Chrysler refuses recall request

On Jun 6, 11:43*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 10:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
>
> > And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
>
> In the grand scheme of things, the odds of me being rear ended hard
> enough to have something actually move the metal enough to affect the
> gas tank, AND it be punctured, AND there being an ignition source that
> causes a big fireball before I can exit the vehicle are small enough
> that I might as well worry about being abducted by aliens and anally probed.

Oh. I did not know those were the only circumstances of fatal/serious
injury crashes.

Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
irrelevant.
-----

- gpsman

On 06/06/2013 12:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jun 6, 11:43 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> On 06/06/2013 10:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>>>> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
>>
>>> And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
>>
>> In the grand scheme of things, the odds of me being rear ended hard
>> enough to have something actually move the metal enough to affect the
>> gas tank, AND it be punctured, AND there being an ignition source that
>> causes a big fireball before I can exit the vehicle are small enough
>> that I might as well worry about being abducted by aliens and anally probed.
>
> Oh. I did not know those were the only circumstances of fatal/serious
> injury crashes.

It's the only circumstances in which the specific hazard outlined by
this recall would be pertinent.


> Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
> irrelevant.

So's stepping into the shower, what's your point? With a little care it
is "relatively" safe in the grand scheme of things.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2013-06-06, jim beam > wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 07:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 8:19?am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the "defect" is. ?Yes a Cherokee's gas tank is between
>>> the bumper and rear axle as it is on many vehicles. ?But I don't see a
>>> whole lot of sharp pointy objects in the area to actually puncture the
>>> tank and why only 1993-up vehicles when the Cherokee was made for ages
>>> before that?
>>>
>>> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
>>
>> And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
>> -----
>>
>> - gpsman
>>
>
> or to put it another way, ignorance is bliss...

Or to use actual statistics on this particular issue, if you feel it
will happen to you playing lotteries might be a good idea too.

On 2013-06-06, jim beam > wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 02:40 PM, bob wrote:
>> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...ecall-vehicles
>>
>>
>> could not be worse than a crown vic or pinto i suppose..
>>
>> bob
>
> recalls have become both political and economic warfare tools. frod or
> g.m. get cut huge amounts of slack on recalls - remember the wheels
> falling off frods, and their not calling vehicles in for months citing
> "low risk"? or their ignition modules cooking as a life limitation
> decision, but no recall until the class action lawsuit actually
> prevailed after years of courtroom drama?
>
> yet if it's a foreign-owned vehicle, they're expected to recall for
> having the wrong color shipping wax on the paint before dealer prep.
> the whole system stinks.

If it's big three vehicle the recall is on the network news casts even
if it's not even a big deal. It has to be a huge deal or an CBS audi
witch hunt before the media covers it for a foreign make.

And of course the media has done more fictional fear stories on
domestic made vehicles than foreign ones.

On Jun 6, 12:25*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 12:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 11:43 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >> On 06/06/2013 10:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >>>> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
>
> >>> And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
>
> >> In the grand scheme of things, the odds of me being rear ended hard
> >> enough to have something actually move the metal enough to affect the
> >> gas tank, AND it be punctured, AND there being an ignition source that
> >> causes a big fireball before I can exit the vehicle are small enough
> >> that I might as well worry about being abducted by aliens and anally probed.
>
> > Oh. *I did not know those were the only circumstances of fatal/serious
> > injury crashes.
>
> It's the only circumstances in which the specific hazard outlined by
> this recall would be pertinent.

Which, of course, is irrelevant.

> > Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
> > irrelevant.
>
> So's stepping into the shower, what's your point?

Well, a new point would be the manners in which people manage to hurt
themselves performing innocuous tasks only punctuates the propensity
of the human being to err.

The original point was emotions are a ****ty way to evaluate anything,
and I'll bet you can still miss both points...

>*With a little care it
> is "relatively" safe in the grand scheme of things.

"Relatively" it's the most dangerous thing people do.

"For the first time since 1981 (when data was first available), motor
vehicle traffic crashes were not among the top 10 causes of death in
the United States.

"In 2009, while ranked 11th overall, motor vehicle traffic crashes
were ranked 8th among males and 14th among females as a cause of
death."
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811620.pdf
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 8:19*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what the "defect" is. *Yes a Cherokee's gas tank is between
> > the bumper and rear axle as it is on many vehicles. *But I don't see a
> > whole lot of sharp pointy objects in the area to actually puncture the
> > tank and why only 1993-up vehicles when the Cherokee was made for ages
> > before that?
> >
> > In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
>
> And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
> -----
>
> - gpsman

What /I/ know is that by far the largest component of being safe in a
motor vehicle is driving well.

If one never has a collision, then the gas tank's location is moot.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 11:43*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > On 06/06/2013 10:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >
> > >> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
> >
> > > And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
> >
> > In the grand scheme of things, the odds of me being rear ended hard
> > enough to have something actually move the metal enough to affect the
> > gas tank, AND it be punctured, AND there being an ignition source that
> > causes a big fireball before I can exit the vehicle are small enough
> > that I might as well worry about being abducted by aliens and anally probed.
>
> Oh. I did not know those were the only circumstances of fatal/serious
> injury crashes.
>
> Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
> irrelevant.

Please show us figures comparing the danger per hour as compared to
other activities...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jun 6, 2:19*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
>
> What /I/ know is that by far the largest component of being safe in a
> motor vehicle is driving well.

The rub is what one considers "driving" well.

> If one never has a collision, then the gas tank's location is moot.

Are you among those who believe they can dodge out of the way of an
impending rear-end collision...?
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 12:25*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > On 06/06/2013 12:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 6, 11:43 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > >> On 06/06/2013 10:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> In any case I don't feel unsafe driving mine...
> >
> > >>> And we all know that "feeling" safe = safe...
> >
> > >> In the grand scheme of things, the odds of me being rear ended hard
> > >> enough to have something actually move the metal enough to affect the
> > >> gas tank, AND it be punctured, AND there being an ignition source that
> > >> causes a big fireball before I can exit the vehicle are small enough
> > >> that I might as well worry about being abducted by aliens and anally
> > >> probed.
> >
> > > Oh. *I did not know those were the only circumstances of fatal/serious
> > > injury crashes.
> >
> > It's the only circumstances in which the specific hazard outlined by
> > this recall would be pertinent.
>
> Which, of course, is irrelevant.
>
> > > Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
> > > irrelevant.
> >
> > So's stepping into the shower, what's your point?
>
> Well, a new point would be the manners in which people manage to hurt
> themselves performing innocuous tasks only punctuates the propensity
> of the human being to err.
>
> The original point was emotions are a ****ty way to evaluate anything,
> and I'll bet you can still miss both points...
>
> >*With a little care it
> > is "relatively" safe in the grand scheme of things.
>
> "Relatively" it's the most dangerous thing people do.
>
> "For the first time since 1981 (when data was first available), motor
> vehicle traffic crashes were not among the top 10 causes of death in
> the United States.
>
> "In 2009, while ranked 11th overall, motor vehicle traffic crashes
> were ranked 8th among males and 14th among females as a cause of
> death."
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811620.pdf

Sorry, but that's a specious definition of "most dangerous" from a
relative perspective.

Lots of people die or are injured on the roads...

....because people spend a lot of time on the roads.

The latest figures for the US that I've found show that in 2011,
vehicle-miles traveled were 2.93 trillion. And deaths per 100 million
vehicle miles were 1.1.

To make the figure as unfavourable as possible, we'll assume that all
vehicles had a single passenger (minimizing passenger-miles) and that
all travel was at 60mph (minimizing) time.

With those assumptions the death rate per million person-hours is:

1.1 * 1,000,000 / (1 * (100,000,000/60)

= 0.66 deaths per million person-hours

That's 0.66 deaths per 114 person-YEARS of driving.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jun 6, 2:22*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > Operating a motor vehicle is dangerous; make and model is, of course,
> > irrelevant.
>
> Please show us figures comparing the danger per hour as compared to
> other activities...

You can borrow my Google: http://google.com
-----

- gpsman