Ron_H

Irishdriver said:

"You have the issue here in what you say: The buyer will test the limits. Either we handicap the vehicles and the roads to the point where the buyer cannot test the limits or we allow the buyer to chose and live with the results of a minority getting it wrong. "

and further:

"Can you expect car companies to build cars without limits? If not, the only discussion is how to educate drivers to respect limits - i.e. take responsibility."

Well put Irishdriver. Thank you.

Nick

Alex here it is.

http://members.rennlist.com/jandreas...fVDC-BOSCH.pdf

Irishdriver yet again you mischaracterize what I wrote.

I believe in driver responsibility AND I also believe in car manufacturer responsibility. No one is victimizing the car companies as you claim. They are doing it to themselves by selling a product they know will entice drivers to test the "edge" and some will make it and other will not.

Your right, car companies have made great strides in providing a wealth of safey technology in cars. So if that is the case, why not incorporate it in all their cars? If you allege that people should be free to buy what they want, that dog will not hunt especially in the area of driver safety.

If a car manufacturer wants to sell a high perf. car without available safety device then at a minimum they ought to qualify the purchaser or restrict the car use to track venues. We know for a fact people are buying many of these cars who are clueless regarding what these cars can do and have no idea about what limits are involving tires, car balance, power, braking and steering. It is a recipe for disaster.

Car manufacturer KNOW this! Yet they sell the car to make a profit and when bad things happen they plead personal reponsibilty. It is like a dope dealer selling 10 lines of cocaine on a table and if the addict dies from a over dose the dealer claiming it is the addict responsibility to monitor his/her intake.

BTW, if you do not think the analogy is apt, think again. Speed is an addiction for all of us.

38D

So why am I allowed to buy a circut breaker at Home Depot? I am not an electrian, so clearly that is dangerous. How about buying Liquid Plumber? If I drink the whole bottle, I will die...maybe they should make the opening so small I can't drink it fast. I guess you think that the 80 year old that won all those millions from McDs for burning her poon was justified

In my opinion, you're view is everything that is wrong with America. You want to blame someone when a person Fs up and kills themself. Well, sometimes stuff just happens.

jeff522

Good point 38D.People have come to believe that anytime a bad outcome happens its someones falt so long as they have money to pay.Personal responsibility in our socity has gone the way of the dodo brid.If your fat its not because you eat enought for three people and never get off the couch,it's because evil restaurants make you buy food loaded with fat.It tast so good driping in all that grease once you start you can't stop.Even after you've gaineed 100 pounds.They just keep making you come in there and buy that food and eat it.The bastards.If you cut your hand off reaching under your running lawnmower its there falt.After all there was no warning saying not to.Who would have thought that a device used to cut grass while running could hurt your hand if placed it in the path of the blade.I don't no about you but untill that warning(caused by multipul lawsuits)I was without a clue.There needs to be a limit.I dought if even a very small % of drivers can handle there cars at max levels of performance.Its easy to see the"dumb down" effect.I'm not talking Vetts,Porsche,Lambos.I talking about Kia Hyundai,and,Buick.All have drives which can not controll the car at speed.If they don't have every electronic saftey device and some one is hurt or killed is the car at falt?I wonder if the attorney didn't stand to get a large portion of the award,if any action would have been taken?For sometime they got 1/3,but now some take 50% plus certain expenses.That's the real crime in all of this,the large scale profit from the suffering of others.All done under the pretense of protecting the rights of others.

roberga

I look forward to the day when Honda feels compelled to require classes on how to use their lawn mowers so morons do not cut their fingers off and their piece of Sh87t lawyers finds ways to waist everyones time. My wife was involved with a case where someone (not her)picked up the lawn mower to trim the top of his boxwoods. OOPs .... nobody told me not to do that so it must be the fault of Sears and the makers of the mower. It can not be that I am an idiot. As long as there is money in it,t his kind of BS will never end. The only solution is to make sure you carry enough insurance to protect yourself from the scavengers and expect to pay more for aeverything you buy.

N51

Even the slow moving wood tick can latch onto a host. That's all that is happening here. I'd rather be hearing from CGT owners and their personal enjoyment of an extraordinary car.

Noah

Crazy Canuck

You are comparing a highly respected automobile manufacturer to an illegal drug dealer? You are a scavanging lawyer.

Please Nick, just go away and never return.

Bob Rouleau

Nick - what about alcoholics? Do we water down the booze? Here, a group of people have filed an action against the government lottery agency claiming that video gambling terminals have turned them into uncontrollable gamblers. They blame the government for causing them financial harm. This is yet another example of this new age thinking .. someone else is always to blame for our own mistakes.

It is wrong.

Ron_H

Let's not forget the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers. Cities are seeking to hold them responsible for a criminal's use of an illegally acquired firearm. ****. That is all it is. Are bathtub manufacturers responsible for someone drowning in a bathtub? How about suing God for causing us to have a bad day?

pcar964

I'm still waiting to see someone sue their ex-boyfriend/girlfriend for causing emotional distress by breaking up with them.

38D

Bathtub manufacurers should be sued for drug related deaths...they know full well their product is used in the production of illegal drugs

Crazy Canuck

Here's a few more from a website where Nick must've learned his high calibre critical thinking skills.

http://www.overlawyered.com/personal_responsibility/

Nick

Your name is perfect!

Tell me, is Canada taking money for the tobacco litigation? Just about every state in the US is (as most of you will state) "Extorting" money from the Tobacco companies. This after everyone was warned that Tobacco can be hazardous to your health and governmental warnings on the packages.

Do you all plan on sending the money back?

1AS

Re frivolous suits:
Things get crazy when you get to extremes. Water is essential, but you can't drink 2 gallons of it.
Everybody grows up drinking it, and it doesn't come with instructions, or a warning.
But, when someone heats it to 200 degrees and hands it to you, they are supposed to warn you that it's unusually hot, which is where McDonalds got into trouble. Their standard, as well as everyone else's is 160 degrees. So when an elderly woman scaleded her cooter (medical term), she sued and rightfully won. It was not "overlawyering" in that case, but a mistaken business purpose on the part of the restaurant (McDonald's wanted to keep the coffee hot longer, therefore served it scaldingly hot). The issue would not have been resolved without the suit.
Because some suits are frivelous, doesn't mean all are. As a doctor, I've seen many of both kinds. If any of you swapped identities with Cory, you might not think the suit was in the same league as some of the stupid ones cited.
The CGT issue isn't that drivers no longer have responsibility for their actions. The issue will be the design and final suspension tuning of the car creating a risk (loss of control and death) that exceeds the reasonable expectation of the end user. (like buying wate hotter than you were expecting)
Coffee at 160 degrees can be sold thru a drive up window. Coffee at 190 degrees cannot, at least without warning.
My point has consistently been that CGT performance pushes very hard against the boundaries defined by the skills of the ordinary driver. It is analagous to a surprisingly hot cup of coffee, that is very easy to spill. (you can sell water to anybody, but not boiling water)
Time will tell if the lawsuit is frivolous. My expectation is that it will not be. This problem was predictable, and could have been ameliorated by education, tuning or electronics. I suspect Porsche will not be able to mount a successful defense, because each decision led to a car that could be unexpectedly hard to handle by a normal, untrained, affluent, enthusuast.
This is being said by someone who loves cars that are hard to handle. But as I said earlier, I was deterred by a concern that I would be the one to back all that carbon fiber into a barrier. If you haven't come up thru the world of high perfromance mid-engined cars, this arguement may be hard to accept. After you get caught in your first unexpected spin, this will make more sense. 600 hp, high compression, engine in the middle, with a small wing and a car tuned for "sporty" handling-ie oversteer, merits some extra concern, especially when you want to sell lots of them.
If we disagree, then that's okay. AS

W8MM

Here's where we part company, AS.

How, exactly, do you come by this information?

Your characterization is far from accurate in the case of all three of the Carrera GTs that I have driven on a track.

If this is your premise, your entire argument is flawed. Merely repeating it over and over won't make it true.