People like this are a menace to society, because they don't understand how to balance costs against benefits. In the meantime, soft legislators give in to their life-is-priceless rhetoric and make beneficial technology unaffordable to more and more people.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_re_us/safety_crusader

Instead of spening more money on making the car smarter, why don't we spend money on making people smarter than rocks. Ran over 91 people while backing up, well, that's not the car or the car company's fault, that's just because of people's ineptitude. And 23 children strangled by the window? What the hell were they sticking their heads out the window for? And what were their parents doing at the time? Instead of making super smart cars and such, we should work on making super smart people.

In Europe new standards are going into effect soon, if they're not there already, regarding making the front of cars "soft" (relatively speaking) so that when pedestrians get hit their injuries won't be as bad. Is this a major problem? 20 years from now babies will probably have to sleep naked on concrete slabs with a pump forcing oxygen into their lungs to prevent suffocation.

I'm sick of the price of everything I buy getting more expensive because of the need to protect a small number of complete idiots. I'm waiting for some politician to come out and say what everyone's afraid to admit - there is a certain cost in lives associated with every activity and only when that balance becomes too far out of whack do we need to take action.

I see people dying by this sort of stupidity as a strengthening of the gene pool. If you are dumb enough to drink sulfuric acid maybe you shouldn't be alive.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I see people dying by this sort of stupidity as a strengthening of the gene pool. If you are dumb enough to drink sulfuric acid maybe you shouldn't be alive.

Or we should create a sulfuric acid that comes pre-mixed with a base so that it's completely harmless!

Safety rules have gone nuts because this society is full of litigiouis basket cases. Fall down in any store ... Kmart, Lowes, WalMart, and collect $5000., minimum. Watch folks on a store camera intentionally walk through temporary gates set up across aisles, into the aisle while motorized lifting equipment is being used to place pallets of .... bathtubs, window A/C units, TVs, whatever .. onto a shelf hoping to get hurt. It's' lunacy. Wonder why you're paying more for everyday goods?? That's certainly part of it.
Ask the auotmotive folks about safety costs. Egads! Seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, crush zones, fire retardant, etc. That's only covering a tiny portion of the cost. The safety rules governing a factory come in a series of books that probably weigh 200 pounds, in paperback. And that's only scratching the surface ... go talk to the tire guys, while you're at it.
Yeah, people have to accept much more responsibility for their own behaviors. Sure, if the store, factory, whatever is clearly at fault, then they get to pay the piper. If, however, the facility can show clear evidence of personal misbehavior, or complete stupidity, then the individual should bear that responsibility. Scary, huh?

I can understand safety precausions for certain things. Such as seat belts, air bags, et cetera. That's because if you get into an accident that's not your fault, and get harmed because of poor car design, that is entirely the car company's fault. Safety should be in place to keep others from hurting you, but not from hurting yourself. Most car safety standards make sense, they aren't under your control, it wouldn't be through your stupidity when you get hit and fly out the window because there's no seat belt. However, it would be through your own stupidity to strangle yourself with the window. And even in stores, if the floor is wet because they cleaned it and they didn't put a sign there, if you sliped and fell, that's quite their fault. But as said before, if it's through your stupidity... maybe it would be best that it's a life ending scenario.

Originally posted by es347fan
Safety rules have gone nuts because this society is full of litigiouis basket cases. Fall down in any store ... Kmart, Lowes, WalMart, and collect $5000., minimum. Watch folks on a store camera inteitinoally walk through temporary gates set up across aisles, into the aisle while motorized lifting equipment is being used to place pallets of .... bathtubs, window A/C units, TVs, whatever .. onto a shelf hoping to get hurt. It's' lunacy. Wonder why you're paying more for everyday goods?? That's certainly part of it.
Ask the auotmotive folks about safety costs. Egads! Seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, crush zones, fire retardant, etc. That's only covering a tiny portion of the cost. The safety rules governing a factory come in a series of books that probably weigh 200 pounds, in paperback. And that's only scratching the surface ... go talk to the tire guys, while you're at it.
Yeah, people have to accept much more responsibility for their own behaviors. Sure, if the store, factory, whatever is clearly at fault, then they get to pay the piper. If, however, the facility can show clear evidence of personal misbehavior, or complete stupidity, then the individual should bear that responsibility. Scary, huh?

Blah, blah, blah, blame the lawyers and the system. It's funny you people never have anything to back up this claim...at least nothing more than the biannual case where the jury awards a multimillion dollar verdict. Of course, the real story in cases like that is that an appellate court usually cuts the jury verdict down to a reasonable amount. Very rarely do I hear people like you criticize anything on a case-by-case basis. And if someone caused you injury, you know you'd be the first to call your lawyer, because, without the lawyer, whoever injured you would probably say "Go f*ck yourself."

Your idea of personal responsibility is already built in the law; It's known as "assumption of the risk." Negligence can also be attributed to the plaintiff...

The classic example is the McDonald's coffee case. Everyone who knows nothing other than the surface reporting in the news thinks this was a legal travesty. But here are the real facts about the McDonald's coffee case http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

As for car safety, it's the legislative branch, not the judicial, typically behind these safety features.

I have some proof. Watch TV. It is packed with lawer commercials.

"Have you been hurt in any way at all? You may be entitled to money! Call now and get the money you deserve. We dont get paid unless you do. Call Dewey Cheatum and Howe right now!"

"They got me 50,000 dollars, and I was driving drunk in a graveyard!"

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I have some proof. Watch TV. It is packed with lawer commercials.

"Have you been hurt in any way at all? You may be entitled to money! Call now and get the money you deserve. We dont get paid unless you do. Call Dewey Cheatum and Howe right now!"

"They got me 50,000 dollars, and I was driving drunk in a graveyard!"

That in no way demonstrates that the people who got hurt didn't deserve compensation.

But when the judicial branch says things like "This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill" when Ms. Liebeck spilled coffee on herself, then society has justification believing that everything bad that happens is someone else's fault. People have begun to expect for companies to cover for their mistakes, and companies are essentially forced to make every feature dummy proof.

And that's why I believe you are wrong when you say this:

As for car safety, it's the legislative branch, not the judicial, typically behind these safety features.

Originally posted by Karankawa
But when the judicial branch says things like "This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill" when Ms. Liebeck spilled coffee on herself, then society has justification believing that everything bad that happens is someone else's fault. People have begun to expect for companies to cover for their mistakes, and companies are essentially forced to make every feature dummy proof.

And that's why I believe you are wrong when you say this:

Have you never spilled a drink on yourself? Don't you think serving a dangerous object to people who think they're getting a relatively safe product is an irresponsible thing to do?

For instance, let's say someone sold you a car that blew up every time it got into an accident without telling you about the hazard. Don't you think the automaker would bear some responsability if your spouse got into what should have been a moderate accident, but ended up burning to death in a fiery explosion?

Let's clarify your analogy first, because your example is not specific enough in the context that you put it. If you had specified that I caused the accident, your analogy would be semi-fair. But ONLY if I caused the accident. For when I spill my drink, it is my fault, and I can control whether or not I spill the drink. Same deal on an accident that I caused.

I would also like to point out that having hot coffee is very desirable to most people, while having a car that explodes is not.

Now in both scenarios, you have an accident that is your own fault. The primary blame should be on yourself.

The point I am trying to make is that primary blame is lying elsewhere, rather than on the person who should be taking the primary blame. Did that make sense?

Originally posted by Leper
Have you never spilled a drink on yourself? Don't you think serving a dangerous object to people who think they're getting a relatively safe product is an irresponsible thing to do?

For instance, let's say someone sold you a car that blew up every time it got into an accident without telling you about the hazard. Don't you think the automaker would bear some responsability if your spouse got into what should have been a moderate accident, but ended up burning to death in a fiery explosion?

Leper - I agree with you that products should be safe and that they should work the way they are intended without causing harm to us. But I also am a strong proponant of "survival of the fittest". In other words, people who are too stupid to realize that they shouldn't use a blow dryer in the bathtub or an old rikety chair as a car jack are doing us all a favor by dieing. Thay aren't passing on their stupidity genes. Ever hear of the darwin awards? Some people are just too dumb to live and life has a way of weeding them out. It's a natural process.

Heh, I was just realizing, Leper, that you seem to be taking both sides of the "Safety Nuts" stand. You started this thread complaining about legislation that could be passed forcing cars to be safer. And then you come back to say that Mc Donald's should be making cooler coffee.

I'm very confused about which side you are arguing.

When you get in a car, you assume two things. That you are in the capacity to drive it well, and that it is of a well enough make that something it does will not harm you. If a car explodes on contact and you are killed, yes it is your fault that you got into the accident, but it is also their fault that the car would explode in something that would have been rather minor. SAME with hot coffee, as it was stated the coffee was at a temperature of 180 degrees, that is hot enough to leave third degree burns a matter of a few seconds. THAT is McDonald's fault. You spilled it, but if it was normal coffee, you would merely of been cursing for a few seconds and then everything would be fine. You assume that it is of a safe temperature to drink, a perfectly logical assumption. And if McDonalds does not inform you that it is not, it is their fault if it harms you. It is flat out stupid to blame the individual when the company could have done some logical safety procedures first. Humans naturally assume things, it's important to our survival in many cases, and if a company doesn't take that into account, then they are the ones at most fault.

The fact that is being overlooked here tonight is that people desire hot coffee.....

From my years and years of observing coffee drinkers, they would rather take the risk of burning themselves then drink coffee that is not hot enough.

Ahem, standard coffee is at 120 to 150 degrees. 150 degrees will scald you a little bit, but will generally cool before any serious damage is caused. McDonalds had their coffee at 180 degrees. That causes third degree burns in a matter of seconds. Third degree burns often require a doctor visit and cannot be treated very easily. Third degree burns also leave permanent scaring and leave the skin very very raw for weeks. 180 degrees is not a safe temperature in any manner of thinking. McDonalds knew that.

Anybody ever hear of the 80/20 rule?

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.

People don't give a shit if the coffee is 150 or 180. They want it to taste good, fresh and HOT. And for a couple of people to sue just because they spilled their coffee, which is primarily their fault, is not right.

Let me repeat this again when you drink coffee, you assume that it is actually safe. 180 degrees is not safe in any means of the imagination. 180 degrees could cause the inside of your throat to bubble. 180 degrees causes debilitating injuries. Who's fault is it that it is at an unsafe temperature? McDonalds. McDonalds shoulders some of the blame, you are placing your life in their hands quite literally. You are assuming that what you eat there will not kill you, that it will not harm you. That is their their responsibility. If you read more than just that small section you would see that McDonalds knew what the consequences were of those actions, and they didn't care. "Optimum taste" my ass, I'm quite sure the coffe would taste just fine at 130 to 150 degrees.

ah, but here it is. She didn't drink it, she spilled it. If she drank it, ok, sue the clown. But since she spilled it, thats stupidity, and the clown can go off and scare children like MJ.

I used to work at Mc Donald's when I was a teen, and the fact was that at the time, coffee makers that they used were exactly the same as the ones that people had at their houses, or that other restaraunts used. The coffee was poured through a disposable filter into a pitcher that sat on a hot burner. If the coffee sat a long time, it burned, just like at your house. People didn't care (and STILL DONT) if the coffee was 150 or 180 or 200. If coffee is too hot, people can tell and they wait for it to cool a little. It doesn't take that long.

For someone to get sued for making a hot drink hot is just as foolish as it is for gun makers to sued for making a gun that kills.

And THAT, my friends, is a much better analogy than the "car exploding" bit.

You guys do realize the temperature of boiling water is 212, don't you? People boil water for hot tea all the time....

Originally posted by Karankawa
Heh, I was just realizing, Leper, that you seem to be taking both sides of the "Safety Nuts" stand. You started this thread complaining about legislation that could be passed forcing cars to be safer. And then you come back to say that Mc Donald's should be making cooler coffee.

I'm very confused about which side you are arguing.

I recognize a difference between negligently-produced products and unnecessarily safe products. In my original post, I criticize the failure to recognize costs versus benefits.

In essense, some safety features are worth the costs, some are not.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I used to work at Mc Donald's when I was a teen, and the fact was that at the time, coffee makers that they used were exactly the same as the ones that people had at their houses, or that other restaraunts used. The coffee was poured through a disposable filter into a pitcher that sat on a hot burner. If the coffee sat a long time, it burned, just like at your house. People didn't care (and STILL DONT) if the coffee was 150 or 180 or 200. If coffee is too hot, people can tell and they wait for it to cool a little. It doesn't take that long.

For someone to get sued for making a hot drink hot is just as foolish as it is for gun makers to sued for making a gun that kills.

And THAT, my friends, is a much better analogy than the "car exploding" bit.

The difference between the gun that kills and the coffee that causes third degree burns is that the consumer is aware that the gun will kill and is unaware that the coffee is going to severely burn you if you spill it. In the case of the coffee, everyone knows spilling the coffee will burn you a little (since, let's face it, everyone spills drinks now and then....but I seriously doubt any of you have suffered 3rd degree burns from it), but it is completely unexpected that spilling the coffee is going to burn your genitals off and send you to the emergency room.

Originally posted by Echo2
Leper - I agree with you that products should be safe and that they should work the way they are intended without causing harm to us. But I also am a strong proponant of "survival of the fittest". In other words, people who are too stupid to realize that they shouldn't use a blow dryer in the bathtub or an old rikety chair as a car jack are doing us all a favor by dieing. Thay aren't passing on their stupidity genes. Ever hear of the darwin awards? Some people are just too dumb to live and life has a way of weeding them out. It's a natural process.

Hey, you're talking to the most prevalent Darwinist on this board. I agree with you in that I have no sympathy for people who do things that are both unnaturally stupid and harmful to themselves (such as getting strangled by a car window).

Yeah, those stupid-ass 4 year-olds! :)

now when i was 4 i wasnt sticking forkes into wall sockets. I wasn't playing with pitbulls. Even at a young age there is still some resemblence to common sense and a will to survive.

Ummm, then you must of been a pretty smart 4-year-old.

What makes you say that, OD?? Have you nightmarish memories of calamaties?

In the case of the coffee, everyone knows spilling the coffee will burn you a little (since, let's face it, everyone spills drinks now and then....but I seriously doubt any of you have suffered 3rd degree burns from it), but it is completely unexpected that spilling the coffee is going to burn your genitals off and send you to the emergency room.

So the next time I get my tea kettle out and boil water and then spill it on myself, I get to file a lawsuit on the tea kettle company for allowing the water to go over 150 degrees, right??

Horseshit!

EDIT: Everyone knows that coffee, hot tea, hot chocolate, etc. is often served burning hot. Spilling it on yourself when no one caused you to spill it, is NOT someone else's fault!

I agree, Karankawa.

Originally posted by Karankawa
So the next time I get my tea kettle out and boil water and then spill it on myself, I get to file a lawsuit on the tea kettle company for allowing the water to go over 150 degrees, right??

Horseshit!

EDIT: Everyone knows that coffee, hot tea, hot chocolate, etc. is often served burning hot. Spilling it on yourself when no one caused you to spill it, is NOT someone else's fault!

Your analogy indicates a failure to understand where the irresponsability lies. The answer to your question is "No, because you know the water is boiling and you are serving yourself." You see, knowing of a risk and assuming the risk is different from someone presenting a risk to you that you are not aware of.

You see, coffee is not normally served at boiling temperatures, a fact to which McDonald's own experts testified. And just in case this isn't well established, there is a big difference between "burning hot" and "scalding hot".

Either way, you can at least admit that the decision isn't a failure of the legal system since half the people on this board agree, and the most informed people in the nation, the jury, agreed with the verdict.

Furthermore, this decision is good for society, since serving coffee at 155 degree versus 180-190 degrees will save many people from serious injury at no cost to McDonald's (in fact, it should save them money in electric bills).

It was a stupid and frivolous lawsuit that was filed to make a quick buck. The jury should have had one message for the plaintiff and the ambulance chaser she retained as her injury attorney: coffee's hot, morons, so don't spill it on yourself, or you'll get f**king burned. To argue over the actual temperature of the coffee was purely a smoke-in-mirrors tactic employed by the conniving shyster she hired. If you're driving while talking on your cell phone and you get into a wreck, is it acceptable to sue Motorola, Nokia, LG, Siemens, Sony, Samsung, Sanyo, etc? When does the responsibility for a screw-up actually fall onto the shoulders of individuals guilty of doing so in the first place?