vehicle
safety
Danger of panoramic views on the way to court
According to a class action lawsuit filed in court against the Home Center and Ace chains, the panoramic mirrors marketed by them, among other things, pose a danger and do not meet the required standard.
The estimated scope of the lawsuit is NIS 4 million
Tags
Mirror
Rearview mirror
vehicle
safety
Class action
Keenan Cohen
Thursday, 24 September 2020, 13:33
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
Distorted, do not allow dazzling prevention, but the real danger is at the time of an accident
We have written before about the danger of panoramic mirrors, the fact that a shattering panoramic mirror sprays the cabin with pieces of glass, and the helplessness that allows these dangerous devices to reach hundreds of thousands of vehicles in Israel.
Now, a class action lawsuit has been filed in Lod District Court by attorney Ido Steiner, against the Ace and Home Center chains and against the mirror maker Hercules Gorkewitz.
At the basis of the lawsuit, the claim that despite the statement on the product packaging, these mirrors do not have an Israeli standard and documents prove that such a standard application was denied back in 2000 after the Israeli Standards Institute refused to grant it the standard.
An inquiry conducted by Adv. Steiner with the Standards Institute prior to the filing of the lawsuit shows that the company presents on the product packaging technical specifications that were revoked in 2013 and therefore should not be presented today, regardless of the fact that the company's products never received the standard. The packaging of the respondent refers to the quality management standard of the manufacturing company and not to the quality of the product itself and should not appear on the packaging.
More on Walla!
NEWS
Throw it away already: car accessories that endanger you
To the full article
Unlike an original mirror, the panoramic mirror is not coated with a shatterproof material and does not stay in the frame with its refraction
The applicant, Adv. Ido Steiner
Moreover, the Ministry of Transportation has previously instructed not to pass the annual licensing test if a panoramic mirror is installed in them.
In addition, the lawsuit brings the opinion of automotive engineers who state that the mirror poses a "severe safety hazard" because they tend to shatter easily and their parts disperse in a manner that endangers the occupants of the vehicle.
This is beyond the problems that arise in the aspect of dazzling prevention, disruption of distance assessment and more.
Tests performed on the mirrors showed that while the original appearance of the vehicle cracked under a load of 22.6 kg, and even then did not break to pieces, the mirror made by the company was completely broken under a load of 3.94 kg while creating large and dangerous fractures.
Demonstration of withstanding loads of original mirror versus panoramic mirror
Adv. Steiner: "We are dealing with a dismal case in which products have been marketed to the public for many years that constitute a serious safety hazard, while seriously misleading and presenting them as products that meet the standards required by law.
Coated at least supermarkets download the product Mmdfihn immediately to avoid further damage. "
Assessment statement of claim is that during that period by 50 thousand people in the sights and estimate the cumulative damage to class members $ 4 million.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments