GM ignored deaths, sold more killer trucks.

[Falc'man]

Can you get any stupider than this?

It appears they were "Government Motors" long before the bailout.

http://jalopnik.com/5513303/your-gm-...e-and-kill-you


Your GM Pickup Could Explode And Kill You

Your GM Pickup Could Explode And Kill You. Over nine million General Motors pickup trucks built in the '70s and '80s have a tendency to explode in otherwise non-fatal accidents. This is FairWarning.org's detailed look at how an added "feature" made those trucks deadly. —Ed.

Brian Taft joined the C/K death watch in November 2007. He drove into the path of an oncoming vehicle, a lethal mistake in the truck he was driving.

Taft, 36, was behind the wheel of a 1986 GM pickup, one of more than 9 million in the popular C/K line sold in the 1970s and '80s. For marketing reasons, the trucks had an unusual design feature. GM wanted to offer 40 gallons of fuel capacity, but there was no place to mount a tank that big. So it offered twin 20 gallon tanks, each nearly 5 feet long, two explosive containers hanging like saddle bags outside the truck's protective frame. Even after decades, that choice still resonates in the courts, in the lives of bereaved families and in the disfiguring scars of survivors.

Rolling out of a parking lot near midnight in Clifton Township, Pa., Taft's pickup was broadsided by an SUV. The gas tank ruptured, the pickup exploded, and flames engulfed both vehicles. Taft suffered broken ribs, but that's not what killed him, an autopsy found. Burned on 99 percent of his body, he left a wife and two young children.

Hundreds have been killed in fiery crashes of the side-saddle pickups, and many others suffered disfiguring burns. A review by FairWarning found that at least 100 people have perished by fire since federal authorities dropped an investigation that could have led to the trucks' recall.


Changing Times, Consistent Defense

Fifteen years ago, a probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, found the risk of burning to death in side-impact crashes was much higher in the GM trucks than in rival full-size pickups. But under intense pressure from GM and its congressional allies, transportation officials blinked, announcing a settlement in December 1994 that left millions of the trucks on the road. In exchange, GM agreed to pay $51.4 million for safety programs that transportation officials said would save many lives.

By that time, more than 600 people had burned to death in C/K post-collision fires. And the agreement did nothing about the remaining side-saddle pickups, described by consumer advocates and victims' lawyers as the most dangerous vehicles, from a fire risk standpoint, ever produced.

GM officials have consistently defended the trucks, saying they have a fine overall safety record and met fuel system safety standards when they were produced.

"The safety of the trucks was established a number of years ago after extensive investigations and reviews," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson. "We don't have anything new to add."

Over the years GM has settled hundreds of lawsuits by fire victims or their families, paying out well in excess of $500 million.

Robert Lawrence of Turner, Ore., settled his case following a fiery crash in 2005 that nearly killed him and his fiancé. Both suffered extensive burns and other injuries when a car ran a stop sign and hit the side-saddle truck in which they were riding, rupturing the fuel tank and triggering a massive fire.

Five years later, Lawrence's voice still wobbles with emotion when he talks about it. GM "knew that people were getting killed," but "they were selling these trucks like hotcakes, so rather than stop and fix it they continued to sell them," Lawrence said.


"Yet they make all these advertisements on TV - ‘the Heartbeat of America' and ‘We care about your family,' and all that stuff," said Lawrence, 46. "It just freaks me out."

Unlike Lawrence, the Taft family's lawsuit was essentially wiped out last year by the GM bankruptcy, along with hundreds of other product liability claims with a total settlement value of more than $400 million, according to a court document. With nearly all assets shifted from the "old GM" to the new company, lawyers say the Tafts and other claimants will be lucky to get 10 to 20 cents on the dollar.


Taft family members declined to be interviewed, but their lawyer Michael Gallacher said they were "angry that this vehicle was still out there." GM knew from the start the risks of the outboard tanks, Gallacher said. "I think it's probably the worst example of corporate negligence that you can possibly have."


Statistics and FARS

According to a federal database, following the government's settlement with GM the side-saddle trucks were involved in nearly 400 fatal crashes with post-collision fires through 2008. However, the database, known as the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, attributed most deaths to the force of the collision and only 97 to explosions or fires.

Although autopsy reports provide the most authoritative information on cause of death, they rarely figure in FARS. Deaths by fire might be wrongly coded as caused by the impact or vice-versa. When NHTSA compared FARS codings of C/K pickup deaths with autopsies in 1994, it found that fire deaths were incorrectly attributed to crash forces more often than the other way around.

Accordingly, the estimate of at least 100 fire deaths since December 1994 seems conservative. It includes the 97 cases coded in FARS, along with 10 additional fatalities in which autopsies, police reports or witness statements reviewed by FairWarning indicated that victims survived the crash then died in the flames.

The toll has eased with the gradual disappearance of the trucks. But as they slowly wind their way to the junkyard, the tough old pickups are a reminder of how decisions by industry and government can have profound and lasting consequences

"I still see them on the road every day," said B.J. Kincade, an Oklahoma woman whose 29-year old son Jimmy died in a fiery C/K wreck.


"They last forever, and that's part of the problem," she said. "Except for the fact that they burn up, they're not a bad truck."

With its emergence from bankruptcy, GM could face new claims. In late November, Megan Holt, 16, of Vicksburg, Mich., burned to death when her '86 side-saddle pickup veered off the road for unknown reasons and struck a tree.

She survived the impact, but the truck burst into flames. Other motorists told police they heard her screams as they tried unsuccessfully to free her. An expert retained by lawyers for the Holt family has yet to inspect the truck to determine if a ruptured tank caused the deadly fire.

GM used the outside-the-frame design in its 1973 to 1987 C/K pickups, "C" denoting the two-wheel drive and "K" the four-wheel drive model. The trucks came with twin 20-gallon tanks or 16-gallon tanks for a shorter model. Customers could also get a single side-mounted tank. The outboard design continued in a small number of specialty trucks through 1991.

"They last forever, and that's part of the problem," she said. "Except for the fact that they burn up, they're not a bad truck."

Any vehicle can leak fuel and catch fire in a sufficiently violent crash. But critics say the use of dual tanks in such a vulnerable location substantially raised the danger.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, D.C., which had campaigned for a recall, compared the design to "taking a human heart and putting it outside the chest. The heart is protected by the ribs," Ditlow said, "and the fuel tank should be protected by the frame."

Though GM maintained there was nothing wrong with the outboard design, a GM engineer, asked in a deposition to name a worse place for a tank, gave this blunt reply: "Well, yes. You could … put it on the front bumper."

Before the side-saddle design, gas tanks in GM pickups rode inside the cab behind the seat, treating drivers to the sound of sloshing fuel. Moving the tanks outside the frame was seen as a safety improvement.

But the risks of the outboard design were well known when the side-saddle trucks were introduced, internal documents show. A 1964 GM memo on safety improvements for the next generation of pickups stated: "The fuel tank must be mounted outside the cab and as near the center of the vehicle as practical."


A 1966 memo from rival truck maker Dodge said side-mounted tanks were "not acceptable. … Any side impact would automatically encroach on this area, and the probability of tank leakage would be extremely high."

In fact, GM engineers wanted to move the tank inside the frame long before it was finally done in 1988. One memo advised: "Moving these side tanks inboard might eliminate most of these potential leakers." Another noted that 1977 FARS data showed a higher risk of fire-related deaths in GM pickups than in rival Ford and Dodge models. Yet another dealt with liability: "Pickup truck design is subject to intense pressure as the result of litigation due to post-collision fuel-fed fires," the memo said. By switching to a single tank between the frame rails in 1988, "we are reducing this concern."

With millions of the old trucks still on the road, however, the toll continued to mount. In 1992, the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen petitioned NHTSA to investigate. The following year, the agency requested a voluntary recall. GM refused.

Then things came to a head. Armed with findings of the NHTSA investigation, Transportation Secretary Federico Peña declared the fuel system defective in October 1994. Among other things, investigators found the risk of burning to death in side-impact crashes was 3.4 to six times higher in the GM trucks than comparable Fords and Dodges.

Under federal law, the defect finding could have led to a recall. But GM furiously resisted, including with a federal lawsuit against NHTSA. While lawmakers today line up to take swings at Toyota, GM had the help of key congressmen, who went as far as to demand an investigation of Peña. Chief executives of GM, Chrysler and Ford signed a letter to President Clinton, warning that the defect finding "threatens the entire automotive industry by creating needless, unreasonable regulatory confusion."

A court fight could have consumed years with uncertain results. When the C/K trucks were made, they complied with the weak federal standard for fuel systems. GM would have argued in court that this meant the trucks could not be deemed defective. Seeking a graceful retreat, Peña settled.

In an interview years later with the Los Angeles Times, Peña defended his actions as necessary to avoid years of litigation. "People can criticize it to death, but there would have been nothing … [and] I would not have been at peace with myself."

Settlements and Grief

The deal did not spare GM the grief and wrath of victims, both occupants of their trucks and those unlucky enough to hit them.

When Nevada teenager Robert Bugajski was shopping for a used pickup, his parents declared the side-saddle trucks were rolling firebombs and told him to pick something else. But when Bugajski, 17, was driving in May 1997, he hit a C/K truck that ran a stop sign. The tank ruptured and both vehicles exploded in flames.

The two people in the C/K were incinerated on the spot. Bugajski, burned on 60 percent of his body, was pulled from his truck moaning in agony. He lingered eight days before he died.

As it had done scores of times before and since, GM settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. The company has always put the blame elsewhere - on careless driving or the violence of the crash. Indeed, most crashes do involve driver error. Brian Taft and the driver who hit him had both been drinking. Megan Holt might have nodded off before veering off the road.

But did careless design make the injuries worse? The specter of motorists surviving a crash only to become human torches is too horrific to risk the reaction of juries - so GM has almost always settled.

A police report said that when the officer arrived, Hacker "was lying several yards to the south of the vehicle and was still smoldering."

The number and size of settlements was kept secret from the public until 2003, when a federal judge in Montana, responding to a petition by the Los Angeles Times, unsealed an internal document over GM's strong objections.

The document showed that through August 2000, 297 claims were settled. "The total amount paid in settlement to date is $495,076,104," the document said. "This yields an average of … $1,666,923 per lawsuit/claim."

Tens of millions of dollars have been paid out since, though GM will not disclose the number or size of settlements.

Many survivors go through life severely scarred. Art Johnson, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., who has represented C/K plaintiffs, said he was struck by how the "consequences of a relatively minor accident are so incredibly severe. Once you see the burn injuries of many of these victims, you never forget it."

Days before his 19th birthday in February 2003, John Hacker was heading to his night shift at a beef jerky plant in Oregon when he nodded off behind the wheel of his side saddle truck. He jerked the wheel to stay on the road, but veered into a guardrail.

The impact left Hacker virtually unscathed, but he was horribly burned by flaming gasoline. A co-worker driving behind him rolled Hacker on the pavement to put out the flames. A police report said that when the officer arrived, Hacker "was lying several yards to the south of the vehicle and was still smoldering."

Burned on 85 percent of his body, Hacker was kept in a coma for weeks to avoid the excruciating pain. He awoke to find parts of his fingers gone. He waited some time before looking in a mirror. "I guess my heart dropped on that one," Hacker said. "I'm a freak now," he recalled thinking. "How are people going to look at me?"

Lingering physical effects include fragile skin that tears easily. Hacker said he has experienced a spiritual awakening that has helped him deal with the emotional scars. Once seriously involved with drugs, Hacker said he has turned that around and is in training to become an alcohol and drug abuse counselor. Spiritual faith, he said, has made "me really grateful for a lot of things I do have."

Naturally, Hacker no longer drives a C/K truck, but many others do. The exact number is uncertain, but a NHTSA document from the 1990s projected a 2010 population of 200,000 side-saddle trucks.

[Jim Goose]

Why design something thats safe when you can just bribe your local congressman?

Profits are all important.... people are expendable.

The US government has been bailing out the auto industry for 50yrs since the great depression. So its nothing new.

However, when Nixon was in power he made the auto industry do something.
It was mandatory to increase the average MPG on all vehicles.

This lead to an increase in development which had stagnated with all those gazz guzzling dinosaurs the USA was famous for.

Cars became smaller, more efficient, more crash worthy etc....

However things changed when GW Bush arrived. At no point did he put any restrictions on those Billions he handed out to the auto industry.
Thats why during his "presidency" the American auto industry began making dinosaurs again. With bigger "SUVS" being produced with 8/9/10litre engines... and weighing sometimes up to 5ton.
These things had the most pityful gas mileage then anything built in the 70s or 80s.

But then again with Bush involved in the oil industry for over 30yrs why would he want to force the auto industry to go green? and therefor reduce consumption?

[GasoLane]

All Jaguar XJ saloons have always had two fuel tanks, one in each rear guard.

Either Jaguar designed them better or Poms dont go around T boning each other.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Why design something thats safe when you can just bribe your local congressman?

Profits are all important.... people are expendable.

The US government has been bailing out the auto industry for 50yrs since the great depression. So its nothing new.

However, when Nixon was in power he made the auto industry do something.
It was mandatory to increase the average MPG on all vehicles.

This lead to an increase in development which had stagnated with all those gazz guzzling dinosaurs the USA was famous for.

Cars became smaller, more efficient, more crash worthy etc....

However things changed when GW Bush arrived. At no point did he put any restrictions on those Billions he handed out to the auto industry.
Thats why during his "presidency" the American auto industry began making dinosaurs again. With bigger "SUVS" being produced with 8/9/10litre engines... and weighing sometimes up to 5ton.
These things had the most pityful gas mileage then anything built in the 70s or 80s.

But then again with Bush involved in the oil industry for over 30yrs why would he want to force the auto industry to go green? and therefor reduce consumption?

Ok, your post really bugs me. I don't know if there are many truths in it at all. Cars did get smaller, but that's why SUVs and pickups got popular. There was no trend reversal. That happened in the 90s and it was Clinton who was President at the time, not GWB (not that it really matters because I don't think Presidents create fashions and trends). When GM branded the Hummer for civilian use, when Ford brought out the Expedition and Excursion SUVs, it was Clinton who was in power). Bad gas mileage? Would you believe the new Ford Super Duty 6.7 V8 diesel gets around 24mpg? People rave about that sort of mileage in their Falcon. Even a Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD doesn't do much better than that!

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Why design something thats safe when you can just bribe your local congressman?

Profits are all important.... people are expendable.

The US government has been bailing out the auto industry for 50yrs since the great depression. So its nothing new.

However, when Nixon was in power he made the auto industry do something.
It was mandatory to increase the average MPG on all vehicles.

This lead to an increase in development which had stagnated with all those gazz guzzling dinosaurs the USA was famous for.

Cars became smaller, more efficient, more crash worthy etc....

However things changed when GW Bush arrived. At no point did he put any restrictions on those Billions he handed out to the auto industry.
Thats why during his "presidency" the American auto industry began making dinosaurs again. With bigger "SUVS" being produced with 8/9/10litre engines... and weighing sometimes up to 5ton.
These things had the most pityful gas mileage then anything built in the 70s or 80s.

But then again with Bush involved in the oil industry for over 30yrs why would he want to force the auto industry to go green? and therefor reduce consumption?

It was actually Nixon's CAFE standards which caused the increase in size of American vehicles. As cars had more and more fuel economy requirements it caused the death of the large American sedan and sation wagon. Americans who still wanted power and size started buying trucks instead which had lower CAFE requirements. Its ironic that the instrument which was supposed to lower average fuel consumption actually caused an increase. Nothing to do with Bush.

[Ohio XB]

Was this not marketed as an SUV?

The vehicle in the video you linked to never had a commercial on television. The only one I have EVER seen had a Chevy emblem on it and was owned by a guy at work. He drove it to work on Saturdays. It got as good of fuel mileage as his regular pick-up truck. He said 17 MPG.

No, that is not an "SUV" that is popular with Americans. No more than Crocodile Dundee is typical of Aussies. Like I said, I have only ever seen one, and never knew they existed before that. It is just not something people are going out and buying for a daily driver. How many sell in a year?

The weight you are quoting for the Excursion is the gross weight; vehicle weight plus passengers and cargo that it can haul. The curb weight, the weight of the vehicle plus fuel, depends on the year of the vehicle. I have seen from 6,500 to 7,700 pounds. Yeah, still a lot of weight, but not 5 tons (10,000 pounds).

It had an optional 7.3L diesel, for those that needed and could afford it. As chevypower stated, most of them would have had the smaller engines than that.

I still have not seen an 8 - 10L engine for a passenger vehicle.

The most Hummer H2's sold in a year was in 2005 with only 33,140 sold. In a market of 16 million units that ain't spit, and if it wasn't for the high profit on it they would have been dropped. In 2006 that quickly dropped to 17,472 units, and in 2008 only 6,095 units.

My point here is in pointing out the couple of extremes (Excursion, Hummer H2) only a niche market is represented. Might as well take a look at how many Jaguars were sold in the US, like in 2004 when only 3,643 were sold. Yet, I don't see many Americans cruising around in Jags. Then again I don't live in California.


What most Americans were buying, after the minivan craze, starting in the 1990's, were the Ford Explorers and Chevy Blazers. Pick-up trucks got real popular as they became more plush too. Pick-up trucks have always been popular though with the F-series and the GM pick-ups always taking the top two spots in the yearly sales totals in the US, for decades. There are a lot of contractors in the US. People also have recreational vehicles....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2qaoB49VEY


Steve

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

The most Hummer H2's sold in a year was in 2005 with only 33,140 sold. In a market of 16 million units that ain't spit, and if it wasn't for the high profit on it they would have been dropped.
Steve

Ohio, there are 2 car producers in australia who would love a sales figure of 33,140 a year for their main product range. The 3rd producer would love to exclude fleet sales, and sell 33,140 of its products to private buyers.

[mik]

you have to wonder "what where they thinking", you can understand diesel tanks being on the sides, the stuffs pretty tame, but not petrol, and there`s and still 200000 of them left :

[MITCHAY]

Lol Ford Pinto, Explorer and Firestone tyres anyone :

[chevypower]

Jim, where do I buy one of those 10 Liter SUVs that weighs 5 tonnes? LOL, seriously.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Jim, where do I buy one of those 10 Liter SUVs that weighs 5 tonnes? LOL, seriously.

I was going to comment on that. I live in the US and have never seen a 5 ton SUV.

The Explorer used a 4.6L engine. Actually, Bush got into office in 2001. The heyday of the SUV started back in the 1990's.

Billions handed to the auto industry by Bush? Chrysler got government gaurantees back in the 1980's which they paid back to the government 4 years early, with Lee Iacocca at the helm. In late 2008 the Big3 went to Washington DC to ask for money and were told to drive to DC next time. The next time they went to DC in December 2008 it was members of congress/senate that they were talking to. The congress and senate approved $14 billion for GM and Chrysler, which Bush signed. It was left up to Obama, who took office near the end of January 2009, to handle the situation has he felt. During the first quarter of 2009 the UAW opened and renegotiated new terms to work under. Many concessions were agreed to. It was a landmark turning point in labor at the Big3.

The US government has been bailing out the auto industry for 50yrs since the great depression.

In what way? How? When? The above paragraph contains the only times this happened.


During the 70's and 80's the maximum highway speed was 55 mph, set at this speed by President Jimmy Carter as a result of the fuel shortage. This gave cars pretty good fuel mileage ratings. Now the maximum speed limit on highways is 65 and also 70 MPH in many states. This required a change in the way the fuel economy is tested and resulted in lower ratings. While Bush was in office the EPA changed the rules yet again for determining fuel mileage ratings to a more "real world" result, and these numbers were resulting in lower ratings yet. This required all auto manufacturers to bump up their game on fuel economy. I guess you could say Bush had a hand in this.


Anyways, back on topic.....


I wondered what happened to this story. It just seemed to fall by the wayside. Yes, there are still plenty of these trucks on the road. I don't remember hearing anything that was done to make them safer. Interesting article.


Steve

[Burnout]

I recall an F-350 I had in the '70's had it's fuel tank behind the bench seat, made me laugh in the memory of "gas tanks in GM pickups rode inside the cab behind the seat, treating drivers to the sound of sloshing fuel."

The '78 LWB F-100 4X4 I had had a 17 gallon tank between the fuel rails behind the rear axle. I wanted extended range so I fitted extra tanks available and approved for use here in Aust by one of the aftermarket companies. A 15 gallon tank in the style-side in front of the wheel arches and a 44 gallon tank which took up 10 inches of space in the style-side behind the cabin, with about a quater of is square area being 20 gallons of water........It gave me heck of a long range, however on reflection I was almost surrounded by fuel. :P

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Lol Ford Pinto, Explorer and Firestone tyres anyone :

I thought that too when I read the head line.

Maybe there is some truth to why American cars always blow up in films.

[1970XW351]

Thanks for posting that info up, good read. Certainly an eye-opener as to what can get swept under the rug if you know the right people or throw enough money around. Scrary stuff. And Who The F...iretruck thought having petrol tanks outside the chassis rails could end any other way? JESUS WEPT! :

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1970XW351

Scrary stuff. And Who The F...iretruck thought having petrol tanks outside the chassis rails could end any other way? JESUS WEPT! :

See post #3

[1970XW351]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

See post #3

Fair enough... should have clarified... Who would have thought that having petrol tanks outside the chassis rails AND external to any bodywork would end any other way... :

[Chopped]

Originally Posted by 1970XW351

And Who The F...iretruck thought having petrol tanks outside the chassis rails could end any other way? JESUS WEPT! :

Seems to work for Prime Movers etc.


That story is almost ACA/TT worthy in feel and substance !!!

I'm sure GM designed them to kill as many people as they can.

Is it news that big corporations chase profits over the well being of people ?

[Jim Goose]

Was this not marketed as an SUV?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZGjAYp7_Es

The average length for a
Dodge Ram, F350, Silverado, Tundra, Titan is 6.5m in length....

The Ford Excursion :Introduced in 1999 as a 2000 model year, the Excursion was immediately criticized for being too large to fit in most home garages and its poor fuel economy (around 12-14 mpg highway and 8-10 mpg city). It weighed 4 ton.

Engines included the following:

5.4 L V8, 255 hp (2000-2005)
6.8 L V10, 310 hp (2000-2005)
7.3 L Diesel V8, 250 hp (2000-2003)
6.0 L Diesel V8, 325 hp (2003-2005)

The 2002-2006 Cadillac Escalade 6.0L LQ9 HO Vortec V8.

The Suburban :
6.5 L (395 cu in) L56 & L65 Turbo Diesel V8
5.7 L (350 cu in) L05 V8
5.7 L (350 cu in) Vortec L31 V8
7.4 L (454 cu in) L19 V8
7.4 L (454 cu in) Vortec L29 V8
5.3 L (325 cu in) Vortec V8[3]
6.0 L (364 cu in) Vortec V8[4]
8.1 L (496 cu in) Vortec V8[5]

Need i add more??

The H2 fuel burn figures are woeful :
The following motorgroups/magazines recorded these figures
Motortrend 12 mpg-US (20 L/100 km; 14 mpg-imp)
Car and Driver 10 mpg-US (24 L/100 km; 12 mpg-imp)
about.com 8.6 mpg-US (27 L/100 km; 10.3 mpg-imp)
Edmunds 9.2 mpg-US (26 L/100 km; 11.0 mpg-imp)
Four Wheeler 10.8 mpg-US (21.8 L/100 km; 13.0 mpg-imp

Numerous times there has been calls to better regulare the SUVs market in the USA and its fallen on deaf ears by the looks of it...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-guzzlers.aspx

http://www.amazon.ca/High-Mighty-Suv.../dp/1586481231

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/envir...rnia_3-28.html

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...ns-Upheld.html

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/01/a...for-light-tru/

[burnz]

well here in OZ we have kenworth, agrossy, freiliner, ford louisville, mercs.

all with the battery box located infront of the fuel tank, in some minor accidents the battery is pushed into the fuel tank.
diesel or not still goes up in a ball of flames.

i had a kenworth catch on fire when the foam insulator around the gearstick fall down onto the turbocharger.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by burnz

well here in OZ we have kenworth, agrossy, freiliner, ford louisville, mercs.

all with the battery box located infront of the fuel tank, in some minor accidents the battery is pushed into the fuel tank.
diesel or not still goes up in a ball of flames.

i had a kenworth catch on fire when the foam insulator around the gearstick fall down onto the turbocharger.

The early Louisville's had the batteries mounted INSIDE the right front guard directly behind the RH steer wheel.

And yes they do catch fire, especially when the hit hot diesel...Well the one that hit me did anyway

[outback_ute]

I think it is worth bringing it up again, look at the ages of some of the victims in the story, even the NBC story is "ancient history" so if you are under say age 26 you wouldn't remember it, and 99% in this age range would have no knowledge of the danger these pickups present.