mink92890

The door closers on the LS430 ultra can be a great advantage for the convenience of not closing the door all the way. BUT a week ago, my mom was washing the car, and closed the door on her finger. It didnt close in all the way. So without knowing, the door closer closed all the way. And my mom's finger has been hurting a lot (nail like bent). I was wondering that shouldnt there be like a pinch protection of some sort on the closers to prevent things like this from happening.


Thanks
Mink92890

OneOfOne

youre kidding right? at what point does a person take responsibilty for their actions? nothing against your mom but I think this is her responsibility not a door's. why is your hand in a partially open door? why is it not closed when youre washing a car? its like saying mcdonalds is responsible for fat people going there and becoming more fat.

BrickHead

digital_b, I see your point. But some kind of pinch protection similar to that of the windows would be nice.

OneOfOne

look at it this way. I once closed a passinger window on someones hand inadvertantly so the pinch protection would have been nice to have. still I should have looked first to see if a hand was there and the other person should have moved it. I dont know but maybe all the news about product liability is getting to me.

BMcD430

digital_b for Attorney General!!!

I completely agree. We are over-legislating everything in this country.

stanatl

I'm truly sorry your mom got hurt but why make a company take responsibility for something we should be responsible for. Where do you stop? Pinch protection on power windows in case someone puts their finger in an open window and then hits the close switch? The trunk on my car has an automatic closing feature - should that have pinch protection as well?

I guess I feel that too many individuals are abdicating any sense of responsibility for their own actions.

GRAND_LS 4

iTrader: (2)

Trust me; A LOT of it is for your protection. Think how your daily life would be if the city was not liable for the roads you drive on, and malls are not liable for your safety while you are walking through the mall. So if a tile was broken, and you trip and break your knee, you would be on your own like in most other undeveloped countries. Or most importantly, if a car manufacture was not liable for a faulty design that took a toll on human lives.

Most importantly, Lexus does not just aim to fulfill law requirements, but they actually want to improve the customer experience. They exercise a lot of precatious that the law does not require. I agree that sometimes things can get out of hand, but for the most part, its there for your protection in the end.

By the way, the case regarding McDonalds is misunderstood by the public, and misinterpreted by the media. I knew this only after we studied the case in my operation management class.

OneOfOne

no doubt a lot is for our protection. too much however is just the result of irresponsible people and greedy lawyers like John Edwards who sue because they know the defendants fear bad publicity and that there is a large fee to be had. this is not to say that this guys mom is any of these things. the line though must be drawn at the intersection of common sense and personal responsibility.

BrickHead

Forget about the legislative issues for a second. How about user-friendliness? A lot of these safety/convinience features were created to make the car more user friendly, not just to protect the manufacturer from any liability.

Neo

iTrader: (3)

I agree in theory about people taking responsibility for their actions. In this case, though, the car added something "for convenience". I think it is reasonable to expect something added for safety against this convenience feature. His Mom could be totally OK with accepting responsibility for inadvertantly closing the door on her fingers. This does not happen all the time, but it could happen and does. What she did not ask for was to have this feature take over and make a bad situation worse. In any "normal" car, she would have just had to deal with the initial door closing.

I don't think mink92890 was trying to point fingers. I just read it as he was asking for opinions on whether or not pinch protection in conjuction with the door closer feature is a good idea. I think it is. Whether or not it becomes so is an entirely different matter.

OneOfOne

ok even though I cant fathom the original scenario I know that for me the door closer is great. just think how many time in the past you didnt use enough force to close a door and hear the annoying 'kuh-link' and knowing you have to turn around and re close the door. doesnt happen often but its worth the not having to do a monty python to go back either.

Neo

iTrader: (3)

I agree that it is a nice feature. I know I've not closed the door all the way before. I do think though that the door closer + pinch detection is an even better feature.