Chris,
This is true, to a point, and I do not suggest that a company is
without responsibility for its products. But, in this case, the company
that is stuck with the recall issue is not the company that built the
vehicles. And, since the point of this all is that it's a safety issue,
an owner concerned about safety of his passenger and himself should have
swapped out the belts years ago. Retractors are not essential, they're
simply conveniences. Having working belts is essential.
Recall bulletin #J85/z/K is reproduced in Norman Nock's book, TechTalk.
Dated September 1985, it describes how the retractors are sensitive to
rapid movement of the belts (as properly they should be) and notes that
some owners tended to pull out the belts faster than the sensitive
mechanisms permit. One questions that this is, indeed, a fault. The
point is made that some owners do not use the very safety item that was
provided for them.
So one asks, where is there a "fault"? Have these been recalled not
because they did not work, but because they worked too well? Was this a
recall based on actual deficiencies in operation of the safety device?
At this time it is difficult to say. My experience with the belts is
that they funtioned exactly as MG said in the bulletin that they would.
That they were more sensitive and protective of my bony body than the
belts in my other vehicles I always assumed was a good thing. Had I not
felt that way, they would have been replaced immediately. And, yes, they
have been replaced since, as I do believe that 20+ year old webbing has
lost much of its strength.
Bob
On Sat, 22 May 1999 10:12:11 -0400 (EDT) mkris@sprynet.com writes:
>Bob-
>IMHO, there was a reason why the seatbelts were recalled: safety.
>Simply put
>it is the responsibility of the company to send safe products into the
>
>marketplace. Obviously, this was not the case with these seatbelt
>retractors and
>therefore they were ordered to replace them by the Federal government.
>This is a
>problem for which responsiblity has already been assigned. Not to
>enforce this
>responsiblity, allows this company to escape its responsiblity ans
>sets a bad
>precedent for other companies.
>
>If the company was required to replace the seatbelts, then they
>should.
>Otherwise a simple cost benefit analysis would dictate every company
>send unsafe
>items into the market, and only replace the smallest mumber of units,
>thereby
>increasing profit at the expense of consumer safety. As it is,
>companies bank on
>a low recall number and time.
>
>MGs are on the road longer than most automobiles, few are junked.
>
>On Sat, 22 May 1999, Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com> wrote:
>>Chris,
>> Please explain to me why a class action suit would be worthwhile.
>> Twenty years have passed since these seat belt units were to be
>>replaced.
>> In any recall, few owners respond to notification from the
>>manufacturer.
>> Belts age and should be replaced because of time. The recall is
>about
>>retractors that would have reached the end of their normal life by
>now.
>>Responsible owners do this as maintenance.
>> What benefit would accrue, and to whom, for a third, fourth, fifth,
>>sixth owner of a car to harass a company by means of a suit, a
>company
>>that did not manufacture or import these vehicles?
>> Is this in the best interest of getting MG to return to the US
>market?
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> > Hi
>>>> > I am one of the lurkers that read all, but usually don't have
>much
>>>to offer in
>>>> > advice. However; I read with interest about the seatbelt recall
>>>and that there
>>>> > was some firm that was apparently supposed to oversee it
>>>completed. It seems
>>>> > that everyone that has written has had a problem getting them,
>if
>>>they got them
>>>> > at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am an attorney and a new MG guy. Perhaps a class action can be
>
>>>brought on
>>>> > behalf of the MG owners to get the price of new ones from that
>>>company. If you
>>>> > have any information, I will look into it.
>>>> > Chris
>>>> > 1977 MGB
>>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
|