4 ms·
In my opinion the GM ignition switch thing was over blown. Getting worn out and sloppy and failing in one of several ways (e.g. turning the car off unexpectedl
by dsfyu404ed 8y ago
In my opinion the GM ignition switch thing was over blown.
Getting worn out and sloppy and failing in one of several ways (e.g. turning the car off unexpectedly) is not an atypical failure mode of old ignition switches. The only reason it was a big deal was because wealth-ish people (i.e. not someone driving a 1993 Corolla) driving fairly new (at the time) vehicles died.
Their cover up was somewhat scummy but I don't think it wasn't the kind of thing they should not have had to cover up.
Edit: should not have
- js2 8y ago> over blown The faulty ignitions have been linked (by GM itself) to 124 deaths. > old ignition switches Five years is not an old ignition switch. > should have had to cover up On June 5, 2014, Valukas' report on the recall was made public. In it, he asserted that the company's failure to fix the defective switches sooner was not due to a cover-up on the company's part, but rather due to "their failure to understand, quite simply, how the car was built." As well, the case study doesn't mention cover up once, but instead points out a variety of secondary issues: inadequate communication, a lack of understanding of the problem, a lack of urgency, a lack of oversight, and company culture.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago>As well, the case study doesn't mention cover up once, but instead points out a variety of secondary issues: inadequate communication, a lack of understanding of the problem, a lack of urgency, a lack of oversight, and company culture. That was a typo on my part. Regardless the media portrayed it as a coverup.