[Paniolo]

Locally and I am very sure in your area, accidents occur in the garage as you are backing out not knowing if your little ones are playing in the back of your Murano..

This is one reason why I loved my 2006 Black Murano SL. You never know who is below your rear window view as you are backing out from your garage or any place. To many kids are getting killed, maim or receive some type of injury because you didn't know who was behind your car.

 

[njjoe]

Paniolo-

There is a downside to using the rear camera. Getting too used to it and relying on it exclusively can be dangerous.

A few weeks ago I was walking through a Home Depot parking lot. Right in front of me a woman in an FX backed out of her parking spot just missing me by a foot or two. She backed right into the path of another car. (Yes, she was talking on a cell phone). I went over to see if she was okay and she was screaming at me, blaming me (??) and the other driver. (Yes, she was blond). She claimed she was "watching the TV", the road was clear, and the other person had to be speeding. (He wasn't). I asked her what she meant by "watching the TV" and she pointed to the display and told me "the TV shows everything behind me". I laughed and so did the cops when I told them.

The back-up camera is good, but it is not a substitute for a look over the shoulder.

I am waiting for the first lawsuit where someone sues the automaker because the back-up camera didn't show them a bicyclist was in their blind spot.

-njjoe

 

[hfelknor]

Absolutely Joe.
The camera "should" show you what is behind you.
It cannot show you what is "going" to be behind you. Things and people coming from the side, behind you, are still better seen the old low tech way.

I still wish I had one on my 03 as it does show things right behind you that you could not see by looking back.

Homer

 

[Kocioblue MO]

hi guys..

"I am waiting for the first lawsuit where someone sues the automaker because the back-up camera didn't show them a bicyclist was in their blind spot."


i don't see the law suit being very successful as i think there is a message under the camera saying always turn and look before backing...

Cheers...
Kocioblue

 

[ekaxel]

Like " Close the cover before striking"?? Or " The surgeon general has determined........"??

 

[njjoe]

i don't see the law suit being very successful as i think there is a message under the camera saying always turn and look before backing...

Cheers...
Kocioblue

It's not whether they win or lose the lawsuit, it is how much they settle for.

Hmmm... How about spilling (obviously) hot coffee from McDonald's?

-njjoe

 

[Murano_driver]

Paniolo-

There is a downside to using the rear camera. Getting too used to it and relying on it exclusively can be dangerous.

A few weeks ago I was walking through a Home Depot parking lot. Right in front of me a woman in an FX backed out of her parking spot just missing me by a foot or two. She backed right into the path of another car. (Yes, she was talking on a cell phone). I went over to see if she was okay and she was screaming at me, blaming me (??) and the other driver. (Yes, she was blond). She claimed she was "watching the TV", the road was clear, and the other person had to be speeding. (He wasn't). I asked her what she meant by "watching the TV" and she pointed to the display and told me "the TV shows everything behind me". I laughed and so did the cops when I told them.

The back-up camera is good, but it is not a substitute for a look over the shoulder.

I am waiting for the first lawsuit where someone sues the automaker because the back-up camera didn't show them a bicyclist was in their blind spot.

-njjoe

Haha this is a great story. Unfortunately, it will be a lot of people who is dumb enough and do not understand that not everything can be “seen on the TV”. (Remember the lawsuit when one lady set cruise control to 60 MPH for her mobile home (RV) and went to the back to make the coffee….. njjoe, I guess you was lucky and you meet one)

 

[Gonzo]

I gues that is one good thing about plain old backup sensors... you still need to look. :4:

I had them installed for the first time on my MO... I can't image having a car without 'em. They saved me once as I looked... no one there started to backout of a spot. 3/4 of the way out someone walked behind me. The alarm went off I hit the brakes. Don't know if I would have hit him had I not, but that was too close.

Why would someone walk that close to a car backing out? :8:

 

[Margatenj]

It's not whether they win or lose the lawsuit, it is how much they settle for.

Hmmm... How about spilling (obviously) hot coffee from McDonald's?

-njjoe

Everytime someone brings that whole hot coffee is hot thing I start shaking my head.

...and start thinking of a billion other lawsuits just waiting to happen ... what the hell was that judge thinking?

 

[TexInFla]

And every time someone comments on the McDonald's lawsuit, I shake my head, too...wondering why people rely on the distortions of the media (including the radio talk show hosts) instead of researching and understanding the actual facts of the lawsuit. If you know the facts, the judge's ruling makes a lot more sense.

 

[zebelkhan]

And every time someone comments on the McDonald's lawsuit, I shake my head, too...wondering why people rely on the distortions of the media (including the radio talk show hosts) instead of researching and understanding the actual facts of the lawsuit. If you know the facts, the judge's ruling makes a lot more sense.

Please...do tell...:4:

 

[TexInFla]

Please...do tell...:4:

I'm a bit reluctant to do so, partly because this takes us further off topic, and partly because we have basically agreed among ourselves not to get into controversial (especially political) topics, which this could easily turn into. That being said, here are a couple of common misconceptions about the case:

* The 79-year-old woman who sued McDonald's was NOT driving the car and trying to drink hot coffee at the same time. Her grandson was driving and had actually stopped the car so that grandma could put cream and sugar in her coffee.

* The coffee was heated to 185 degrees F. Food is considered to be too hot to eat when it's above 140 degrees F.

* The woman suffered third degree burns to 6% of her body, and the physicians who treated her said it was one of the worst burn cases they had ever seen.

* McDonald's had received over 700 complaints about burns from their hot coffee, so they knew they had a problem.

* The woman offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. McDonald's refused.

* The jury awarded the woman $200,000 in damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found the woman to be 20% responsible for her injury. The jury also awarded the woman $2.7 million in punitive damages, which is about what McDonald's made in two days' worth of coffee sales. The punitive damages were reduced to $480,000, although the true settlement amount is not known since McDonald's finally agreed to an out-of-court settlement that was not disclosed.

More info on the facts of the case can be found here and here .

 

[Low n Slow]

And every time someone comments on the McDonald's lawsuit, I shake my head, too...wondering why people rely on the distortions of the media (including the radio talk show hosts) instead of researching and understanding the actual facts of the lawsuit. If you know the facts, the judge's ruling makes a lot more sense.

I agree. People shouln't have to worry about needing skin grafs if they spill their coffee.

 

[njjoe]

I agree. People shouln't have to worry about needing skin grafs if they spill their coffee.

I'm sorry, I stayed away as long as I could, but....

When you make tea at home I assume you boil the water first, right? Then you pour it into a cup or mug, right? How hot do you think that water is? It certainly is above 140 F. Would you not also get seriously burned if you spilled your hot tea on your lap? You know it is hot so you handle it with care. You have been doing it since you were a kid.

If you went to a fast-food restaurant and the server brought you coffee and it was cool enough to swallow quickly, would you not send it back and ask for hot coffee?

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame others for their own incompetence.

OK, I'm done. I apologize for continuing the hijack of this thread. I promise not to do it again (until the next time).

-njjoe

 

[TexInFla]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame others for their own incompetence.

And corporations need to take responsibility for the damage they do to unsuspecting citizens. Sadly, that rarely happens without the intervention of the court system.

I'm guessing you didn't read any of the facts of the case. McDonald's coffee was a good 25-30 degrees hotter than any other restaurant coffee in that area of New Mexico. Coffee at that temperature produces severe burns a mere two seconds after contact with the skin. Coffee at the temperature that most restaurants serve it produces burns 30-60 seconds after contact with the skin. That doesn't seem like a major difference in time.....unless you're trying to remove clothing that's soaked in hot coffee. Then, that difference in time might mean the difference between minor burns and third-degree burns that required two years of rehabilitation and skin grafts. Interestingly, as a result of the lawsuit, McDonald's lowered the temperature of their coffee to 155 degrees F with no resultant loss of sales. If only they had done that 700 complaints earlier.....

It's easy to be harshly judgmental toward those who sue and win settlements against corporations, but I wonder how many of us in the same situation would absolve McDonald's of any responsibility. Few, if any, I suspect. Just look at the myriad of posts on this very board excoriating Nissan for having to be forced into recalling the Murano for faulty alternators. If we apply the same "take personal responsibility" approach to the alternator failure as is suggested for the McDonald's coffee case, then Nissan should be free from any responsibility for installing faulty alternators in our vehicles, and all of us with 2003-2004 Muranos should have taken personal responsibility to check our batteries and our alternators on a daily basis to make sure they weren't ready to fail. Ridiculous? You bet. We were ready to take a chunk out of Nissan's hide for not stepping up to their corporate responsibility and fixing the alternator problem, and rightfully so. McDonald's, too, should have stepped up to their corporate responsibility and made sure that their coffee wasn't so hot that it would produce third-degree burns after only two seconds of contact with human skin.

 

[zebelkhan]

Okay, my turn!

Having a zillion attornys in the family I am quite familiar with ambulance chasers and those who use every excuse in the book to make money off of any situation they can use to their benefit, regardless of right or wrong.

It should all be about what is fair. There is a big difference between the alternator and the coffee situation. When you buy a car you expect the charging system to be functioning properly. That is part of the deal so if it does not work, then Nissan is responsible and is only fair that they fix it. Coffee is expected to be hot, specially McDonald's coffee is liked because of its high temprature. In fact, that is one reason I stay away from it because it is too hot for my taste. The coffee was not any hotter than usual when the woman spilled it, and she knew it was going to be that hot since she had that coffee before. Any person with limited brain capability should know that if you spill the hot coffee on your lap you will burn, so don't get yourself in that situation. Just as no one should stick their finger in a meat grinder....

There....