Tube Radio Forum - The friendliest radio forum on the net!
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Wildcat445 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:09 pm

I think of stuff that nobody else does, I guess. I posed this scenario to the frau and she recommended that I see the doctor to see if my meds were still working. So I will pose it to you guys, who are much wiser in these matters.  Very Happy 

Let us consider for a moment that I have been involved in an auto accident. (I have not, so this case is purely hypothetical.) Let us also consider the fact that the other driver was distracted by technology.....texting, messing with their GPS, on the cellphone, whatever. Let us also consider that the manufacturer of their car provided an up to 8" tv screen in the dashboard of their automobile, easily accessible, and designed to be viewable by the driver, your basic "infotainment" system. Legally referred to as an "attractive nuisance." An attractive nuisance is something that reasonable people recognize as being potentially hazardous, but also realize that it is hard to resist using. Like an "infotainment" system. A tv screen in the instrument panel that has to be viewed to perform functions that may not be absolutely necessary to the successful and safe operation of the vehicle. Such activity that will cause the driver's eyes to be off the road for any period of time.

Why has not some sharp ambulance-chasing lawyer (personal injury liability attorney) challenged this? Sounds like the potential for a major KA-CHING to me. Why could they not sue the auto manufacturer, the manufacturer of the "infotainment" system, the cell phone manufacturer, the cell phone industry as a whole, the cell-phone service provider, and the driver of the automobile for negligence? On the grounds that the above mentioned defendants conspired to provide, or caused to be provided, equipment that diverted the driver's attention off the road, thereby contributing to, and solely causing an accident. Your basic attractive nuisance. And that their actions alone caused personal injury or property damage. And that the technology and auto manufacturing industries have done little to eliminate this potentially hazardous equipment. Equipment that they knew, or should have known, that could potentially be hazardous.

Or has this already happened, and, as usual, I am about twenty years too late in hearing about this. Distracted driving is getting to be a larger cause of traffic accidents than even drunken driving. It seems like technology may be providing the means.

What say you wise folks?

Regards

WC

Wildcat445
Member
Member

Number of posts : 4893
Registration date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Motorola man on Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:46 pm

All of the navigation systems, do dads and what nots meet their obligations for safety by flashing up a warning about using the product while driving. Many of which require that you acknowledge the warning by pressing a button before continuing. I guess that in the eyes of the law, that's good enough.
Motorola man
Motorola man
Member
Member

Number of posts : 370
Age : 45
Registration date : 2010-02-06

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by N7ZAL on Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:29 pm

All of the navigation systems, do dads and what nots meet their obligations for safety by flashing up a warning about using the product while driving.

That is what my Garmin does.
N7ZAL
N7ZAL
Member
Member

Number of posts : 493
Registration date : 2011-11-05

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Motorola man on Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:27 pm

By the same token, maybe I can sue the auto manufacturers because my car has more power than is necessary and it's capable of exceeding the national speed limit. They must have known that I would be tempted to use all 127 horses at the same time.
Motorola man
Motorola man
Member
Member

Number of posts : 370
Age : 45
Registration date : 2010-02-06

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Wildcat445 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:37 pm

How does that clear someone from liability if they auger off into another car when they take their eyes off the road to mess with a Garmin?  How does that warning help the person who may have been injured or damaged during distracted driving?  

The comment about "using all 127 horsepower at the same time" is comparing apples to oranges.  The subject I mentioned pertains to activity not absolutely necessary to operate the car.  Using all 127 horsepower might be necessary for accident avoidance or other maneuvers.  Messing with texting, or a GPS or the like might NOT be necessary to the operation of the car.  Why can not the car manufacturers or the manufacturers of "devices" be charged with the responsibility of either rendering the "devices" useless while driving a vehicle or removing them entirely for the sake of safety.  And, failing to do either, why should they be not responsible for injury or damage  caused when using them in a negligent manner?  

Regards

WC

Wildcat445
Member
Member

Number of posts : 4893
Registration date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by N7ZAL on Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:57 pm

How does that clear someone from liability if they auger off into another car when they take their eyes off the road to mess with a Garmin?

Not sure if you are referring to my post, but I figured the "announcement" was to protect Garmin, not the user.
N7ZAL
N7ZAL
Member
Member

Number of posts : 493
Registration date : 2011-11-05

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by 75X11 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:18 pm

I would guess that this potential cash cow has not been milked because the litigators desire the very cars with the very mental holiday makers that you mention. Without going into any great detail, there have been any number of warnings , restrictions and safety encumbrances placed with and upon firearms and they are beaten upon regularly by anyone seeking riches or attention.
75X11
75X11
Member
Member

Number of posts : 4453
Age : 64
Registration date : 2013-03-10

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Dr. Radio on Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:19 pm

Couple thoughts...

First, there are some safeguards against complete stupidity. Wi-fi/data surfing is disabled via the BCM and PCM signals. Vehicle in park? Now you can "surf". They do this so someone doesn't try to download porn while driving 85 on the expressway.

Most features are based on voice commands and simple toggling. Can they still cause a crash? Why yes, but so does putting on make up, yelling at your kids, drinking coffee, etc.

Lastly, you have a good point, Tis just a matter of time till I hot shot lawyer tries to make a name for themselves...HOWEVER, John Doe average citizen can only afford so many lawyer billable hours at $250/hr where as any major automaker or infotainment supplier can easily retain an entire army of lawyers at $500 dollars per hour corporate time with unlimited resources to outwit your claim or tie it up in court so long you die of old age and broke if the car accident didn't kill you first...
Dr. Radio
Dr. Radio
Member
Member

Number of posts : 899
Age : 40
Registration date : 2012-09-17

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Wildcat445 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:29 am

Your point is well taken. My thinking is that a first year law student with a fire in his or her belly will take such a case pro bono with no intention of winning. This person will make a name for themselves and the makers of this equipment will scramble to make amends to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars. The craziness has to end. It is worse driving to work in daylight and avoiding distracted drivers than it is trying to drive on New Years' Eve and avoid drunk drivers. How many people have to get hurt before we wise up?

Regards

WC

Wildcat445
Member
Member

Number of posts : 4893
Registration date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Motorola man on Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 am

My comment wasn't intended to be argumentative Wildcat. The point that I was trying to convey is that people will do stupid things and try to blame somebody else when things go wrong, that's the nature of humans. It's impossible to make anything that is idiot proof, no matter how hard you try, the world will always come up with a better idiot. It's up to the user to use good judgement. When people maul themselves while misusing a product, they do try to sue. It happens all the time. "Do not put hands underneath lawnmower while it's running," seems like that would go without saying, but someone, somewhere has done it and tried to sue the manufacturer because they didn't warn him not to do it. Thus, there is now a ridiculous warning sticker on all lawnmowers. By putting warnings on their products, manufacturers haven't eliminated the potential for misuse, but they have warned the user and thereby have limited their liability when things go horribly wrong.
Motorola man
Motorola man
Member
Member

Number of posts : 370
Age : 45
Registration date : 2010-02-06

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by simplex1040 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:06 am

Most injury lawyers work on contingency basis and take a percentage of the winnings (if they win).

The "agreement" on devices is to protect the manufacturer. "you agreed not use this while driving but you did anyway not our fault"
I still think a lawyer could pierce this agreement if they wanted too.
simplex1040
simplex1040
Member
Member

Number of posts : 299
Registration date : 2008-03-14

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Wildcat445 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:23 pm

Motorola Man, I did not consider your post as argumentative, so all is good. Simplex has come pretty close to the mark. Can a lawyer pierce this warning? Having an engine that is overly powerful is one thing. What I am talking about are devices that cause a driver to divert their attention from the road, but are not absolutely necessary to the operation of the vehicle. People doing stupid things is not my point, either. What I was wondering about was product liability of manufacturers for offering and equipping motor vehicles with devices that are INTENDED to divert attention from the road, thereby potentially contributing to traffic accidents. Great discussion, guys. Thanks for all your input.

Regards

WC

Wildcat445
Member
Member

Number of posts : 4893
Registration date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Another "grumpy old guy" thread Empty Re: Another "grumpy old guy" thread

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum