Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek Actor's Death Inspires Class Action Against Car Manufacturer (cnn.com)
Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, was killed Sunday when his own vehicle rolled backwards. Now Slashdot reader ripvlan writes:
It has recently emerged that his vehicle was a Jeep. As discussed on Slashdot previously consumers are having a hard time knowing if the vehicle is in "Park." A new class action lawsuit is gaining momentum... Also Maserati has a similar system and can join the class action.
In fact, Maserati "is recalling about 13,000 sedans that have the same sort of gear shifter that was used in the Jeep that killed Yelchin," according to CNN Money, and Chrysler Fiat had in fact already filed a recall notice with federal regulators in April for Yelchin's band of Jeep, "but owners had only received a warning and not an official recall notice at the time of Yelchin's death". The lawsuit claims Chrysler "fraudulently concealed and failed to remedy a gear shifter design defect affecting 811,000 vehicles and linked to driverless rollaway incidents," including 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300s, and 2012-2014 Dodge Chargers.
In fact, Maserati "is recalling about 13,000 sedans that have the same sort of gear shifter that was used in the Jeep that killed Yelchin," according to CNN Money, and Chrysler Fiat had in fact already filed a recall notice with federal regulators in April for Yelchin's band of Jeep, "but owners had only received a warning and not an official recall notice at the time of Yelchin's death". The lawsuit claims Chrysler "fraudulently concealed and failed to remedy a gear shifter design defect affecting 811,000 vehicles and linked to driverless rollaway incidents," including 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300s, and 2012-2014 Dodge Chargers.
As someone who drives a car with an electronic handbrake, it eludes me as to why that feature, which auto-releases when I pull away (DANGEROUS!), and auto-applies when I've braked manually on a hill until the car pulls forward, does NOT automatically apply when the engine is off entirely.
I got out of my car on my drive (fortunately quite flat) after driving a friend to my house. They were in the car and I parked, pulled the handbrake (really a switch) and got out. And the car rolled away. Maybe I didn't pull it properly, or maybe I tapped a pedal on the way out, but for whatever reason it decided to let me get out of the car without the parking brake on without a warning.
Fortunately, I was only half-out so I was able to jump in and press the footpedal as it rolled away but I spent the next afternoon doing nothing but testing it, on hills and other scenarios. It totally destroyed what little trust I'd built in that feature (I hate unnecessary electronic systems anyway, but I was getting "used" to that to help on hill-starts, etc.).
My question is why? Why does it apply for pointless situations that you always have been used to having to manually doing something (hillstarts), but not when the engine has just been switched off, the driver unbuckled, the door just opened. If you WANT to tow it, it would be a cinch to push the button down deliberately for a second (which indicates definite intention to release the brake), but why would you not auto-apply in the ONE situation that you need to.
I tested it and I can even double-lock the car and it will still let it roll away and not apply the brake. The only "warning" is lack of a brake symbol on the dash.
Useless fecking features, check.
Critical safety feature that's obviously going to be needed once the driver gets used to the automatic system, nah, we'll just leave that out.
Now I just have to go back to when I first learned to drive and pause, hands hovering over the wheel, for a second before I open the door in case there's something I did that didn't take effect. It shouldn't be necessary.
Still convinced that I pressed the damn button, though, because I could not replicate that roll-away, but if there's an automatic system like that, it's the work of a second to make it infinitely safer with a simple update.
I've been reading about this electronic shifter issue for some time before Anton's unfortunate death and I could not understand the insistence of Chrysler to keep at it for years when there were over 100 documented crashes and so many complaints. Sure, I understand that it doesn't actually fail, it is user error, but if you have to (literally) put bells and whistles in place to warn drivers they have selected the wrong position, you should realize that you are doing something wrong. Additionally, it must cost a lot more than the simple mechanical stick that everybody knows how to use, so there should be some important reason to put it in cars, and yet I haven't come across any praise for it in reviews etc. Are there people who look for it when buying a car? I would expect not, while an electronic shifter might appeal to someone buying a manual transmission car (yeah, electronic shift like formula-1 baby!), we are talking about automatic transmission here, the only job of the stick is to switch modes unambiguously (and preferably fast - it is always one movement with the standard stick, it could be multiple as I understand it with the electronic type). In the end, when you've "dumbed-down" (not necessarily in a bad sense) driving with an auto transmission, you shouldn't expect having no problems when you change something as basic as that.
Unless I've missed something and it is an option on Chrysler cars, not the standard shifter. Otherwise, I don't get it...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I'm having a hard time buying this "difficulty to know when it is in park" premise. Yes, the shifter design is silly/stupid, and I wouldn't favor it. But, come on. There is an indicator light (actually I think there are two, no?). If it lights up "P", it is in park. If it doesn't light up "P", it is NOT in park. How hard is that? Additionally, the chime when you open the door and it is not in park should be a giant clue.
I just don't get it. The case is sad and regrettable, but I don't see any wrongdoing and it shouldn't be legally actionable. If I'm missing something, please inform me.