GM showed "reckless disregard for safety"

File: ctm-0312-gm-640x360[1].jpg (92KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x630px

The fires started behind the glove-box in the heating and ventilation system, and were a problem in cars. GM was "too slow to acknowledge drivers' concerns, too slow to begin an investigation, too slow to address the causes and too slow to alert drivers of real safety concerns. Drivers and their families were needlessly put at risk," The first report of a fire was noted by GM in 2009, and in 2014, internal concerns over a pattern in reports of fires were raised. However, GM did not launch an investigation into the fires until August 2015. At that time GM logged 161 fires. The MPs suggest that the company put money and reputation ahead of safety when it came to fixing the problem. The report uses damning phrases like "morally reprehensible" and "reckless disregard for safety" when describing the company's sluggish response. It's especially scathing about the fact that GM let people drive around in cars that had been recalled and 'fixed', even when engineers knew they could still catch fire. The BBC covered the issue in Watchdog on 22 October. A complaint was made to the DVSA about that time. GM launched the first recall in December 2015.
In February 2016 it was told about the first fire in a vehicle that had been recalled, but it did not launch its second recall until 19 May 2016.
The MPs were particularly scathing over GM's decision to let people continue to drive vehicles that had been recalled and returned to the owners when the manufacturer knew the cars could still catch fire. (GM's) "decision to continue to let people drive affected cars amounts to a reckless disregard for safety. This is particularly damning given its admission that it should have notified customers earlier," the MPs said, "In the absence of any explanation for its tardy response from the witnesses that appeared before us we can only conclude that commercial considerations and the need to avoid reputational damage were put ahead of safety; this is unacceptable and morally reprehensible"