TOKYO — Honda is recalling nearly 700,000 Fit, Freed and City compact cars around the world for a defective spring part that may cause the engine to stall.
No accidents have been reported related to the problem, but at least 72 complaints were filed in Japan, and 29 abroad, Honda Motor Co. spokesman Tomohiro Okada said Thursday.
Recalled are 167,000 vehicles in Japan, 156,000 in China, and 233,000 in the rest of Asia, Tokyo-based Honda said. About 122,000 cars are being recalled in North America.
The spring was placed improperly in a small box inside the engine, so that, in some cases, the problem could cause the engine to stall, Okada said
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Many errors taking place because physicians not listening to patients.
Many errors taking place because physicians not listening to patients.
Modern Healthcare (2/24, Carlson) reports, "The latest report from the Dartmouth Atlas Project -- Improving Patient Decision-Making in Health Care, which was conducted in conjunction with the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making -- concludes that if physicians educated and listened to their patients more thoroughly, unwanted variation would decline." Investigators took an "in-depth look at medical conditions involving decisions for elective care in cases where the statistics don't recommend a single course of action." They found that much of the difference is attributable to "physicians' preferences, not differences in patient populations. But in cases of elective procedures, giving a patient a treatment he doesn't want is as much an error as wrong-site surgery," the co-author of the study said.
Modern Healthcare (2/24, Carlson) reports, "The latest report from the Dartmouth Atlas Project -- Improving Patient Decision-Making in Health Care, which was conducted in conjunction with the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making -- concludes that if physicians educated and listened to their patients more thoroughly, unwanted variation would decline." Investigators took an "in-depth look at medical conditions involving decisions for elective care in cases where the statistics don't recommend a single course of action." They found that much of the difference is attributable to "physicians' preferences, not differences in patient populations. But in cases of elective procedures, giving a patient a treatment he doesn't want is as much an error as wrong-site surgery," the co-author of the study said.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Ford Recalls F-150 Pickups for Airbags that Could Deploy Without Warning
Ford Recalls Nearly 150,000 F-150 Pickups
Recall is prompted by concerns the truck's airbags could deploy without warning.
A wiring short could trigger the airbags in some 2005 and 2006 model Ford F-150 pickups.
Ford is recalling 144,000 F-150 pickups from the 2005 and 2006 model years because of concerns that the airbags may deploy without warning, the automaker said on Tuesday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised Ford to recall the F-150 after investigating 238 reports of accidental airbag deployment. Seventy-seven injuries have been reported, including chipped teeth, minor burns and cuts to the arms, hands and face.
Road vibrations and regular driving can cause the airbag wires to rub against the metal edge of the horn plate. The rubbing may eventually cut through the insulation on the wire, which then may short and cause the airbag to deploy.
Ford is recalling 135,000 trucks in the United States and 9,000 in Canada. However, the risk of accidental airbag deployment is relatively low, Ford said.
Ford changed the wiring for the 2007 model year to avoid the issue
Recall is prompted by concerns the truck's airbags could deploy without warning.
A wiring short could trigger the airbags in some 2005 and 2006 model Ford F-150 pickups.
Ford is recalling 144,000 F-150 pickups from the 2005 and 2006 model years because of concerns that the airbags may deploy without warning, the automaker said on Tuesday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised Ford to recall the F-150 after investigating 238 reports of accidental airbag deployment. Seventy-seven injuries have been reported, including chipped teeth, minor burns and cuts to the arms, hands and face.
Road vibrations and regular driving can cause the airbag wires to rub against the metal edge of the horn plate. The rubbing may eventually cut through the insulation on the wire, which then may short and cause the airbag to deploy.
Ford is recalling 135,000 trucks in the United States and 9,000 in Canada. However, the risk of accidental airbag deployment is relatively low, Ford said.
Ford changed the wiring for the 2007 model year to avoid the issue
Supreme Court finds No Preemption in Lap Belt Only Case: Protects Family
Williamson v. Mazda
The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment will let Mazda be sued in California courts in a case involving a woman who died while wearing a seat belt across her lap in her family's minivan.
The high court in a unanimous judgment agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, despite complaints from the car company that federal regulators gave it an option on whether to install lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts in the middle seats in the back of the van.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority judgment, said the only way that Mazda would be immune is if the "significant objective" of the federal regulation was to give auto manufacturers a choice of which seat belts to install.
The Transportation Department "gave no indication that its safety goals required the mixture of seatbelt types that resulted from manufacturers' ability to choose different options," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring judgment.
Added Breyer: The more important reason why DOT did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly more expensive for manufacturers to install lap-and shoulder belts in rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to the car doors. But that fact - the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost effectiveness - cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion."
Justice Bryer sited Geier often, pulling it back into the preemption argument.
"In Geier, then, the regulation's history, the agency explanation, and its consistently held interpretive views indicated that the regulation sought to maintain manufacturer choice in order to further significant regulatory objectives. Here, these same considerations indicate the contrary. We consequently conclude that, even though the state tort suit may restrict the manufacturer's choice, it does not "stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment . . . of the full purposes and objectives" of federal law."
The case is Williamson v. Mazda, 08-1314. Click here for the Opinion: 08-1314_Opinion_(02-23-11).pdf
The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment will let Mazda be sued in California courts in a case involving a woman who died while wearing a seat belt across her lap in her family's minivan.
The high court in a unanimous judgment agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, despite complaints from the car company that federal regulators gave it an option on whether to install lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts in the middle seats in the back of the van.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority judgment, said the only way that Mazda would be immune is if the "significant objective" of the federal regulation was to give auto manufacturers a choice of which seat belts to install.
The Transportation Department "gave no indication that its safety goals required the mixture of seatbelt types that resulted from manufacturers' ability to choose different options," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring judgment.
Added Breyer: The more important reason why DOT did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly more expensive for manufacturers to install lap-and shoulder belts in rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to the car doors. But that fact - the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost effectiveness - cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion."
Justice Bryer sited Geier often, pulling it back into the preemption argument.
"In Geier, then, the regulation's history, the agency explanation, and its consistently held interpretive views indicated that the regulation sought to maintain manufacturer choice in order to further significant regulatory objectives. Here, these same considerations indicate the contrary. We consequently conclude that, even though the state tort suit may restrict the manufacturer's choice, it does not "stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment . . . of the full purposes and objectives" of federal law."
The case is Williamson v. Mazda, 08-1314. Click here for the Opinion: 08-1314_Opinion_(02-23-11).pdf
Fosamax and Femur Fractures- Fosamax Leading to Femur Fractures in Women
Bisphosphonates may increase risk for atypical leg fractures.
Bloomberg News (2/23, Randall) reports bisphosphonates "designed to prevent bone breaks in older women may actually increase the risk of a rare form of leg fractures," suggests a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
According to the Los Angeles Times (2/23, Roan) "Booster Shots" blog, researchers examined "205,466 women age 68 and older with osteoporosis who took a bisphosphonate for several years and identified 716 women who had an atypical fracture." When compared with a control group of "3,580 women who had not taken bisphosphonates, the long-term use of the drug was linked to 2.7 times higher odds of hospitalization for an atypical fracture." Overall, in women with "five or more years of bisphosphonate use, an atypical fracture occurred in 0.13% of them in the subsequent year."
WebMD (2/22, Boyles) added that last fall, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would "require label changes on bisphosphonates to warn of a 'possible risk of atypical thigh bone fracture' in long-term users." Although it is "not clear whether bisphosphonates are the cause, atypical femur fractures...have been predominantly reported in patients taking bisphosphonates," agency officials noted in a news release issued at the time
Bloomberg News (2/23, Randall) reports bisphosphonates "designed to prevent bone breaks in older women may actually increase the risk of a rare form of leg fractures," suggests a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
According to the Los Angeles Times (2/23, Roan) "Booster Shots" blog, researchers examined "205,466 women age 68 and older with osteoporosis who took a bisphosphonate for several years and identified 716 women who had an atypical fracture." When compared with a control group of "3,580 women who had not taken bisphosphonates, the long-term use of the drug was linked to 2.7 times higher odds of hospitalization for an atypical fracture." Overall, in women with "five or more years of bisphosphonate use, an atypical fracture occurred in 0.13% of them in the subsequent year."
WebMD (2/22, Boyles) added that last fall, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would "require label changes on bisphosphonates to warn of a 'possible risk of atypical thigh bone fracture' in long-term users." Although it is "not clear whether bisphosphonates are the cause, atypical femur fractures...have been predominantly reported in patients taking bisphosphonates," agency officials noted in a news release issued at the time
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Hidden Dangers of Seat Heaters to Disabled Drivers and Passengers
It’s Time to Make Seat Heaters Safer
Today, Safety Research & Strategies called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the industry to correct a longstanding safety problem: seat heaters that injure disabled drivers and passengers. With no government or industry-wide standards, manufacturers have installed a variety of seat heater systems – some that reach temperatures significantly above human tolerances or have no automatic shut-off mechanism – or both. While most drivers know when to turn a hot seat off, occupants with lower body sensory deficits don’t feel the burn. The medical literature has been documenting serious and permanent burn injuries from car seat heaters to occupants with paralysis or diabetes since 2003. Disabled motorists have been complaining about the problem to NHTSA since, at least, 2002. The industry’s response has been to bury a warning in the owner’s manual. NHTSA’s approach to seat heater defects has been: no flames, no problem. These are preventable injuries – and it’s time government and industry began preventing them.
The medical community has joined us in this campaign. We encourage readers to do the same by sending NHTSA, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association letters supporting changes in standards and practices
Today, Safety Research & Strategies called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the industry to correct a longstanding safety problem: seat heaters that injure disabled drivers and passengers. With no government or industry-wide standards, manufacturers have installed a variety of seat heater systems – some that reach temperatures significantly above human tolerances or have no automatic shut-off mechanism – or both. While most drivers know when to turn a hot seat off, occupants with lower body sensory deficits don’t feel the burn. The medical literature has been documenting serious and permanent burn injuries from car seat heaters to occupants with paralysis or diabetes since 2003. Disabled motorists have been complaining about the problem to NHTSA since, at least, 2002. The industry’s response has been to bury a warning in the owner’s manual. NHTSA’s approach to seat heater defects has been: no flames, no problem. These are preventable injuries – and it’s time government and industry began preventing them.
The medical community has joined us in this campaign. We encourage readers to do the same by sending NHTSA, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association letters supporting changes in standards and practices
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Chevrolet Cobalts recalled for Steering Problems
notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act.
General Motors has decided that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain
2005-2010 model year Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles; 2005 model year Pontiac Pursuit; 2005-2006
model year Pontiac G4; 2006 model year Pontiac G5 Pursuit; and 2007-2010 model year
Pontiac G5 vehicles equipped with electric power steering. As a result, GM is conducting a
safety recall. We apologize for this inconvenience. However, we are concerned about your
safety and continued satisfaction with our products.
IMPORTANT
• Your vehicle is involved in safety recall 10023.
• Schedule an appointment with your GM dealer.
• This service will be performed for you at no charge.
Why is your
vehicle being
recalled?
Your vehicle may have a condition in which a sudden loss of power
steering assist could occur at any time while driving the vehicle. If
the power steering assist is lost, a chime will sound and a "Power
Steering" message will be displayed in the Driver Information Center
to inform you of the condition. Steering control will be maintained,
as the vehicle defaults to a manual steering mode. If power steering
assist is lost, it may require greater driver effort at low vehicle
speeds, for example, below 15 mph (25 km/h). Unless the driver
compensates for this additional effort, it may increase the risk of a
crash.
Typically, the next time the vehicle is started, the power steering
assist will return and the "Power Steering" message will no longer
be displayed.
What will we
do?
Your GM dealer will replace the electric power steering motor. This
service will be performed for you at no charge. Because of service
scheduling requirements, it is likely that your dealer will need your
vehicle longer than the actual service correction time of
approximately 40 minutes.
If your vehicle is within the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, your
dealer may provide you with shuttle service or some other form of
courtesy transportation while your vehicle is at the dealership for this
repair. Please refer to your Owner Manual and your dealer for
details on courtesy transportation.
What should
you do?
You should contact your GM dealer to arrange a service
appointment as soon as possible.
Page 9 March 2010 Bulletin No.: 10023
Did you already
pay for this
repair?
The enclosed form explains what reimbursement is available and
how to request reimbursement if you have paid for repairs for the
recall condition. If you had this condition corrected, you may have
received the new motor. Please contact your dealer to determine if
the motor in your vehicle requires replacement.
Do you have
questions?
If you have questions or concerns that your dealer is unable to
resolve, please contact the appropriate Customer Assistance Center
at the number listed below.
Division Number
Text Telephones
(TTY)
Chevrolet 1-800-630-2438 1-800-833-2438
Pontiac 1-800-620-7668 1-800-833-7668
Guam 1-671-648-8450
Puerto Rico – English 1-800-496-9992
Puerto Rico – Español 1-800-496-9993
Virgin Islands 1-800-496-9994
If after contacting your dealer and the Customer Assistance Center, you are still not satisfied
we have done our best to remedy this condition without charge and within a reasonable time,
you may wish to write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20590, or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at
1.888.327.4236 (TTY 1.800.424.9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov.
Federal regulation requires that any vehicle lessor receiving this recall notice must forward a
copy of this notice to the lessee within ten days.
Scott Lawson
Director,
Customer and Relationship Services
Enclosure
Vehicle Safety Act.
General Motors has decided that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain
2005-2010 model year Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles; 2005 model year Pontiac Pursuit; 2005-2006
model year Pontiac G4; 2006 model year Pontiac G5 Pursuit; and 2007-2010 model year
Pontiac G5 vehicles equipped with electric power steering. As a result, GM is conducting a
safety recall. We apologize for this inconvenience. However, we are concerned about your
safety and continued satisfaction with our products.
IMPORTANT
• Your vehicle is involved in safety recall 10023.
• Schedule an appointment with your GM dealer.
• This service will be performed for you at no charge.
Why is your
vehicle being
recalled?
Your vehicle may have a condition in which a sudden loss of power
steering assist could occur at any time while driving the vehicle. If
the power steering assist is lost, a chime will sound and a "Power
Steering" message will be displayed in the Driver Information Center
to inform you of the condition. Steering control will be maintained,
as the vehicle defaults to a manual steering mode. If power steering
assist is lost, it may require greater driver effort at low vehicle
speeds, for example, below 15 mph (25 km/h). Unless the driver
compensates for this additional effort, it may increase the risk of a
crash.
Typically, the next time the vehicle is started, the power steering
assist will return and the "Power Steering" message will no longer
be displayed.
What will we
do?
Your GM dealer will replace the electric power steering motor. This
service will be performed for you at no charge. Because of service
scheduling requirements, it is likely that your dealer will need your
vehicle longer than the actual service correction time of
approximately 40 minutes.
If your vehicle is within the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, your
dealer may provide you with shuttle service or some other form of
courtesy transportation while your vehicle is at the dealership for this
repair. Please refer to your Owner Manual and your dealer for
details on courtesy transportation.
What should
you do?
You should contact your GM dealer to arrange a service
appointment as soon as possible.
Page 9 March 2010 Bulletin No.: 10023
Did you already
pay for this
repair?
The enclosed form explains what reimbursement is available and
how to request reimbursement if you have paid for repairs for the
recall condition. If you had this condition corrected, you may have
received the new motor. Please contact your dealer to determine if
the motor in your vehicle requires replacement.
Do you have
questions?
If you have questions or concerns that your dealer is unable to
resolve, please contact the appropriate Customer Assistance Center
at the number listed below.
Division Number
Text Telephones
(TTY)
Chevrolet 1-800-630-2438 1-800-833-2438
Pontiac 1-800-620-7668 1-800-833-7668
Guam 1-671-648-8450
Puerto Rico – English 1-800-496-9992
Puerto Rico – Español 1-800-496-9993
Virgin Islands 1-800-496-9994
If after contacting your dealer and the Customer Assistance Center, you are still not satisfied
we have done our best to remedy this condition without charge and within a reasonable time,
you may wish to write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20590, or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at
1.888.327.4236 (TTY 1.800.424.9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov.
Federal regulation requires that any vehicle lessor receiving this recall notice must forward a
copy of this notice to the lessee within ten days.
Scott Lawson
Director,
Customer and Relationship Services
Enclosure
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)