• janelin avatar janelin Posted: 1/5/2012 2:53am PST

    Controversy such as this is bad for the car industries because it could give a whole new headache with a pain scale of 10 to an industry already tired of government mandates, forced recalls and unending litigation. Morever, the issue exhibited above is not the only controversy exposed by an auto industry because a Woman sues Honda in small claims court. Have you heard about it? The woman in Los Angeles disgruntled with fuel mileage claims made by Honda took a fresh approach to take the car maker to small claims court. She has dropped out of a proposed class-action suit to be able to go after the uniq

  • fb_1510606196 avatar Carl Posted: 2/25/2011 10:25am PST

    This was a tough one for me at Consumers Union. Aside from the slowness of NHTSA process of uddating the FMVSS 208 requirements, I argued that if other car makers were adopting a feature, then the others who recognized that value would do so prior to the Fed Reqmnt. BUT - middle-seat shoulder belt is a difficult design problem for several reasons.

  • Gary Posted: 2/25/2011 10:03am PST

    It is tragic when loss of life is involved, but from what read I don't believe Mazda was deliberate with avoiding a safety matter which would lead me to believe Mazda was negligent and therefore should NOT be at fault.
    On the contrary, Mazda clearly met the safety requirements at the time of manufacture of this particular 1993 minivan still being driven in 2002 when the accident occured. At what point are consumers held responsible for their own actions, such as driving a 10 year old vehicle and getting the safety devices/features of their vehicles routinely checked.
    Taking it further, imagine a 1965 Mustang in an accident and occupant(s) killed. I doubt we would believe Ford was at fault even though today we realize how unsafe those cars can be relative to the 2011 Mustang.

  • Gary Posted: 2/25/2011 10:02am PST

    It is tragic when loss of life is involved, but from what read I don't believe Mazda was deliberate with avoiding a safety matter which would lead me to believe Mazda was negligent and therefore should be at fault.
    On the contrary, Mazda clearly met the safety requirements at the time of manufacture of this particular 1993 minivan still being driven in 2002 when the accident occured. At what point are consumers held responsible for their own actions, such as driving a 10 year old vehicle and getting the safety devices/features of their vehicles routinely checked.
    Taking it further, imagine a 1965 Mustang in an accident and occupant(s) killed. I doubt we would believe Ford was at fault even though today we realize how unsafe those cars can be relative to the 2011 Mustang.