Ya all did it to yourselves when you made bars "responsible" for drunk drivers. When you made owners "responsible" for what is done by others with their inanimate objects. When you made men "responsible" but gave women "choice".
Now the car companies are "responsible" for auto theft.
Just real tired of living in a world where somehow I am responsible (or everybody else is) for everybody else's actions and choices.
It's NEVER the thief or shooters fault, it is the fault of the guy who left his car or weapons unlocked. Never the doper-vandals fault for destroying something, the owner should have put it elsewhere. Never the taggers fault, it's the store that sold the paint. It's a VERY long list.
The world is ****ed in the head !!!
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-28-2023).]
Oh Boo-hoo! Poor little multi billion dollar corporations. It is so mean to make them be responsible citizens. We should go back to not having safety glass in cars or seat belts. Who cares if hundreds of thousands more people will be killed or horribly mutilated in car wrecks? We can't be mean to corporations just because it saves human lives. There profits are more important than human blood.
Oh Boo-hoo! Poor little multi billion dollar corporations. It is so mean to make them be responsible citizens. We should go back to not having safety glass in cars or seat belts. Who cares if hundreds of thousands more people will be killed or horribly mutilated in car wrecks? We can't be mean to corporations just because it saves human lives. There profits are more important than human blood.
Were you lefties born retarded, or did you have to work to get that way ??????
How about car owners just shoot thieves on sight or lethal-mantrap their own property ? Turn the drivers seat into an old sparky for the thief.
Problem solved and responsibility end up exactly where it belongs.....on the now-dead car thier that wont be stealing anybody elses ride. YES, a car IS worth more than the thief's life.
Some Aisian corporation is responsible for a Chicogan being a car thief ??????????
Some Aisian corporation is responsible for a Chicogan being a car thief ??????????
Argument from 50 years ago. . . "So some car company is responsible for people flying through razor sharp shards of glass when they wreck their car. If they just drove better there would be zero wrecks."
Argument from 100 years ago. . . "So some coal company is responsible for black lung and bad air killing hundreds of thousands of miners. Why don't they just get other jobs if they are so afraid of black lung and poison gas"
Argument from 150 years ago. . . "So some medicine company is responsible for people going blind and dying when they take this medicine? I don't see anyone forcing anyone to drink this stuff"
NEVER, ever, ever, ever pick on the people getting rich from human misery. That is just the beauty of how capitalism works.
Stupid argument fred…. I’m sure car companies set out to have people fly through shards of broken glass…seems like fun right ? Just put on a freakin nerf suit idiot.
Stupid argument fred…. I’m sure car companies set out to have people fly through shards of broken glass…seems like fun right ? Just put on a freakin nerf suit idiot.
Car companies fought hard against the requirement of safety glass. Claimed the injuries were not their fault for using non-safety glass that shatters and cause so much more damage to the human body.
Thankfully government regulations were put in place that have prevented millions of deaths and serious injuries.
Unfortunately some people still believe profits are more important than human suffering.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Unfortunately some people still believe profits are more important than human suffering.
Nope....some people still believe personal choice and freedom wins over "social responsibility"
If you dont like the risk of riding in cars without certain features it's very simple. Stay out of them (YOUR personal choice). If you dont like the risks associated with agressive flying, stay out of those kinds of planes. If you dont like the risk associated with motorcycles, dont ride them. If you dont like the risk of your Kia being stolen, buy something else.
You dont get to dictate to the rest of we have to abide by and finance YOUR safe-spaces ideals.
Nope....some people still believe personal choice and freedom wins over "social responsibility"
If you dont like the risk of riding in cars without certain features it's very simple. Stay out of them (YOUR personal choice). If you dont like the risks associated with agressive flying, stay out of those kinds of planes. If you dont like the risk associated with motorcycles, dont ride them. If you dont like the risk of your Kia being stolen, buy something else.
You dont get to dictate to the rest of we have to abide by and finance YOUR safe-spaces ideals.
The summary of the lawsuit that's been published by the office of Brandon Johnson, the 57th mayor of the city of Chicago and customarily addressed as "His Honor, the Mayor," emphasizes the risks and burdens that are borne by the inhabitants of Chicago, including risks and burdens that are incurred, but not because they are owners of these vehicles, or because they voluntarily elect to ride as passengers in these vehicles. This is the relevant wording:
quote
Moreover, offenders have used stolen Kia and Hyundai vehicles to commit other crimes, including reckless driving, armed robbery, and murder.
To borrow some of the language for the health hazards of cigarette smoke, these are "second-hand" effects of the alleged negligence by Kia and Hyundai in their not having included "industry-standard engine immobilizers" in these vehicles as standard equipment.
An online link to the summary of this lawsuit was duly posted by MidEngineManiac and customarily addressed as "MEM," when he inaugurated this topic by creating the Original Post or Post Zero, as I sometimes call it. That, obviously, is the very first message in this thread.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
Oh Boo-hoo! Poor little multi billion dollar corporations. It is so mean to make them be responsible citizens. We should go back to not having safety glass in cars or seat belts. Who cares if hundreds of thousands more people will be killed or horribly mutilated in car wrecks? We can't be mean to corporations just because it saves human lives. There profits are more important than human blood.
LOL, and here Fredtoast is conflating KIA, a company that's only been selling cars in America since the late 90s, with thousands of people being killed because of lack of safety glass and seat belts from the ~1950s. Not to mention that both of which (safety glass and seat belts) were invented and installed in cars first because of capitalism, well before they were regulated.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Thankfully government regulations were put in place that have prevented millions of deaths and serious injuries.
Unfortunately some people still believe profits are more important than human suffering.
Now do 'Big pHARMyA' and 'Big AddictYa'
Situation 1 Patient: I'd like for you to cut off my hands Doctor: obviously you're mentally ill and I'll recommend a colleague whom you'll pay $x,xxx.xx many times to treat you
Situation 2 Patient: I'd like for you to cut off my penis and testicles Doctor: you're so brave, let's schedule this (constant $$$ stream)
You're pathetic. Like your buddy whom adores fully automated luxury communism, where personal responsibility and actual thinking are a thing of the past.
To borrow some of the language for the health hazards of cigarette smoke, these are "second-hand" effects of the alleged negligence by Kia and Hyundai in their not having included "industry-standard engine immobilizers" in these vehicles as standard equipment.
An online link to the summary of this lawsuit was duly posted by MidEngineManiac and customarily addressed as "MEM," when he inaugurated this topic by creating the Original Post or Post Zero, as I sometimes call it. That, obviously, is the very first message in this thread.
<sigh>
Rinsey.....repeat after me.
Chicago's car thieves, or the damage they cause, are NOT Kia's problem to solve. Period. They are Chicago's.
Now keep repeating until the entire concept makes sense to you.
Then try to apply that concept elsewhere. The results might surprise you. You might even figure out Sony is not responsible for Playstation looting and Apple is not responsible for drug deals made over iPhones.
WOW !!!!!! WHAT an eye-opener.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-28-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: LOL, and here Fredtoast is conflating KIA, a company that's only been selling cars in America since the late 90s, with thousands of people being killed because of lack of safety glass and seat belts from the ~1950s. Not to mention that both of which (safety glass and seat belts) were invented and installed in cars first because of capitalism, well before they were regulated.
I'm not at all familiar with the history of safety glass. But I believe it's a fact that the car manufacturers did not provide seat belts as standard equipment in all models until it was mandated by the federal government. That changed the economics of seat belts from a relatively costly option that any buyer could select, to part of the price of every vehicle, and it reduced the price of seat belts on a per vehicle basis because of the economies of scale.
Vehicle buyers could no longer opt out, but that was equitable, because it was society as a whole that was seen as being unnecessarily burdened when there were vehicles on the road that did not have seat belts.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
I'm not at all familiar with the history of safety glass. But I believe it's a fact that the car manufacturers did not provide seat belts as standard equipment in all models until it was mandated by the federal government. That changed the economics of seat belts from a relatively costly option that any buyer could select, to part of the price of every vehicle, and it reduced the price of seat belts on a per vehicle basis because of the economies of scale.
Vehicle buyers could no longer opt out, but that was equitable, because it was society as a whole that was seen as being unnecessarily burdened when there were vehicles on the road that did not have seat belts.
I think you're intentionally shifting the argument here. Fred was essentially heaping half a century of automotive deaths on a car company that's only existed in America since the late 90s. I stated that both seat belts and safety glass were invented by private car companies, installed intentionally because it helped sell the cars, and were installed in many vehicles well before the government got involved and mandated it.
It seems you are trying to dance around that and reemphasizing that seat belts saves lives. No one has a problem with common sense regulation. I do have a problem with overly grandiose arguments.
Vehicle theft is not a safety issue. Although manufacturers certainly may offer antitheft features, it is not something that should be addressed in the FMVSS.
Theft prevention is within the purview of the police, i.e. the city. Chicago is just trying to unload their responsibility onto someone else. It is sleight of hand, “Hey, look over there!”
Kia could, however, offer a special Sorento Windy City Edition complete with running boards, bullet proof glass and a police scanner.
Chicago's car thieves, or the damage they cause, are NOT Kia's problem to solve. Period. They are Chicago's.
Now keep repeating until the entire concept makes sense to you.
I don't know if a lawsuit is the best course of action. Perhaps lobbying for a regulation would be better, but I will never favor corporate profit over human suffering.
Of course not. MEM is an anarchist and you are an authoritarian.
I am proud to be an "authoritarian" when it comes to corporate profits.
That is because I see the difference between "corporate profits" and "personal freedom". Fascism at the hands of corporations is just a repugnant as at the hands of a government.
And I can't understand people who are proud to value corporate profits over human suffering.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: OTOH, we are STRONGLY advocating solve your own fukin problems and stop trying to force others to do it for you.
Why do you support protecting car thieves?
Other car companies provide this option and it helps prevent/resolve thousands of car thefts each year. But as soon as car theives found out KIA and hyundai did not offer it they increased the targeting of those cars by 1500%.
All you are doing is squealing for the auto industry to intentional aid car thieves. You people are crazy. Playing up KIA as a victim instead of an accessory to auto theft.
Should we also do away with all fire code regulations because it is our responsibility to make sure our home does not burn down and the fire departments responsibility to p[ut out fires. Do away with all health department codes for restaurants because it is our responsibility to make sure our own food is safe and doctors responsibility to cure us of food poisoning?
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-29-2023).]
Should we also do away with all fire code regulations because it is our responsibility to make sure our home does not burn down and the fire departments responsibility to p[ut out fires. Do away with all health department codes for restaurants because it is our responsibility to make sure our own food is safe and doctors responsibility to cure us of food poisoning?
YUP !
I am aaaaaaallllllllllllll in favor of removing every-single-last warning label and letting Darwin sort things out.
And Freddy, when you ***** about the profit motive, you seem to be forgetting there is one and only one reason these jackwads are stealing cars. And it AINT to take granny to Sunday brunch.
And Freddy, when you ***** about the profit motive, you seem to be forgetting there is one and only one reason these jackwads are stealing cars. And it AINT to take granny to Sunday brunch.
I would expect the insurance company to want to compensate itself... but I blame this phenomenon more on viral social media more than anything else.
FIRST ... there are a lot of cars that, like the KIA / Hyundai, can be stolen in that same manner. But social media has picked the KIA... and so it becomes a thing that people specifically target. SECOND, I blame the local governments in these areas for not properly managing crime with their police force, but also creating the conditions that have led to unemployment and teens with nothing better to do with their time, and THIRD, I blame KIA for not (more) quickly trying to rectify this.
I mean, you could solve this really fast by signing an agreement with a GPS / vehicle tracking company, and including all cars with a GPS tracker that the user has access to. They're like $20 bucks a device, and the service is as cheap as $20 bucks a month... and I'm sure the company could work with them. Even if the car owner doesn't want it... the theif won't know if they have it activated or not...
And Freddy, when you ***** about the profit motive, you seem to be forgetting there is one and only one reason these jackwads are stealing cars. And it AINT to take granny to Sunday brunch.
I am against car thieves. You are the one supporting them.
One way [that Ontario] drivers can lower their [vehicle insurance] premiums or have the [vehicle insurance] surcharge removed is [by installing] an anti-theft device such as a steering wheel lock or tracking [device] in their [vehicle.]
So "it aint just Chicago," but it supports the "Liberal logic" of the people who are backing this lawsuit against the Korean automaker on behalf of the city of Chicago.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-30-2023).]
So "it aint just Chicago," but it supports the "Liberal logic" of the people who are backing this lawsuit against the Korean automaker on behalf of the city of Chicago.
You dont see a difference between the free consumer choice in Ontario (install a tracker, drive something else, pay the 500, switch insurance companies) and FORCING the manufacturer (and all consumers) to do it and pay for it for you ?
No difference at all ?
More liberal logic at work.
The kind of logic that resulted in us not having simple, cheap reliable cars anymore.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-30-2023).]
You dont see a difference between the free consumer choice in Ontario (install a tracker, drive something else, pay the 500, switch insurance companies) and FORCING the manufacturer (and all consumers) to do it and pay for it for you ?
No difference at all ?
More liberal logic at work.
The kind of logic that resulted in us not having simple, cheap reliable cars anymore.
"FORCING" the manufacturer?
If the city of Chicago's lawsuit prevails, the manufacturer will have a choice between providing satisfaction to the city of Chicago on this matter, or whatever their other option(s) would be. I don't know about their other options. Maybe they would choose to stop providing vehicles for the U.S. market that do not include an anti-theft immobilizer as standard equipment.
Unlike MidEngineManiac, I am not going to prejudge this lawsuit.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-30-2023).]
Thats really easy done if those 2 manufacturers have a brain between them.
Simple software/TOS update to "ban" the use of those vehicles inside the city of nutbars (ANY city of nutbars)......In compliance with the lawsuit
Then when allllllll those hundreds of thousands of customers start bitchin they cant use their cars in the city of Loonie-land, tell them to go sue the city. The manufacturer just complied.
aaannndddd FUUUCCCKKKKK YYYOOOUUUUUU city ! There is your G-D satisaction.
(Really ???? a city thinks they can dictate standards to the entire globe ??? or that a global manufacturer can be bother building special editions just for them ??? Entitled lefties are gettin dumber by the day)
Balls in their court. Deal with a few hundred car thieves, or deal with hundreds of thousands if irate consumers.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-30-2023).]
