Really Disgusted With GM These Days

[76eldo]

I love my vintage Cadillacs but I am totally disgusted with GM.

If they came clean with this ignition switch problem in the first place they would have saved some lives.

My wife drove a Saturn Sky, many times with my daughter in the car.  Luckily her car didn't kill her by shutting off at a bad time, like making a left turn.

Someone should go to jail, and they are sickening by putting a "Mom" up there to take the heat in front of the cameras.

I have always been a huge GM supporter but I hope these is a Congressional investigation and some people go to jail for criminal negligence.  If they go bankrupt again, I wouldn't care.

Brian

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

G'day Brian,

Nearly all the car makers are guilty of putting profit before anything else.

The Ford Pinto comes to mind.

I have here stories of the makers deciding on how many deaths are acceptable against the total cost of a simple fix and the profit line.

Bruce.

[bcroe]

We rarely had that sort of problem when I started.  We built things so the customer would
always be glad he bought it.  If it cost a few more pennies, so be it.  My old ignition switches
never did (do) anything like that.  They said that for an extra half dollar the whole problem
would have been avoided.  And then SOMEONE decided to keep using them for years/lives!!!!!!!

Now I keep hearing about big exec bonuses because some pennies were saved.  Excuse me,
instead of looking for more pennies, how about improving the product?  Bean counters be
dammed.  Started to have some arguments with them before I retired, but managed never
to give in to them.  I sure would love to see some serious prison time for all these people
cheating at the top, thinking they can wiggle out if caught, "not admitting any blame". 
Bruce Roe

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

I have to think that the stories of the "bean counters" making or forcing these decisions is
pure nonsense.  It's just an easy way to excuse poor management, poor decision making
and all around stupidity.

I base this on my 40 years experience working for a major global company as a business
manager.  When it came to decisions about product design, liability, specifications, etc.
the buck stopped at my desk.  No bean counter (or anyone else) could influence that
decision.  They could offer advice and opinions but the final decision rested with me.
Either you are a manager or you are not.

That's as it should be -- and the lack of that accountability that allows and excuses such
decisions is one of GM's major problems.

Mike

[Ken Perry]

Well put guys,it is disgusting what they did ! I also hope some people go to prison ! And there is always judgement day!!! Ken Perry

[r thomas]

They should bring in the Managers from the last nine years, and put them on the hot seat. 

[Jon S]

I find it amazing how tons of paperwork were sent to Congress about the problem, but when asked questions about the materials sent, the GM CEO Mary Barra claims she has not had a chance to read the materials and no knowledge personally about the problem!  WHAT??? 

I have to say I'm not sure who takes the award for most dynamic - she or our new Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen.  Pretty sad.  I give my vote to Mary Barry as GM has killed many innocent people; Janet Yellen just screws many innocent people.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

Let's take a look at the raw data:

In 2007, the fatality rate was 1.5 per 100,000,000 (one hundred million) miles.

Approximately 800,000 vehicles were manufactured with the alleged "defective" ignition switch.

By the law of averages, that would mean 1.5 fatalities should have occurred every time each of the 800,000 cars had accumulated 125 miles (apiece). (800,000 cars x 125 miles per car = 100,000,000).

Now if the mileage accumulation of all vehicles averaged 50,000 miles per vehicle, that would translate to a fleet mileage total of 40 billion miles. 40 billion / 100 million = 400. 400 x 1.5 fatalities/100,000,000 miles = 600 fatalities expected for the aggregate number of miles driven.

Six hundred. We are talking six "alleged" fatalities here due to the "defect" during the same period. And consider some (or all) of those could have been averted by driver proficiency in the first place.

Just as some drivers are more proficient in driving in snow than others.

Snow & adverse road conditions played a far bigger role in the 600 fatalities than the alleged defective ignition switch could ever have played.

It is a simple fact of life that nothing is perfect, nor ever will be.

[Dan LeBlanc]

Let's take a look at the raw data:

In 2007, the fatality rate was 1.5 per 100,000,000 (one hundred million) miles.

Approximately 800,000 vehicles were manufactured with the alleged "defective" ignition switch.

By the law of averages, that would mean 1.5 fatalities should have occurred every time each of the 800,000 cars had accumulated 125 miles (apiece). (800,000 cars x 125 miles per car = 100,000,000).

Now if the mileage accumulation of all vehicles averaged 50,000 miles per vehicle, that would translate to a fleet mileage total of 40 billion miles. 40 billion / 100 million = 400. 400 x 1.5 fatalities/100,000,000 miles = 600 fatalities expected for the aggregate number of miles driven.

Six hundred. We are talking six "alleged" fatalities here due to the "defect" during the same period. And consider some (or all) of those could have been averted by driver proficiency in the first place.

Just as some drivers are more proficient in driving in snow than others.

Snow & adverse road conditions played a far bigger role in the 600 fatalities than the alleged defective ignition switch could ever have played.

It is a simple fact of life that nothing is perfect, nor ever will be.

What he said :p

[76eldo]

GM isn't disputing the fact that deaths occurred directly because of accidents caused by their failure to act on the faulty ignition switches.

To me that overrides mathematical equations on deaths per mile.

That logic reminds me of the allowable percentage of rat feces that's in certain foods.

GM used a mathematical formula based on what it would cost the fix the potential problem in millions of cars versus settling a dozen or so wrongful death lawsuits that may come up and chose the latter.

Sometimes you have to do what's right even though it could cost you a lot of money.

Brian

[txturbo]

It's all car manufacturers....not just GM. Driver proficiency is the biggest problem. I suppose if these same people ran out of gas and had an accident it would be GMs fault also. The result would be the same....motor shuts off and you lose power assist. It's amazing how many drivers on the road today don't have a clue what to do when something like this happens. I think it should be part of driver education before you can get a license. I can see it now....in the future people will get so use to back up sensors and crash avoidance technology that there will be lawsuits because they totally relied on the technology to warn them. It's impossible to completely build something totally idiot proof. Who would have thought people would hang a bunch of crap on a key chain anyway. The switches aren't designed to hang stuff on.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I'm not sure exactly of what GM has or has not admitted to - or whether the admittance was qualified.

I do know that questions had been raised in regards to the manner in which the vehicles were driven prior to being involved in the fatalities allegedly arising from the defective switch. Ie: Whether recklessly - at high speed in rough terrain with excessive weight attached to the key ring. 

A 99.9999999% safe car would probably cost millions of dollars to build. The question then becomes what level of marginal safety is the consumer is willing & able to pay for.

At any rate, I feel it unwise to make any firm judgments on the matter until all facts are in and fully supported.   

[Jay Friedman]

In addition, I have a problem with the way modern cars are constructed.  The fact that they are designed so that a loss of engine power for whatever reason means the car is rendered uncontrollable (loss of steering and brakes) and unsafe (loss of airbag deployment) is criminal in and of itself, regardless of whether it is due to a faulty ignition switch or anything else.  The car in question is a Cobalt, a small, light, inexpensive car.  I drove one once and in my opinion there is really no reason for it to have power steering and power brakes, not to speak of these units being totally inoperable when non-functional.  (Usually with power steering and power brakes you can still steer and brake, it just requires more effort.) 

My '49 Cadillac, a much bigger and heavier vehicle, does not have either of these, yet brake and steering operation is easy, even for my wife.  It once lost engine power at high speed on an interstate highway because the distributor rotor failed and I easily coasted to a stop on the right shoulder in no danger whatsoever.  Why have the manufacturers loaded up cars with so many gizmos, some of which are useful like air bags and others not, but the loss of which can be deadly if the car is not working correctly.  Let me add that the front of my '49's ignition switch where the key goes in is made of steel and I'm sure I could hit it with a hammer with no ill effect.

I disagree with Mike; I think the bean counters have taken over.  They look at the 50 cent cost of an item and multiply it by the number of cars affected (800,000 Cobalts multiplied by a 50 cent ignition switch fix = $400,000, for example) and before long you are talking about real money.     

[Jon S]

Bottom line, it's not the statistics, the cover-up, the foolishness not to install an improved designed lock . . . it's the arrogance and apparent stupidity being displayed.  There is no excuse for that!

[Big Apple Caddy]

This is unfortunate but I don't think GM's handling of it is necessarily unique.  Not to excuse it but there have been many large, questionably handled recalls going way way back that simply didn't get and couldn't have gotten the level of exposure, scrutiny, and reaction seen today thanks to many 24 hour news channels, the internet, etc.  This can be and is being debated on television and online with questionable "facts", partial "facts", assumptions, etc. in ways not possible until recent decades.  Many "warts" that have been around "forever" are simply being exposed more and more and treated as something new or unique, which in many case they aren't.  In reality, GM is perhaps no more "disgusting" these days than other times in its history.

I think this is also especially heightened due to the still controversial bailout of GM a few years ago.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I wonder how zealously it wound be reported if it had been proven that reckless driving had been even responsible for the fatalities in question - even partially.   

I also recall in the 1980s, 20/20 rigged demonstrations in order to prove GM truck fires by attaching flares to the fuel tanks ensuring that they would explode when smashed. This was done after numerous failed attempts of trying to get the trucks to explode by the collision alone. 

I assign very little credibility to a press more concerned with an agenda than the truth.

Again, I will refrain from advocating blame until all the facts are in.

[76eldo]

Eric,

The head of GM already admitted that there was a problem and that they mishandled the situation and that under her watch they will do "better" because "she is a mom too".

Brian

[Jay Friedman]

I agree with Big Apple that GM in not unique among large business enterprises in this regard and certainly no more "disgusting" now than in the past.  We old guys can remember in the '60s GM was in a similar situation with the Corvair. 

[Dan LeBlanc]

Ladies and Gentlemen

I think the point has been well discussed and clearly made. We can all see where this thread is going based on where it's been (and already impinging on the disparaging remarks rule).

With that said, I think we can put the thread to rest and continue to discuss what GM did right - the Cadillac automobile.