Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Government officials shouldn't be in charge of determining what a "toy" is. They can't even balance the checkbook.

legoburner wrote:
From what I understand, the yellow and red have very high lead content. Even the standard GW paints have nasties in them - if you look at the most recent paint pots, they no longer say 'non toxic' on them like they used to.

Non-toxic and containing Lead are very different. I cannot imagine they would have gone out of their way to make metal figures without lead, only to release paints to a community known for licking brushes that contain lead. When you consider the potential lawsuits involved if they do contain lead, compared with the near negligible cost of saying "lead-based paint" on the pot, I cannot believe that they'd opt for the former.


Edit: I just called their customer support, and was told in no uncertain terms that all citadel paints, including the foundation paints, are non-toxic.

two_heads_talking wrote:this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.

When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..

I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..

Product liability law has gotten a little out of hand, but I really don't think anybody wants to return to the 1800's in terms of protections. I'll leave it at that.

As for the infamous coffee case, the plaintiff actually won on a really sound argument. It's not that the coffee was hot (which is an assumed risk), it's that at the time McDonald's coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than industry standard. The plaintiff was wearing sweatpants, and they could show that if the coffee was served at the standard temp, she could have avoided the burns by removing her clothing. It's also worth pointing out that the plaintiff originally offered to settle for like $20k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case

It's still a pretty extreme case, but it's not nearly as silly as the many commentators make it out to be.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.

and so the tyranny begins. What other freedoms are you willing to throw away?

tkdarktrooper wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.

What about the people who have legitimate reasons for owning an SUV? You know, like people who own their own business and it is more economical for them to get an SUV rather than a truck. The SUV has more cargo room than a car and some have better gas mileage than a freakin' truck.

I am all for getting rid of SUVs that are a waste and are nothing but a status symbol [Hummer, Escalades, etc.], but I am not about to go and require someone to git rid of a vehicle that is part of the way they make money.

Get a van. Most SUV's can't clear offroad surfaces and are little more than highchairs for road rage and soccer moms. If you don't offroad regularly with your transported goods, and if you're SUV can't handle harsh dirt roads then you shouldn't own it. Its wasteful and serves as little more than a status symbold.

this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.

Learn the specifics of that court case then come back. Restaurants are not allowed to serve food that is going to physically harm the people that will consume it. And that coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns through clothing. The decision was also overturned and a much smaller amount was rewarded then was televised.

But hey yeah, lets just go with the talk show hosts, no reason to actually know what we're talking about.




This law is a pretty harsh reactionary measure. Red phobia is an annoying phenom that follows any sort of issue stemming from china. It's not too harsh of a law though, I doubt it will effect much. It's already virtually impossible to police ebay auctions and startups will only be required to "test" their products for unsafe chemicles and toxins. Something they should have already been doing if they were considering their products toys.

and so the tyranny begins. What other freedoms are you willing to throw away?

It's not throwing away a freedom to tax gas. Its a tax levied on gas. People will still get to buy their giant phallic cars, they will just get to pay more for them proportionally (Something they were doing before gas prices plummeted due to the collapse of productivity in the world).

Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.

So people will always drive SUVs, always, always, always, there will be people who drive SUVs. Last time I checked this was a free country, and if people want to drive them they will. Just raising gas prices won't force SUV drivers to sell. Less people may buy new SUVs. But people will still drive them.

Polonius wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.

When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..

I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..

Product liability law has gotten a little out of hand, but I really don't think anybody wants to return to the 1800's in terms of protections. I'll leave it at that.

As for the infamous coffee case, the plaintiff actually won on a really sound argument. It's not that the coffee was hot (which is an assumed risk), it's that at the time McDonald's coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than industry standard. The plaintiff was wearing sweatpants, and they could show that if the coffee was served at the standard temp, she could have avoided the burns by removing her clothing. It's also worth pointing out that the plaintiff originally offered to settle for like $20k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case

It's still a pretty extreme case, but it's not nearly as silly as the many commentators make it out to be.

No thats still violently silly. Only in a world of plaintiff bloodsucking ambulance chasers gone amok is this in any not silly.

The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.
Define industry standard for coffee.
Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.

Modquisition powers re-activate.

Partly my fault, but this thread is meandering considerably off topic. As Such moving to the OFF TOPIC forum which has more leeway in discussions.

Abandon all hope ye who enter here!

In response to the Americans in this thread whining about higher taxes on gas guzzlers...

Average mpg on US vehicles...27.5
Average mpg on European vehicles...45
Price of Petrol in US...1.6 to 2 dollars per gallon
Price of petrol in Uk...eq. of 1.5 dollar per litre

And your wondering why your government wants to do something about it? Honestly, quit taking the piss.

Frazzled wrote:


No thats still violently silly. Only in a world of plaintiff bloodsucking ambulance chasers gone amok is this in any not silly.

Oh, it's still silly. It's also just the way it is. Keep in mind that this was a jury trial, so average people (the same type that consistently deride these cases) found McDonald's liable.

What's silly is that McDonald's didn't settle this. She would have taken $20k, an arbitrator said it shoudl have been like $200k. If you put a Grandmother on the stand with third degree burns to her crotch, you're going to look bad. McDonald's should have settled, but they wanted to prove a point, and lost.

The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.

Was it advertised as hotter than competition? Was that made clear to the consumer? McDonald's also had 700 reports of people scalded by their coffee, that's knowledge of a hazard.

Define industry standard for coffee.

I don't know, but they showed it to the jury and the jury believed it. They are the finder of fact, not me. They were able to show the Franchises were required to serve coffee at 180-190F, and that other restaurants typically served there's cooler. I think that it'd be harder to show now, and no further cases on this line have really succeeded.

Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.

Well, I agree that a person that assumes a risk is liable for what happens. I think that given 1) the plaintiffs lack of knowledge that the coffee was hotter than most people serve, and 2) McDonald's own awareness of the hazards, the case becomes less clear cut. I also don't think most people think that spilled coffee would result in third degree burns, skin grafts, etc. I also doubt that people realized at the time that coffee from drive thru would be hotter than coffee out of the pot at home.

The case is a flashpoint for a lot of people, but it's really just a case of bad litigation strategy by McDonalds, an incredibly sympathetic plaintiff, and a jury that bought the story. It's a flukey case. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no legal precedent, and if nothing else it did dramatically increase the awareness of the danger of drive through coffee.

Finally, I think it's overreaching in the extreme to call the lady stupid. Clumsy, maybe, but stupid? Probably not.

The debate isn't that simple obviously (vast areas of the states don't have adequate public transport).
But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.

Fair enough on the public transport point. But the cost of running a car in america would have to get a lot higher before it even comes close to what we spend in Europe. Complaining about prices over there is comparable to marlon brando telling an ethiopian he's hungry.

Da Boss wrote:But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.

and isn't that the whole idea of putting higher tax on fuel deficient cars?

If I lived in the States I'd probably be in favour of the tax hikes. I'm a dirty socialist.
But I recognise there are reasons why fuel couldn't be as expensive over there as it is over here.
I'm actually pretty okay with fuel prices here, or I was when I drove my tiny car. There are workarounds available to me. I could walk to the shop, or whatever.
I'd point out that a raised tax is hardly tyranny, people are still allowed to drive their SUVs, it's just more expensive.

The only way the law becomes unacceptable is if they don't reward drivers for driving more fuel efficient cars, like they do here in the UK (theres cars you can get taxed for free over here now). It needs to go both ways.

The argument "I need my suv for work" is fairly ignorant. What part of your suv is necessary for your work? Is it the size of the engine? Because there are vehicles with as much space as an suv which are far more fuel efficient.

My dislike of SUVs has nothing to do with their gas consumption, but rather, the fact that they make roads considerably more dangerous for the rest of us, especially us bikers.

Most SUVs I've ever seen have tinted windows. So, they obstruct the view of everyone else on the road. Personally, I think tinted windows should be illegal. They teach you, in all defensive driving classes, to look through the windows of other cars on the road to see potential hazzards further in advance. Tinted windows means you cannot do that. If the government is allowed to tell me that I have to wear a helmet when I'm on my bike, something that protects only me, they should be able to outlaw tinted windows, which increase the risk for everyone on the road.

Secondly, SUVs are more unsable than other cars. They're more likely to flip or roll when cornering. They have a greater braking distance, which is simply a factor of how much they weigh.

Third, SUVs don't have their bumpers in the right place. There is a mandated height for bumpers on all passenger cars. This ensures that, in most collisions, bumper meets bumper, and much of the energy of the collision is disapated into these devices that are designed for just that purpose.

SUVs don't count as 'passenger cars'. Their bumpers are higher than most car bumpers. This means that in a SUV/Car collsiion, the Car's bumper is useless, and the SUVs bumper connects with the hood of the car - a part of the car not designed to withstand this sort of impact. A head-on collision between a car and a car at 10MPH is unlikely to do much more than cosmetic damage. A head-on colliision between a car and an SUV at 10MPH is going to inflict signficant damage on the car, and probably injure the car's driver. And that's at only 10MPH.

When I was growing up, we had a station wagon. It had a luggage rack. It fit all four of us kids, and our parents, with no problem. And it didn't have tinted windows and it didn't weigh more than the other vehicles on the road, and it didn't have a high center of gravity and it didn't pose a serious threat to other vehicles in minor collisions. Mini-vans are still passenger cars. There's nothing you can get in an SUV that you cannot get in a mini-van that consumes less gas and poses less of a threat to other drivers.

SUVs are not necessary, for anyone. Somehow the US managed to survive for eighty years with automobiles before SUVs were introduced They're ego-boosting tools for people feel that they're better than everyone else, and damn the consequences for society as a whole. They're just another sign of the me-first culture promoted in the US.

Redbeard: I agree with you on all those issues actually. But I'd be uncomfortable with banning them entirely. But my tosser radar shows SUV drivers as blips more often than not. It's especially annoying in Dublin, with it's narrow, twisty streets that can barely handle normal cars.
I'd ban smoking before I'd ban SUVs any day.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.

So people will always drive SUVs, always, always, always, there will be people who drive SUVs. Last time I checked this was a free country, and if people want to drive them they will. Just raising gas prices won't force SUV drivers to sell. Less people may buy new SUVs. But people will still drive them.

So people with a need to own them can still buy them and drive them. People who don’t need their offroad abilities will be encouraged to buy something more practical.

In Australia we pay a lot more for our petrol because govt taxes it. It discourages people from buying cars with poor fuel efficiency for personal use (business can claim a fuel rebate). It really isn’t that bad an idea.

Frazzled wrote:
No thats still violently silly. Only in a world of plaintiff bloodsucking ambulance chasers gone amok is this in any not silly.

The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.
Define industry standard for coffee.
Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.

Thing is, it’s reasonable to expect that coffee will burn you. It isn’t reasonable to expect that you’ll need skin grafts after around 30 seconds of contact, through clothes. That’s outrageously hot coffee and well beyond what you’d expect, even from coffee marketed as hotter than the competition.

Now, the final payout seemed excessive, and probably had a lot to do with the reported arrogance of the McDonald’s lawyers, but the case itself is not that unreasonable. Why people keep bringing up this one as a case of law gone mad is beyond, when there are so many cases out there that seem much more dubious. Probably because it can be reduced to ‘plaintiff sued for coffee being hot, hurr hurr’…

Da Boss wrote:The debate isn't that simple obviously (vast areas of the states don't have adequate public transport).
But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.

Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?

ChaosDave wrote:
Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?

I can either repost what I said a few posts back, or you can scroll back and read it, your choice... It's not about the gas, it's about the safety risk they pose to the rest of us.

ChaosDave wrote:Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?

Oil is a diminishing resource and needs to be conserved. Fuel emissions are also a cause of global warming, and a general source of poor air in built up areas. Discouraging people from driving cars with poor fuel efficiency cars is one step towards conserving oil and improving air quality.

And also, like Redbeard said, 4WDs are more likely to kill the occupants of the other car in the event of collision.

sebster wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?

Oil is a diminishing resource and needs to be conserved. Fuel emissions are also a cause of global warming, and a general source of poor air in built up areas. Discouraging people from driving cars with poor fuel efficiency cars is one step towards conserving oil and improving air quality.

And also, like Redbeard said, 4WDs are more likely to kill the occupants of the other car in the event of collision.

It's true, and even if you don't agree with global warming issues for whatever reason, it really does make everyone else in the world annoyed and angry when they have to put up with high fuel prices/taxes etc. when america self rightously, greedily and selfishly just throw all their efforts to s*** in their 4X4 run around.

It's you're own fault, you obviously need central government to stop you hurting yourselves with dangerous products and reckless store owners. Obviously too many gamers were eating the lead figures, so you needed to be protected from that temptation as well as that damn hot water that people keep sticking in your coffee's, sneaky buggers!

Chaos Dave: More oil for everyone, less greenhouse gasses and dioxins for everyone. Sorta win win.
I was able to run a national livestock survey out of the back of a nissan micra, I reckon most cars have more space than people realise most of the time.

That said there are places and situations where a 4WD is needed. But urban areas are not it.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.

So that excuses basically every family living in the very wealthy suburb in which I work for having one or two of them -- for their one or two kids and those terrible .5 mile trips to their high-end supermarket, right?

I'd wager that 60% of people driving SUVs would be just fine without them. There are some people who like to go off-roading...that's fine. The remainder would mostly be fine with either pickups (because they're hauling stuff around) or minivans (because they have more than 2 kids). But the car companies figured out suburban women (one of the major target demographics for SUVs) wanted something sexier than a minivan but less blue-collar than a pickup.

Thus began a lot of marketing and sales pitches that told us SUVs were something you "really need to have if you have a family." Oh, and don't forget about the "safety" angle. "I mean, you do care about your kids, right?"

I have zero problems with pickups. And that's because in my experience most of the people driving them actually use the bed now and then. The majority of SUVs I see on the road don't haul anything heavier than a few bags of groceries, and usually have one person in the vehicle...maybe one child. That's *wasteful*.

Suporters of a higher gas tax do realize a tax on gasoline affects everyone correct? It doesn't just effect those evil SUV drivers.

You do realize that taxes on gasoline will increase the cost of transport of everything? Where do you think those costs are going to go?

You do realize this tax is highly regressive? The evil jaguar drivers can afford it, whilst the increased costs are a hammer to poor people and those on fixed incomes. Frankly the thought of supporting this is just batty. On the positive if passed, it will help insure that the Presidency and Congressional seats will continue to be in flux, as incumbents are thrown out faster than you can spit.

As incumbents are EVIL in a Darth Vader sort of way, this can only be a good thing.

The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.

I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.

I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.

But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.

Whatwhat: maybe you need to get off YOUR high horse and consider that people living in other places have different needs, in some cases dictated by immutables like locations of cities. Britain is much smaller, and laid out MUCH differently.

Now, I must agree with you in that I don't enjoy hearing people cry about high gas prices. But that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in the tears.

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

Yeh.

Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?

Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

And that's not arrogant either right?