It happened again. Scary month to be a boat manufacturer

[shawndoggy]

Man in 85's defense, all he's doing is calling you guys on the logical inconsistencies of your arguments. Rather than call him names, why not up your game?

[Bobby Light]

LOL, typical lawyer talk.

[shawndoggy]

LOL, typical lawyer talk.

LOL, says the guy with a lawyer quote in his sig.

[Bobby Light]

One hell of a lawyer too, retiring in his early 30's . I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave with the way our country looks today.

[stroker-ace]

...and the circle-jerk continues...

[TheKiwi]

Food for thought.

People die, yes it happens. People died in the 50s in ways that are today made impossible by safety standards. That's fair enough.

But when someone dies because they lack common sense, or the ability to take responsibility for their actions in where they should have taken it upon themselves to be educated and experienced enough to operate a piece of machinery that can kill, all responsibility should fall soley on themselves. Families should have no recourse against the manufacturer as it is out of there hands.

A car can do 100mph into a brick wall, your required to steer out of the way of the brick wall in order to survive. To do this you need to be licensed and tested so that you understand how the car operates, e.g turning the steering wheel turns the wheels.

I know for a fact that waverunners have a big white stick beneath the handlebars that says WARNING PWC MUST HAVE THROTTLE APPLIED IN ORDER TO STEER or something along the lines of that, if it was removed then thats the owners fault for lending a PWC to someone who doesn't understand how it works.

People such as 85 barefooted would have us all driving cars on rails fitted with emergency ejection seats and 4 ft thick concrete sides if they had their way.

[Bobby Light]

...and the circle-jerk continues...

I was wondering how long it would take for you to chime in and insert one of your famous "torpedo of truths".

Edited June 14, 2011 by 06vlx

[TenTwentyOne]

Food for thought.

People die, yes it happens. People died in the 50s in ways that are today made impossible by safety standards. That's fair enough.

But when someone dies because they lack common sense, or the ability to take responsibility for their actions in where they should have taken it upon themselves to be educated and experienced enough to operate a piece of machinery that can kill, all responsibility should fall soley on themselves. Families should have no recourse against the manufacturer as it is out of there hands.

A car can do 100mph into a brick wall, your required to steer out of the way of the brick wall in order to survive. To do this you need to be licensed and tested so that you understand how the car operates, e.g turning the steering wheel turns the wheels.

I know for a fact that waverunners have a big white stick beneath the handlebars that says WARNING PWC MUST HAVE THROTTLE APPLIED IN ORDER TO STEER or something along the lines of that, if it was removed then thats the owners fault for lending a PWC to someone who doesn't understand how it works.

People such as 85 barefooted would have us all driving cars on rails fitted with emergency ejection seats and 4 ft thick concrete sides if they had their way.

Not to mention that jetskis also have a label that says that you must be 16 years of age to ride it, and also a label that says that you should not operate the vehicle unless you fully understand the operation of it, and have read the owners manual. One thing is for sure- It doesnt matter how many warnings there are, or how many safety features are implemented, people will still get hurt and killed by any motorized product out there. And greedy lawyers will always try to find ways to place blame on the people/companies that will pad their pockets the most.....

Good old Chucky Darwin will always be hard at work.....And so will the deep pocket lawyers.

Edited June 14, 2011 by TenTwentyOne

[85 Barefoot]

People such as 85 barefooted would have us all driving cars on rails fitted with emergency ejection seats and 4 ft thick concrete sides if they had their way.

No I wouldn't. But I do recognize the important improvements that have only come as a result of lawsuits in cars. ie airbags, shoulder belts, stability control, etc. It's not like Yamaha didn't know how to make a waverunner that would perform off-throttle. They just chose not to.

[TenTwentyOne]

If i were to say- "It's not like Malibu didn't know how to make a boat that would perform off-throttle. They just chose not to."

85Barefoot- I changed the name and watercraft type in your statement....Would you still agree with it?? Would you still have the same argument if a 14yo girl ran a 247 into another boat??

I am just curious.....

Edited June 14, 2011 by TenTwentyOne

[TheKiwi]

You still don't get it do you?

The current technology doesn't do much/anything at high speeds. Its for low speed manuevring.

If they put a rudder back there they have shown (in the lawsuit) more people would have died as a result.

What your saying is that they should have had the rudder there, and people should have died so that then you can jump in and say WHY DID THEY PUT THE RUDDER THERE WHEN THEY KNEW IT WOULD KILL PEOPLE.

If they had a way 20/15/10/5/last year that would allow you to maneuver off throttle at high speeds without fundamentally changing the design of a jet ski they would have put it in.

[TheKiwi]

You still don't get it do you?

The current technology doesn't do much/anything at high speeds. Its for low speed manuevring.

If they put a rudder back there they have shown (in the lawsuit) more people would have died as a result.

What your saying is that they should have had the rudder there, and people should have died so that then you can jump in and say WHY DID THEY PUT THE RUDDER THERE WHEN THEY KNEW IT WOULD KILL PEOPLE.

If they had a way 20/15/10/5/last year that would allow you to maneuver off throttle at high speeds without fundamentally changing the design of a jet ski they would have put it in.

[85 Barefoot]

If i were to say- "It's not like Malibu didn't know how to make a boat that would perform off-throttle. They just chose not to."

85Barefoot- I changed the name and watercraft type in your statement....Would you still agree with it?? Would you still have the same argument if a 14yo girl ran a 23 LSV into another boat??

I am just curious.....

Do enlighten me with the design that would prevent that in a malibu (you won't be able to) .... and therein lies the distinction. The "fix" for PWCs was well-known, and of course is now used.

[WakingMeHappy]

I saw we all pool our resources together and go buy an island somewhere and only allow non-suing Bu owners to live there. I for one and really sick of our lawsuit happy country.

[85 Barefoot]

You still don't get it do you?

The current technology doesn't do much/anything at high speeds. Its for low speed manuevring.

If they put a rudder back there they have shown (in the lawsuit) more people would have died as a result.

What your saying is that they should have had the rudder there, and people should have died so that then you can jump in and say WHY DID THEY PUT THE RUDDER THERE WHEN THEY KNEW IT WOULD KILL PEOPLE.

If they had a way 20/15/10/5/last year that would allow you to maneuver off throttle at high speeds without fundamentally changing the design of a jet ski they would have put it in.

I get your position fine, I just disgaree with you.

You have no evidence that more people would be killed by rudders, not to mention that's not even the design now used. So by defintion you're saying that the modern design (with brake and steering (on seadoos anyway, the only manufacturer that I have personal experience)) has fundamentally changed the design? No it hasn't.

[11VLX]

Man in 85's defense, all he's doing is calling you guys on the logical inconsistencies of your arguments. Rather than call him names, why not up your game?

And atlest 85 backs up his opinions with facts. Most of what else I read in this post as well as the MC post were inconsistent examples and what ifs, as well as opinions which have no basis, atleast not one that is stated. It could be my opinion that my red truck is blue but that wouldn't make me correct or it blue. If you want to argue about opinions you are just wasting time if you don't atleast state some basis for the opinion. To make blanket statements that manufacturers should never be responsible is unwise and illogical. In this case Yamaha knew of it's design problem for over 20 years and defended lawsuits for that same period of time rather than fixing the problem. Think of all the lives that could have been saved if the fix, which they knew about, had been implemented 20 years ago.

Everyone on this board is an expert and most have agreed they would hold themselves responsible for accidents on their craft. But, the girl in the Yamaha case was a first time waverunner driver and was not an expert. Yamaha knows that first timers use their products in fact they target them as those un savvy operators are usually un savvy buyers and many boaters start into the sport with waverunner type crafts. They also know they have design defects which make them dangerous and they make conscious decisions not to fix problems but rather to only warn of them. To put a 5 cent sticker on a waverunner when a 5 dollar part would completely prevent the problem in which they know about and know that are winding up in the hands of inexperienced drivers is an example of putting profits in front of people and I for one have no sympathy for them.

[TenTwentyOne]

Do enlighten me with the design that would prevent that in a malibu (you won't be able to) .... and therein lies the distinction. The "fix" for PWCs was well-known, and of course is now used.

Umm.... Inboards dont steer for $hit when you completely back off the throttle at speed....... A little bit, sure, but maybe 20% as much as when you are applying throttle.

Have you never been cruising at 35-40 mph, backed all the way off the throttle, and turned the wheel in your boat?? It doesnt do very much....

And this "fix" that you speak of doesnt do anything above 10 MPH.....

[Chia]

you have to give juries more credit, unless you were there hearing all of the evidence presented, how can you say the verdict was wrong.

A lot of people believe the OJ verdict, based on the evidence presented at trial, was correct. The jurors may have known in their hearts that OJ was guilty, but instead of finding him guilty, based their decision to acquit on the evidence presented at trial.

[85 Barefoot]

Umm.... Inboards dont steer for $hit when you completely back off the throttle at speed....... A little bit, sure, but maybe 20% as much as when you are applying throttle.

Have you never been cruising at 35-40 mph, backed all the way off the throttle, and turned the wheel in your boat?? It doesnt do very much....

And this "fix" that you speak of doesnt do anything above 10 MPH.....

Weird, when I'm driving and someone falls you know what I do? I pull off the throttle and turn right. My boat is able to have made a 180 in not far at all. I must have one of those super handling malibus. When in the course at 34 or 36 I turn around within the confines of the course with absolutely no throttle input. So, I don't think your analogy is comparable...not with my boats anyway.

[TheKiwi]

That's because your prop is still spinning. At a lower speed your prop isn't spinning very fast to start with.

[TenTwentyOne]

Weird, when I'm driving and someone falls you know what I do? I pull off the throttle and turn right. My boat is able to have made a 180 in not far at all. I must have one of those super handling malibus. When in the course at 34 or 36 I turn around within the confines of the course with absolutely no throttle input. So, I don't think your analogy is comparable...not with my boats anyway.

The above statement proves that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing...... You knew what I meant..... either that, or you have no idea how your own boat handles. You are like a dog with a damn frisbee....

[85 Barefoot]

That's because your prop is still spinning. At a lower speed your prop isn't spinning very fast to start with.

Whatever spin it has is drag only.

[NuBuGuy2011]

... and because our Bu's don't steer so well w/o power is that another lawsuit waiting to happen !!??

... oops - missed pg2 - guess that was kinda of the point before the he said she said started.

Edited June 14, 2011 by NuBuGuy2011

[85 Barefoot]

The above statement proves that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing...... You knew what I meant..... either that, or you have no idea how your own boat handles. You are like a dog with a damn frisbee....

I knew what you meant? No I followed your exact analogy and demonstrated it does not work (to my boats anyway). I turn within the confines of the slalom course every single time someone falls. If I did a power turn my ski buddies would fire me. You want me to agree with your example when it's clearly different?

[jkendallmsce]

The above statement proves that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing...... You knew what I meant..... either that, or you have no idea how your own boat handles. You are like a dog with a damn frisbee....

I thought it was a bone...but maybe 85 is not that particular about what he gnaws on!! ha ha