Re: Backup bilge (Tim Dutton)
> Damn, he must really have pissed off someone at the DMV, could it be that
> they are ticked off because the Duttons can come up the river to London
> without paying the traffic fine--------------
>
>
Actually, my first reaction was that this was a perfect example of stupid
over-regulated government destroying creative entrepreneurs and their ideas.
After reading more carefully, however, it appears as though he was trying to
make
a specific vehicle on request for this guy, with eight seats on a large SUV
type of chassis, and seeing as it was a "one off" design (especially with
such a
heavy donor vehicle as a start), it must have been loaded with problems and
design flaws, as even a substantial production run of cars like the Marina
had
their quirks.
As this was intended to haul passengers for hire, it would have to be
regulated much more than a personal vehicle, like the Amphicar, as the
government is
charged with insuring the safety of the (sometimes) ignorant public. As
individuals, we should be free to take our own calculated risks, but if you
are
deriving income from others who are paying you for rides on the river, the
Government feels some responsibility to insure that you will not be killed
by the
acts of a profiteer who neglects his responsibilities.
It also appears as though Dutton may have been callous in court, and mocked
either the guy who paid him 30,000 Pounds to build this vehicle, or worse,
the
Judge!
I am not saying that he should be sent to jail, but if your kids were hurt
or
killed by a vehicle that had an apparent design flaw that could have been
avoided, or that was overlooked because it would have driven the cost up, I
think
that you would be seeking some similar recourse.
Personally, I applaud any efforts to be creative and to design new projects,
especially in this day and age, when all creativity has been stifled by cost
and regulations. However, I also understand how greed, and profit concerns
can
encourage certain type of entrepreneurs to cut corners and cheapen a product
in such a way that the user (and their paying passengers) may be exposed to
considerable risk of harm. I think that the final analysis cannot be made
until
one actually observed the product and the alleged design flaws, which I
suspect
included negative buoyancy in a vehicle which is this heavy.
Chas
Chas, that summary is pretty much spot-on. I've not seen the car but have
met Dutton a few times and whilst I admire anyone who tries to build an
amphibious vehicle in 2008 I have to say he does come across as a bit
arrogant (understatement !) You are right this vehicle was a one-off to
take paying passengers across a lake that is big, cold, deep, windy and
often very busy.
http://www.visitcumbria.com/amb/winderm.htm
The guy purchasing the car lives 300 miles from Dutton and so may not have
even seen one of Duttons vehicles before. He was also paying a lot of money,
over $60,000 US, and what was delivered was obviously very different to what
he was expecting.
I've been following this over the last week. A few days ago it was being
reported as little more than a financial disputes between two guys over
their toys but Dutton must have said or done something in court on Friday to
upset the judge to the point where it looks like he might be sent to jail
for up to two years at the end of May. This was the comment from the judge
"You are glib, dishonest and worthy of a significant sentence."
By the way sorry for the title, I did try and start a new thread but I only
access this forum by email and it appears not to have worked. I'll try and
change the title in this reply and see what happens.
David C in the UK
:032:
