GM Recall: Connecting Dots to Explain Teen Deaths

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Jamie Butters updates the latest news on GM recalls on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg Surveillance." (Source: Bloomberg)

Ignition switches.

There links to 12 fatal accidents.

A were entry-level cars marketed to first-time drivers.

-- they were entry-level cars marketed to first-time drivers.

You guys went through all the lawsuits and looked through all the data and you found that a lot of the deaths were linked to young kids, 16-year-old, 17 are old.

It was not quite clear what prompted the accident.

Now that there is this the nation switch debacle to people are connecting the dots.

That is right.

It is a very traumatic incident.

You are jotting down the road and your car were to suddenly shut off.

There was testimony.

One of the engineers tried this himself.

He did it in his neighborhood and was able to pull it over safely.

That is someone who had been driving longer than someone who had been driving longer than some of these customers had been alive.

A lot of pretty new drivers.

People in their teens.

You add in other factors.

In some cases, there was drinking involved, or it was night, when you are a teenager, you're much less capable to respond to something tricky and unpredictable.

It is an interesting calculus, correlation and causation.

Is this because they were cheap cars?

That is what young kids by?


Most of these are not the kids buying them.

Let's be honest.

These are parents.

Middle-class families who already have a pickup and a minivan.

They have a kid who is in high school or going to college and they are going to help them buy, they want them to have a new car.

Small, fuel-efficient.

A lot of them stuck around.

As they stuck around as used cars, they status entry-level cars.

As tragic as this all is, let's not forget the general motors got its bailout in 2009, which means the company does not have to respond to legal claims filed before 2009. this is disturbing, but the company is not necessarily liable for things that happened before then.

Is that correct?

That is right.

They are not liable for the crashes that happened before then.

They are liable for those that came since.

Gm has said they will take care of their customers.

They don't want to go beyond that.

It looks like their intention is that they know they have to take care of these people because they know the right thing to do.

It seems to me that they are not putting down their shields.

They do not want to open up to everything.

He have indicated that they are going to accept some of the liability.

What it will cost them and what it will cost the shareholders on the balance sheet will presumably be a lot less than the cost in public image of telling families, sorry, we don't need to pay you, so we are not going to.

They could do that.

One of the curious subtexts is that it looks like to the outside world at gm is circling the wagons, saying it is going to pull its opel division from china to focus on opel on europe and maybe in the u.s.. what other signs do you have the gm is circling the wagons?

I would not expect opel to come to the u.s.. we are seeing a carving up of the global markets between opel and chevrolet.

Gm has decided to keep opel and instead of having chevy move into europe and try to take the low-end in the market, they are really just letting opel be opel as a european brand and try to compete better against volkswagen and give it the opportunity to go down market.

When you look at china, they know that these brands are all the same company.

They will not even let subaru invest in china because they see it as part of toyota.

Letting opel back out of china gives more opportunity for

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change