Can someone give a fellow a hand????

[wbrian63]

Strange request, but addictions are strange things...

I'm the proud new owner of a 2002 S55 AMG (W220). Over here in the "land of the free and the home of the stupid bureaucrat", the factory option that includes a warning triangle in the trunk is verbotten.

As such, since I can't have it, I MUST have it...

Add to this level of stupidity, I can (and have) purchased the latch assembly that holds the triangle in place in the trunk. It was a whopping $10 or so from the dealer. Go figure - you can't get the triangle, but you can purchase the latch all day long...

The triangle is available in the US's northern suburb, aka Canada, and probably everywhere else in the world. Even Tom Hanson can't purchase the part from Germany for me.

I don't think I know anyone in Canada, but I do know a bunch of people in Australia, New Zealand and S. Africa, thanks to this forum.

If some kind soul would investigate the availablility of a warning triangle, cost to purchase same, and freight to get it here, I'd be greatful. I don't care if the triangle is a wrecking yard find, so long as it's in excellent shape. New from the dealer is OK as well. The part # listed from EPC is 203 890 01 97. According to EPC, this part fits the 124, 202, 203, 209, 210, 215 and 220 series cars, if that helps.

I would of course be willing to compensate the kind soul for the value of their time...

[s class]

Why exactly is this triangle not allowed?

[wbrian63]

In the vernacular of the web - GOK. (God only knows.)

They also do not allow the following:

Fire Extinguisher
First Aid Kit
Extra brake lamp in rear for low visibility conditions.

The last one has apparently been repealed, because both my W220 and W140 cars have this feature enabled. What we get in return is far to many "posers" driving around with the lamp lit, either to advertise that they've got a car with this feature, or because they're too stupid to read the owners manual. (I vote for a combination of the 2). Fortunately, I guess, only German cars sport this feature, so at least it's not all the idiots on the road. I predict that eventually, that constantly lit lamp on a car with a faulty brake lamp circuit is going to allow someone to get rear-ended (in an auto-related accident...) and it will wind up in court, and before you know it - bingo - no more extra lamp in the rear.

I suspect all of these things have to do with the tort laws in the US. Basically, you can sue for anything. Buy a lawn mower, start it up, stick your hand in the outlet and sever a few fingers. Turn around and sue the manufacturer for marketing a knowingly unsafe product...

Warning Triangle logic - disabled motorist deploys triangle to warn oncoming drivers of his roadside breakdown. This startles oncoming driver who swerves and causes an accident - oncoming driver sues motorist for creating a distraction that resulted in his accident. Or, oncoming driver fails to notice triangle and hits disabled car and/or motorist. Disabled motorist sues auto manufacturer claiming the safety equipment provided with the car was faulty or of insufficient design.

Fire Extinguisher logic - along the same lines. Use it to try to help someone and cause damage, you can get sued. There are good samaritin laws on the books to protect people, but people will still sue. Or, try to use the extinguisher to put out a fire and find it empty - sue the manufacturer for providing inoperative safety equipment. Basically, anything like this installed in a US car must provide some sort of warning device if it becomes inactive.

First Aid Kit logic - same logic as the previous 3. Help someone and do harm, get sued. Try to use the knuckle bandaid to stem the flow from a severed artery in an accident, and fail to do so, sue the manufacturer for providing a first aid kit of insufficient design.

American Tort law is in dire need of overhaul. There is no focus on placing the responsibility with the driver as to the proper maintenance and operation of their vehicle. In all of my previous examples, basic human stupidity is what allows the suit to proceed:
1) Driver that is startled by the triangle is an idiot - that he crashes his car further enforces that statement.
2) Driver that fails to see the triangle and hits the stalled car - same condition as previously stated.
3) Unless you use the fire extinguisher to intentionally cause damage where none need occur, if someone's car is ablaze and you try to extingush the fire but are unsuccessful - oh well - too bad, so sad, I tried.
4) If you fail to maintain proper fill level on the extinguisher and it's empty when you most need it - again - too bad, so sad, you're an idiot.
5) Unless you use the gauze roll in the first aid kit to stifle the screams of a hysterical motorist that has a tiny nick on their knuckle, and they suffocate, anything you try to do to help should be good enough.
6) If you see blood spurting from an artery and pick the only bandage in the pack as the solution, which is something you'd use on a shaving nick, you're an idiot and should stay away from sharp objects, which are also included in the kit.
7) If you fail to restock the kit as it is depleted and it lacks the necessary items to perform effective first aid when required - I dub thee "Sir Idiot"
In all these cases, nobody should get sued. Some should be taken "out behind the barn" and given a good whippin' with a riding crop, but keep it out of the courts....

Note that these are purely assumptions on my part. I've been able to find documentation as to why only sealed-beam headlamps were allowed in the US for years after the rest of the world had gone to the far superior setup involving separate halogen bulbs. I've never found anything other than supposition as to why these items are still banned.

Our "friends" in the federal gov't are just trying to protect us from ourselves...

I can do without their help.

And - you did ask, although you're probably regretting the question right about now...

[s class]

No, I'm not regretting it.  But I think its sad.  The items you list as banned are what, to a normal lucid person, seem as essential in the interests of safety.  But, Common Sense is not all that common after all, and the laws have obviously been so debated and over-reasoned that they are defeating their own purpose. 

As you state, it also represents an attempt to separate the individual from all responsibility for his own actions.  I see this here too in industry.  My day job is as a consultant to the power generation industry, and the sites are in nature heavy industry.  It drives me to distraction, how many HIRAs (High Level Risk Assessments) and Guidelines, and Procedures I have to develop and consider and reconsider and re-reconsider.  And heaven help anyone involved in writing these documents, should there be an injury or fatality 'on that watch' so to speak.  My first reaction, was, howabout apportioning at least part of the blame to the victim when he was so blatantly stupid, instead of trying to depate which of the procedures was somehow lacking that this mishap took place.

and in the vernacular of hte web, /rant

[wbrian63]

Couldn't agree more - it is sad, but worse than sad, it is stupid.

Many people "blame the lawyers", and that's a technique that's been in place since Shakespeare's day.

However, truth be told, if there weren't clients clamoring to recover damages for misfortunes they brought upon themselves, the lawyers could hardly go shopping to drum up business. There's a term for lawyers like this - we call them "Ambulance Chasers"

For years, it was even illegal for lawyers to advertise in any manner, printed form or visual. That was repealed years ago, and now late night TV is crowded with "injured on the job - contact me, I'll sue the pants off those buggers, take most of the money and make you feel better about your own stupidity..." type advertisements.

How far we have fallen....

There are glimmers of light that one has a chance to see on occasion. I have an architect friend who did a redesign/remodel of a very fancy home in one of our more exclusive residential areas. The owner was determined to have a gigantic picture window installed in a part of the house where it would be subject to much environmental stress. Around here, safety code dictates that any window wider than (I think) 2 feet that has a base within 6" of the floor must have laminated safety glass installed. This is the same type of glass as used in automobile front windscreens. Architect friend, in consultation with the glass vendor, someone he'd worked with for years on dozens of projects, recommended against this installation. The pane was so large (I think he said it was like 8 feet wide and 10 feet tall - some ungodly size) that there were bound to be problems with delamination due to the stresses on the bottom edge of the pane where it rested in the frame. There were further installation issues with sealing the glass because of its size - thermal expansion/contraction were such that eventually, as everyone had predicted from the start, the window began to delaminate across the bottom, and leak from several locations.

Architect friend and glass vendor were called out to inspect "their lousy work" (owner's words). Upon detailed inspection, they said in union to the owner - we told you this was a bad idea, but you knew better. The only solution is to remove the window and replace it with a multi-paned unit. Since you insisted this was the way to go over our objections, the entire cost is yours to pay - there is no warranty at stake here.

Nothin' doin' - homeowner sues everyone from Architect friend, to the glass vendor, to the fellow that installed the glass (he also thought it was a bad idea), to the company that made the glass, Owens-Corning...

Fortunately, architect friend is a fiend for record keeping. He had along the way made notes and sent correspondence with his objections to the installation to the owner, and had received in return overrides to his objections with insistance that the installation proceed. It still cost Architect friend upwards of $30k for representation (he doesn't carry liability insurance - go figure). When the day in court finally came and all the documentation was presented to the presiding judge, the case was summarily dismissed for lack of cause. Further, the judge put in place legal barriers to prevent the owner from "rephrasing the question" and suing on any related issues (like water damage, etc.). With civil suits like this here in the US, the losing party pays the legal fees of the prevailing party, so the owner was on the hook for all of the legal fees of the defendants. That was 8+ years ago, and "the check is still in the mail".

Again - sad but true. Situations like this are nice because the truth prevailed. However, there is no mechanism to force payment of judgments like this against the plaintiff. Architect friend's only recourse would be to file suit himself, which obviously he's not in favor of.

/rant

[wbrian63]

I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner, but I jumped to eBay.co.uk and sure enough, 3 of the exact part I'm looking for appeared. A quick question to a seller to get posting costs across the pond, and viola - one W220 warning triangle is on it's way.

Thanks anyway folks. I solved my own problem without creating trouble for others.

Regards

[adamb]

Funny you mention UK ebay, I was about to recommend the same.