were killed when it happened. Maybe they are accountable because they didn’t use the new airless tires. I dunno.
I really hate GM, but I consider this a tempest in a teapot.
“The biggest problem is they knew about it right off and did squat about it when they could have prevented deaths and much damage.
I view that as criminal.”
I agree with you.
The non existent sticking accelerator myth was used to attack a competitor of Government Motors, with the help of the MSM. Later investigations revealed that the accidents were all do to driver error, mistaking the gas pedal for the brake.
And I turned the key off in my old Vega at 70 mile per hour once to see what it felt like (I was 18 at the time). Yep. Teh steering locked up. So I turned it back on.
No car is perfect. Not all risk can be eliminated. And some risk is even so low as to be acceptable. And even then, the timeline shows that GM was doing “something”. It more than satisfies my personal grasp of the concept of risk assessment, management and mitigation. Statistically, this is a non-issue. And I really, REALLY hate Government Motors, but this is the wrong battle. The fact that GM did anything at all really surprises me.
Apparently, this ignition issue has directly caused 12 deaths, and the fix was cheap and fast to replace.
With this administration I’d guess the chances would be slim to none, mostly none but I’m no legal beagle.
Apparently, this ignition issue has directly caused 12 deaths, and the fix was cheap and fast to replace.
Five nines. That’s all I’m sayin’...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=five+nines+safety&oq=five+nines+safety
As much as I like the new Tahoe/Yukon and was seriously thinking about buying, this is the type of thing that makes me say no thanks. Yes, I know it’s taboo to even suggest buying a GM product around, but it’s a practical vehicle for my family and as much as I like Ford and Toyota, they are nowhere close to updating their versions (Expedition and Sequoia. And they are made in Texas.
We are having problems right now with our 2013 Denali Terrain. GM knows it is a defect but is refusing to acknowledge and is calling it “normal”. The car has the anti collision audio and visual alert system. It does NOT have the collision breaking system. We will be driving in absolutely perfect conditions and out of nowhere the alerts go off and the brakes seem to make a grabbing sensation. Immediately, you have an “uh-oh” moment and instinctually brake the car, thinking you are about to become an insurance claim. We have been on the terrain forum website and others experience the same problem, which is quite unsettling. We have been told it is pre-charging the brakes in case you have to use them and if we don’t want it to happen we should turn the collision system off.
The vehicles in question had defective ignition switches which turned off power to the cars under certain conditions
I’ll bet I could get a cobolt pretty cheap right now. I might look into it. Five nines is good enough for me.
You forgot with assistance of the Trial Lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.