Thank you people. At last more people seem to be starting to understand what the problem is.
Unlike all earlier Crolls this design becomes dangerous when it wears. This problem is compounded by the fact that the new design wears out a lot quicker than earlier designs, despite Petzl's spurious claim that it is more durable. But what really makes Petzl guilty of negligence, in my opinion, is that they have produced a device which is impossible for the user to inspect.
In January I pointed out to Petzl that they are expecting users to inspect a device that they cannot effectively inspect. I suggested that they should recall the Croll and that they might want to consider the legal implications. If somebody is killed and Petzl end up being charged with criminal negligence I would offer to be a witness.