Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny>, "JimG" wrote:
>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny>, "JimG" wrote:
>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
Just when they made it idiot proof, along comes a bigger idiot.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
Just when they made it idiot proof, along comes a bigger idiot.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
Just when they made it idiot proof, along comes a bigger idiot.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> You read closely. It says the idiot reached in and started it, then managed to
> get it into reverse, getting himself dragged.
>
> All of this happened AFTER the 75 year old hit the wrong pedal, of course.
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <rpq%b.2746$oI4.1131@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com> , "twaldron" wrote:
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <rpq%b.2746$oI4.1131@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com> , "twaldron" wrote:
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <rpq%b.2746$oI4.1131@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com> , "twaldron" wrote:
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
>Generally, when I get a racing motor, I just go ahead and shut off the
>engine. Putting the Jeep in gear seems like an incredibly stupid thing
>to do. I must be missing some HUGE piece of this puzzle.
Since he "reached in and started it" then put it in reverse, it probably wasn't
racing at the time. Even at idle, if you're standing outside a vehicle and
reach in and put it in reverse, you're gonna get knocked down, knocked off
balance and dragged, or be real good at running backwards. It's a stupid thing
to do even when the engine isn't racing.
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%jn%b.618$RI2.25@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>>Read closely... the throttle was stuck. When they restarted the Jeep and
>>>put it in reverse, is raced backwards and dragged one fellow.
>>>There's a law suit coming to DC, (and a recall maybe).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought that high revs at the point of starting would be a clue
>> to it possibly racing back, and one should always engage drive with the
>> footbrake depressed..
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <Hgs%b.9018$ee3.449508@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Mike Hall" wrote:
>
>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:403E33FC.A7B002FD@sympatico.ca...
>> I also find it hard to believe someone could be that stupid. Putting a
>> racing engine in gear makes no sense at all.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>The article suggests that Johnson reached inside and started the vehicle..
>so it would have to be in 'park' or neutral to do that.. at that point, I
>would imagine that if the throttle stuck wide open, it would be obvious.. it
>then says that he placed it in reverse, presumably with the engine racing..
>does anybody else here get the impression that 'Johnson' was not actually
>sitting in the vehicle, but attempting to operate the controls from
>outside?..
You're right, that's exactly what it sounds like.
>I get the impression that somebody is trying to pin the blame on
>DC, and not the stupidity of those involved..
Yeah, but that's the way things go now. There's no accountability for being
stupid. Just file a lawsuit against the ones with the deep pockets, and you get
paid for being an idiot and endangering other people because the company doesn't
want the bad publicity.
>I fail to see how documented
>problems with '91-'95 Cherokees could have anything to do with a 2003 Grand
>Cherokee..
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly was "documented." If there were proven
defects, where are the recalls?
>
>
>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:403E33FC.A7B002FD@sympatico.ca...
>> I also find it hard to believe someone could be that stupid. Putting a
>> racing engine in gear makes no sense at all.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>The article suggests that Johnson reached inside and started the vehicle..
>so it would have to be in 'park' or neutral to do that.. at that point, I
>would imagine that if the throttle stuck wide open, it would be obvious.. it
>then says that he placed it in reverse, presumably with the engine racing..
>does anybody else here get the impression that 'Johnson' was not actually
>sitting in the vehicle, but attempting to operate the controls from
>outside?..
You're right, that's exactly what it sounds like.
>I get the impression that somebody is trying to pin the blame on
>DC, and not the stupidity of those involved..
Yeah, but that's the way things go now. There's no accountability for being
stupid. Just file a lawsuit against the ones with the deep pockets, and you get
paid for being an idiot and endangering other people because the company doesn't
want the bad publicity.
>I fail to see how documented
>problems with '91-'95 Cherokees could have anything to do with a 2003 Grand
>Cherokee..
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly was "documented." If there were proven
defects, where are the recalls?
>
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep vs Pedestrian accident
In message <Hgs%b.9018$ee3.449508@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Mike Hall" wrote:
>
>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:403E33FC.A7B002FD@sympatico.ca...
>> I also find it hard to believe someone could be that stupid. Putting a
>> racing engine in gear makes no sense at all.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>The article suggests that Johnson reached inside and started the vehicle..
>so it would have to be in 'park' or neutral to do that.. at that point, I
>would imagine that if the throttle stuck wide open, it would be obvious.. it
>then says that he placed it in reverse, presumably with the engine racing..
>does anybody else here get the impression that 'Johnson' was not actually
>sitting in the vehicle, but attempting to operate the controls from
>outside?..
You're right, that's exactly what it sounds like.
>I get the impression that somebody is trying to pin the blame on
>DC, and not the stupidity of those involved..
Yeah, but that's the way things go now. There's no accountability for being
stupid. Just file a lawsuit against the ones with the deep pockets, and you get
paid for being an idiot and endangering other people because the company doesn't
want the bad publicity.
>I fail to see how documented
>problems with '91-'95 Cherokees could have anything to do with a 2003 Grand
>Cherokee..
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly was "documented." If there were proven
defects, where are the recalls?
>
>
>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:403E33FC.A7B002FD@sympatico.ca...
>> I also find it hard to believe someone could be that stupid. Putting a
>> racing engine in gear makes no sense at all.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>The article suggests that Johnson reached inside and started the vehicle..
>so it would have to be in 'park' or neutral to do that.. at that point, I
>would imagine that if the throttle stuck wide open, it would be obvious.. it
>then says that he placed it in reverse, presumably with the engine racing..
>does anybody else here get the impression that 'Johnson' was not actually
>sitting in the vehicle, but attempting to operate the controls from
>outside?..
You're right, that's exactly what it sounds like.
>I get the impression that somebody is trying to pin the blame on
>DC, and not the stupidity of those involved..
Yeah, but that's the way things go now. There's no accountability for being
stupid. Just file a lawsuit against the ones with the deep pockets, and you get
paid for being an idiot and endangering other people because the company doesn't
want the bad publicity.
>I fail to see how documented
>problems with '91-'95 Cherokees could have anything to do with a 2003 Grand
>Cherokee..
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly was "documented." If there were proven
defects, where are the recalls?
>