3 ms·

I'm not sure how anecdotal evidence for something failing (or not) changes this. Even if 1 in every 1000 of a model of car (0.1%) is expected to experience a f

I'm not sure how anecdotal evidence for something failing (or not) changes this. Even if 1 in every 1000 of a model of car (0.1%) is expected to experience a flaw, that could be more than enough to issue a recall. But that means that you and your closest 100 friends aren't likely to have experienced it.

1123581321 4y ago
Still, some of the engineers here might be able to provide additional insight into the design.
LanceH 4y ago
What he's asking is some sense of whether these are merely statutory violations or whether they are so far off the statutes they are dangerous. Sometimes straying from the statutes results in something considerably safer, or perhaps just better without being more dangerous. You see this sometimes with medical devices that don't qualify legally to be medical devices, but are far more popular. Think wheelchairs or hearing aids in particular. The article is brief and only mentions them being out of spec and under documented. It doesn't say anything about failures.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If I had to guess I'd suspect that "mechanical suspension" means there's a pinch-point (or it hasn't been properly proven there isn't), the tire thing means you could overinflated the tire and it could pop/blow up, and the "not enough documentation of the hazards" thing is just the silly paper and stickers everyone ignores anyway. The first two I'd probably grant; I'm surprised that Radio Flyer didn't just modify an existing design that already had those (or they did and exposed something that wasn't exposed before).
- brookst 4y ago
  Failing to follow regulations IS a failure. Regulations serve two purposes: 1) ensure compliance with best practices, and 2) demonstrate attention to detail. Failing a labeling requirement is like failing the classic Van Halen brown M&M test: it's not dangerous in itself, but it indicates a lack of diligence that people should assume is pervasive in the product.
  - LanceH 4y ago
    > Failing to follow regulations IS a failure. It's not a mechanical failure, which is clearly what was being talked about. This is why the above poster was asking if anyone had anyone with experience with the actual atv. That it is out of spec is not something anyone here is disputing.
- epicide 4y ago
  > The article is brief and only mentions them being out of spec and under documented. It doesn't say anything about failures. Agreed. And I also agree that I'd like to know more details (although asking for anecdotal evidence still doesn't provide that...) > Think wheelchairs or hearing aids in particular. I'm (luckily) unfamiliar with this. Can you provide details?

1123581321 4y ago

Still, some of the engineers here might be able to provide additional insight into the design.

LanceH 4y ago

What he's asking is some sense of whether these are merely statutory violations or whether they are so far off the statutes they are dangerous. Sometimes straying from the statutes results in something considerably safer, or perhaps just better without being more dangerous. You see this sometimes with medical devices that don't qualify legally to be medical devices, but are far more popular. Think wheelchairs or hearing aids in particular. The article is brief and only mentions them being out of spec and under documented. It doesn't say anything about failures.

bombcar 4y ago
If I had to guess I'd suspect that "mechanical suspension" means there's a pinch-point (or it hasn't been properly proven there isn't), the tire thing means you could overinflated the tire and it could pop/blow up, and the "not enough documentation of the hazards" thing is just the silly paper and stickers everyone ignores anyway. The first two I'd probably grant; I'm surprised that Radio Flyer didn't just modify an existing design that already had those (or they did and exposed something that wasn't exposed before).
brookst 4y ago
Failing to follow regulations IS a failure. Regulations serve two purposes: 1) ensure compliance with best practices, and 2) demonstrate attention to detail. Failing a labeling requirement is like failing the classic Van Halen brown M&M test: it's not dangerous in itself, but it indicates a lack of diligence that people should assume is pervasive in the product.
- LanceH 4y ago
  > Failing to follow regulations IS a failure. It's not a mechanical failure, which is clearly what was being talked about. This is why the above poster was asking if anyone had anyone with experience with the actual atv. That it is out of spec is not something anyone here is disputing.
epicide 4y ago
> The article is brief and only mentions them being out of spec and under documented. It doesn't say anything about failures. Agreed. And I also agree that I'd like to know more details (although asking for anecdotal evidence still doesn't provide that...) > Think wheelchairs or hearing aids in particular. I'm (luckily) unfamiliar with this. Can you provide details?