Unrepentent Massachusetts Teen Driver Sentenced For Killing ByText, 1 year..

Whether or not people use the safety equipment isn't going to change.
Some people aren't going to use them whether or not a law is in place.
Others would use them even if there is no law mandating it.

Regardless, let people choose what safety equipment they want to have in
their vehicles. Otherwise, you end up pricing those who need a low cost
vehicle out of the market. They'll probably end up riding a cheap motor
scooter instead (which is less safe compared to driving a car without
any of the mandated safety equipment).

They already do. I already posted the example about ABS, or didn't you
bother to read it?

Because FMVSS 208 mandates that airbags must be able to protect an
unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy. As a result, airbags must
deploy with more force, at lower impact speeds, and further away from
the dash than is necessary for those who are belted or are smaller than
the 50th percentile sized male dummy. This has resulted in a number of
injuries and deaths for those unfortunate enough to be sitting closer
than recommended to the airbag.

A bit of knowledge goes a long way towards allowing one to realize what
is crap and what isn't. Mandating crap just wastes my money. Mandating
useful features doesn't change my decision regarding whether I want to
buy a vehicle with those features.

On Aug 6, 8:11*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Whether or not people use the safety equipment isn't going to change.
> Some people aren't going to use them whether or not a law is in place.
> Others would use them even if there is no law mandating it.
>

What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?


> Regardless, let people choose what safety equipment they want to have in
> their vehicles. *Otherwise, you end up pricing those who need a low cost
> vehicle out of the market. *They'll probably end up riding a cheap motor
> scooter instead (which is less safe compared to driving a car without
> any of the mandated safety equipment).
>

Wild leap of reasoning there. Yes I get it that you want NO safety
laws. "I wants my freedom to be an idito".

> They already do. *I already posted the example about ABS, or didn't you
> bother to read it?
>

Yes I read it. That _some_ people pay extra for an item is no
argument. You put up the same argument IIRC about seat belts. It
failed miserably as almost noone paid extra for them.

> Because FMVSS 208 mandates that airbags must be able to protect an
> unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy. *As a result, airbags must
> deploy with more force, at lower impact speeds, and further away from
> the dash than is necessary for those who are belted or are smaller than
> the 50th percentile sized male dummy. *This has resulted in a number of
> injuries and deaths for those unfortunate enough to be sitting closer
> than recommended to the airbag.

Amd wearomg seatbelts has also resulted in deaths. Because a
technologyh is not _perfect_ is no reason not to use it wehn stats say
they are extremely effective.

>
> A bit of knowledge goes a long way towards allowing one to realize what
> is crap and what isn't. *Mandating crap just wastes my money. *Mandating
> useful features doesn't change my decision regarding whether I want to
> buy a vehicle with those features.

So point what just what mandated safety equipment is "crap". The few
deaths from airbags does not even come close to making them crap.
Further even using that argument shoots you down as they are built
that way because people won't wear seatbelts unless they are forced
to.

Harry K

On 2012-08-07, Harry K > wrote:
> What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
> wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?

What difference does the answer make?
What gives you the right to use force to make another person use a seat
belt?

On Aug 7, 6:38*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2012-08-07, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
> > wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?
>
> What difference does the answer make?
> What gives you the right to use force to make another person use a seat
> belt?

Try "it's for the children" but that won't make a dent in your usual
ranting.

Harry K

On 2012-08-07, Harry K > wrote:
> On Aug 7, 6:38*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2012-08-07, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
>> > wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?
>>
>> What difference does the answer make?
>> What gives you the right to use force to make another person use a seat
>> belt?
>
> Try "it's for the children" but that won't make a dent in your usual
> ranting.

"it's for the children" is a rant in an of itself. And it doesn't
give you the right to use force against others.

On 8/7/2012 12:15 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:11 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Whether or not people use the safety equipment isn't going to change.
>> Some people aren't going to use them whether or not a law is in place.
>> Others would use them even if there is no law mandating it.
>>
>
> What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
> wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?

Probably around 70%. Why are you fixated on seat belts anyway. What
makes them any more significant compared to ABS, stability systems, etc?

>> They already do. I already posted the example about ABS, or didn't you
>> bother to read it?

> Yes I read it. That _some_ people pay extra for an item is no
> argument.

It is an argument. The same people who pay extra for ABS would
certainly not be open to buying a car without seat belts.

> You put up the same argument IIRC about seat belts. It
> failed miserably as almost noone paid extra for them.

It was an education issue back then. If you got rid of the laws and had
cars available for purchase without seat belts, I highly doubt many
people would opt for a car without them.

Another example of a feature that people pay extra for is automatic
transmissions. It's not mandated, and it's getting more and more
difficult to find a car that doesn't have an automatic. If seat belts
weren't mandated, it would be as, if not more difficult to find a car
without them.

>> Because FMVSS 208 mandates that airbags must be able to protect an
>> unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy. As a result, airbags must
>> deploy with more force, at lower impact speeds, and further away from
>> the dash than is necessary for those who are belted or are smaller than
>> the 50th percentile sized male dummy. This has resulted in a number of
>> injuries and deaths for those unfortunate enough to be sitting closer
>> than recommended to the airbag.
>
> Amd wearomg seatbelts has also resulted in deaths. Because a
> technologyh is not _perfect_ is no reason not to use it wehn stats say
> they are extremely effective.

The technology was made more harmful/deadly than it should have been
because of government standards that mandated it. Had engineers been
free to design the system, then they would have been designed for a
belted driver and possibly auto adjustable based on the weight of the
driver and the seat position.

It's analogous to the government mandating that cars could only be
equipped with lap belts instead of 3 or more point restraint systems.
Lap belts are deadly in higher speed collisions due to the way they
slice through the body.

>> A bit of knowledge goes a long way towards allowing one to realize what
>> is crap and what isn't. Mandating crap just wastes my money. Mandating
>> useful features doesn't change my decision regarding whether I want to
>> buy a vehicle with those features.
>
> So point what just what mandated safety equipment is "crap".

When a certain administrator (Joan Claybrook) of a government department
(NHTSA) influences standards in such a way that a potentially effective
safety device becomes a wash in terms of safety/detriment (airbags).
Incidently, that's why you see statistics stating that airbags could
*potentially* save up to x number of lives instead of actual number of
lives saved due to airbags. Same thing with TPMS.

> The few deaths from airbags does not even come close to making them
> crap.

Tell that to anyone less than 5' 6" driving a car. If they happen to
hit a barrier at about 15 mph, they'll suffer significant injury due to
airbag deployment because they're sitting closer to the steering wheel
in order to reach the pedals.

> Further even using that argument shoots you down as they are built
> that way because people won't wear seatbelts unless they are forced
> to.

I wear my seat belt regardless of the law. I'm sure that there are
plenty of people like me. I certainly would like the option of getting
a new car without an airbag since I'm not that tall and can barely keep
enough clearance between the steering wheel and me to allow for airbag
deployment that may kill me.

On Aug 7, 9:30*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 12:15 AM, Harry K wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 8:11 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> Whether or not people use the safety equipment isn't going to change.
> >> Some people aren't going to use them whether or not a law is in place.
> >> Others would use them even if there is no law mandating it.
>
> > What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
> > wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?
>
> Probably around 70%. *Why are you fixated on seat belts anyway. *What
> makes them any more significant compared to ABS, stability systems, etc?
>

Dream on.

Seatbelts saved more lives even when the percentage wearing them was
low than ABS and stbility systems ever will.

> >> They already do. *I already posted the example about ABS, or didn't you
> >> bother to read it?
> > Yes I read it. *That _some_ people pay extra for an item is no
> > argument.
>
> It is an argument. *The same people who pay extra for ABS would
> certainly not be open to buying a car without seat belts.
>

Still in cloud land I see. Same as with you and air bags. _You_
wouldn't pay extra fro them.



> > You put up the same argument IIRC about seat belts. *It
> > failed miserably as almost noone paid extra for them.
>
> It was an education issue back then. *If you got rid of the laws and had
> cars available for purchase without seat belts, I highly doubt many
> people would opt for a car without them.
>

How many of the under 21 crowd do you think would pay extra for
belts? It's coool not to war them.
I have worked with people who adamantly refused to wear them even
AFTER you "education issue"

> Another example of a feature that people pay extra for is automatic
> transmissions. *It's not mandated, and it's getting more and more
> difficult to find a car that doesn't have an automatic. *If seat belts
> weren't mandated, it would be as, if not more difficult to find a car
> without them.

Automatic is now a safety issue? It has become all but standard due
to convenience and easy opeation. nothing more and nothing less.


>
> >> Because FMVSS 208 mandates that airbags must be able to protect an
> >> unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy. *As a result, airbags must
> >> deploy with more force, at lower impact speeds, and further away from
> >> the dash than is necessary for those who are belted or are smaller than
> >> the 50th percentile sized male dummy. *This has resulted in a number of
> >> injuries and deaths for those unfortunate enough to be sitting closer
> >> than recommended to the airbag.
>
> > Amd wearomg seatbelts has also resulted in deaths. *Because a
> > technologyh is not _perfect_ is no reason not to use it wehn stats say
> > they are extremely effective.
>
> The technology was made more harmful/deadly than it should have been
> because of government standards that mandated it. *Had engineers been
> free to design the system, then they would have been designed for a
> belted driver and possibly auto adjustable based on the weight of the
> driver and the seat position.

They were mandated that way because people WERE NOT WEARING THE
BELTS. They still wouldn't were it not for
the penalty.

Any death is a tragedy but the few deaths caused by the bags were far
offset by the number of 'saves'. There have also been advances and
modificagtion of the system since inception but you are still "anti-
airbag". I

-------------------------
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/25466.php

NHTSA recorded 238 deaths due to airbags between 1990 and 2002,
according to information about these deaths on their Web site,"

----------------------------------------------

And that is from an "anti-airbag" source with the article loaded with
"probably", and the like weasel words.

>
> It's analogous to the government mandating that cars could only be
> equipped with lap belts instead of 3 or more point restraint systems.
> Lap belts are deadly in higher speed collisions due to the way they
> slice through the body.

Got a cite for such a claim. I grew up when belts first came on the
scene and advocated them ever since. Never heard
of a ban on 3 points. I seriously doubt such existed since dthe first
car I bought new had 3 points and that was in 1959.


>> A bit of knowledge goes a long way towards allowing one to realize what
> >> is crap and what isn't. *Mandating crap just wastes my money. *Mandating
> >> useful features doesn't change my decision regarding whether I want to
> >> buy a vehicle with those features.

And your attitude is exacly why few people would pay extra for belts
or airbags. Just as few pay extra for ABS, etc.

>
> > So point what just what mandated safety equipment is "crap".
>
> When a certain administrator (Joan Claybrook) of a government department
> (NHTSA) influences standards in such a way that a potentially effective
> safety device becomes a wash in terms of safety/detriment (airbags).
> Incidently, that's why you see statistics stating that airbags could
> *potentially* save up to x number of lives instead of actual number of
> lives saved due to airbags. *Same thing with TPMS.
>
> > The few deaths from airbags does not even come close to making them
> > crap.
>
> Tell that to anyone less than 5' 6" driving a car. *If they happen to
> hit a barrier at about 15 mph, they'll suffer significant injury due to
> airbag deployment because they're sitting closer to the steering wheel
> in order to reach the pedals.
>
> > Further even using that argument shoots you down as they are built
> > that way because people won't wear seatbelts unless they are forced
> > to.
>
> I wear my seat belt regardless of the law. *I'm sure that there are
> plenty of people like me.

Yes there are "plenty" like you and I who wear them. Unfortunately
those plenty are in the minority of drivers. It has
taken 50 plus years of education, emphasis LE enforcement, etc. to
force something in the 80 percentile to wear them.e.

I dispatched for county for 15 years in the 80s and 90s. Way over 90%
of the fatality accidents I handled were
"seatbelts not worn".



(finger slipped and erased something here)

ertainly would like the option of getting
> a new car without an airbag since I'm not that tall and can barely keep
> enough clearance between the steering wheel and me to allow for airbag
> deployment that may kill me.

Harry K

>>> What is your _honest_ estimate of the percentage of people who would
>>> wear seatbelts if there wasn't a penalty for not wearing them?

>> What difference does the answer make?
>> What gives you the right to use force to make another person use a seat
>> belt?

> Try "it's for the children" but that won't make a dent in your usual
> ranting.

Children will be better off if people who earn Darwin awards are allowed
to collect them before they can have children.

Please re-read the post I wrote, comprehend it, and then post another
reply. If you can't demonstrate basic reading comprehension, then I see
no need to continue this discussion.

On Aug 8, 3:18*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Please re-read the post I wrote, comprehend it, and then post another
> reply. *If you can't demonstrate basic reading comprehension, then I see
> no need to continue this discussion.

Since you are posting "pie in the sky" dreams about people willing to
buy what we know they won't I also see no point in continueing.

bye
Harry K