Sugar-free Breath Savers

[OUDoc]

"Not for weight control."
Does this really need to be on the package? How stupid are we?

[VeeJay]

I heard a Lexus commercial on the radio this morning. Selected models come equipped with a camera in the back that will alert the driver to something behind the car when backing up - like a child or pet or something most folks don't want to run over. This is obviously something added on to the car to push up the sticker price and place buyers in a new elite category - sort of like "My Mercedes has wipers on the headlights."

There was a disclaimer that said drivers should not depend solely on the camera for safety, and should still use mirrors and actual sight lines when backing up.

Duh.

It's all about the lawsuits I'm guessing.

Who's going to throw a car into reverse, check the camera then haul *** out of their driveway without checking?

Somebody will, somebody's kid will be run over, and Lexus will get sued because the driver didn't put their kid back in the damned house.

Yes, we are indeed stupid.

[Fugue]

I'm uber stoopid with good breaf.

[mdklatt]

"Not for weight control."


Why not? They're sugar free. :confused:

[mrowl]

I heard a Lexus commercial on the radio this morning. Selected models come equipped with a camera in the back that will alert the driver to something behind the car when backing up - like a child or pet or something most folks don't want to run over. This is obviously something added on to the car to push up the sticker price and place buyers in a new elite category - sort of like "My Mercedes has wipers on the headlights."

There was a disclaimer that said drivers should not depend solely on the camera for safety, and should still use mirrors and actual sight lines when backing up.

Duh.

It's all about the lawsuits I'm guessing.

Who's going to throw a car into reverse, check the camera then haul *** out of their driveway without checking?

Somebody will, somebody's kid will be run over, and Lexus will get sued because the driver didn't put their kid back in the damned house.

Yes, we are indeed stupid.

http://www.automotivearticles.com/123/Man_Sues_Nissan_After_Running_Over_Daughter.shtml

[mdklatt]

http://www.automotivearticles.com/123/Man_Sues_Nissan_After_Running_Over_Daughter.shtml



The lawsuit is not because Nissan’s camera didn’t work in this instance, no, the plaintiff didn’t even choose to purchase the option with his luxury SUV. The lawsuit alleges that the two-year-old child would be alive if Nissan made the camera standard on all of its vehicles, including the one driven by the father when he killed his daughter. “This manufacturer was already putting it on some of its other vehicles, and it should have put it on this one," said attorney Windle Turley. “Our contention is that safety of this nature should not be optional, ever.”


:rolleyes:

Good luck with that one, [S]Windle.