I am an accident victum. I am a talking dummy. I expect some injury from
any sudden stop. In the crash my dakota assorped a lot of enery and I will
be surprised if an expert finds the design or manufacture was defective.
However I always wear a seat belt and shoulder harness because if an
unexplained event happens I expect the protection provided. the seat belt
kept me from putting large bloody dents in the glove box door. This is one
of the only parts that is salvageable. The shoulder harness did not keep
me from the car interior. I had all the bruises from the shoulder harness
as if I had been restrained back in the seat. I credit the trend in auto
safety design for minimizing my injuries.
I also am an engineer. I know when you find one bad part in a radom
sample {which is what we want crashes to be ] you will probably find more
when you survey and check the entire population . That means other folks
who haven't crash tested their shoulder harnesses may have their level of
confidenece lowered.
I am looking for interest groups or lawyers who would like to see or
test my 92 DAK.
It might interest people to know that I did buy another 96 DAK. It has
been tested by an expert and I believe the passenger side harness is ok
----------
> From: Craig Baltzer <Craig.Baltzer@Anjura.COM>
> To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
> Subject: RE: DML: shoulder harness failure
> Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 2:11 AM
>
> 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 - 12:08:56 EDT