GM's reaction to EV1 restoration (so far)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GM's reaction to EV1 restoration (so far)

Dan Frederiksen-2
I have been following up on the situation with GM's adverse reaction to
the recent outing of a restored EV1 with GM's Dave Barthmuss, group
manager, western region, energy and environment communications (top
green PR guy in the west?)

it's obvious that he is lying but just maybe I can steer him toward
admitting there is no problem with letting the EV1s go free.
the exchange is still not concluded. here it is so far: (top post was first)



[hidden email] wrote:
No legal threats at all.  I know what our reaction was to the Western
Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
of litigation.

Me:
thank you. what was your reaction to the event then?

[hidden email] wrote:
That we continue to appreciate and recognize the passion and enthusiasm
for electric vehicle technology, and hope that the issues we face today
in terms of energy security and the like will encourage hundreds of
thousand if not millions of consumers to consider purchasing or leasing
our EFlex extended range electric system as illustrated by the Chevy
Volt when it is ready for prime time.

Me:
regarding the recent WWU EV1 restoration, did GM in any way contact WWU
regarding the public showing of the now operational EV1? and what was
the intent of that communication?

[hidden email] wrote:
While the exact nature of our discussion with WWU is private matter, I
can tell you no legal action was ever threatened .  We did informally
remind our contacts there of the general terms of the donation
agreement, but made no legal threats.  I think WWU has since confirmed
that as well.  Sorry for the brevity.  I am learning to live and work
with one arm and many pain killers after completely rupturing my right
bicep tendon and having four screws sunk into my elbow to try and
reattach it.

Me:
sorry to hear about your arm. I hope it means you can identify with the
hardship of others.
can you tell me why it is still necessary to suppress the few remaining
EV1s?
please don't say it's for legal reasons because that wouldn't be true.
certainly you can find a way to sign away all liability to the recipient.

[hidden email] wrote:
Identify with the hardship of others?  You don't know me very well or my
personal life, otherwise you would not ask that kind of question.  
Suffice to say, I know very well and am sensitive to many struggles and
hardships.
More than legal liability.  More safety related.  NHTSA won't certify
these vehicles to drive on public roads anymore.  And even if owners
signed legal waivers, that does not apply to others that may get hurt in
accidents when aging EV parts fail.

Me:
so there are no legal problems for GM in letting  people restore the EV1
to operation?
are you saying you GM is hindering it because of concern for the people
driving them and those around them?
that if people would be willing to bear the responsibility (like they do
in custom cars) GM would let them?

[hidden email]
I am saying NHTSA won't certify  them to operate on public roads, and we
have serious safety concerns and issues with vehicles that are not
legally certified to drive.

Me:
so as far as GM is concerned it's ok for the cars to be restored to
running condition as long as they ensure various applicable laws for use
on public roads are met?

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM's reaction to EV1 restoration (so far)

Robert MacDowell
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> Me:
> sorry to hear about your arm. I hope it means you can identify with the
> hardship of others.
> can you tell me why it is still necessary to suppress the few remaining
> EV1s?
> please don't say it's for legal reasons because that wouldn't be true.
> certainly you can find a way to sign away all liability to the recipient.

That is your presumption, and you call others who disagree with you
liars.  I call you on this presumption and ask you to prove that an
automaker can truly divorce themselves from product liability without an
act of Congress.

> [hidden email] wrote:
> Identify with the hardship of others?  You don't know me very well or my
> personal life, otherwise you would not ask that kind of question.  
> Suffice to say, I know very well and am sensitive to many struggles and
> hardships.

And that's why I can't be a P.R. flack.  I couldn't respond that nicely.

> More than legal liability.  More safety related.  NHTSA won't certify
> these vehicles to drive on public roads anymore.  And even if owners
> signed legal waivers, that does not apply to others that may get hurt in
> accidents when aging EV parts fail.

And that sounds about right to me.

The EV1 has too many new technologies and the first generation of those.
  Composite chassis?  None before or since.  What if they just don't
hold up over time, and one day a 20-year-old chassis violently
delaminates after bottoming out the car in a rough pothole, breaking the
car in pieces and sending heavy parts flying into a sidewalk cafe?

It's just like Dave said, those folks didn't sign a waiver with GM, and
of course lawyers will go after EVERYBODY, and GM has deep pockets.  You
double damn bet GM will get sued in an EV1 accident if there's even the
remotest hope of convincing a jury that it's a product flaw, and that's
a pretty good hope, because its unusual technologies will give the
lawyers a lot of room to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate.  That is their
job, make no mistake.


> Me:
> so there are no legal problems for GM in letting  people restore the EV1
> to operation?
> are you saying you GM is hindering it because of concern for the people
> driving them and those around them?
> that if people would be willing to bear the responsibility (like they do
> in custom cars) GM would let them?
>
> [hidden email]
> I am saying NHTSA won't certify  them to operate on public roads, and we
> have serious safety concerns and issues with vehicles that are not
> legally certified to drive.
>
> Me:
> so as far as GM is concerned it's ok for the cars to be restored to
> running condition as long as they ensure various applicable laws for use
> on public roads are met?

Yeah, you're trying to corner him, and that's just not going to work and
is a really rude thing to do.  You can't change the world by backing a
PR flack into a logical corner.  He'll just hang up the phone on you,
you'll declare him unreasonable, a liar, etc. etc. which you are ALREADY
doing (so no great loss)... and that's how it ends.  Yawn, seen it
before.  Total waste of time.  It produces nothing but aggravation and
hate, and that's useless, unless you're into that as an end unto itself.

Robert

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM's reaction to EV1 restoration (so far)

Geopilot
In reply to this post by Dan Frederiksen-2
Very interesting and through line of questioning. Keep it up.
But a little advice - ask him genuinely and keep judgement out of your
questions. You'll keep him interested longer and will get more
information.

One suggested followup is this.

GM currently has millions of old vehicles on the road that the NHTSA
won't certify anymore either and which GM would presumably have the same
liability.

Yet GM only forces the destruction of the ev1? Why does GM not force the
return and destruction of all old car?
Why is only the EV1 singled out for that liabilty issue when all old GM
cars have the exact same liability exposure?

On Fri, 4 Jan NHTSA won't certify2008 12:17 am, Dan Frederiksen wrote:

> I have been following up on the situation with GM's adverse reaction to
> the recent outing of a restored EV1 with GM's Dave Barthmuss, group
> manager, western region, energy and environment communications (top
> green PR guy in the west?)
>
> it's obvious that he is lying but just maybe I can steer him toward
> admitting there is no problem with letting the EV1s go free.
> the exchange is still not concluded. here it is so far: (top post was
> first)
>
>
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> No legal threats at all.  I know what our reaction was to the Western
> Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
> drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
> of litigation.
>
> Me:
> thank you. what was your reaction to the event then?
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> That we continue to appreciate and recognize the passion and enthusiasm
> for electric vehicle technology, and hope that the issues we face today
> in terms of energy security and the like will encourage hundreds of
> thousand if not millions of consumers to consider purchasing or leasing
> our EFlex extended range electric system as illustrated by the Chevy
> Volt when it is ready for prime time.
>
> Me:
> regarding the recent WWU EV1 restoration, did GM in any way contact WWU
> regarding the public showing of the now operational EV1? and what was
> the intent of that communication?
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> While the exact nature of our discussion with WWU is private matter, I
> can tell you no legal action was ever threatened .  We did informally
> remind our contacts there of the general terms of the donation
> agreement, but made no legal threats.  I think WWU has since confirmed
> that as well.  Sorry for the brevity.  I am learning to live and work
> with one arm and many pain killers after completely rupturing my right
> bicep tendon and having four screws sunk into my elbow to try and
> reattach it.
>
> Me:
> sorry to hear about your arm. I hope it means you can identify with the
> hardship of others.
> can you tell me why it is still necessary to suppress the few remaining
> EV1s?
> please don't say it's for legal reasons because that wouldn't be true.
> certainly you can find a way to sign away all liability to the
> recipient.
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> Identify with the hardship of others?  You don't know me very well or
> my
> personal life, otherwise you would not ask that kind of question.
> Suffice to say, I know very well and am sensitive to many struggles and
> hardships.
> More than legal liability.  More safety related.  NHTSA won't certify
> these vehicles to drive on public roads anymore.  And even if owners
> signed legal waivers, that does not apply to others that may get hurt
> in
> accidents when aging EV parts fail.
>
> Me:
> so there are no legal problems for GM in letting  people restore the
> EV1
> to operation?
> are you saying you GM is hindering it because of concern for the people
> driving them and those around them?
> that if people would be willing to bear the responsibility (like they
> do
> in custom cars) GM would let them?
>
> [hidden email]
> I am saying NHTSA won't certify  them to operate on public roads, and
> we
> have serious safety concerns and issues with vehicles that are not
> legally certified to drive.
>
> Me:
> so as far as GM is concerned it's ok for the cars to be restored to
> running condition as long as they ensure various applicable laws for
> use
> on public roads are met?
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.

www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM's reaction to EV1 restoration (so far)

mos6507-2
Really, the opportunities for plausible deniability on GM's part are vast.
There is no way GM is going to just admit anything, and now that they are
developing the Volt, it's hard to really pin them against the wall as having
ever had a vendetta against EVs.  Personally I just think the energy spent
in perpetuating this witch-hunt could be better spent elsewhere.  Gas prices
will eventually cause drivers to reprioritize.  It's only a matter of time.

-----Original Message-----
Yet GM only forces the destruction of the ev1? Why does GM not force the
return and destruction of all old car?
Why is only the EV1 singled out for that liabilty issue when all old GM
cars have the exact same liability exposure?


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev