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.
Unfortunately, this is a design issue. A dramatic change from how most people are familiar with selecting gears. There is no tactile feel to knowing your in a certain gear. You have to visually rely on the indicator to know what gear your in. Most people would instinctively think they have selected Park when in fact they have selected Reverse in these cars. What engineer thought this was a good ideal considering the history of gear selection is beyond me. Someone said it was all about making the cup holders bigger? Are you freakin' kidding me? Ford has gone a similar way but with a large dial indicator, which at least gives some tactile feedback along with a selection indicator. Yes, you could argue some of this goes back on the driver incapable of properly operating their vehicle. But the design and function which just doesn't give any physical sense of knowing what gear your in has to bear much of the blame. Chrysler has a major problem on it's hands and a software update won't fix this.
"The gear selector in these vehicles always remains upright. The driver moves it forward or back to select a gear, but it then returns to its original upright position."
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
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.
Please tell this to every speeder, red-light runner, drink-driver, dickhead on their phone, etc. Right down to those dickheads that cut in at the last minute after 800 yds of warning signs.
Because whenever I do, I get a load of abuse. Everyone up in arms about speed cameras, speed "traps" (they can't "trap" you if you're fucking speeding in the first place, no matter where they site their camera/detector), etc. all the damn time.
Obviously because "everyone does it", it's automatically less dangerous.
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.
The redesign itself would be an admission of design flaw, thus instigating momentum for an official recall.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
That's a very flawed analogy since the bike sequential gear shifter design does not involve a position for safety.
As soon as you have a system for safety you need to have a solution that clearly indicates that it has a safe position.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I think that people need to be re-trained to actually use the PARKING BRAKE. It's not supposed to be an 'emergency brake' as it'll do jack all if you're at speed.
But if you set it, your car is a whole lot less likely to move.
I don't read AC A human right
And 3 decades of driving tells me that you put it in park by pressing the little button on the side of the shifter and moving the lever forward until it stops. OOps, that doesn't work now. Gee, I hope it's not too bright out to read the little indicator lights.
OMG, have you been driving a car with no idea what he handbrake is used for? I drive a manual, and have for about 30 years now. It's a preference, but I still know that every single car I've ever driven, and this is hundreds of them of all sorts...all have a handbrake - which you might call an "emergency brake".
When you park your car you are meant to:
* turn off the ignition
* drop it into first gear if a manual or park if an auto
* pull on the handbrake
None of those steps are optional.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.
This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.
My 2013 BMW has a shifter that's the "spring back to rest position" type. But BMW's design hasn't led to any roll-away issues whatsoever that I've heard of. I think there are a few design-related reasons why. The first is how the gears are actually selected - push the lever forwards to select reverse, pull the lever backwards to select drive. This is in contrast with the Chrysler shift where appears to be a pull-back regardless of whether you want to go into Reverse or Drive from Park. Also, the BMW shifter has a push-button that does nothing but tell the car to go into Park, so it's obvious when the Park command has been given. With the Chrysler shifter, the command to go into Park from Drive is to push the lever forward - which is the same motion to put the car into Neutral from Drive, but you have to move the shifter further for the Park function. I can see how this can be very unclear for the driver. Finally, BMW has programmed the car to go into Park if the driver's door is opened, even if it is moving slowly which can be quite jarring I've heard. (I know of nobody who has tested opening the door while at highway speeds. :) ) Mostly, people on the BMW forums have been complaining how difficult it is to get the car into Neutral and keep it there.