You have that 100% completely backward. ANY lawyer worth their license would have advised Klaus against saying what it did.

You need to keep your preconceptions under control.

 

Yep, not fit for purpose - big heavy lifting machinery should have safety measures to prevent this. What if the driver had a 'fit/seizure' and fell accross the platform? Squish?

 

 

Hey, so how's that Volvo of yours? Lot of great safety features. Are you familiar with Volvo's Vision 2020 program? Their plan is that their cars will so designed and built that there will be zero fatalities in Volvo cars by that year. Very ambitious, but of course they invented the automotive seat belt. There was an interesting item in the paper this weekend that New Hampshire does not require the use of seat belts. Gives new meaning to the motto "Live Free or Die."

 

I don't and will never buy a car for the safety features; the US Government already mandates enough safety features. I suppose a mandated breathalyzer-ignition interlock is next. Actually, if the government would outlaw bad drivers from the roads, most safety features would not be necessary. We got the Volvo for comfort, performance, and storage space.
Once upon a time I had to ride manlifts to upper floors of the plant, even some ladders to high spaces. Both deadly, with no interlocks. Some training was required and you needed to keep your head in the game. Even if it were a person on that car lift, I would say he or she needed to know what he was doing before pushing any buttons. You cannot expect all hazards to be engineered away. Well maybe you can, but there is a cost for that. Goodness, you are willing to drive a car that will go more than 120 mph, much more of a hazard than a car lift.
Larry

 

You can't engineer all faults away, however learning from accidents should result in continuous safety improvements to make sure risk and danger is reduced. If we can reduce errors and therefore risk why wouldn't / shouldn't we? The aviation industry is a great example of this mindset.

In your example above, the workplace of the past is a pretty dangerous place. By "nannying" errors out of this hazardous environment peoples lives are saved.

 

ek993, I do not disagree that it can be done. But where do you draw the line? In the good old USA we like individual freedom and choice, which has diminished over the years. Lots of analysis out there on cost of a life and what should be spent to preclude a death. At the extreme, I would think banning motorcars would preserve more lives than probably anything else man could do. But then we would all have to live and work in an urban environment, not a cost we are willing to pay. I am simply saying that I do not necessarily believe that engineering a car elevator to preclude any possibility of damage or injury is the right solution. We take a risk every time we get in that beautiful car, statistically one of the greatest risks of our lives. I am not looking for agreement, really, just acceptance that I can ride my own horse.
Larry

 

Shouldn't that be: "Live Free & Die."?

 

 

"Run that by their attorney" is a plague on our society. Just like mandatory safety labels on everything.

This jar of peanut butter may contain peanuts. Don't insert the jar or its contents into your anus, unless prescribed by your doctor. Jar is not to be consumed.

 

This thread has been an interesting read so far. I would tend to agree that the elevator should have had a means of warning the user that the car was not in proper position before moving. Perhaps it did but it malfunctioned or someone defeated it by accident or on purpose. I also believe that users of such devices have some responsibility for using them correctly. That said from my many years in charge of an engineering group that designed high speed production equipment that needed all kinds of failsafes and safety devices to make sure the operators didn't get eaten by them we always remembered the following:

The problem with trying to design machines that are foolproof to operate is that fools are so dammed clever.

BTW no disrespect for the OP is intended. He has my sympathy.

 

I still don't get your point. Who is supposed to determine when we cross the line of "nannying". Your conclusion seems to be either no "nannying" or full "nannying". Or is there some point in the middle? And if there is some point in the middle, who should draw the line? You? Me? When is "nannying" too much. Is there some objective measure for determining how "nannied" is something? Please elaborate. You are trying to apply what happened to with my car to some generic over "nannying" of the government, when in reality you need to take each of these things case by case.

If non-obtrusive things can be implemented to save lives like wearing a seat belt, implementing ABS, emergency braking detection, anti-stall features on a plane, or having sensors on garage and elevator doors then I personally think this is something that should be implemented, especially if its a common occurrence that leads to property damage or injuries. My car is one of many cars that have been destroyed by Klaus parking system.

I don't think you should over generalize this situation. I am not slow. I am mechanically inclined, my driving skills are above average, i was not "impaired", i've been in zero accidents in the past ten years, and I am very careful about my car and still this issue was able to occur. And there are a ton of easy fixes that could have been implemented to prevent this from occurring: such as sensors, or just an old fashion physical barrier that prevents a car from moving beyond it, that like a $5 fix.

Many things could have went wrong here: driver error, the lift tilting allowing the car to roll/slide forward, improper placement of wheel-stop, a loose wheel-stop, a broken wheel-stop, slippery parking surface, etc. A simple sensor or physically wall could have been implemented which could prevent alignment issues from occurring for whatever reason. This could also save a life given a human unfortunately found themselves within the machine during operation.

 

Where to draw the line? I understand that argument in the general sense, but safety interlocks are cheap and hardly new. When was the last time you got trapped in an elevator door and killed when the elevator moved anyway? I'm guessing the answer is "not recently."

I just had garage doors put in at home and they have both electric eye and force detectors. If I block the door, they won't close. If I try to close it with the nose of the car over the line, it'd do minor cosmetic damage but would reverse. The forces involved are a lot less, but it's not a technological breakthrough waiting to happen.

 

 

OK, here is my line. No more government requirements. Home garage door interlocks/safeties are a government requirement, I believe. People too inattentive to see that pets or children were in the door. If a business wants to implement safeties, increase the price of the product, then consumers are welcome to pay the price. In this instance, do not blame Klaus because there were no interlocks, blame the operator for pulling the car too far forward. That is my point.
Larry

 

WOW - this horrible! I saw this on MSN and started a thread. No idea it happened to a forum brutha

 

So if your car got squashed you would just suck it up and tell Klaus not to worry about it?

 

If I was the one who drove it too far forward, yep I would do just that. It is called personal responsibility. If my insurance company wanted to go after Klaus, that is their choice. However, if an employee of the apartment complex or garage owner did it, I would sue the pants off the culprit's employer and end up with a settlement. I did not like Ralph Nader either( I had a 1966 Corvair Corsa back then).

Larry

 

Zmoothg; best of luck on your car repair.

On all the other political commentary about nanny states, etc., while I agree that there is too much reliance on such things in todays society, I find it hard to believe that an expensive and complex vehicle storage system wouldn't be equipped with a $10.00 garage door sensor......shame on them and they are lucky it's a car not a person that was damaged.

2 cents,
Dave

 

All the device needs is a physical, soft vertical bar for the vehicle to come up against at the maximum stop point. Say one made of a bendy material or on a spring. Then at the entry have a line which the vehicle must have crossed in order to not be crushed at the entry end.
Simple, cheap and uncomplicated.