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.
$5 part, 10 minutes to replace.
I’m betting it was suppressed to keep the stock price up during a time when it was controversial for the state to own a car company.
Well, if it’s good enough for you it must be good enough for any new 16 or 17 year old driver for the last 10 or more years then. /sarc
I bought a 1980 Buick Skylark brand new and it was the buggiest car I ever owned. I had a moderately steep driveway and I could put my car in neutral or reverse and push both feet against the brake pedals as hard as I could and the car eased backward down the hill. Absurd.
And that was just one of a page worth of design defects that car had. I swore I’d never own another GM car but couldn’t resist a 2003 silverado z71 for my farm in KY at a very low price and good condition. The instrument clusted went TU. It only cost $85 to get fixed (Myairbags.com) but it was another case of GM’s “Test in Prod” attitude about foisting known defects onto the public.
$5 part, 10 minutes to replace.
That kind of thing from any company is unacceptable when there’s ant kind of safety issue.
Well, if it’s good enough for you it must be good enough for any new 16 or 17 year old driver for the last 10 or more years then. /sarc
It’s GM. I wasn’t aware of the offer.
I did some business with them back in the early 2000’s. Had no idea how they were keeping the doors open at that time.
How frustrating! The article explains that the spring was not strong enough, but did not go into what activity or environment caused it to allow the ignition to go into accessory position. Was it just the act of driving that caused it, or did it take more than that?
During the campaign, Romney's advisors claimed that the GM bailout was his idea. He's not as lily-white as the article portrays.
http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-bailout-was-mitt-romneys-idea-apparently-2012-4
That said, yet another Obama scandal. Color me surprised.
The $500 discount offer on a new vehicle was just made and it’s good until April 30, in my view they’re a lot of years too late with it.
There have been umpteen articles on this fiasco already and everything can’t be covered in one article.
p.s. Agree with you on Toyotas. Had two of them during the controversy and even the local mechanics, over a beer, would tell you the "fix" was basically rearranging floormats, cautioning driver, etc.
We are literally arguing over how hard it should be to intentionally turn the key from run to acc.
I made that last statement after finally finding out what the actual problem was. There isn’t a problem. This is as political as the Toyota witch hunt.
At least, based on what I know now I see it that way. Too few deaths per 100,000 cars for this to be significant. It may be cheap to fix, but the number of cars that would need to be fixed per life saved is unbelieveable. And Zero deaths is not a practical goal.
To put it bluntly, cars would cost too much.
The service department drove it sixty-five miles and couldn’t duplicate the event. This means the problem doesn’t really exist and we and the other consumers are nuts. It happened to me one day on the freeway when a car went around me pretty fast. It just started chirping and grabbing for no reason out of the blue and of course I reacted and braked. My husband told GM that when we are rear ended because we braked for no reason, they will be sued. They told him to keep the sensors clean. Lol.
“Five nines. That’s all I’m sayin’...”
So, are you saying that morality should have no influence on business decisions?
Whoa! Slow down there, Colonel. Romney was referring to the fact that he said GM should be allowed to go through a managed bankruptcy; NOT that billions of dollars should go to protect UAW interests while bondholders got shafted. And certainly not to help coverup a deadly defect, if that is what happened.
So let me get this straight, Cuban. This behavior is only unacceptable if more people died? What’s the minimum on the body count?
GM knew of a deadly defect. NHTSA also knew, but was in bed with the company. A clear conflict of interests. Both waited years to address and then only when the media jumped on.
Say what you want, but the NY Times and the USA Today have done a great job protecting Americans while “conservative” media outlets like O’Reilly and Hannity say nothing on Fox as they take millions of GM marketing dollars.
GM knew of a deadly defect.
Not a defect, according to what I read. And also not deadly - on its own. Rather, a device that was designed to allow a certain amount of torque to move the key from position to position, under certain circumstances, could allow the driver to unintentionally turn it. And it apparently resulted in roughly a .000001% death rate among drivers.
No car is 100% safe. It would cost too much. But if the death rate for this “defect” is as low as it appears to be, and the argument can be (and has been) made that other criteria would be needed to make it “deadly”. i.e. the key turning to ACC on its own is not enough to make it deadly, since it happened to many who did not die or even lose control of their car.
Do you think cars that don’t have five point restraint systems have “deadly” seat belts? I can pretty much guarantee that fewer lives would be lost if all cars had them.
And everyone wore helmets while they drive...
I consider this a more than acceptable risk, and the stats bear it out.
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.