Facing mounting political pressure, GM’s new masters have agreed to allow new liability cases against products made by old (pre- and intra-bankruptcy) GM to proceed against New (post-pre-bankruptcy). According to the New York Times, the deal went down in federal bankruptcy court on Friday. “G.M. and the administration’s [hands-off] auto task force have been negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general who have objected to the company’s plan to sell its desirable assets to a new, government-financed entity. A hearing to approve the plan is scheduled for Tuesday in federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan.” So, that’s that then. The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler can relax. Comcast can kick back. Rep. Andre Carson can chill. Or can they?
Category: Safety
Political interference in New GM? As Mass. Rep. Barney Frank’s Norton constituents will tell you, it’s not who you know—no, wait, it is. The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler—the consortium of lawyers trying to make New GM liable for Old GM’s vehicles—must not know any pols senior enough to bend GM to their will. Oh wait! They do! Indiana Representative Andre Carson, who’s just introduced an as-yet-unnumbered bill to do what GM’s suits and a federal bankruptcy judge won’t. It’s not unnamed though: “The Jeremy Warriner Consumer Protection Act of 2009.” Warriner is an Indiana resident who lost both legs in an accident in his Jeep; his product liability lawsuit fell afoul of Chrysler’s “transformation” in bankruptcy. The odds of the bill’s passage may not be high, but its existence proves that the fate of Government Motors lies in the hands of elected officials, rather than the US consumer. As if you didn’t know.
I don’t mind tripping the light fantastic with PR people. No journalist should expect to get the straight dope or the inside line from a person paid to protect his employer from the slightest ding to their rep. It’s the dark side. Deal. And here’s the deal with this story, wherein an ad hoc committee of lawyers created an ad taking New Chrysler and Old Soon-to-be-New GM to task for trying to walk away from post-C11 product liability.
I’m busy chasing the story about Comcast’s decision to pull the ad from the Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler re: the automakers’ attempts to walk away from safety-related claims against their “old” incarnations. I’ve got calls into the left coast lawyers who have first-hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the self-imposed censorship. Meanwhile, Sean Kane, the president of advocacy group Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), says the ad was pulled after a call from GM’s lawyers to Comcast. He also shared this pdf: Public Safety at Risk. “If GM is allowed to assign liability for its pre-New GM vehicles to old GM, it will remove the incentive for claimants to file,” Kane contends. “It would remove an important surveillance device for the NHTSA.”
I started TTAC’s General Motors Death Watch in the summer of ’05, after the automaker pulled tens of millions of dollars in advertising from the LA Times. GM was pissed at a Dan Neil Pontiac review that called for an executive cull. While I’d been predicting bankruptcy for The General long before that point, the automaker’s bully-boy tactics against this country’s finest carmudgeon was the final straw. GM was free to pull its ads. And I was free to start the Death Watch. The rest, as they say, is history. Only maybe not so fast.
Bob Lutz needs to clear something up. Fun lovers, report to GM Fastlane, stat! It seems that the Man of Maximum is steamed about a WaPo piece which he complains casts him as “ambivalent” towards his beloved Volt. In fact, the piece is a sweeping look at the Volt’s place in GM, and it contains more than a few anecdotes that reflect poorly on GM management (shocking, I know). And the facts of the matter clearly illustrate that the Volt’s importance arises from political considerations far more than the inherent passion of GM’s product planners to create reliable, fuel-efficient transportation. Hence the accusation of ambivalence. But political motivation has to be disguised with pure intention (no matter how implausible) in order to work. And so Lutz is off to man the crumbling Maximum rampart.
Lutz writes,
The reporter said that we are “ambivalent” about the Volt, largely because it flies in the face of what he perceives me to be all about, namely speed, horsepower and burning rubber – and fossil fuels. In fact, he neatly expanded this ambivalence angle to describe GM, and Detroit as a whole, as the auto industry faces a new future.
Look, I know how it works. A reporter has a great idea for a story, with a terrific angle, and, even if the facts indicate otherwise, he can’t help but try to shoehorn the story into the angle. It’s just too good an idea!
Yes, Bob Lutz knows how the media thing works. And the WaPo juxtaposes the Volt and the Camaro,
. . . type of vehicle they and their colleagues in the press insist GM is all about, the gas guzzler. Trucks, SUVs and muscle cars. They would have you believe that GM and the other American auto companies are the only manufacturers on the planet that have ever built any SUVs. They would have you believe that we are secretly bemoaning the coming of the Volt because it means the end of cars like the Camaro and the Corvette, cars they don’t think any Americans want to drive anyway.
Huh? Bob, the Post quotes you as saying,
When you get out into the marketplace, it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it. I would say the East and West Coast intellectual establishment kind of lives in its own world. When you get to the broad American marketplace, excitement is still kind of defined in the way it used to be.
If that doesn’t betray some ambivalence towards hybrid vehicles, then what does? If America doesn’t want Volt, Bob, why are you building it? Actually, the Post piece addresses this directly, explaining,
In the summer of 2008, at a forum attended by other auto executives and then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Wagoner recalibrated his position. Under increasing pressure from government officials to demonstrate GM’s broad commitment to more fuel-efficient vehicles, the beleaguered chief executive confidently restated GM’s goal to bring out the Volt in 2010.
But that doesn’t jive with Bob’s self-image. Political lackey he is not!
How many times since the concept car’s debut in 2007 have I said (and been widely quoted as saying) that this is the most exciting program I have worked on in my entire career? I meant it every time I said it – anyone in the press who’s spent any time at all covering the auto industry knows I don’t do “lip service.”
But if this were true, Lutz wouldn’t be blustering about his deep, abiding passion for the Volt. He’d say something along the lines of “you’re damn right I’m ambivalent about it. It’s a $40k halo car that doesn’t go fast or look like sex. That doesn’t make sense to someone like me.” Instead, he demonstrates his pathos-laden (and politically corect) ambivalence towards the very car the WaPo accuses him of favoring: the Camaro:
Given the tough economic times and the high priority of fuel economy, we were almost wishing we hadn’t done the Camaro. We looked at it as something radically mistimed.
Which it is. But Lutz’s conspicuous ambivalence only shows how willing he is to reshuffle his priorities based on political considerations. If Lutz was brought into GM to provide clear-sighted leadership on product quality, he has clearly lost the independent, instinctive edge he once promised. Absent the need for a working compass of the American consumer psyche (thanks to bailout billions), Lutz has become little more than a breathless apologist for a program he clearly doesn’t think will be successful on its own merits. The curse of governmental control can already be felt at GM. What a crock of shit.
Supporters of the use of photo enforcement around the country insist red light cameras and speed cameras are primarily designed to “save lives.” When faced with independent studies showing the overall number of accidents can actually increase where intersection cameras are installed (view studies), supporters like Illinois state Senator John J. Millner (R-St. Charles) counter that the type of accidents caused by red light cameras is not worth worrying about. “This does save lives,” Millner said during a 2006 debate on expanding the use of red light cameras. “Will there be more rear-end accidents? Perhaps there may, but those typically aren’t life threatening. The T-bone accidents are. This saves lives.”
Popular Science clears the air (so to speak) about which of America’s favorite intoxicants impairs driving skill the most. And it turns out that the stoned driver is a careful driver. Well, compared to a drunk driver, anyway. Research from a fancy driving simulator at Ben Gurion University’s Laboratory for Human Factors in Road Safety shows that reefer-crazed drivers drove considerably slower than the control group, while drunk drivers drove faster. In addition, “the drinking drivers also tended to be confident and boast a sense of control, while the pot smokers seem to be ‘more aware of their impairment.'” Of course, PopSci and Ben Gurion University don’t exactly condone doobing and driving. “None of the doped-up or drinking drivers were models of safety on the road. They tended to switch lane positions, swerve, and vary their steering,” is the verdict. But that’s just, like, their opinion… man. In honor of TTAC’s recent exploration of the legal grey areas of on-road behavior, we thought we’d ask: what are the five best rules of stoned driving? Entries will be accepted until 6pm Eastern Time. The winner gets the unclaimed (previous contest) Taschenwörterbuch der Kraftfahrzeugtechnik (English-German car technical dictionary). Because compound words are mind blowing after a toke or two. Dude.
Would you like to supersize your irony with that, sir? Having received one bailout, flunked a stress test, now in line for another $7.5b, GMAC knows the meaning of the word “unfit.” And their recent Insurance National Drivers Test shows that 20 percent of American drivers, some 41m people, are a danger to themselves and the financial system. I mean others. Idaho, Wisconsin, Montana and Kansas top the states in “basic road rules” test results. New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and California’s drivers averaged the worst scores. According to GMAC, 5,000 licensed Americans were asked 20 actual questions taken from state Department of Motor Vehicles exams. Anyone changing their mind about speeding?
I reckon it’s a nonsensical question. Again, President Obama’s new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are nothing more than fantasy pandering. By the time the feds factor in ethanol and (inevitable) electric vehicle credits, calculate the “footprint” requirements (per given vehicle type and size), average those out across a given manufacturer’s fleet, and do the hokey-cokey, the CAFE standards will look like swiss cheese. Just like the current ones. In fact, I think it’s awesome that the MSM got so worked-up—in a gloating sort of way—about EPA CAFE. Holy smokes! The industry doesn’t oppose federally mandated fuel efficiency? Motown’s CEOs were in the Rose Garden for the announcement? Despite this media love fest, USA Today just couldn’t resist ye olde “Safety could suffer if we boost mileage by making cars smaller” shtick. Hey, how ’bout these apples?
Reuters reports that gunmen shot and killed a union leader at Toyota Motor Corp.’s Venezuelan unit on Tuesday, a few weeks after the Japanese automaker said it might leave the country because of chronic labor problems. “Labor disputes and strikes have become frequent in Venezuela. In January, two workers were shot to death as police broke up a protest at a vehicle assembly plant for Japan’s Mitsubishi Motors Corp. and South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co.”
The Detroit News reports that the NHTSA’s upgrade of roof crush strength standards will add $1.4 billion to the cost of new cars industry-wide, but will save 135 lives per year. Based on the NHTSA’s numbers, the costs will come out to about $54 per vehicle in design costs and another $15 to $62 in added fuel costs. In other words, even the NHTSA admits that uprated roof strength tests do trade off with fuel economy.
SEATTLE – Lamborghinis may be faster out of the gate, but it appears that Hyundai SUVs may have the edge when it comes to braking, at least in one instance. Motorist Kelly Davis snapped this picture of a traffic accident on Interstate 5 near Seattle Monday morning. The Hyundai Santa Fe hit the brakes in traffic, and the Lamborghini behind it wasn’t able to stop that quickly, sliding under the Hyundai. No one was hurt in the accident.
Yes, well, someone’s pride sure got dinged. [Thanks to Don1967 for the link]
Charles “Chuck” Hurley is the head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). He’s also a totalitarian nanny-stater who wants arbitrary check lanes and a 55 mph national speed limit. Hurley also hearts a .04% Blood Alcohol Content limit, which would make you DUI after one drink. Oh, and he has ties to the red light camera industry. The news arrives via a Washington Times editorial so it’s written from the right. But the facts are facts. Way too busy with an embroidery job for a motorcycle club to write on this but wanted to give you a heads up. It’s been missed by the autoblogosphere.











Recent Comments