Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 490377" data-attributes="member: 484">Pretty much knew where it started.&nbsp; Problem is people start throwing ideas and numbers around as fact when in fact, they are not.&nbsp; My posts are to get people to think for themselves.&nbsp; If it hurt your feelings, deal with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here is an example of generic assumptions.&nbsp; Just like the one with the 76 chevy.&nbsp; &nbsp; How do you know that they were offered as an option on the delivery vehicles?&nbsp; Yes, they were offered as an option on vehicles destined for the general customer, but where do you get your information that they were for commercial type vehicles?&nbsp; Everything I have seen points to the opposite.&nbsp;&nbsp;You ever see the basic truck before they add the body?&nbsp; Who installs the seat?&nbsp; Grumman or Olson or who ever installs the body, but all the cars I have seen have the seat and belt installed at the frame/engine/trans manufacture.&nbsp; And all the data I have been shown does not show that it was offered at the vehicle manufacturer as an option until much later on.&nbsp; As I stated, what is offered and mandated at the public level is not always what is offered and mandated at the commercial level.&nbsp;&nbsp;Its a legal issue.&nbsp; Been through, and followed several other lawsuits that determine that if you alter the design of function of a vehicle, that makes you responsible for any flaws in that change in design.&nbsp; Any changes UPS makes to a car has to be OKed by the factory.&nbsp; To get that, the factory must do the necessary testing to confirm that the modification is sound and will past the testing needed to put their stamp of approval on it.&nbsp; This can take several if not many years.&nbsp; &nbsp;Ironically, the same gooberment that regulated the seatbelt issue back then also is the one that makes it hard to get things changed in a timely manner.&nbsp;&nbsp;And again, when you assume a faulty premise, you end up with faulty assumptions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Heffe&nbsp;In a way, you do have a valid point.&nbsp; It is the person that shovels his sidewalk that will get sued if someone slips and falls, not the guy who doesnt touch his.&nbsp;But then they would pass the blame on to ford, chevy, etc because the testing took too long for an approved harness to be developed, and the auto makers would then point to the gooberment that mandated the strict testing that took too long.&nbsp;Everybody in this whole issue wants to pass the buck because of the legal problems that affect the installation.&nbsp;Funny, at our center, you can get them to install a cup holder so you dont spill your drink...........&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 490377, member: 484"] Pretty much knew where it started. Problem is people start throwing ideas and numbers around as fact when in fact, they are not. My posts are to get people to think for themselves. If it hurt your feelings, deal with it. Here is an example of generic assumptions. Just like the one with the 76 chevy. How do you know that they were offered as an option on the delivery vehicles? Yes, they were offered as an option on vehicles destined for the general customer, but where do you get your information that they were for commercial type vehicles? Everything I have seen points to the opposite. You ever see the basic truck before they add the body? Who installs the seat? Grumman or Olson or who ever installs the body, but all the cars I have seen have the seat and belt installed at the frame/engine/trans manufacture. And all the data I have been shown does not show that it was offered at the vehicle manufacturer as an option until much later on. As I stated, what is offered and mandated at the public level is not always what is offered and mandated at the commercial level. [COLOR=#a0522d] [COLOR=black][/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]Its a legal issue. Been through, and followed several other lawsuits that determine that if you alter the design of function of a vehicle, that makes you responsible for any flaws in that change in design. Any changes UPS makes to a car has to be OKed by the factory. To get that, the factory must do the necessary testing to confirm that the modification is sound and will past the testing needed to put their stamp of approval on it. This can take several if not many years. [/COLOR] Ironically, the same gooberment that regulated the seatbelt issue back then also is the one that makes it hard to get things changed in a timely manner. And again, when you assume a faulty premise, you end up with faulty assumptions. Heffe In a way, you do have a valid point. It is the person that shovels his sidewalk that will get sued if someone slips and falls, not the guy who doesnt touch his. But then they would pass the blame on to ford, chevy, etc because the testing took too long for an approved harness to be developed, and the auto makers would then point to the gooberment that mandated the strict testing that took too long. Everybody in this whole issue wants to pass the buck because of the legal problems that affect the installation. Funny, at our center, you can get them to install a cup holder so you dont spill your drink........... d [/QUOTE]

Verification