Is it ethical to produce ANY vehicle without seatbelts? The government still hadn't mandated shoulder belts as early as '73, so should GM recall ALL of those trucks that didn't have shoulder belts?

There's a limiting factor called junkyards.

 

Ford's Model T was produced without seatbelts. It was perfectly ethical at the time, as automobile safety technology was in it's infancy when the vehicle was produced. Would it be ethical to produce a vehicle in 2009 without seatbelts? Most would say no.

On the other hand, how do you justify not spending $5.08 per vehicle when your engineers know the gas tank always leaks when rear-ended at >25mph? (Particularly dangerous given that the doors are often inoperable after such collisions.)

How do you justify not spending $23.00 per vehicle when your engineers know the gas tank is likely to leak at side impacts as low at 15mph? I believe producing a vehicle with foreknowledge of an unreasonable life-threatening safety defect is unethical. I believe deliberately concealing details of such a life-threatening safety defect from potential buyers who will put their children in the vehicle is unethical. Extreme measures to conceal the foreknowledge from the NHTSA and the family's who's family members were burned alive due to those decisions: Unethical in my book.

Maybe you really think $5.08 per Pinto was not worth the lives of those who burned alive trapped in the back of the vehicles after rear-end collisions when the doors couldn't open and the gas was pouring out of the ruptured fuel tanks. If that's the case, I can only hope you aren't in charge of making any safety-related decisions with potential to result in hundreds or thousands of people being burned alive unnecessarily after relatively low impact collisions.

 

Building and driving cars are risky. You cannot make a perfectly safe vehicle no matter how much money you put into it. Do I think that marketing the Pinto and C/K were ethical? Given the cost structure and safety expectations and mandates at the time, sure I do. All auto manufacturers calculate the risk of catastrophic failure of the vehicle. They take those percentages and weigh the risk of fixing a relatively rare problem and not doing anything. Almost any collision with any vehicle can result in the leakage of flammable liquids, Pinto or not.

Now, turning that question around for today's market, is it ethical to market the Smart Fortwo in North America which has a higher percentage of larger vehicles on the road that'll crush it like a beer can? Sure, the car meets all applicable government safety standards, but if it meets an SUV at highway speeds, you're dead.

 

I saw one of those on the lot at a local used car dealer. I think I'd be safer driving a segway to work.

What's amazing is that it doesn't get that much better MPG than some of the traditional compact cars.

 

I saw a smart run into a concrete divider at 70 MPH on Top Gear. It held up really well.

The only problem what no crush space and the g load was enough to break the dummies neck. Other wise he was pretty unscaved.

I still would not want one of those thing.

On of the worth things in a crash is a Semi. The cabs cush like a beer can. If they go off their wheels you have a great chance of dying.

 

In my book, getting rear-ended at >25mph is not uncommon (unfortunately). It happened to me 10 years ago. Luckily I was in an Audi, not a Pinto. Since it's not uncommon, knowingly refusing to spend $5.08 per vehicle so the fuel tank wouldn't leak in such a case is something I consider unethical. Side impacts at 15mph are common as well, and Chrysler abandoned the design is because they knew it didn't meet then-current safety requirements. Given the extent GM went to conceal their foreknowledge of the defect, it looks like management already knew it would result in many wrongful deaths. Unfortunately, they set about trying to conceal foreknowledge instead of trying to correct them and compensate those who had already been injured and killed.

Good point about the Smart Fortwo, and the same issue with all motorcycles as well. They are produced and marketed. The difference is that it is reasonably obvious that the fundamental design of motorcycles offers very little protection, and the weight difference you noted. Since those issues are obvious, it doesn't involved concealing anything.

That's quite different from a defect which is not obvious to purchasers that is much more likely to lead to their deaths than similar products on the market. Juries felt in those cases that the deliberate indifference to unnecessary loss human lives warranted severe penalties.

 

Yeah, those Smart Cars have been up here for a while...until the Canadian law was changed just a few monhts ago, mind boggling how some late model Corvette and new gen Pontaic GTO's weren't allowed in this country due to the outdated bumper law, but these things, riding on 13" wheels and looking like they could be blown off the road by a strong cross wind, were perfectly legal.

 

They have to have the poorest aerodynamics of any vehicle on the road. And the ride must be horrendous with such a short wheelbase.

 

The truth is they are a city car and not ment for long distance driving. Around town they do the job. They ride and handle better than you think.

They even have ok room for people vs some cars.

But they cost too much, mileage is not as good as you woulld expect, they in my eyes are ugly. For the most if you wanted to good mileage and have some interior room the Aveo is a better option for about the same price.

This was a Euo car that just has not translated to our market well. It may be ok in New York or San Fran but just does not play well in open country.

 

Back on issue, I had the SS in for what turned out to be a engine flooding issue, and got my 5K mile service done.

I had the SS in after one month back in May to do an early oil change and asked about the brake issue, and they did a software reflash.

I asked them about it this time too (knowing full well from the info here that GM doesn't have a fix yet). They looked at it right away, as they said that when they tried to back it up after getting it fired up, they almost ran into the shop door thanks to non responsive brakes.

They came back to me and said there was a software flash they they preformed. I'm pretty sure its nothing more then the last one, and won't have solved the issue, but haven't yet tried it to see if it fixed anything.

Regardless, not sure what to do..its a safety issue that shouldn't be present on a car made in 2008. It does have an easy work around, but that's not the point, and that one time you forget or have an emergency and start up quick and back out of somewhere, and there's no brakes?

But what else do to? THe problem wasn't solved in May, and I could bring it back to the dealer everyday complaining about it if I really wanted to be a jerk...but a)I want to enjoy my car, that's great in most every other way, and b)Even if it spent 4 days a week at the shop, there's nothing that they could do for me anyway.

There's no "lemon" law here per se, plus, I guess in an extreme measure they could have GM Canada buy it back from me and tell me to pick something else up.

But I picked an SS specifically, and even though with all the discounts now offered, I could probably be not far off of a new CTS if they bought it back for what I paid for it, in the 1% chance that was even an option...but not the same as a 235hp (or 290hp) "2nd" car to commute in, good on gas, a blast to drive around town in.

Also, I'm torn about bringing the issue up only at every oil change...it hardly seems dire or concerning, if its a safety thing, to bring it up once every 3 monts, so I think I'll bring it back sooner or later if this latest flash doesn't come through. I think this dealer has only sold a handfull, at most, SS's, so they don't see this issue very much. Again, I don't think they can do much, but wothout wanting to be an idiot that wastes the dealers time and money, the message has to filter through the shop manager to regional mangers to higher up's at GM that this is an unacceptable issue...and keeping quiet about it isn't likely to solve anything.

Not wanting to come off as a crab, in this post or to the dealer, but there is a fine line between being a squeaky wheel that complains at everything, and in this case, being (overly) persistent about a potential safety issue. In this case, as I said, because this dealer doesn't see this issue very often, it may be worth being a PITA a bit so that they make sure these issues are communicated to GM and GM Canada like many in this thread have already done. Every voice helps, and I don't think there are too many voices here in my neck of the woods.

I'll get off the soapbox now. I don't want anything out of GM other then them coming up with a permanant fix for this issue. If they can't provide that, then they'd have to give me some other options. I guess as much as I like the SS, I have to decide if the work around is sufficeint, if it is, ok, if it isn't, I owe it to my expectant wife to have as safe a car as possible, even if its not the HHR SS I carefully selected for a variety of reasons in the first place.