Consumer Reports

In article , snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.net says...>

Perhaps if the arms were not balanced...if Suzuki (and GM) had any case to make, why didn't they do it the Federal circuit court & appeals court trials? Why didn't any of the decisions go AGAINST CR?

Well now, are you sure what was upheld is what you think was upheld?

In the US, the right to publish an opinion with the absence of malice is pretty much sacred thanks to the first amendment. As long as CR published their results and conclusion as an opinion and without malice, the chances of legal redress are vanishingly small.

My point being that just because Suzuki tried for eight years to get a retraction printed doesn't automatically mean that CR's test methods were scientifically valid. More likely is that they fell into the realm of protected speech.

There are a number of reasons why Suzuki might persue a lost cause of fighting the CR remarks. Loss of face and a big wallet come immediately to mind. Believing that they could prove malice might be another.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I've seen plenty of advertising by GM in AutoWeek. But AW is still willing to say what they feel. Here's one on the Hummer H3 (5 sp manual tested):

"One oddity: The foot-activated emergency brake is pure lunacy, especially in an off-roader like this where one could conceivably have the truck hanging on a mountainside. Last time I checked, I only have two feet."

An interesting thought, although all the Ford and GM trucks I have driven at work have foot-activated parking brakes (and all but my most recent F350 SD had bench seats... no place for a hand brake).

We have some very challenging roads to our mountaintop communication sites. I haven't hung one off a mountainside, but a co-worker did a couple years ago. Funny thing is that under those conditions the truck is high-centered... either the front or rear wheels are off the ground and the undercarriage is jammed on the ground so parking brakes really don't matter. If you want all the wheels not to turn, just turn off the engine - it's already in 4-low, right?

Mike

I think the reference is to working the clutch from a steep uphill at a standstill. On some steep inclines, I've ended up using the handbrake while I modulate the gas and clutch. Especially if someone is riding me too closely and even sliding back 8 inches is cutting it too close. Just gas it up, while releasing the clutch and handbrake. Subaru's Hill Holder feature was supposed to make this procedure unnecessary. Is it still available? it's definitely not on my WRX.

I'm trying to imagine what this Hummer's layout looks like. I've never seen a manual transmission car with a foot- operated parking brake. That would be, what, four pedals?

I've always preferred to use the handbrake, but I also learned how to use my toe/heel of right foot on the brake and accelerator pedals. Not as easy, but works.

Ah - that makes more sense. Yep, steep slopes and a clutch are an exhilarating combination!

Yes - pretty standard in light trucks. (I'd never really thought about that before... it's sort of like becoming aware of your tongue!) The parking brake pedal is way against the kick panel and up high enough that it isn't mistaken for the clutch.

Mike

In article , y_p snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...> > Right..particularly if that car manufacturor

Charging them with having a foot-pedal

*parking* brake is hardly a scathing rebuke.

Any objections to the color of the gauge illumination?

That, plus the investigation revealed internal memos between Suzuki and GM (and within GM) that

*discussed* the instability of the design (including employee recommendations to NOT introduce the vehicle for sale in US due to it's instability), _prior_ to CU's independent discovery & reporting of same... honestly, it's difficult how anyone can come down against CU after looking at the facts.

So yeah...I'm sure of what was upheld, the accuracy of CU's charges that the vehicle was unsafe by design.

But you're missing my point. I'll try to make it clear. An opinion, provided it is not malicious, is *protected speech*. If you say "I think a Suzuki is unsafe", and you do not say it out of malice, your statement is protected by the 1st amendment. You might be sued, but you would prevail according to my understanding of constitutional law. YMMV in other countries than the US. Note that the burden of proof is to whether or not the statement was *malicious*, not whether or not it was *true*. If CU did the tests in good faith, regardless of whether the tests were accurate or not, they would prevail.

Maybe the Suzuki was unsafe. I'm not taking a position on that. Maybe CU's tests were valid. I'm not taking a position on that either. None of it matters if CU defended it's action under the 1st amendment freedom of speech and press.

If I had the time, I'd look up the case and read the specifics, but I don't. Maybe someday.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

This kind of a response could only come from an american.

===Snip===

I see your point, but it's irrelevant to the case. Suzuki/GM sued on the validity of CU's test methods--saying they were arbitrary, unscientific, and capricious--not to try to establish a landmark challenge to 1st Amendment rights. They lost, and they lost on appeal. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, hours of expert witness testimony, years and years of effort, and they lost...to a non-profit organization, that buys it's test samples they same way you and I do...at retail, anonymously.

"Freedom of speech" (or more accurately, expression) doesn't mean it won't come with penalties--most folks have heard that it doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Go to your local airport and say "I have a bomb" and see what results...tell the friendly security officers that you're utterance was protected under your understanding of constitutional law, and uttered without malice--if you can talk with his knee on your back.

Not to mention slander and libel laws...

But hey, them thar outriggers, they ain't scientifical now, are they?

I think I made it clear that it was a US issue. What's your point?

Our 1971 Ford Maverick had a hand brake with bench seats. It was a "T" handle under the dash that pulled out to set and turned 90 degrees to release.

Blair

Hill Holder on the 2005 Forester XS.

Yep, four pedals for the quadrupeds.

Blair

"A U.S. District Judge ruled that Suzuki failed to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that Consumer's Union acted with malice when they called the Samurai dangerously unsafe in a July, 1988 article, Reuters reports."

?id=n592 Sounds like a 1st amendment issue to me.