I'll put the question back, why do you try and make this 'rosy, rosy'
and asume that Chrysler only produced "one bad Dakota"? Even if we all
"hope for the best" and there are "good" Dakotas to go along with the
"bad" Dakota we've already seen in the crash test, it matters not as
there is no way to sort "good from bad". If Chrysler comes out and says
"we looked at the crashed vehicle and yes we found some bad welds and
we've checked the line and it was just a "Monday" truck and we'll recall
everything for a look see and fix whats necessary" then that would be
something, but they never will because of concerns over liability.
Having a truck that is unreliable (breaks down, etc.) is one thing, and
having one that might cause me to die in a crash is another thing
entirely.
My point is that while it might be "scientifically interesting" to crash
a bunch of trucks, and if you were really "scientifically inclined"
maybe crash a whole bunch, and try to get the percentage that failed to
average out to a low number under some statistical circumstances
(something like "we observed 0% failure, with plus or minus 5%
certainty, 19 times out of 20"), but the fact remains that the truck
that was crash tested failed miserably, and that could have been my
truck. In the days of mechanized assembly (and considering that the line
has been running for quite some time now) the odds on getting bad welds
(or any other assembly problem) causing those kinds of intrusions would
be pretty odd. More likely the crush design of the truck is "less than
optimal". Good thing there are all those small cars out there for us Dak
drivers to slam into, otherwise we'd be in pretty bad shape...
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Skeptic X [mailto:SkepticX@negia.net]
Sent: June 9, 1998 6:06 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: shoulder harness failure
<snip>
Why is it that you can so easily see the negative side, but can't
recognize
the positive? Sure, if you get a "bad" Dakota you can expect problems.
That's an inherent risk with buying any vehicle. If you buy a "good"
Dakota
though, you can expect to have fewer problems (and there's no reliable
way
I'm aware of to figure that out ahead of time). You can understand that
as
well--no?
As far as the lack of repetition in the 40mph off-set crash test; it IS
a
scientific draw-back, whether you'd rather see it as a black and white
issue
or not. Perhaps there is a problem with Dakotas and head injuries at
40mph
off-set collisions--probably so, according to the indications of the
test.
But one test of a randomly selected vehicle is shoddy science. Sure, the
TEST conditions are controlled, but suppose the Dakota used for the test
had
a few critical welds that weren't properly done? and what if it had a
few
critical welds that were OVERdone for some reason, and therefore
stronger
than average? The results of a single trial aren't very reliable. We may
have a smaller problem in a collision than the test indicates, we may
have a
larger one, or the test may have been nominal. Unless more Dakotas are
tested we simply won't know.
Yes, it IS important to do such things scientifically in order to
acquire
reliable results.
Skeptic X
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:55 EDT