GM Should be held responsible?

[Guest]

I was driving my old buick this past summer when a brake line broke and the pedal went to the floor! I swear it felt like the car accelerated when this happened!!! I was damn lucky I didn't kill myself or anyone else! I come to find out these old cars only have a single master cyl and if a line breaks you loose all your brakes! How could they design something like that? They must have know that would happen!!! We should complain to the NTSB and get GM to recall all these death traps!<BR>And no I dont want to hear any excuses about that being the technology of the day! They also should have known that those little lines would rust if they ran them under the car!

[Guest]

Gee - sounds like YOU should do an under-car inspection occasionally (to make sure it's fit for the road).<P>I've a '62 Corvair (currently for sale) that has under car brake lines (combo metal & rubber). Replace as needed. Car is inspected by the state once a year in NH, more often by me.<P>As for the master cylinder ... for lots of older cars that came with the single chamber master cyclinder, they probably make a double that'll fit ... I know they do for the 'vair (it was offered as an option when mine quit working).

[Howard]

Just for a little history. The goverment did not involve itself too much in the auto industry. At least not from a safety standpoint. The first uniform goverment code involves headlights. All cars produced for the 1940 model year and after had to have sealed beams and a standard size light. Other mandated items to come along included safety plate glass. Yes, cars for many years had just plain old glass. Talk about unsafe! Seat belts were introduced by the car makers without goverment action. Most dealers refused to order the option because they thought the customers would think the car was unsafe. In 1956 Ford Motor Company lanuched a option program called Lifeguard Safety System. This included a deep dish steering wheel, pad dash and visors, seat belts, and door latches they stayed secure during an accident. Again, failed big time. The public simply was not interested. They wanted tailfins, not safety. For you Buick fans, remember the 1958 Limited? The next safety battle occurred in the middle 50's again involving headlights. Lincoln for the 57 model year wanted to have dual headlights, but failed to get goverment approval. They got around the issue by calling the lights an auxilary lamp (fog light) and fixed the wiring where it and the headlights could not be on at the same time. The 1958 model year saw the goverment approve dual head lights, again with a standard size. Only Hudson, Nash, and Rambler offered a dual braking system. Rambler in particular advertised the advance. The public was not impressed. The 1960's saw the most goverment intervention. 1963, amber parking lamps. Why? I was never able to figure that one out. 1967 was the grand daddy of all years. Dual braking systems became standard on all cars, collaspable steering wheels, improved door locks, Seat belts ect. The rest is as they say history. Bottom line in the car business. If it does not sell, they don't make it. In the past, safety never sold. That's why cars did not have dual braking systems, the public did not ask for them. Today I doubt, given the option, many people would actually buy a lot of the items the goverment makes us have on our cars. I know one thing, the cars would be a whole lot cheaper. Howard