The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was supposed to present new roof-strength rules to Congress by July 1. The Detroit News reports that the NHTSA wants more time. A letter from chairman of a Senate Commerce subcommittee on auto safety apparently prompted the hurry-up-and-wait. "We encourage you to extend your deadline to ensure a proper rule making that would maximize safety and significantly reduce deaths and injuries for passengers and drivers in vehicle rollover accidents," wrote Mark Pryor. One might assume that Pryor is concerned that the NHTSA proposal to strengthen roof-crush strength to 2.5 times the vehicle wait might create top-heavy vehicle which would roll over more frequently. Nope. Pryor is simply demonstrating his party's fealty to the trial lawyer lobby, by opposing language which would limit rollover lawsuits in state courts. Whether or not those limits are valid is subject to debate. That requiring stricter roof-crush standards would increase car prices and rollover frequency while reducing efficiency is not. Here's hoping these facts sink-in during the NHTSA's extra deliberation time.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Here is a possible solution, LOWER THE DAMN CENTER OF GRAVITY and you have less roll overs to begin with. Make special licensing requirments for driving roll over prone cars, as in train people not to have them. But the governments solution is just to make sure we all drive around in bomb shelters.
This explains why I buy Euro cars. I trust the TUV much, much more than NHTSA.
Why should an increased rollover regulation give a free pass to the auto makers on liability ? A does not equal B.
Before you get worked up about those damn trial attorneys and support “Tort reform”, keep in mind that all “Tort Deform” is is a way to keep you from getting a day in Court.
Juries don’t give away money, contrary to the news media claims. If they do, there normally was a real breach with damages.
Companies, like the rest of us, would love to live in a consequence-free world. Remember the Pinto…it was considered cheaper to pay off the horribly injured and burned folks than to spend $11 (that’s eleven) dollars to make the tanks stronger.
Tort reform = slamming the Courthouse Door in your face. Why not get angry at the guys trying to give big business a free pass with your safety ?
Juries don’t give away money, contrary to the news media claims. If they do, there normally was a real breach with damages.
Cool. I’ll give you a call when I dump my 180 degree Starbucks coffee in my lap.
ihatetrees
You won’t, because Starbucks won’t serve you 180 degree coffee, because they’re afraid of lawsuits, because of that whole McDonanld’s kerfluffle a few years back. The end result being your not sustaining horrible, disfiguring burns if you are stupid enough to hold a cup of coffee between your legs while driving a pickup truck.
Are you really going to argue that major burns are a just consequence of momentary stupidity, when instead a company could have a policy of turning down its coffeemaker thermostats a bit — and had received complaints on the subject in the past? Go to a Shriner’s burn ward and tell that to the people you meet there.
It seems stupid to reward stupidity, but it seems even more stupid not to do what it takes to get people / companies to behave as they should.
Are there really a large number of people in any burn ward (not just Shriners) due to scalding hot coffee served by an uncaring faceless company? Or, is that possibly a bit of hyperbole dressed up in a straw man argument outfit?
I’ve seen enough local jury awards to know that ridiculous pay outs are not that unusual and go beyond the famous McDonald’s coffee case. However, court reform needs to begin with the people that make up the juries and flow through the schools that “educate” the future lawyers and judges (I know pipe dream). The torte reforms that I have seen proposed are not going to solve the problems with the civil courts any more than mandatory sentencing solved the problems in the criminal justice system. There is no substitute for common sense and intelligence.
But what about those handy roof-mounted SUV & Light Truck crumple zones? Aren’t those a selling feature?
–chuck
“Are you really going to argue that major burns are a just consequence of momentary stupidity…”
In a word, yes.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. – (Henry VI, by William Shakespeare, Act IV, Scene II).
Burn wards are not full of coffee victims. I obviously know that, and did not mean to imply that they were, as some sort of weird hyperbole or straw-man argument. The point of mentioning the burn ward is that one should try to get a sense of how bad serious burns really are, and how valuable it is to try to prevent them.
I would argue that common sense would tell me not to give out literally millions of copies, every day, of an unexpectedly dangerous item (an extra-hot cup of coffee capable of causing severe burns), which I know some fraction of people are inevitably going to mis-handle, when a nearly trivial change to my procedures (i.e. turning down the thermostat) would render the item much less dangerous. Some might even call it a “common courtesy.”
At that stage, it isn’t even about who should “take responsibility” in some moral sense for stupidity or accidents. It’s about how to most effectively reduce the number of people who pass through burn wards, because not only is it very painful, its also very costly for society at large. It’s not just about the burns — the world at large has more than its share of accident victims, overall, and at least some of those accidents were probably reasonably preventable (i.e. the cost of prevention in cash or foregone opportunities is not excessive) if only someone were paying attention.
Yes — letting the victim keep all the money, as a seeming reward for stupidity and pratfalls, is a bit perverse. But failing to extract enough money to get the attention of people who matter just means that the “thermostats” will never get turned down, so to speak. Some fear of lawsuits is probably a healthy thing.
You won’t, because Starbucks won’t serve you 180 degree coffee, because they’re afraid of lawsuits…
That depends on the Starbucks. I know of a rouge store / barista or three…
It seems stupid to reward stupidity, but it seems even more stupid not to do what it takes to get people / companies to behave as they should.
What’s stupid is the horrible economic uncertainty and legislative-like powers caused/taken by the tort system.
(Better tasting) 180 degree coffee is verboten! More expensive, top heavy SUV’s with electronic nannies may be mandated after a few payouts.
One notable victory over the tort lobby from years ago: After flirtations with bankruptcy, the small aircraft industry was given protection from most lawsuits. The business then thrived.
Of course, personal responsibility is now paramount when flying small aircraft. With that responsibility comes the freedom to JKF-Juniorcrash if you develop vertigo or forget to fuel up…
Now, if we could only get congress to care as much about good, 180 degree coffee.
(Better tasting) 180 degree coffee is verboten!
But it isn’t — that’s the beauty of it. It is (was?) perfectly legal, and if there really was strong demand for its better taste (?) a lawsuit-wary coffee company could charge a dime extra per cup and either (a) invest that dime in some sort of “safety cup” or (b) invest that dime in a savings fund out of which they’d pay for the treatment of the occasional burn victim. (Remember the Pinto?) Only this time, you’d declare your super-hot-coffee up front and be clean with the public about it, to avoid the bad press associated with a secret lawsuit-payoff-fund.
The [small aircraft industry] then thrived.
And with that, you’ve picked out the one coherent counter-example. Pilots, even private pilots, go through a fairly comprehensive training and licensing process, in which the responsibilities of flight are drilled into them and the dangers of the activity fully laid out. I know. I’ve gone through the program. The day we put coffee drinkers through forty hours of “flight training,” a medical exam, and a series of written and practical tests before licensing them to stand on line at Starbucks is the day we can put all the responsibility on them, and go easy on management.
Until then, I argue that we have to live with the fact that hapless people will engage in normal, day to day activities (i.e. drinking coffee), acknowledge that they will not engage in “enhanced responsibility activities” (flying airplanes, climbing Mount Everest), and ask if the day to day activities carry hidden hazards, and if there is some reasonable and effective way to mitigate them. If there are such chances at mitigation, and the actors best suited to taking them are not taking them, we have to provide some incentive to do so, or levy a “tax” to help pay for the costs associated with the foregone precaution, in instances where there is some coherent desire to forego the precaution.
The alternative is to actually get OSHA or the FDA or someone to literally make 180 degree coffee verboten (imagine a parade of baristas being led from your local Starbucks in handcuffs), possibly ignoring the chance at developing a “safety cup” or the chance that aficionados would pay extra for it, and then you’d really have to wait for an act of congress to fix things.
The mcdonalds’ case is always brought up by this. The plaintiff, an elderly woman, bought a cup of McD’s coffee, put it between her legs, and the coffee severely burned her “girl parts”. Factually a very gripping case.
The reason that McD’s paid huge is because they put up an expert witness who was arrogant, and said they knew some people would be burned. He cheezed off the Jury who based the huge award on the amount of the coffee sold. The defense blew it big time.
This case is extremely atypical, and is trotted out by Tort Deformers as an example of “what really happens”. Not.
I have an easy solution to tort reform: All punative damages go to a charity not associated with the plaintiff or defendents. The lawyers don’t get one red cent.
Are you really going to argue that major burns are a just consequence of momentary stupidity, when instead a company could have a policy of turning down its coffeemaker thermostats a bit — and had received complaints on the subject in the past?
Damn right I’ll argue that. If you put a cup of hot liquid between your thighs, pry the lid off it, and burn youself then you are a moron who, along with your lawyer, should be fined for having the audacity to try to profit from your stupidity by suing.
The legal industry has put out a lot of FUD to defend the ridiculous Mickey D’s coffee lawsuit because it has damaged the industry in the eyes of the public. Here’s a site that shoots down the trial lawyers spin: http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/
There’s a notable grammatical error in this article. It should read “2.5 times the vehicle WEIGHT”.
Two advantages to lower vehicles,
1. they are far less roll over prone, and,
2. they put up less frontal area and thus lower aerodynamic resistance and thus go farther on a gallon of fuel. The low profile of the Corvette certainly contributes to is surprising highway mpg’s
I move to suspend any further discussion about McDonald’s, Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, and other unrelated subjects lacking four wheels and an engine.
And while I’d love to correct the approx 400 factually incorrect statements commentors have made thus far about the McDonald’s case, further discussion should be restricted to http://www.TheTruthAboutCoffee.com.
Thank you for your compliance.
Whatever happened to the proposed amendment TO the proposed amendment: 4 times the car weight?
WTF has hot coffee got to do with roll over specs? I have no clue as to modern crash test criteria. But harken back to simpler, less litiginous times. The VW bug was very prone to roll overs. But, whether by accident or design, they survived roll overs very well. Often the cars could be set on their wheels and driven off. Back in those days, if you flipped a car, it was understood that it was because YOU, the driver had messed up.
Where is Colin Chapman when you need him? Add lightness, that makes for a better handling and more fuel efficient car. With all of the safety and luxury devices what has the weight of the average car gone up to – 3200-3400 lbs. That is absurd. As the cars get heavier and heavier, the laws of physics don’t change: momentum = mass * velocity.
Instead of increasing the safety of these vehicles, increase the education and driving ability of the hot coffee drinking, cell phone talking (or text messaging), make-up applying, paper reading, SUV driving soccer mom. Nope, can’t do that – it is a lost cause. Soon we will all be driving the equivalent of the all mocked and despised Hummer, albeit maybe a little lower to the ground.
Oh, how is this going to impact the convertible market?
What are we talking about here? How much weight does it add to achieve the goal for various weight/size classes of vehicle? How does that weight increment compare to the weight of various features, many frivolous, that are options on vehicles?