FACTORY 4210 4310 4410 MANUAL IS FUNNY...NOT

[del]

I guess I shouldn't complain, at least they made the last
HALF of the manual in Spanish and didn't do the bilingual thing on each page. Still don't know why they just didn't tear the things in half and offer them separately.

I love reading this manual...

In the description of the dash warning lights I quote

"12. Check instrument panel lights:

Engine oil pressure light should go out within 5 seconds"

(and then in BOLD TYPE

"NOTE Set engine speed at full throttle if indicator light
does not go out after 10 seconds"

WHAT THE [censored]?

[censored] yes, don't check the oil or put a real oil pressure gauge
on the engine!!!

I wonder how long you leave it at full throttle? Till it
seizes? or runs out of fuel? Whatever happened to the warm
up period? (then you can run it at full throttle with the
engine oil light on...)

I wonder what else is wrong with this manual?

I did notice probably out of liability about every other line
in the book (like before doing ANYTHING):

TURN ENGINE OFF
LOWER IMPLEMENTS
PUT ON PARKING BRAKE
RUN AWAY FROM TRACTOR....

I'm a safety paranoid (enthusiast?) myself but there are so
many warnings on every page of this book my wife is totally
freaked out.

The warnings in the book for damage look the same for scratching
the plastic hood as they do for not trying to raise the 3pt
when the flow control know is turned off. These should be
color coded or SOMETHING. I know they are trying to help
and reduce liability but jeez.

I'm going to have to make her a private owners manual. One
that stresses the important stuff. She is an adult so she
already knows not to run an engine in an enclosed garage or
use the mower to trim her toe nails...

And darned all this safety equipment, it appears I can't
jump off the machine with the mower running and in gear
and go get a coke and then run back and jump on the still
moving/mowing tractor...

Happy New Year to all of you!!!

DEL

 

[PineRidge]

Del I think the biggest problem today is this: People in general do not take responsibility for their own actions. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif When a customer can spill a hot cup of coffee in their own lap and collect thousands of dollars from McDonalds can you blame the tractor manufacturers for trying to protect themselves from liability? Not me......

 

[RoyJackson]

"People in general do not take responsibility for their own actions. When a customer can spill a hot cup of coffee in their own lap and collect thousands of dollars from McDonalds can you blame the tractor manufacturers for trying to protect themselves from liability?"

BTW, that lady was awarded over 4 million bucks, but I think that was dramatically reduced on appeal.

It is a very unfortunate fact that people do not take responsibility for their mistakes. Our "leaders" in Washington sure don't set much of an example (do you remember what the definition of "is" is?).

There is virtually no private helicopter industry any longer...sued out of existence. Some cities are trying that with gun manufacturers now, and some "judges" are helping their cause through a perversion of the law and legalese. Even smokers...and non-smokers should agree, no one puts that ciggies in your mouth but your own hands.

Although I applaud the upswing in compact tractor sales, I do fear that same money lust ($$$'s) going after Deere, Kubota and others when some folks have the same kind of accidents the agricultural users of these machines have had. The farmers know it's part of the risk of farming. That yuppie with 5 or 6 acres...different story there.

Operation of these machines entail some risk. Many of us have flipped them (or close to it). Sooner or later, someone is going to get wrapped around a PTO.

So...I know this is a rant..but if that multiplicity of safety warnings isn't in the manuals...and stickers all over the machine and implements...well, you know the drill...

 

[JDgreen227]

Concur with you on the liability issue, people are liable to sue for ANYTHING these days. About two months ago, it was 9 pm and dark and my wife saw a kid push a dirt bike into our driveway. I went out and he asked if I had some 2 stroke mix so he could keep riding. About 14 years old, no lights, registration or helmet, I tried to convince him to let me give him a lift to where he was going or call his folks...nope. So I fueled his bike up and helped him push start it and he took off into the moonlight. I lost some sleep that night wondering if I did the right thing by helping him continue. What if he went off the road and crashed a block away, I could be sued for helping him.
It's a sad state of affairs in today's world when you have to worry about being a Good Samaritan....

 

[keeney]

Each warning in the manual is probably the result of a specific lawsuit either where somebody broke their machine or got hurt.

Below are a couple of ridiculous lawsuit stories from my Toro days. I was under the impression these are real stories, but because I was not personally involved, they could just be corporate legends.

1. At one point, safety rules were put in place to require all walk behind mowers to have a dead-man's handle that stops the blade when the operator leaves the operator position. This can be a kill switch or a blade-break clutch.

On one of the first generations of mowers incorporating this new mandatory safety feature, Toro was sued for a large sum of money by a man who hurt himself when changing the bag on his rear bagger while it was running. The idiot had duck-taped the handle up because it was inconvenient to re-start the mower all the time (the unit in question was electric start). The man's lawyer successfully argued that the dead-man's handle was TOO EASY TO OVERRIDE and thus Toro was liable for the injury. Because of this lawsuit, Toro dead-man's handles were changed to have a double action where every time before you start the engine you have to push it down to arm it and then hold it up tight to keep the engine running. The manual also has a warning not to tape the handle in the engaged position.

2. A man was injured when he attempted to use his lawn mower to trim some hedges ON A LADDER. Because the manual didn't say not to use the lawn mower to trim hedges from a ladder, his lawyer got him a big award. The manual now says to not trim your hedges with a walk-behind mower and not to use it on a ladder.

The problem with our legal system is that a jury will always give money to some poor guy who is sitting there without a hand when the other side is a large company with lawyers in suits. Even more of a sure thing is a child injured by the stupidity of his/her parents. The jury just feels bad for the injured person and doesn't care about the finances of the large corporation.

- Rick

 

[zuiko]

As far as I'm concerned being a product liability lawyer and a thief that breaks into people's houses when they are at work are equally honorable professions. If only the thieves thought of paying their protection money to DC and state governments they wouldn't have to end up in jail. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[adegiulio]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The farmers know it's part of the risk of farming. That yuppie with 5 or 6 acres...different story there.

)</font>

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Are "yuppies" supposed to be stupid people with no common sense? Do "yuppies" need to go to farmer school to learn not to polish their Mercedes with the PTO? Should "yuppies" just live off their inheritance and go to operas, letting the real tractor work be left to the country folk??

Give me a freakin' break...

 

[Bob_S]

I wish there was a law that forces the level of concern to be stated some how. There are so many warnings on everything and some of them are truly of less concern than others. I want to know if something is as dangerous if I use common sence and I'am not compleatly carless but I cant allways tell so as a result I draw my own conclusionson with many warnings. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[gsganzer]

One of the recent issues of Newsweek magazine talks about the growing number of frivolous lawsuits. The threat of lawsuits has virtually paralyzed medical and education. Unfortunately, until the civil court system is changed, there's no end in sight. The lawyers get about 1/3 to 1/2 of every settlement and they take the cases on contingency. So they'll keep trying any and all angles until they get a jackpot award. All they lose is their time if they don't get an award. I think they need to make the losing party pay all the legal costs for both sides. This would make the lawyers take a harder look at the viability of a case before going to court. I'm not bashing lawyers, like any profession there's good people and bad people.

Unfortunately, the problem isn't just contained to the lawyers. In each one of these "jackpot" rulings, there was a jury that awarded the settlement. Unfortunately, many people look at businesses and municipalities as having deep pockets and feel they're not hurting the general public by awarding huge settlements.

There's something being done to prevent these frivolous lawsuits. For example, in Texas, an equine event is a known dangerous activity and participants cannot sue for injuries incurred while attending this activity. ( Makes sense to me, you know the risks and you choose to live with them.)

The government is also trying to pass legislation regarding the firearms industry. This legislation isn't shielding the industry from lawsuits pertaining to unlawful actions by the industry or a poorly designed product. It is merely protecting the industry from lawsuits because of people using their product illegally, such as illegally obtaining a firearm or committing a crime with a firearm. That's one thing the media is purposely leaving unclear to "Joe public". They're leading the public to believe that the legislators are offering "protectionism" from all lawsuits. Not true. Get a copy of the proposed bill and read it for yourself.

 

[PerryWhite]

When I first started working at CAT back in the 1970's
we were having a lot of warranty claims with brakes failing
on CAT scrapers. They were being repaired and within a few
weeks would fail again. Finally we sent an engineer from
our proving grounds out to the job site in California.
It seems the contractor was moving the top of a small mountain and filling up the valley to make large flat acreage
and had under bid the job. To save time, they were driving
the scrapers down over the edge of the mountain instead
of using the haul road which wound around the back side
of the mountain. While going down the side of the mountain
the scrapers were exceeding 70 mph. It is no wonder the brakes failed. CAT repaired them one last time and told the
contractor he was on his own after that. I can't believe
the contractor would do such a stupid thing.