Idiocracy vs commonsense   42 members have voted

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

    • Yes it does
      36
    • No it doesn't
      6

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

32 posts in this topic

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.

 

 

post-2-0-55668800-1379407447.jpg

Pic related.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

12 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/title/Do+not+attempt+to+stop+chain+with+your+hands+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..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/title/Do+not+attempt+to+stop+chain+with+your+hands+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... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason to rail against the warning is that if you have to write things like that, where do you stop?

 

"Do not attempt to use coffee to cool nuclear reactor", "Do not use coffee as personal lubricant", "Do not shower with coffee", "Do not shower in coffee", "Coffee may not taste like coffee".

 

Those warnings don't stop people from doing stupid ######, and there in lies the problem. It's the result of stupid (and stupidly successful) litigation.

 

Companies now spend time thinking: "How the ###### can Joe Bloggs kill himself with this feather" and writing stupid warnings on it for the sake of avoiding litigation.

 

When they find something, they have to over engineer the fix so as to ensure that Bloggs doesn't find a way to end the world with aforementioned feather..

 

Also, ever seen OHS paperwork for avoiding this kind of stuff? I used to rep for MS. I had to have a custom risk management plan for every store I entered. I had to write down what the most likely cause of injury in the store was (tripping over my own feet as a rule of thumb) and note down everything I could think of. This is in the same vein.. The reports are to reduce liability.. It wasted 10 minutes per store getting the reports verified and signed off in each store. It's ######ing obscene..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinder surprise eggs banned in US, no warning in the box helped to lift the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason to rail against the warning is that if you have to write things like that, where do you stop?

 

"Do not attempt to use coffee to cool nuclear reactor", "Do not use coffee as personal lubricant", "Do not shower with coffee", "Do not shower in coffee", "Coffee may not taste like coffee".

 

Those warnings don't stop people from doing stupid ****, and there in lies the problem. It's the result of stupid (and stupidly successful) litigation.

 

Companies now spend time thinking: "How the **** can Joe Bloggs kill himself with this feather" and writing stupid warnings on it for the sake of avoiding litigation.

 

When they find something, they have to over engineer the fix so as to ensure that Bloggs doesn't find a way to end the world with aforementioned feather..

 

Also, ever seen OHS paperwork for avoiding this kind of stuff? I used to rep for MS. I had to have a custom risk management plan for every store I entered. I had to write down what the most likely cause of injury in the store was (tripping over my own feet as a rule of thumb) and note down everything I could think of. This is in the same vein.. The reports are to reduce liability.. It wasted 10 minutes per store getting the reports verified and signed off in each store. It's ****ing obscene..

 

Foreseeable misuse. There's no criminal statute in most societies for unforeseeable misuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These labels aren't in place due to stupidity, they are there as a 'You can't sue us now, asshat' sticker. The problem isn't a lack of common sense, it's a lack of common decency.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say both yes and no, but the yes isn't worth taking into account.

 

The cost of printing a label, compared to the markup over the general cost of manufacturing/production/shipping on the products is nothing. They can recoup that amount in less than a year by raising the price of a cup of coffee by 2 cents, and then next year the cost of altering the cup's production line is gone and that 2 cents is pure profit.

 

The price of a small cup of coffee at McDonald's is $0.90. With the cup, that probably costs the company 5-10 cents to get your money for and get into your hands.

 

I worked for a bagel company in my 20's, and there a bagel could run you $2.00, without a schmear. They cost 10-15 cents per. We were expected to only waste at the most 60 or so per day, and throw them in the trash at night along with much of the pastries and sweets made that day.

 

There is a lot that goes into the pricing of products, especially in different areas geographically, but a cost like this is nothing for these larger companies to absorb, and only has a minimal effect on price. It's also much more preferred to them compared to what would happen if they were paying out millions of dollars every time someone dumped their coffee in their lap, or let their 2 year old play with a plastic bag and a bottle of bleach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, surely, such nitwits are functionally illiterate anyway, so the should use big pictures instead of text.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, surely, such nitwits are functionally illiterate anyway, so the should use big pictures instead of text.

I know you're probably joking... But, I actually think that's not such a bad idea :)

I just saw a kid with a bottle of bleach in the air pouring it into it's mouth surrounded by a big red circle with a line through it.

That picture could get pretty complicated sometimes though. A skull and crossbones tells you it's dangerous, but not why it's dangerous and how it shouldn't be used.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer ye olden days, if you were stupid enough to do something stupid than you deal with the consequences of your actions, now a days it's all the rage in liberal circles to blame someone else for you stupidity, and now we have labels on everything, then they wonder why our economy is in the dumps, between taxes and worrying about stupid liabilities it's a;most not worth it anymore, just import it from China

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/title/Do+not+attempt+to+stop+chain+with+your+hands+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..

 

As it seems everyone is loving to point out the hot coffee incident at McDonalds, I ask you all to actually research what took place.  If you saw the photos, you would swear she had gasoline poured on her lap and set ablaze.  It was quite traumatic.  After reading it all, I was amazed at how much I assumed I knew about the case (based on websites) was almost 100% incorrect and that the uncalibrated temperature gauge on the coffee machine and the fact that it was turned higher than the recommended setting, placed McD at fault.

 

That said, I believe there needs to be some common sense law put into place that state a person of average intelligence should have known better.  This law cannot be argued by either lawyer (as we all know they love to twist things).  Rather, it be an optional conclusion of the jury or court judge to determine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always gotta be someone defending the stupid people, lat time I checked hot meant hot, not war, not cold, not lukewarm, but HOT, there's no excuse for anyone to buy HOT coffee then sue because they were stupid and burned themselves with said HOT coffee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.