Ford Lawsuit
Logistics Pro
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,952
Likes: 117
From: Upper Left Coast
Here in Florida, more people drive them into the water than flip them over. So why should they be designed for some accidents but not others? My point is when do we start being responsible for our own actions? How much longer can we blame others for our mistakes? <!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> _
We live in a society that teaches our young to not be responsible.......the legal system often blames the party that has the deepest pockets and worries more about Snail Darters, Polar Bears and Spotted Owls than real people........ God help us if the D's get hold of the White house and have the opportunity to appoint more Lefty Loonie Toonies to the Supreme Court ......you think it's bad now.....NO ONE will be responsible for anything. Corporations will be responsible for everything......And then.....WE will pay.
Now,
Having said all that......remembering that this is an Excursion thread, can someone please tell me if there's REALLY anything wrong with a 6.0L PS Excursion?
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
I hate to say it Ken, but I kind of agree with Pete on this one. While he's not always the most diplomatic about getting his points across, there certainly are a huge number of cases where government regulation has improved things. If I compare the safety level of today's cars as compared to my '65 Chevy, it's like night and day. No air bags, no energy absorbing steering column, door buttons that will depress and allow the door to come open during a roll over, a steel edged dashboard that will take your head off if you hit something and don't have your seat belt on (and it only came with 2), single master cylinder braking system as well as other things.
Government mandated safety, emissions and fuel mileage standards have resulted in much safer and efficient automobiles that have increased our chances of surviving a major crash. I know of several instances of Saturn automobiles that were in horrific head-on collisions that should have killed everyone in the car. Instead, the folks went to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.
Remember when the new clean-air standards first went into effect? The 1973 and particularly the 1974 automobiles were real dogs because of the poor performance with all the added emissions controls. Then technology caught up and catalytic converters were added and we started seeing performance increase. BUT, we had cleaner automobiles.
Vehicles keep getting safer and we see more folks surviving bad accidents. But, our big 'ol Excursions were exempted from the CAFE standards and from some of the safety standards because of their weight, size and class. None of us plan to have an accident, that's why they're "accidents". When they happen, we can only hope that there's some measure of protection engineered into the passenger cage of the automobile. The tops of our Excursions are notoriously flimsy and it's extremely easy to dent the top of one by just putting luggage on the rack. It's possible to design a little more structural support in the top to at least support the vehicle in a roll-over and the bean-counters at Ford elected to make the decision that it's cheaper to defend against lawsuits than to build enough safety into the vehicle to protect against a rollover.
Government mandated safety, emissions and fuel mileage standards have resulted in much safer and efficient automobiles that have increased our chances of surviving a major crash. I know of several instances of Saturn automobiles that were in horrific head-on collisions that should have killed everyone in the car. Instead, the folks went to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.
Remember when the new clean-air standards first went into effect? The 1973 and particularly the 1974 automobiles were real dogs because of the poor performance with all the added emissions controls. Then technology caught up and catalytic converters were added and we started seeing performance increase. BUT, we had cleaner automobiles.
Vehicles keep getting safer and we see more folks surviving bad accidents. But, our big 'ol Excursions were exempted from the CAFE standards and from some of the safety standards because of their weight, size and class. None of us plan to have an accident, that's why they're "accidents". When they happen, we can only hope that there's some measure of protection engineered into the passenger cage of the automobile. The tops of our Excursions are notoriously flimsy and it's extremely easy to dent the top of one by just putting luggage on the rack. It's possible to design a little more structural support in the top to at least support the vehicle in a roll-over and the bean-counters at Ford elected to make the decision that it's cheaper to defend against lawsuits than to build enough safety into the vehicle to protect against a rollover.
I still, however, believe that it is the market that dictated many of those things with the exception of emissions. Most of the safety items mandated now were already in cars previously. (Seatbelts, airbags, ABS etc. etc.) I think of Volvo. They were the leaders (real and perceived) in automobile safety and the safety minded people flocked to them. They, however, were ugly and boxy ("Boxy but SAFE"). A number of manufactures of cars that people liked to look at saw that people wanted a safe(r) vehicle and would pay for it so they began to put the same technology in their cars. The government didn't have to tell them to...their customers (potential) did!
Those government regulations don't make for better drivers. I would argue that they can actually make for WORSE drivers as they feel that they can survive anything. The old "I have 4WD so I can go anywhere" mindset. I would argue that 94% of the time "accidents" are brought on my operator error and the other 6% constitute equipment failure, unforeseen weather incidents and random Acts of God.
I can see, however, those regulations preventing Bif and Jethro from making a car out of scraps in their backyard and trying to sell it in the open market.
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 7
You are missing the point - we arent here to "get along" - we come here to see what we can learn. Thank heaven I discovered this forum BEFORE I bought my EX - invaluable info. helped me get the right used vehicle under the right circumstances (fully 110% guaranteed no matter what till 2011..!)
A N D
this forum enabled me to know what to do with its miserable handling to turn it into a very adequate tow vehicle - which is what I bought it for.
Actually, I think we DO agree - in many cases govt. sticking its nose into things...., all kinds of reasonds why they meddle - - just to exert power, justify budgets, etc...has done a lot of damage.
But on the other hand, REGULATED RESPONSIBLE capitalism, in which COMPETENT govt people with REAS. regs. have brought us safer products.
Ford apparently IS learning to make better products. Of COURSE we cant expect an automobile to provide the water integrity of a submarine.
However, since other mfgs. have established a sane precedent for roll over standards and fuel tank security, i have no problem with a mfg. facing both angry govt. regulators and smart lawyers, who force them to get things right.
A N D
this forum enabled me to know what to do with its miserable handling to turn it into a very adequate tow vehicle - which is what I bought it for.
Actually, I think we DO agree - in many cases govt. sticking its nose into things...., all kinds of reasonds why they meddle - - just to exert power, justify budgets, etc...has done a lot of damage.
But on the other hand, REGULATED RESPONSIBLE capitalism, in which COMPETENT govt people with REAS. regs. have brought us safer products.
Ford apparently IS learning to make better products. Of COURSE we cant expect an automobile to provide the water integrity of a submarine.
However, since other mfgs. have established a sane precedent for roll over standards and fuel tank security, i have no problem with a mfg. facing both angry govt. regulators and smart lawyers, who force them to get things right.
Senior User
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: UK , Florida or Ebay ;)
correct
it comes down to covering your own ***.
Ford say wear a seatbelt (likewise does the law) but if they dont tell you to do so, and you have an accident ,and hurt yourself ,you can blame them. . . .
in my X it says that its likely to tip over on corners (in the user manual & on the sun visor) i've been told . . . so i'm shafted if i roll it over , i can only blame myself for turning in too quick.
down to the driver at the end of the day.
otherwise if the accident was the fault of another vehicle , then fair dues,get what you can from them as it was not your fault (or Fords)
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
Cross-Country
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 73
Likes: 6
For what its worth, I have been on a couple of excursion rollovers at freeway speed and they held up well. As an excursion owner I checked the trucks out well after we got all the people trasnported. i was pleased by the integrety.
AJ
AJ
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 7
So glad to hurt you came out o.k. A "couple" of roll-overs" ? How about telling us some details and circumstances so we can see what we can learn ?
I VERY STRONGLY disagree with your last two sentences. I think it is VERY bad policy to tell people what you did in those two sentences. For your info., the info. is overwhelming in favor of the conclusion that Ford failed miserably to design roll-ver roof integrity into their vehicles. Of COURSE no manufacture wins any prizes for safety-consciousness, but in this particular area, most other mfg's vehicles offer MUCH more protection.
I dont know what you thought you learned - most of us, judging by the posts, have seen the various "sites" confirming that Ford SUV's have a MUCH greater incidence of roof failure than other maker's similar vehicles.
Bottom line - defensive driving is a partial solution - drive it like you drive a motorcyle - meaning you approach every intersection with the assumption some guy WANTS to run his red light or stop-sign so he can "get" you.
Thread Starter
|
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,632
Likes: 4
I hate it when people misquote Rodney King. Watch the tape again.....
He said.... "Ca... ca.... can...... can't... can't we all get a wong?"
He said.... "Ca... ca.... can...... can't... can't we all get a wong?"
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 244
Likes: 1
Wow! I just love these types of debates. It just shows that everyone has their own opinions about right and wrong. I love the diversity and how relatively respectful everyone is to others with different views.
I think this thread has gotten far away from the point. The agent was injured on the job while driving a vehicle supplied to him by his employer. He was not driving his personal vehicle and the vehicle he was driving was not designed as a pursuit vehicle, but as a utility truck.
The suit is between him and his employer for unsafe working conditions and inadequate safety equipment.
The mindset of "sue everyone, especially if they have deep pockets", is the problem in our society.
The border patrol should have been buying trucks that are better suited for the task, like Ford's line of SSV (Special Service Vehicles) fleet vehicles that include trucks designed for pursuit. However, the cost of a plain utility F250 versus a pursuit truck are substantial and I'm willing to bet it was simply a cost saving measure on the part of the Border Patrol.
Had the agent been off duty, driving his personal truck and suffered the same injuries, he then has the right to sue Ford. But chances are he would not have rolled over his personal vehicle at slow speeds had he not been responding to a law enforcement situation.
Doug
I think this thread has gotten far away from the point. The agent was injured on the job while driving a vehicle supplied to him by his employer. He was not driving his personal vehicle and the vehicle he was driving was not designed as a pursuit vehicle, but as a utility truck.
The suit is between him and his employer for unsafe working conditions and inadequate safety equipment.
The mindset of "sue everyone, especially if they have deep pockets", is the problem in our society.
The border patrol should have been buying trucks that are better suited for the task, like Ford's line of SSV (Special Service Vehicles) fleet vehicles that include trucks designed for pursuit. However, the cost of a plain utility F250 versus a pursuit truck are substantial and I'm willing to bet it was simply a cost saving measure on the part of the Border Patrol.
Had the agent been off duty, driving his personal truck and suffered the same injuries, he then has the right to sue Ford. But chances are he would not have rolled over his personal vehicle at slow speeds had he not been responding to a law enforcement situation.
Doug
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Here's one that seemed to fare pretty well in a rollover . . . . .
eBay Motors: Ford : Excursion (item 330268359939 end time Sep-11-08 12:04:48 PDT)
eBay Motors: Ford : Excursion (item 330268359939 end time Sep-11-08 12:04:48 PDT)
Thread Starter
|
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,632
Likes: 4
Or a broken neck. Or spinal injuries at best. Which is what this thread is about to begin with.
I'm with you, I don't think that Excursion did well at all.
I'm with you, I don't think that Excursion did well at all.
