'Overzealous' regulations have dropped the death rate (per billion vehicle miles) from 49.2 in 1961 when the E-type was 1st released, down to 11.6 (2017) today.
Perhaps they weren't 'overzealous' after all, but instead very effective.
But shouldn't I be able to make that choice myself? I can buy a motorcycle, they're more dangerous than pretty much any car made in the last 50 years. People know they're dangerous, they buy them anyway. Why can't I buy an exempt class 4 wheeled car knowing it is likely more dangerous than a fully regulated modern car? I can still drive my existing nearly 30 year old car, why can't I buy a new one just like it? I call it overzealous because it takes that choice away from me, I don't need government regulations to protect me from myself.
Sounds to me people who exprress opinions like yours rarely know how skewed the situation is, they beleive the claptrap about 'tort reform' which is largely a complete fabrication, or aren't really taking into account HOW stupid or how greedy manufacturers can sometimes be. Or how devastating the effects of their bad decision making can be to large numbers of people who make purchase decisions that turn into nightmares for them and have no way to get justice.
(Also, keep in mind the astronomical rate of unintentional man-caused injuries in hospitals- now the third highest cause of death in the US.)
But first lets look at a hypothetical injury caused by a manufacturer defect and the ability of the family of somebody who was killed by it to get justice.
The laws are changing in favor of manufacturers because of the insane "law and economics movement" . What that means is that the chance people have of getting justice is much lower now than it was not long ago simply because of arguments like the one that the cost of fixing any mistake has to be weighed against the cost of paying off anybody who successfully sues and wins. (or more often than not because of subrogation clauses, Imagine this, somebody is injured by a known defect and is in a hospital and the cost is hundreds of dollars a day, but their health insurance company, and are about to be discharged, their family having no idea how they are going to pay for their care for the rest of their lives, after they have gone through a suit and spent their own money bringing the case, suddenly a hand reaches in and takes the money.)
Additionally, cases that in the past would bring a substantial settlement no longer do because of falling incomes for people in various demographic categories and new rules in how cases are disposed of. Lives are worth less and less. This is likely by design.
Falling incomes make the chance of every having to pay significant damage awards smaller and smaller because frankly, they are based on lost incomes and if the statistics say that somebody living in the victim's zip code is unlikely to earn much more in their lives after say 55 - well, lets just put it this way, in the US no matter how clear and damning the facts are no lawyer would take their case and without a lawyer on contingency hiring one will cost their bereaved family $300 an hour minimum.
Another common problem in seeking justice is subrogation clauses. What that means is the health insurance company that paid benefits out to treat their injury gets repaid out of any money won first.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
