The suspension patent stated what could happen when the
suspension was 'tested'. That is not a driver failure to do
what all other cars must do without failure. Corvair
suspension failure that even the engineer's patent predicted
if...

One could claim that all drivers should know not to corner
hard; therefore it is the driver's fault for doing what is not
a problem on any other car. But if the Corvair fails and
kills people when doing what all other cars do normally, AND
when the engineer says in advance this was a problem; then
instead we blame the victim? Where does did logic come from?

If Corvair required special driver's training, then why did
GM not provide that training standard with every Corvair?

That was the mentality back then. Hundreds were killed when
the Beverly Hills Supper Club caught fire outside of
Cincinnati. The KY Governor's report also blamed the victims
for their own death. Just as silly.

The Corvair was not an 18 wheeler that requires special
handling. But then even an 18 wheeler does not put a known
defective design in its suspension - only because a cost
controller is trying to save $2. People killed only because
the stabilizer bar costs an excessive $2! Should all drivers
receive special training in case one might drive a Corvair -
so that GM can save $2 on a stabilizer bar? The reason that
Corvair suspension would fail - as the patent said it would -
is because cost controllers feared to spend money on a
stabilizer bar that the patent said was necessary.

BTW, you have it all wrong. Once the rear wheel buckled
under, nothing using a gas pedal was going to save the vehicle
from overturning. That failure was noted in the patent.
Corvair killed because top management more feared the cost of
a stabilizer bar than making the car drive like every other
car.

It is a fear of spending money and a fear of listening to
those who come from where the work gets done that causes
regulations. How many more astronauts will we need murder
before that same top management problem is fixed - either by
holding top management responsible (which we never do) or by
making more regulations?

At what point did taking toxic arsenic out of playground
wood make it boring? Why did it finally require regulation to
do what common sense says was danagerous? Did those
playground manufacturers fear kids would be bored by wood
without arsenic?

Cosmopolite wrote:
I disagree. The operation of any device has everything to do with
the operator. The average American driver was used to the handling
characteristics of front heavy vehicles which understeer. When a
front heavy, understeering vehicle exceeds it's cornering
capability, the front wheels loose traction and the vehicle goes
straight instead of cornering. ( like trying to turn on ice ) The
solution to this is to take your foot OFF the gas pedal.
When a rear heavy vehicle exceeds it's cornering capability, the
swing around. ( like burning a doughnut ) The solution to this is
to give it MORE gas. This straightens the vehicle out. ( within
limits, of course ) If you take your foot OFF the gas under
these conditions, the vehicle will spin around, out of control.
The early ( 1960-1964 ) swing axle Corvair received the stabilizer
bar in 1964. The later ( 1965-1969 ) Corvair had a totally
different suspension system, similar to the Corvette and Jaguar.
This suspension did not produce camber changes ( wheel jack-up )
like the early model.

While I agree that there have to be safety regulations ( products
and behavior ), this has to be done very carefully. We are
currently having a problem with safe playground design. The new
playground equipment is a lot safer than the old, but the
children find it very boring.

If a society demands ever safer and secure lifestyles, one day it
will find itself imprisioned. Life is and has always been risky.
Only living organisms get hurt, dead ones do not.