On 8/1/2015 3:18 PM, John McCoy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

dpb wrote in :

On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:

Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...

Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
malfeasance...

That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
they're not the same.

John

How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
be recalled".

Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.

One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
the GM ignition switch case.

Exactly and as I was reading today, the gas tanks on the Ford Pinto. I
knew about the Pinto tanks but learned today that they only needed to
add a $1 part during manufacture to make the tanks safer. Ford chose to
not do that for several years.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobile...-drive.html/5/