var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
torgonius
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

$6 more for them to add, $600 more you'll pay!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@torgonius: Yup. The markup obviously won't be that steep, but the spirit of the comment is valid. Cost =! Price.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crymson777
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My new car, bought Saturday, and my old car, a 2003 accord, have this feature. The only holdouts on it, to my knowledge, are American car makers....

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crymson777: Your \"knowledge\" is deficient.

/Traveshamockery doesn't know for sure because his windows are all broken.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crymson777: Gee thats funny my Saturn has auto reversing too... Biased much?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crymson777
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: My experience with American cars has been the opposite of what you say. If they have finally added it, that's great! Then the question becomes...which car maker HASN'T added this \"feature\" yet? One would think you would want return buyers....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crymson777: My Ford has auto reversing windows. Or are you basing your \"knowledge\" on the same old prejudices?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
apd09
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

6 dollars per window and 1,000 from the car manufacturer and dealership, this will be their version of the 8,000 toilet seats sold to the government.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pegr
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@apd09:
Make it an option. Pay for it if you want it. Not cost effective to make it an option? Install it on all cars and charge a reasonable price (something the cars makers have been keen to do lately).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

$6 per window, x 4 windows x 16,000,000 cars sold annually = $384,000,000 a year. To save 6 children.

I know if it were my kid... but there has to be limits! I'm sure if you spend enough money here or there you can always come up with 1 more life saved, and this is not going to be one of the most cost effective areas!

Not to mention they have already mandated the switch change. If that saves 3 lives then we are talking about over $120m per child!

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
shepd
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer:

Considering the average hospital stay costs $7,000, and we would save 1,949 patients from the hospital, that's $13,643,000 in saved healthcare costs.

Yes, it doesn't make that huge of a dent in $384,000,000, but it's still a lot of money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: OK, my soul's going to Hell for this, but I agree with your point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: And who are you to say those 3 kids won't be CEO's or inventors or something else that will provide that value exponentially to humanity during their lives?

In my opinion, recalls should be instituted if there is possible realistic risk of even ONE child's death, and before it happens, not after.

I am similarly offended by the manner in which many city planners see risky conditions at an intersection, or see stop or traffic lights are needed, but someone on the committee says \"well, when 10 people die there, we'll allocate the budget for it\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unpolloloco
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: So it's better to save one person for $120 million when we can easily save tens of thousands in the third world for the same cost by providing soap or clean water?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unpolloloco: Your analogy is misplaced and laughable at best. It is a false choice, the car company will not buy water and soap for 3rd world countries. This is simply and narrowly a matter of will the car company spend on the safety feature or not, and our discussion is about whether $6 is worth the life of the child or children that will ride in EACH car. I say $6 IS worth trying to save / protect those 1-3 (on average) lives.

The soap and clean drinking water for indigenous people is handled by others and yes a good idea, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer:

You should think about your statement for a moment. Thousands of children die of drowning every year. From your statement, even one death is too much. Therefore pools should be banned.

$500M spent on reversible windows is $500M not spent elsewhere. Perhaps not spent on vaccines, to keep children alive. Perhaps not spent on starving children, to keep them alive.

But I have a better suggestion. Perhaps you should pay extra to get reversible windows on your car, to keep your children safe, and let others decide how best to protect their children.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer:


So, we should be willing to spend any amount of money to save a single child's life? Well, then, we should also slow down all traffic on all roads to 10mph max - so what if it costs a huge amount of time to get anywhere, it'll save lives.


We make tradeoffs every day where we implicitly value human life, because we have to, because resources aren't infinite.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So what if you're trying to thwart a carjacker by rolling up the windows (stuck hand at 70 MPH puts a bad taste in one's mouth), and the auto-reverse feature kicks in? Would it be possible to turn this feature off, or would you be stuck with it?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
rickhamilton620
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: On most systems you can simply pull the switch up again to close the window. It doesnt open the window fully again, just enough to let fingers free. Once it bounces back you can just pull up immediately again.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GenXCub
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Personally, I think they'd be better off actually adding it at their own cost since it's so low, and then use it as an advertising method, or a list on standard features. Makes it sound like a more robust and safety-conscious car.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GenXCub: Uh, no. The consumer pays for EVERYTHING. I don't have a problem with that, but it's just the way it is.

Keep that in mind, everyone, the next time your favorite politician is stumping for \"windfall profit taxes\" on oil companies or healthcare companies or some other villainous force. They'll recover the cost, direct from your pockets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Orv
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GenXCub: From a car maker's perspective, $24 per car ($6 x 4 windows) is an *astronomical* amount of money. They'll work to save pennies per car, because when you're building millions of cars that stuff adds up.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
The_Red_Monkey
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Um, who are these people getting out smarted by the window? And parents? Why are you not using the window lock feature where the driver is the only one able to manipulate the windows?

As a percentage of autos compared to the people injured is almost nill. It seems like a waste of resources. Drinking Soda probably kills more people. More people drown in their bath tubs.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: Lloyd Christmas is not pleased by your flippant approach to the real problem of heads getting stuck in power windows.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: it's usually not a kid who closes the window on their own hand. i've had my fingers nearly cut off by having them out the window (when it's only down 2-3\") and the driver goes to roll up the window without looking over first.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon: Yeah, this is what I've seen as well. And OMFG does it appear to be painful!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Moon roofs are supposed to have a two-stage closing procedure to prevent someone whose head is sticking through the roof from being decapitated. Mine works a little different. It opens in two stages and closes in one. It never bothered me so I didn't bother to have it fixed, but I would think the switch is probably in backwards.

On the windows, if you have to hold the button to close the window, why do you need an auto-reverse? I can see it with one-touch windows but otherwise it's an unnecessary expense.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is ridiculous. Let's say 20M cars are sold in the US. At $6 per window, and 4 windows per car (just a guess), that's $480,000,000.

To save 6 people. That's $80M per life saved. How many lives could be saved if that $80M were used more productively?

And to the \"What about the children? Isn't anyone thinking about the children?\" crowd, I wonder about the women whose windows will unroll when an attacker sticks his hands in.

When I tell my window to roll up, I want it to roll up. This is ridiculous.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
P=mv
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh: This is ridiculous. There are far better ways to make the world a safer place with $480,000,000.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Orv
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think most of the risk could be eliminated by outlawing \"one-touch\" roll-up features. One-touch open is a convenience, one-touch close is a safety hazard.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Orv: I love my Ford's one touch roll up. It also knows when something's in the way. So what's the problem?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Orv: I love my one touch close windows. Also my VW (as much as I talk smack about its reliability) has the anti-pinch feature.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thefranchise2
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've figured out the solution to this problem.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thefranchise2: plus you can work out the \"guns\". well, one gun for a while and then have somebody else drive you around or go to england. unless you're in england of course, then come here.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great. Now how will I teach my nephews to exit the vehicle quickly?

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Geblah187
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, 6 deaths? *DEATHS*? ... are these people related to the 13 people a year who die by pulling a vending machine over on top of themselves?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IamBort
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

nobody seems to have pointed out this would create enough jobs to save america (well not really), but on a small cost per automobile, if you offered new car purchasers this option for $6, it could save them, their children or family from decapitation of fingers or heads, it is likely most would be willing to pony up the extra money. (Anyone remember $3 to fix gas tanks in pintos?) I can easily spend this much for a meal at mcdonalds, and i'll be hungry a mere 2 hours later.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not like the windows close by themselves. Someone has to push the button to close the window in the first place.

Really, you're cheering for a law that puts a band-aid on negligence.

Why not a device that stops a door from moving if it swings too quickly? Some people get hit on the head!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My 1999 Volkswagen Passat had it, but my 2006 GMC Envoy does not. I tested it the other day.

Also? It doesn't have automatic up. Just automatic down. It's the main feature I miss from that Passat. Who knew auto-up was the feature I'd miss?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

After reading the comments it's clear that y'all don't know about AUTO UP as well as AUTO DOWN. You know how you pull up to the drive thru and push the down button and your window glides nicely down? On some cars you can hit the up button and they'll roll all the way back up, too.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
lordmorgul
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: Yep I like my auto up windows. They are not a safety hazard except for inept individuals who are better off not driving a vehicle at all...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
adamwinn
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow... if these numbers are accurate, it means car power windows kill 50% more people than sharks annually.

Maybe power windows need to be moved higher up the food chain?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@adamwinn: what if I crash into the ocean and a shark is trying to get through the window? if I have this feature, he'll make it in....what killed me then? power windows and sharks.


I'm just gonna walk everywhere, except the ocean.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Back when I was a kid, y'know how my parents kept my sister and me from getting guillotined by the power windows? First off they used the lock switch on the driver's door. Second they never left us in the car unattended with keys in the ignition (even if we did figure out the lock switch, fat lot of good it did us). And lastly should my sister and I ever get caught screwing with the power windows or locks we got a severe paddlin'.

I mean seriously, this isn't anything that common sense and good parental discipline won't solve.

I mean the Swine flu has killed more kids this year than power windows have killed in the past decade. I think the money spent on these auto-reversing motors could probably be better put towards making larger quantities of vaccine available.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kjherron
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Every time I see a story like this, it reminds me of the story A Nice Morning Drive. This is the story that inspired the Rush song Red Barchetta.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sp00nix
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Heh. My Volvo windows were unstoppable. it was like the had a 5HP motor moving them. Al-tho slow, so you would have time to stop if some one got stuck in it, how ever that my happen.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Pixel
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Easier and cheaper solution, use the style of switches Toyota does.

You have to lift the switch to raise the window, so a kid standing on it can only make the switch go down. No special circuits, no special sensors, so they should cost the same as the switches the other car companies are currently using.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixel: Yeah, current Fords have the same design for switches.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixel: Those are the same switches GM has been using since 1990, so I suspect its people actually forcing them up.

Meaning you either are mindblowingly stupid or physically attempting to injure or kill someone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixel: I think part of the problem is somebody else putting the window up. still can't believe it happens that much.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Newvox
November 13, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe if they put a big red warning tag like they do on blow-dryers? That should be way cheaper than $12-$24, saving millions per year!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","");