Jump to content



Photo

Does lack of commonsense equal higher pricing for consumers?

idiotproofing

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Poll: Idiocracy vs commonsense

Does the lack of commonsense drive up consumer pricing on some products?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • 30,805 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:44

Really just a simple question, and it isn't limited to the U.S. by the way.. these idiot proof labels are used in Europe too and probably other parts of the world.

 

So examples are that people now need to be warned that coffee is actually hot, and also warned not to use an iron on your clothes while wearing them :s There are too many other examples of idiot proofing and companies who have had to pay out big money to people who managed a moment of idiocracy win against common sense.

 

To my mind this costs those companies money (in damages) and then some to idiot proof their products.

 

So, does lack of commonsense drive pricing up for consumers due to the above actions?

 

Feel free to comment with examples or whatever.

 

 

jXJUY5p.jpg

Pic related.




#2 Jeston

Jeston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 05
  • Location: Las Cruces, NM, US

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:58

I never actually thought of it like that. It makes total sense that the company would have to recoup any losses from, not only the lawsuit that was undoubtedly lost, but also the cost of adding idiot proofing to cover their asses in the future. The world would be a much better place if companies didn't have to worry about every little thing that should be commonsense, but alas, we're too "sue happy"... Anything to make an easy buck. Our court systems need a major overhaul.



#3 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • 34,124 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:17

Well, the obvious ones for me are:

 

* McDonalds having to put "Warning contents may be hot" on coffee cups.  Then further having to change it due to a second case that argued the warning was not strong enough to "Warning contents EXTREMELY hot".

* Duracell batteries saying "Do not chew or ingest"

 

Obviously the changes to the packaging, the re-setting of the printing, etc - has a one off cost.  Beyond that?  I am sure that companies now retain legal advice, and thus a cost?



#4 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • 23,404 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.10
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 17 September 2013 - 09:21

The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Quote related.



#5 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:52

In my opinion, no it shouldn't. Companies should be able to see plan for foreseeable misuse of their product and account for it accordingly (and let's face it, spilling coffee is pretty foreseeable). The reality of it is that whether or not those of us among the more educated segments of the public like to admit it or not, a lot of people will miss surprisingly simple dangers when using a product. The fact that corporations past the cost of their cockups onto their customers is a sign only of their greed. Besides, not accidents are caused by user stupidity anyway. As long as they provide adequate warning (and it should really be on the box, very few people read those leaflets) they should then be absolved of liability for everything apart from design defects.

 

Ultimately though, although I think it shouldn't, in reality it probably does. And the fact that so many people bend over and accept having to pay for other people's failures shows how far we have let corporatism invade our lives.



#6 OP Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • 30,805 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:04

In my opinion, no it shouldn't. Companies should be able to see plan for foreseeable misuse of their product and account for it accordingly (and let's face it, spilling coffee is pretty foreseeable). The reality of it is that whether or not those of us among the more educated segments of the public like to admit it or not, a lot of people will miss surprisingly simple dangers when using a product. The fact that corporations past the cost of their cockups onto their customers is a sign only of their greed. Besides, not accidents are caused by user stupidity anyway. As long as they provide adequate warning (and it should really be on the box, very few people read those leaflets) they should then be absolved of liability for everything apart from design defects.

 

Ultimately though, although I think it shouldn't, in reality it probably does. And the fact that so many people bend over and accept having to pay for other people's failures shows how far we have let corporatism invade our lives.

So aside from design defects and manufacturing issues (which should rightfully be accounted for) would you agree that a company should pay out if a person spills coffee over their person and then sues because the coffee was hot and burned through no design fault of the cup it was in? (this has happened btw) Would you say the same for a car if a person smashed it into a wall and was injured in the process, but there's no design defect in the car to speak of to cause it?

 

Why should companies have to tell people not to use an iron on themselves while wearing the clothes? OR payout when someone was dumb enough to do it and successfully sued for their idiocy?



#7 OP Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • 30,805 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:07

I forgot to add that leaflets and manuals are tl;dr these days anyway because of all the liability crap they have to add to them :p But then again I've never felt the need to use a product for unintended uses when using commonsense.



#8 Mr Nom Nom's

Mr Nom Nom's

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,412 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 11
  • OS: OS X 10.9.2
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 'Space Grey' (64GB)

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:09

And the lack of willingness to point out the stupidity of peoples behaviour doesn't help the situation either - sorry but I don't believe in unconditional sympathy because sometimes you're asking to be hurt if you willingly do something stupid knowing full well there will be adverse consequences. Sorry, to the person whining about 'corportism' how about some personal responsibility or does that rub you the wrong way in your quest to 'stick it to the man'?



#9 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 14,463 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:17

Remember folks, common sense ISN'T so common!

 

This goes not just for regular products like coffee, but also solvents, dishwashers and whatnot that must have the obligatory disclaimer "IF YOU DRINK ME YOU WILL DIE IDIOT"...

 

A policeman during my drivers ed course said, in this country the traffic light means the following:

 

Red: STOP ###### YOU'RE GOING TO DIE

Orange: STOP IDIOT ( vs speeding up).

Green: Ok go nau.



#10 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,475 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:22

Invent an idiot proof device, and society will invent a better idiot.

 

You can't accommodate for people like this (he wasn't really a moron, but he's the basis of the warning label): http://everything2.c...nds or genitals

 

At some point in time, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

A company releasing a car with faulty seat belts is one thing; suing for hot coffee is a completely different thing..



#11 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 14,463 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:29

Invent an idiot proof device, and society will invent a better idiot.

 

You can't accommodate for people like this (he wasn't really a moron, but he's the basis of the warning label): http://everything2.c...nds or genitals

 

At some point in time, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

A company releasing a car with faulty seat belts is one thing; suing for hot coffee is a completely different thing..

Exactly, the more you force people to think, the less they will...

 

I think the issue here would be how people take advantage of the legal system AND that is what increases costs... 



#12 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:36

So aside from design defects and manufacturing issues (which should rightfully be accounted for) would you agree that a company should pay out if a person spills coffee over their person and then sues because the coffee was hot and burned through no design fault of the cup it was in? (this has happened btw) Would you say the same for a car if a person smashed it into a wall and was injured in the process, but there's no design defect in the car to speak of to cause it?

 

Why should companies have to tell people not to use an iron on themselves while wearing the clothes? OR payout when someone was dumb enough to do it and successfully sued for their idiocy?

 

Because the misuse of those products in that manner is completely foreseeable. It's hardly as if printing a simple warning on a cup or box will cause skyrocketing costs.

 

 

And the lack of willingness to point out the stupidity of peoples behaviour doesn't help the situation either - sorry but I don't believe in unconditional sympathy because sometimes you're asking to be hurt if you willingly do something stupid knowing full well there will be adverse consequences. Sorry, to the person whining about 'corportism' how about some personal responsibility or does that rub you the wrong way in your quest to 'stick it to the man'?

 

Funny. No, I don't believe people should be absolved of personal responsibility, just that corporations shouldn't be absolved of theirs either. A lot of people (particularly Americans) are too eager to blame it all on the people and ignore the mistakes the corps also make.



#13 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,475 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:38

Because the misuse of those products in that manner is completely foreseeable. It's hardly as if printing a simple warning on a cup or box will cause skyrocketing costs.

How many people do you think are going to be saved from spilling hot coffee by the warning?

 

Putting something like "Do not put in fire" on a battery makes sense. It's something that the average person might not realise. Putting "Do not ingest" on a battery is just ######ing retarded. If you can't work out you shouldn't be eating metal and acid, you shouldn't be breeding..



#14 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:46

How many people do you think are going to be saved from spilling hot coffee by the warning?

 

Putting something like "Do not put in fire" on a battery makes sense. It's something that the average person might not realise. Putting "Do not ingest" on a battery is just ****ing retarded. If you can't work out you shouldn't be eating metal and acid, you shouldn't be breeding..

 

I don't really know, but once the warning is there, the corp have provided the warning and if you're still not careful then it's definitely your own fault. Printing those warnings induces no extra cost, so why would anyone rally against them? It would certainly reduce a lot of the frivolous lawsuits as people then wouldn't be able to claim they hadn't been warned about the dangers.



#15 Buttus

Buttus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 17 September 2013 - 13:46

i think it's just people looking for a quick buck by sueing any company that produces a product that they got hurt while using.

 

It used to be that if you burned yourself on hot coffee, or tried to iron your shirt while wearing it, you would be too embarrassed to tell anyone.

 

now people see dollar signs and usually get them because the companies just want you to go away.