OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

Wrong. It tipped up dangerously, so CR decided to try it on a shorter course.

Totally false. I suggest you read the issue. It may be a library near you.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker
Loading thread data ...

But it is still an uncontrolled self-selected sample of a self-selected sample.

If you think that is somehow valid, you aren't even competent to read statistics, let alone comment on the validity of other's methods.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Reply to
Marc

If they did this because they are incompetent (their preferred defense), then there is no problem. If they did this because they wanted to see the Samurai fail, then they violated law.

Since there is an outcome within the facts posted by you (you and I can not know what the reason was, only that CR claims it was "research" and Suzuki claims "malice") that results in a breach of law, it is quite proper to have the disagreement heard in court. Any less would infringe on the rights of Suzuki.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Reply to
Marc

If CR presents their case in court the way you just did on their behalf, I would hope they lose in court. If you found out that a teacher saw a student that was having trouble, then followed the student around to se what he was studying and picked what he didn't study to cover on the next test in order to fail that student, would you guess that there had to be some malice involved? Or would you think that it was just healthy exercise of trimming the bell curve?

According to you, Suzuki was singled out by CR and CR decided that Suzuki should fail, then proceeded to expend effort specifically to the goal of causing Suzuki to fail. At best, they are grossly incompetent (which is what they are expected to claim in court). At worst, they acted out of malice, which makes it a breach of law.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Reply to
Marc

How about this list instead?

USA England Japan Germany ...

I bet India would come in ahead of the U.S. in a fair survey.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

It's not quite that simple. They ran it through their normal tests and cound not repeat their staff member's bonehead move. Ie - it passed normal driving tests which they applied to all vehicles on their several mile test drive/track.

Then they decided to make the maneuvers more and more severe until the short wheelbase was overtaxed. I've heard of people rolling Wranglers as well by doing stupid things. The other 99.999% of us could drive them all day long and not suffer so much as a hickup.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Testing a car to see if it is safe enuf to be on the market is not the same as testing a student to see if he know's his "ABC's". If you don't understand the difference you should not serve on any jury.

(which is

Reply to
Art Begun

Their defense will be as follows:

  1. The test results are accurate. (They are not incompetent as you have stated.)
  2. Even if the test results aren't accurate, their publication of inaccurate results was not malicious.

amendment" scare

defense),

Reply to
Art Begun

Since when does CR determine what is safe to be on the road? Why does CR get to decide that a vehicle is unsafe and create a test with a judgement critera that it would fail? (this is using your defense of CR btw)

As an engineer who is experienced in having the product he designs tested, I know a little about how this is supposed to be done. There will be a set test and critera that needs to be passed. This critera is developed from past experience or a well thought out process. The FMA process can also lead to things to test. In any case there is a set critera.

For example, it's decided that the worst current a switch will see plus a safety margin is 30amps. The switch will then be tested to 30 amps. The switch must not fail or be damaged if it is carrying 30 amps. If the switch melts at 25amps it's a failure, if it melts at 33 amps it passes.

What isn't done is to take the switch, find out it melts at 33amps then set the passing grade at 35amps.

As far as this topic is concerned, CR's test is hopelessly flawed since tipping and fliping are the only modes that generate a failing grade. Sliding out of control is passing. I dunno about you, but I think a vehicle that tips but stays controlable at a higher speed is safer than one that slides out of control at a lower speed. *shrug*

Reply to
Brent P

And if while testing ABCs you mix in a foreign language does it affect the results?

Who set CR up as the arbiter of what is or is not safe?

Reply to
Brandon Sommerville

But are they relevant?

No, but putting *UNSAFE* across the top of their magazine could easily be construed as such.

Reply to
Brandon Sommerville

That's my point, the question has an expected result based upon the choices given.

Reply to
Brent P

Tautological testing. Design a test specifically to cause a specific vehicle to fail it in a specific manner, then when that vehicle fails that test, proclaim it unsafe because it failed the test.

Starting with a desired result and working backwards to generate the question that'll get that result is known as "junk science".

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Yes, kind of like global warming... :-)

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

It's simmilar to their bumper nonsense. If the law says 2.5mph, then

5 mph, while the old standard, is not valid to go on about incessantly.

You don't like the regulations(which the Samurai passed perfectly well), then petition to change them.

I can guarantee the engineers at Suzuki know ten times over every possible failure mode for their vehicles. If they say it passes and is safe, then while it may not be the *safest* possible design, it's not up to CR to second guess the regulations.

Exactly what happened, and likely what Suzuki will argue.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

You can decide that too and publish that decision if you want. It's called "freedom of the press."

A vehicle that slides, still on all 4 wheels, is more controllable than one on

2 or 0 wheels.
Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Not a legal question.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

CR has repeatedly, and NHTSA is finally going to do dynamic roll-over tests.

BTW, there were no roll-over regulations except for roof strength.

Is that why Suzuki internal documents cautioned against including in ads any pictures of the vehicle up on 2 wheels?

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

It is if the test in question is irrelevant to the vehicles road safety.

Reply to
Brandon Sommerville

I'm sure the Suzuki knows more about their cars than Consumer Reports, just as you said. But Suzuki does not publish comparisons of different make cars. Consumer Reports does. If they want to check to see how much damage happens to a bumper at 5 mph even though current bumpers are only required to protect the car somewhat at 2.5, all the better for people looking for a car with superior bumpers. Those cars will sell more copies which is the American way.

defense

incessantly.

critera

Reply to
Art Begun

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.