Dumass car makers!!

Freakin' activists are at it again...

formatting link
The power window doing Darwin's dirty work could be fixed easily and WITHOUT auto-reverse*.

All they have to do is adapt the Pull-up-to-raise type switches like MAzda and Mitsubishi's ... in fact Ford seems to have had them on a few past models.

WHY does Ford keep letting this stuff go on until they have to spend big money?

I can hear it now...

"Uh... if we put them in now, we might set ourselves up for litigation on previous models citing defacto admission of dangerous features previously installed."

That being the lawyers, of course; they'd rather let it ride and get the BIG litigation bucks later.

  • imagine the window probs on older cars if they had ANY kind of auto- reverse!
Reply to
Backyard Mechanic
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Thomas Moats

Thomas Moats opined in news:utCcnTU8i4 snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

And not just kids....

But that's where intuitive learning and Darwin rules come in.

Point being the automakers need to be picking their battles... it's stupid to not be proactive on the switches.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

Reply to
Thomas Moats

I don't like gizmos like that anyway, but I think those dumbass tree-huggers need a good shooting in the face.

Reply to
Cory Dunkle

Thomas Moats opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Well, sorta... the complaint is that 3-5 year olds were leaning out windows and putting knees on the window switches and strangling themselves..

Dont ask me why the keys were left on

The switch being easy to modify as per the Mitsu (pull up) type.. it's stupid to keep the rocker type.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

never...ever...understimate the ingenuity of complete morons....For every way that you can think of how something can be screwed up..they will find of 10 more ways you didn't.....

Other words..fool proof, goof proof, etc. don't exist. :)

Stephan

Reply to
Stephan Rose

at 20 Aug 2003, J Alex [ snipped-for-privacy@nospamx.info] wrote in news:vdP0b.16523$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

In Europe a few years back I believe it became mandatory to have pressure sensors on power windows just because of the kid accidents. So the technology should be readily available. I believe the method used is the same as the 'pressure sensitive' method used on garage door openers. But I believe they stop rather than move back. I'd have to call my dad and have him check his new car to see what it does...

Reply to
Paul

The sad part is not just the people injured, but the stupid parents who are too busy to keep an eye on their children when they're in the car. My children are in their 30's now and neither of them was ever hurt by a closing door or an electric window while they were living with me. Of course, I didn't have a cell phone, pager, PDA, or notebook to distract me when I was getting the kids ready for a trip. Of course, that's just my opinion- I may be wrong (to quote Dennis Miller). Tom F.

Reply to
Tom F.

"Tom F." wrote

Sure, parents are ultimately responsible. But we like it if our products our designed such that a fatality doesn't occur if we're inattentive for 4 minutes. I'd equate it to child-locks on the back doors. Just a good idea. I don't think any engineers would disagree with the statement that designing a product to be as low-risk as possible is good engineering.

Reply to
J Alex

Low risk as possible means to put that above cost, usuability, reliability, manufacturability, etc.

Everything is a balance, it's just where is the line going to be. What is going to be weighted more or less than something else. It's one aspect of design people don't seem to get. Each has their own little pet desire that they put in front of other considerations.

For instance, crash regulations vs. fuel economy. Generally incompatible as the structure to protect occupants has weight and that weight lowers fuel economy. It has to be a balance.

Reply to
Brent P

I figured it was a given that the statement was understood as "as low risk as possible within the design requirements". Especially since in this particular case, the cost to make the windows safe is negligible.

Reply to
J Alex

"Mike King" wrote

Well, crank-starts weren't defective, but I'm glad we have electronic ignition.... It doesn't have to be defective to be designed better.

I agree that parents should be more watchful. But I also think that if a potentially dangerous situation can be designed away at little or no cost, it should be.

Reply to
J Alex

Is there a reason you crossposted this or do you really want all the flamers from the Ford group over here?

As for what you are saying I agree. It would behoove the car makers to be proactive and build in the safety at the design stage when it is the cheapest part of the job rather than " hoping to get away with it" and end up retrofitting a million cars and pay huge lawsuit settlements on top of that.

As for the admission of "dangerous features previously

detergent sold that way for decades! StuK

Reply to
Stuart&Janet

That is what I thought. Think of this. Would you leave a child in the car with the engine off and the windows rolled up on a hot summers day? Of course you would not, why? Well read the papers on any given summers day and you will see just that scenario resulting in a dead or near dead child. Now who's fault is that? the parents or the manufactures because there is not a placard in the car telling you not to do that? Point is, no child should be left unattended in a vehicle with or with out the keys in the ignition. If power windows were not the issue then being locked in would be. If being locked in were not the issue then it would be the hot metal of the safety buckles burning little hands. Children do not belong in a vehicle by them selves no matter what the situation period.

I'll bet that child was unsupervised. So you should be asking why was that child allowed to be in that situation?

I feel it stupid to have to have warning placards, special switches, and anything like that to avoid a injury because of someone's stupidity. It aint just happening in cars, look at hair dryers for example.

Reply to
Thomas Moats

A shunt in series with the window drive motor. The voltage across the shunt is directly proportional to motor current which is directly proportional to motor effort. This voltage could be used to stop or reverse the motor at a predetermined point. Of course, this doesn't address the parental issue. And, this issue differs substantially from your garage door example: there's no key or operator license required to operate a garage door.

Reply to
Zip Disk

There is nothing wrong with the switch, it's design is just fine.

It's funny. People complain about too much government interference. Yet by this statement, that is exactly what you want.

Reply to
Thomas Moats

"Thomas Moats" wrote

And if, for no cost, the manufacturer could add a feature that would turn on ventilation if movement was detected inside a hot car, why shouldn't they? Seems like the responsible thing to do, and really, it's one of the benefits of technology - that is, making it harder for people to make serious mistakes.

Of course they don't. But the point is that people leave them there sometimes. And if a small design change will keep them safer, then it would be a poor engineer who didn't make the change.

Reply to
J Alex

"Thomas Moats" wrote

Who's talking about government interference? I thought we were talking about Ford making their vehicle safer.

Reply to
J Alex

Let's just make the windows non operable, that would be cheap, easy, and safer. If you need air just turn on the A/C. That would be a small design change and be the safest solution to the problem. You see the direction this "safety" engineering could be heading. I can see the government stepping in and telling us what we want, 390 bhp is dangerous and unnecessary when 80 bhp will do the job and be more efficient. Wait, you don't even need a car, they're dangerous so use public transportation. Where does it stop?

Reply to
Mike King

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.