+1. Sensors in back and none in the front makes no sense at all.

 

So sorry for the mishap zmoothg but glad there was no bodily injury. Kind of scary that a system like that would not have any safeguards in place to help warn/prevent an accident. I would think the parking garage owner(s) would have some culpability in this.

 

looks like this made it to jalopnik

https://jalopnik.com/automated-parki...uys-1822232565

 

Yeah I saw that brother how is the new car

 

it's great. i will miss the jag once it leaves though

 

Jalopnik has posted a response from Klaus - pretty aggressive response and casting aspersions is a bad move from them, they may regret saying this:

"In this case the user drove over the curb and two feet past the end of the platform. This should have been completely obvious leading us to believe that this particular user was impaired in some way."

Regardless of the user error pulling too far forward the machine should have necessary safety mechanisms for preventing property damage, or even worse bodily injury. I would say this equipment is not fit for purpose to allow the public to self operate it. Seems they have realized this too with the statement they are adding additional sensors.

OP I would be asking the building management company for records of safety inspections etc - has the equipment followed the mandated inspections on time, any issues noted etc. Start building your documentary evidence if it comes to litigation.

 

I agree the comments he made were quite aggressive and show that he doesn't really care about the owner; rather just about his business.

This particular situation is a messy one. Not knowing anything about how the user was trained or the actual size of this bump stop, it's really hard to say how much responsibility the user has for this. Typically I would say its the users responsibility to make sure he/she has parked the car safely within the confines of the platform when it is being raise... but the fact that the car is moved well after the owner has left makes the fault a little more of a blurred line. The system doesn't really offer a way to check if your car may contact by raising it manually and offers many questions no one can answer like; did the platform hit a bump when raising, and cause the car to slide forward since it wasn't against the bump stop? Did the system try to stop when it noted the resistance of the car? Or did it just keep going until becoming jammed? (seems like the latter)

Regardless, had the company had the experience of engineering products with major moving parts for consumers to use, they would have know you have to engineer for stupid. Not calling the owner stupid in this case, mistakes happen, but the practice remains the same. The incident that killed Anton Yelchin was reportedly due to a confusing shifter design, but in reality many car companies use this design and the incident probably occurred because he was distracted and never bothered to check if the car was in gear or not. Jeep then resigned the shifter system as a result to prevent further incidents and be more clear for the distracted user.

Its impossible to protect for everything, but this seemed like a pretty damn obvious thing to do.

 

Unbelievably irresponsible quote from Klaus i.e. driver was impaired; and the comments on that article from the public at large is a reflection on the sorry state of humanity. So many haters, cheap seat artists, and revisionists that it makes me more than a little sad to have read them in response to a fellow car enthusiast having his precious's front end obliterated in a parking garage. Its everything wrong with social media in one place. SAD!

 

As for "impaired", it does not mean drunk. It could mean tired, distracted, or a host of other things. I do not doubt that Klaus is mystified as to how someone could pull too far forward. Don't you make it a practice to look at your front end after parking at a curb, just to be sure you are not too far forward?
That said, I am sure we all regret the damage done to a beautiful car. We will never have all of the facts and may never learn of all of the discussions behind the scenes between the parties. My take-away from this is I will keep all four wheels on the ground...no car elevators for me.

Larry

 

 

Seems like one simple fix is too install door sensors on the fixed side of the lift; similar to residential garage door openers in which an object (person or vehicle) breaks the signal between sensors and everything stops. Cheap but effective considering how expensive each lift must cost (not to mention the cost of vehicle damage or potentially loss of life if someone was really "impaired").

Surely this kind of scenario (and probably many others) must have crossed the minds of the designers, vendors, contractors, and building owners that install these systems. After all, they are only dealing with powerful mechanical systems that operate (automated by the general public no less) between open elevations constructed of concrete and steel. It is great that they had small curb stops and a training video, but no real fail-safes? Or maybe they were all 'impaired" too.

 

On the automated parking system we installed in our apartment complex, a large tv monitor is mounted in front of the platform on to which you drive. It tells you when the car is or is not positioned properly. A gated rail is also installed that doesn't allow one to drive forward too far. The camera and sensor systems should not have allowed the movement of the platform without proper positioning. And the Klaus comments are irresponsible without having all of the facts.

 

Klaus' response is a classic example of why companies need lawyers to review PR, especially in response to an incident. Mistake one, speculate and possibly slander consumer. Mistake two, practically admitting a design flaw by saying you will improve the product in response to this incident. I can't help but laugh.

 

Yep, I reckon the elephant in the room is the bump stops.
How is it even possible to drive two feet past them without some sort of giveaway? They must be tiny if you can do that in a relatively hard-riding car like an F-Type and not feel them. Either that or the ramp is pretty rough to start with and it's hard to tell going over the bump stops from normal progress.

 

From Klaus, typical intimidating lawyer speak, trying to intimidate the consumer/victim in stopping any possible legal action.
I'd go back and say that their engineers were impaired in designing the faulty system.
Good luck with anything you do.

 

That's the plan. I am pretty shocked he accused me of being impaired, just blows my mind.

 

Hey guys, once this matter is over with i will comment on the results. As of now due to a possible pending litigation I will not be able to respond. Wish me luck.

 

good luck mate

There is a major design issue with that lift in my opinion

 

I wish you luck but I must provoke those who think we should "nanny" error out of everything in our lives. There is way too much of that by government agencies and litigation. Why not eliminate sharp edges on knives so that no one can accidentally cut themselves? That thought can go on and on. Cars are inherently dangerous, but we tolerate that for the benefits. This was avoidable by the operator and I hate to see the designer blamed because he did not engineer an error-proof solution. Life is full of cost-benefit tradeoffs.
If the owner had some responsibility in this event, he should just accept that and make his insurance claim.

Larry

 

I agree with you 100% that people need to be responsible for their own actions, but this was a machine designed to move cars around, it should be a fundamental part of the design to ensure that the machine doesn't destroy the cars when it moves them.