Electromagnetic PULSES will destroy non-hardened systems, making whatever subjected electronic devices effectively rocks.
Electromagnetic radiation can play havoc with signals being passed along the circut, possibly sending different messages than intended, or sending messages that aren’t supposed to be sent. An easy demonstration of this will be your cellphone transmitting static near certain high powered electrical systems, like power lines.
However, in this case I would bet against the floor mats & for either 1) mechanical failure of the cruise control controls or 2) user error in understanding how the resume functions, or automatic cruise resume functions can work.
Example: if tapping the brake pedal, most Ford vehicles will suspend the cruise control & pushing RESUME will cause the vehicle to begin accelerating to the prior cruising speed, resuming the speed.
If the driver, or her father, accidentally hit RESUME rather than SET, or braked for a minimal amount of time before accelerating again, then the system was only doing what it was told with no mechanical failure.
That the “expert” Anderson was designated by plaintiff attorney and even allowed to testify, which garnered a $18m verdict against Ford, shows the miscarriage of justice that is possible. Did this guy inspect the vehicle. Did he have an inkling of proof that the system malfunctioned because of electro-magnetic radiation? I doubt it. Was there an Acc. Recon. to testify to the speed or pre-acc. maneuvers of the vehicle? Any witnesses? If the father knew about previous malfunctions, why allow his *17* yr. old daughter to drive it. I owned a 95 Explorer, and did not have a good feel for the road in the first few months of driving it. I thought it had a tendency to sway on turns, when traveling over 50mph. Obviously the jury awarded $18m based on sympathy and not the facts of the accident.
swayed because that ford has big pockets thinking that they are always at fault… i agree with someone else, if thrown from the vehicle, where are the seatbelts? this is part of the fallacy is that we tend to forget about those things we are supposed to do while driving that is our responsibility…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Why weren’t they wearing their seatbelts???? Had they been doing so, they would NOT have been ejected from the vehicle!!!
Wonder if Ford will get pilloried in front of Congress like Toyota?
It’s my understanding that electromagnetic radiation shuts things off, not makes them go faster. Maybe I missed something here.
EMP:
You missed something.
Electromagnetic PULSES will destroy non-hardened systems, making whatever subjected electronic devices effectively rocks.
Electromagnetic radiation can play havoc with signals being passed along the circut, possibly sending different messages than intended, or sending messages that aren’t supposed to be sent. An easy demonstration of this will be your cellphone transmitting static near certain high powered electrical systems, like power lines.
However, in this case I would bet against the floor mats & for either 1) mechanical failure of the cruise control controls or 2) user error in understanding how the resume functions, or automatic cruise resume functions can work.
Example: if tapping the brake pedal, most Ford vehicles will suspend the cruise control & pushing RESUME will cause the vehicle to begin accelerating to the prior cruising speed, resuming the speed.
If the driver, or her father, accidentally hit RESUME rather than SET, or braked for a minimal amount of time before accelerating again, then the system was only doing what it was told with no mechanical failure.
That the “expert” Anderson was designated by plaintiff attorney and even allowed to testify, which garnered a $18m verdict against Ford, shows the miscarriage of justice that is possible. Did this guy inspect the vehicle. Did he have an inkling of proof that the system malfunctioned because of electro-magnetic radiation? I doubt it. Was there an Acc. Recon. to testify to the speed or pre-acc. maneuvers of the vehicle? Any witnesses? If the father knew about previous malfunctions, why allow his *17* yr. old daughter to drive it. I owned a 95 Explorer, and did not have a good feel for the road in the first few months of driving it. I thought it had a tendency to sway on turns, when traveling over 50mph. Obviously the jury awarded $18m based on sympathy and not the facts of the accident.
swayed because that ford has big pockets thinking that they are always at fault… i agree with someone else, if thrown from the vehicle, where are the seatbelts? this is part of the fallacy is that we tend to forget about those things we are supposed to do while driving that is our responsibility…