Toyotagate: House Panel more concerned with Big 3 profits than safety?
10,000 rollover deaths per yearSince 2000 there have been 2,600 complaints of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles that have led to 34 deaths. Rather than fix this problem, according to a Congressional Panel, Toyota was 'more concerned with profits than safety'.
Of course, since 2000, Toyota has sold many tens of millions of vehicles, and more than 99.9 percent of them have been safer and more reliable than most other brands on the road then or today. So, it isn't that surprising that Toyota was slow to react, or that they assumed the problem must be with drivers.
Nonetheless, 34 people have died. For that, Toyota deserves some vilification.
Still, in the last decade, for instance, anyone driving a Honda Civic has been 2 times safer than someone driving a Chevy Cavalier. Why? Was GM more concerned with profits than safety? Likewise years of crash data demonstrate that foreign autos are consistently and significantly safer than domestic autos. Why? Did the Big 3 sacrifice safety for profits?
Finally, there is the House Panel itself, now led by Michigan's own John Dingell, a fearless lobbyist - I mean Congressperson - for GM and the Big 3.
Finish: Toyotagate - House Panel more concerned with profits than safety
Labels: Congress, Foreign Oil Dependency, recalls, suv rollover, toyota
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:23 AM
4 Comments:
Full Story
Since 2000 there have been 2,600 complaints of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles that have led to 34 deaths. Rather than fix this problem, according to a Congressional Panel, Toyota was 'more concerned with profits than safety'.
Of course, since 2000, Toyota has sold many tens of millions of vehicles, and more than 99.9 percent of them have been safer and more reliable than most other brands on the road then or today. So, it isn't that surprising that Toyota was slow to react, or that they assumed the problem must be with drivers.
Nonetheless, 34 people have died. For that, Toyota deserves some vilification.
Still, in the last decade, for instance, anyone driving a Honda Civic has been 2 times safer than someone driving a Chevy Cavalier. Why? Was GM more concerned with profits than safety? Likewise years of crash data demonstrate that foreign autos are consistently and significantly safer than domestic autos. Why? Did the Big 3 sacrifice safety for profits?
Finally, there is the House Panel itself, now led by Michigan's own John Dingell, a fearless lobbyist - I mean Congressperson - for GM and the Big 3. For decades, as 10,000 people per year died in SUV rollovers - 90 percent of which were single vehicle accidents - Dingell and others in Congress relentlessly protected the SUV despite the staggering death statistics (add in deaths caused by SUV collisions and the number might double!).
Of course, without SUVs and their outrageous profit margins of a few years ago, the Big 3 probably would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. So, Dingell et al enabled the Big 3 - and other automakers as well - to choose profits over safety, year after year, decade after decade.
Consequently, for more than a decade Congress has let 10 - 20,000 people die every year because it was good for the Big 3 and it was good for Big Oil. 100's of thousands of deaths and ever-increasing foreign oil dependence simply couldn't outweigh the profits.
When it comes to safety and national security, aren't there far bigger villains than Toyota?
sorry about that link confusion, smurf. i moved your comment to the correct post.
Indigo Incarnates
Of course major corporations care more about profits than safety. They also care more about profits than the environment, human dignity, or in paying a living wage. It's why capitalism just doesn't work long term.
interesting points, indigo.
still, is the problem really capitalists, or is it basic human nature and culture?
i got lucky the other night and caught The Lives of Others on Sundance. the movie beautifully suggests that all isms - whether capitalism, socialism, etc. - always boil down to the maintenance and the control of the people. power.
and power usually - if not always - corrupts regardless of the ism dispensing authority.
in my humble opinion, no ism will ever perfect human potential, only people can do that, and once you begin to define the ism for achieving that, you've already lost.
inevitably, capitalism, socialism, etc. will adapt and evolve into other ism's. thus, no one should ever take any ism too seriously because they are always temporary.
Post a Comment
<< Home