Moderns...what fittings will you avoid when they are shiters.

[Albert Ross]

Of course, consider that I also drive daily, a 44 year old Land Rover. A vehicle renowned for having the hardest interior of a vehicle EVER. It's like driving with a dozen rusty nails pointing at your head. It makes you a little more careful.

[cort1977]

Got to disagree with your interpretation of duty of care.   Not a lawyer but I understand that duty of care hinges on actions that a reasonable person is expected to take.   At present most people would not be aware that airbags may need replacing therefore the insurance company in your hypothetical situation above would be unlikely to win the case; a jury would not find it a reasonable expectation.   If there is a big campaign in the future backed by legislation like there has been for tyre tread depth then the judgement would be far more likely to go against you.

 

I recently removed the only airbag fitted to my BMW and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

Interestingly, last year BMW petitioned the NHTSA (American safety body) to permit them to lock out the ignition until the seat belts were fastened.   At present they have to design the airbags to deal with un-belted passengers which adds weight and complexity.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Regulators+Consider+Seat+Belt+Ignition+Interlocks+on+Automobiles/article33274.htm

[Albert Ross]

I'm on about Volvo specifically here.... all the Airbag lifetime/replacement notifications are in the Pillars/door shuts. Nobody who has owned/driven one for more than a month could say "I didn't see the stickers"  They are rather obvious. This is my point. Because it IS so obvious, where would one stand IF it were to happen? I never once said it IS the law, I merely suggested that this kind of thing should be clarified. After all, we buy washing machines, and we undo the transit screws and plumb it in, lob our socks in, and fuck off to the pub. We forgot the polystyrene underneath, and it melts and sets fire to our kitchen. Whose fault is it? Well it's ours, because we didn't read the warning provided.... you see what I mean? Because the info is there, just because we choose to ignore it, doesn't remove our responsibility.... I am suggesting we should be bloody careful before assuming everything is going to be grand, and then someone hits us with a genuine reason to sue us.... you never know... I just find it interesting to think, we all appreciate that our insurance rates are cheap because we are less likely to get hurt if we crash, but do we consider maintaining/inspecting those systems? It's a bit like enjoying the cheap road tax of a DPF equipped diesel, then ripping it off, and all of a sudden it (now!) fails MOT, VOSA are informed, the car gets inspected, and you become liable for the difference in Excise Licence costs for a non-equipped vehicle.  It's all about responsibilities as a civilised person living in a First World Country, surely.

[chaseracer]

BV72 will, I hope, be along presently to explain the definitive legal position.

[Albert Ross]

Well that would be good, because all I did was plant a seed....

[crapcarcollector]

Well, as the defender is to be outlawed from sale next year due to poor crash and pedestrian protection you could be sued for driving that from next year. (your logic)

[Spiny Norman]

If it were my Volvo I think I'd just peel the stickers off.....

[martybabes]

OK, those thinking I'm mad to consider replacing all my airbags at 10 years old as part of the service schedule. You go out at night, and on the journey home, in an 11 year old Minicab, there is a collision, and your personal airbag does NOT deploy, and you (during your Solicitor's findings being revealed) discover that the airbags are the originals, which should have been replaced 1 year ago. You are badly injured, enough to put you off work, but not life changing. It is deemed that the airbag NOT deploying has contributed to your injuries, and that you should have been protected. Do you sue the Taxi firm? The owner driver? Do you think "Ah, that's fine, Ill put up with the limp and 6 months sick pay"..... ??? Do you sue the Council, for not checking that the vehicle had been maintained correctly, prior to issuing an operating licence? It is the DUTY of the vehicle owner to ensure the vehicle is maintained correctly. It is the duty of the driver, to verify with the owner, that maintenance has been carried out, and the vehicle is roadworthy prior to using it (including a quick lights/tyre check before use ideally) If the owner is the driver, then that's a simple case of an Annual service and MOT. If the garage carrying out the service fails to inform you of the need to replace the airbags, is that THEIR fault? Likely, even IF the information required to have knowledge of the schedule is stuck all over the door pillars (Volvo I'm looking at you here) Wait for this one to happen.... because the necessary structure to support any claim in the (non) event of an airbag being defunct is already in place... Anyone who removes fuses/wiring/bulbs to get them through MOT should also take notice... Think of the repercussions of any skulduggery prior to acting. I might come across as rather anal, but it's in my nature to be that way. That's why I make a good MOT Tester. I go by the book. Minimum standard for MOT, best standard for servicing and tyres.

 

Gosh, this reminds me of the exam questions we used to be given.  The situation often used to be further complicated by the ambulance crashing and the victim eventually being given substandard medical care and, possibly, food poisoning.  

 

One wonders about the cruel and twisted mind of exam-setters...

[Albert Ross]

I don't drive a Defender.... I drive a much earlier model. I cannot be sued for driving a vehicle with no safety equipment maintenance regime where none of it exists. It was not necessary to fit it when new, so retrospective legislation cannot be applied to a vehicle whose structure and ancillaries will not support it. Relative to any collision.. if I were to crash it, I would be the person getting hurt.... Were I in a newer one, the exterior is just as lumpy. If not MORE lumpy TBH. It will still hurt someone else as much as an older one.  What I suggest is that we should possibly CLARIFY this suggestion of mine about airbag life BEFORE it becomes an issue.... I wouldn't like to think I could be fined or imprisoned for causing AVOIDABLE injury to someone because of a technicality/paperwork error. Like I say, the structure to support this (were it to become an issue legally) is already in place.

    What's to stop it becoming legislation, in the "blame culture" we live in?

[martybabes]

...so retrospective legislation cannot be applied to a vehicle whose structure and ancillaries will not support it.

 

 

 

Sorry to disappoint but legislation CAN be made to have retrospective effect.  Whether it does is a matter for Parliament to determine, and the statute will say so.

 

M. Camion de Pain (soixante-douze) will so confirm (as I assume he is still practising whereas I am not).

[Albert Ross]

Not to a vehicle whose structure and ancillaries will not support it. Like you quoted. The suggestion of black box recorders is great. But not for a Positive Earthed 6V vehicle with a Dynamo.. Unless it was specifically designed to work in one.  You can't outlaw a vehicle simply because you want extra technology fitted. If it were a danger to the driver/occupants or other road users in traffic, then yes, a specific model COULD be outlawed (Thundersley Invacar anyone) on those grounds. You're suggesting that it would be in the interests of HM Government to insist upon every registered vehicle to have an XYZ 123 fitted.. (whatever it may be) and those that cannot have it fitted should be disposed of? It could never happen. The specifications of the equipment would have to be "Unisex" in order for it to be practically applied. Like it or not, airbags are here. As is ABS.... and other things too. I prefer to drive a vehicle without them, but if they are fitted, because legislation at the time insisted upon them, then they must be maintained in accordance with Manufacturer's specifications. After all, who are WE to argue?  I do my level best to keep an old vehicle on the road. I wasn't satisfied with the notion of a welded up chassis. So I replaced it completely with a brand new galvanised item. It was considered to be the safest (if not the cheapest) option. Already I reckon it has saved me thirty further hours of welding, simply by being strong and not rusting yet. I fit the best tyres I can afford. (See another thread for the recent bargain.) This is on my daily driver. I just wonder how many people skimp on maintenance (You only have to see how many bulbs are inoperative on a daily commute to have a rough idea of the percentage) to a serious degree.....

[retrogeezer]

3) Makers are never going to care about repairability. Repair costs outside of the warranty period are of no concern to them. My own experiance of obscure electronic problems (on my Golf mk4) is that inside the warranty period dealers just clear the fault parameters and shrug. 

 

 

Which makes all the 'we are so green' shite they spout such a load of bollox.

 

And automatic headlights are fine except most of the owners are too thick to realise that they are still on when they park on the wrong side of the road blinding oncoming traffic.

[alf892]

I don't drive a Defender.... I drive a much earlier model. I cannot be sued for driving a vehicle with no safety equipment maintenance regime where none of it exists. It was not necessary to fit it when new, so retrospective legislation cannot be applied to a vehicle whose structure and ancillaries will not support it. Relative to any collision.. if I were to crash it, I would be the person getting hurt.... Were I in a newer one, the exterior is just as lumpy. If not MORE lumpy TBH. It will still hurt someone else as much as an older one.  What I suggest is that we should possibly CLARIFY this suggestion of mine about airbag life BEFORE it becomes an issue.... I wouldn't like to think I could be fined or imprisoned for causing AVOIDABLE injury to someone because of a technicality/paperwork error. Like I say, the structure to support this (were it to become an issue legally) is already in place.

    What's to stop it becoming legislation, in the "blame culture" we live in?

Well to carry your argument on here........

 

Surely you could be sued if you took passengers in your old Landy?? You acknowledge that you consider it dangerous so by taking passengers and exposing them to a known (to you) danger you are breaching your duty of care to them?

 

This is why I think your argument is wrong.............at the moment. When it becomes right I will be stickering up my motors with 'Enter at own risk'

[Taff]

They've already had to postpone the beginning of the analogue radio switchoff because so many people aren't ready. One of the biggest markets for listening to the radio is in the car, so really it's car makers that have kind of screwed us over. 

 

I'm looking at one of those add-in units that takes a DAB signal, throws it down the FM aerial and then adds in the RDS information so you know what you're listening to. About £120 though....

 

Also, I'd be lost without Bluetooth. I regularly have hour-long conversations on the road, which would mean either working for an hour when I get home or delaying setting off from work by an hour. Bluetooth good. Mine would be even better if it streamed music off my phone but it's a bit too old.

 

agree with your last point. plus the one in my beamer picks up the iPhone and allows all the songs on that to be played through the car, along with any podcasts I have downloaded for longer journeys. Great system, no more CD's floating around in the car. The system can be voice activated as well, a lazy man's dream.

 

Forgot to add, any car painted any shade of grey.  So basically I won't be buying any car at all built after about 1995.  And Bluetooth?  Who the feck needs that?  Either work or drive.  If you want to work in the car, get a chauffeur. 

 

 

That might have come over a bit harsh, but I do like to imagine that it's not just me looking where I'm going, however many times a day I get proved wrong.

 

Bluetooth is an invaluable working tool and complies fully with UK legistation for use of a phone while driving. As others have said, it probably saves me at least an hour a day. And I havent't hit anything in my company car in 8 years of having one, though I have been hit three times. To the best of my knowledge, none of those people were on the phone.   

[dollywobbler]

Do you have a duty of care to your passengers? Yes, you must drive with due care and attention, but thankfully I'm yet to hear of anyone being sued because they drove an old vehicle and someone bashed their knee in it.

 

If someone got into my car, and felt unsafe due to the lack of crash protection, they would be invited to get back out again. Job done.

[gordonbennet]

I doubt many shiters give lifts to those who believe anything less than 8 brand new airbags is a suicide mission.

 

Ironically, most shiters will be proper drivers i suspect, preferring to control their own cars instead of simply aiming the thing whilst the electronics do the rest.

 

I know i do, but i wonder if most shiters associate with like minded people, Christ i almost wrote 'normal' but that's hardly a word that describes most shiters.

[mat_the_cat]

Airbags - interesting points. I can see what Albert's getting at, and can imagine that it's possible in theory. But there are so many ifs…IF you have an accident, and IF the over age airbag fails to go off, and IF it's judged that it should have, and IF your passenger gets injured, and IF it's deemed that the injuries would have been avoided by an airbag, and IF your passenger is of a sufficiently litigious nature to want to sue you in the first place! I'm not losing sleep over it, put it that way.

 

Anyway, the manual for my Focus suggests replacement after 15 years, so another two years before it becomes an issue.

[chaseracer]

Well to carry your argument on here........

 

Surely you could be sued if you took passengers in your old Landy?? You acknowledge that you consider it dangerous so by taking passengers and exposing them to a known (to you) danger you are breaching your duty of care to them?

 

This is why I think your argument is wrong.............at the moment. When it becomes right I will be stickering up my motors with 'Enter at own risk'

 

I already have something similar on the passenger side of the screen...

 

 

[martybabes]

I already have something similar on the passenger side of the screen...

 

 

 

Good for you but it has no legal effect.  Under current law, you cannot exclude liability for damage or personal injury, and your passenger is under no obligation to accept those terms (as printed and displayed) when within your vehicle.

 

Glad to be of service!

[martybabes]

IF you have an accident, and IF the over-age airbag fails to go off, and IF it's judged that it should have, and IF your passenger gets injured, and IF it's deemed that the injuries would have been avoided (or minimised) by an airbag, and IF your passenger is of a sufficiently litigious nature to want to sue you in the first place! 

 

And IF you're a lawyer, sitting in your office, and this client arrives having experienced this sequence of events, however unlikely in theory they may be, what will be your professional advice?  

 

And if you get it wrong, you too can be sued, this time for professional negligence.

[chaseracer]

Glad to be of service!

 

 

Thank you, counselor. 

 

I shall refer when appropriate to Dollywobbler v. Rest of World, wherein anyone who wilfully refuses to apply commonsense can travel in someone else's car!

 

[anonymous user]

Several years ago, when being driven by my then boss and after wearing out my imaginary brake pedal (and his floor mat) he was quite offended when I asked if his car was fitted with a passenger air-bag. It is also one of the few times I have suffered travel sickness since childhood, it wasn't the speed of travel, or the tail-gating, I think the nausea was induced by the feeling of impending death.

[Albert Ross]

I never said that I considered the inside of my Land Rover to be dangerous. I just said it was hard with sharp edges. Also, I don't carry passengers... no space for them amid the swathes of pop cans and chip wrappers.

[Waderider]

2003 Volvo V40 here with big stickers in my doorshuts, I love my old airbags. Mmmmm big airbags.

[Des]

So what happens if or when insurance gets tricky to find unless these windbags have been replaced at 10 years? And how will the cost of replacing a half dozen or so of the things compare to the value of a 10 year old car?

Someone needs to invent a suit of armour with airbags pop rivited all over it, maybe a few layers of bubble wrap and a dayglo vest so we can drive what we like without all that wearisome fretting distracting us from fiddling with satnav, configuring the bluetooth and hashtag me bollocks texting,

[alf892]

I never said that I considered the inside of my Land Rover to be dangerous. I just said it was hard with sharp edges. Also, I don't carry passengers... no space for them amid the swathes of pop cans and chip wrappers.

 

Just playing devils wotsit...........No airbag=dangerous!!

[Justin Case]

Who needs airbags, this will make sure that you drive safely:

 

 

And you don't need all the distractions of blueteeth, USBs, ISPs, TLAs, etc, etc; the true shiters dashboard gives you all the information that you need:

 

 

 

Edit: a virtual pint and shite points to anyone who can convert or tell me how to convert the links (hosted on My Albums) to actual piccys. Bonus points for anyone who can identify the vehicle. Cheers

 

Edit 2: Many thanks Conrad, that method hadn't worked with the hosted pictures, but it did by attaching them directly from the memory card. Your pint is in the virtual post

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

 

Press that button, then paste the link into the box that appears. 

 

edit: sorry that's a giant screenshot. 

[chaseracer]

Also, make sure you click the 'light switch' at the top left of the reply box - this gives you all the options.

[mat_the_cat]

And IF you're a lawyer, sitting in your office, and this client arrives having experienced this sequence of events, however unlikely in theory they may be, what will be your professional advice?  

 

And if you get it wrong, you too can be sued, this time for professional negligence.

 

If I was a lawyer (I'm not) then my professional advice would, reluctantly, be to replace airbags as the manufacturer recommends. But I would point out that I personally believe the risk is small enough to be negligible.