OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

If they did this because they are incompetent (their preferred defense),
then there is no problem. If they did this because they wanted to see the
Samurai fail, then they violated law.

Since there is an outcome within the facts posted by you (you and I can not
know what the reason was, only that CR claims it was "research" and Suzuki
claims "malice") that results in a breach of law, it is quite proper to
have the disagreement heard in court. Any less would infringe on the
rights of Suzuki.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

If CR presents their case in court the way you just did on their behalf, I
would hope they lose in court. If you found out that a teacher saw a
student that was having trouble, then followed the student around to se
what he was studying and picked what he didn't study to cover on the next
test in order to fail that student, would you guess that there had to be
some malice involved? Or would you think that it was just healthy exercise
of trimming the bell curve?

According to you, Suzuki was singled out by CR and CR decided that Suzuki
should fail, then proceeded to expend effort specifically to the goal of
causing Suzuki to fail. At best, they are grossly incompetent (which is
what they are expected to claim in court). At worst, they acted out of
malice, which makes it a breach of law.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

How about this list instead?

USA
England
Japan
Germany
....

I bet India would come in ahead of the U.S. in a fair survey.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

It's not quite that simple. They ran it through their normal tests and
cound not repeat their staff member's bonehead move. Ie - it passed normal
driving tests which they applied to all vehicles on their several mile
test drive/track.

Then they decided to make the maneuvers more and more severe until the
short wheelbase was overtaxed. I've heard of people rolling Wranglers
as well by doing stupid things. The other 99.999% of us could drive them
all day long and not suffer so much as a hickup.

 

Testing a car to see if it is safe enuf to be on the market is not the
same as testing a student to see if he know's his "ABC's". If you
don't understand the difference you should not serve on any jury.

 

Their defense will be as follows:

1. The test results are accurate. (They are not incompetent as you
have stated.)
2. Even if the test results aren't accurate, their publication of
inaccurate results was not malicious.

 

Since when does CR determine what is safe to be on the road?
Why does CR get to decide that a vehicle is unsafe and create a test with
a judgement critera that it would fail? (this is using your defense
of CR btw)

As an engineer who is experienced in having the product he designs
tested, I know a little about how this is supposed to be done. There
will be a set test and critera that needs to be passed. This critera
is developed from past experience or a well thought out process. The
FMA process can also lead to things to test. In any case there is a
set critera.

For example, it's decided that the worst current a switch will see plus
a safety margin is 30amps. The switch will then be tested to 30 amps.
The switch must not fail or be damaged if it is carrying 30 amps. If
the switch melts at 25amps it's a failure, if it melts at 33 amps it
passes.

What isn't done is to take the switch, find out it melts at 33amps then
set the passing grade at 35amps.


As far as this topic is concerned, CR's test is hopelessly flawed since
tipping and fliping are the only modes that generate a failing grade.
Sliding out of control is passing. I dunno about you, but I think
a vehicle that tips but stays controlable at a higher speed is safer
than one that slides out of control at a lower speed. *shrug*

 

And if while testing ABCs you mix in a foreign language does it affect
the results?

Who set CR up as the arbiter of what is or is not safe?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

But are they relevant?

No, but putting *UNSAFE* across the top of their magazine could easily
be construed as such.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

That's my point, the question has an expected result based upon
the choices given.

 

Tautological testing. Design a test specifically to cause a specific
vehicle to fail it in a specific manner, then when that vehicle fails that
test, proclaim it unsafe because it failed the test.

Starting with a desired result and working backwards to generate the
question that'll get that result is known as "junk science".

DS

 

Yes, kind of like global warming...


Matt

 

It's simmilar to their bumper nonsense. If the law says 2.5mph, then
5 mph, while the old standard, is not valid to go on about incessantly.

You don't like the regulations(which the Samurai passed perfectly well),
then petition to change them.

I can guarantee the engineers at Suzuki know ten times over every possible
failure mode for their vehicles. If they say it passes and is safe, then
while it may not be the *safest* possible design, it's not up to CR to second
guess the regulations.

Exactly what happened, and likely what Suzuki will argue.

 

You can decide that too and publish that decision if you want. It's called
"freedom of the press."

A vehicle that slides, still on all 4 wheels, is more controllable than one on
2 or 0 wheels.

 

Not a legal question.

 

It is if the test in question is irrelevant to the vehicles road
safety.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

I'm sure the Suzuki knows more about their cars than Consumer Reports,
just as you said. But Suzuki does not publish comparisons of
different make cars. Consumer Reports does. If they want to check to
see how much damage happens to a bumper at 5 mph even though current
bumpers are only required to protect the car somewhat at 2.5, all the
better for people looking for a car with superior bumpers. Those cars
will sell more copies which is the American way.

 

The subscribers who pay to get their test results and opinions every
month.... that's who.

 

Suppose one of their employees bought one of those crappy blue
headlight bulbs you are always complaining about and Consumer Reports
realized it had no tests for headlight bulbs and started to design
one. First step would be to experiment with those crappy blue bulbs
and compare them to OEM bulbs. Doesn't sound like junk science to
me.