Sleek, Sparkling Rims Power A $3.1 Billion Aftermarket Industry

Tom Quackenbush > wrote in
message ...
> Bob Ward wrote
>> Mark Anderson wrote

>>> I'm amazed that the government can mandate that I have to wear
>>> a seatbelt that affects no one else's safety but my own yet people
>>> can install a device that creates an optical illusion to other drivers
>>> that their car is still in motion while stopped, making other drivers
>>> take unnecessary evasive actions, is somehow legal and OK.

>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.
>> If you'd mentioned helmet wearing, I'd have agreed.

> There's some logic in that argument.

Nope, because the reality is that a level of impact that can pitch
the driver out of his seat means that steering isnt relevant anymore,
the car has ALREADY hit something with a hell of a force and that
may well have completely ****ed the steering system in the process.

You've lost control of your car even if you are wearing a seatbelt.

> Wouldn't that also argue against driver-side airbags?

Yes, particularly if a small bump can trigger the airbag
and once its deployed, you can see **** all anymore.
Most obviously with minor collisions in icy conditions etc.
Those wont be pitching the driver out of its seat if they
arent wearing a seatbelt tho.

"Bob Ward" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:40:59 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
> > wrote:
>
>>Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Mark Anderson wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>I'm amazed that the government can mandate that I have to wear a seatbelt
>>>>that affects no one else's safety but my own yet people can install a
>>>>device that creates an optical illusion to other drivers that their car
>>>>is still in motion while stopped, making other drivers take unnecessary
>>>>evasive actions, is somehow legal and OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of your
>>>car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised. If you'd
>>>mentioned helmet wearing, I'd have agreed.
>>
>> There's some logic in that argument. Wouldn't that also argue
>>against driver-side airbags?

> Preventing injury is a bad thing?

Airbags have some downsides, actually.

> once the airbags have deployed, the accident has happened,
> and the car has decelerated to a dead (so-to-speak) stop.

Not necessarily, most obviously with minor collisions
in icy conditions which may well be enough to see
the airbag deployed but dont produce a dead stop.

Rod Speed wrote:
> bicycle > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> bicycle > wrote
> >>> max wrote
> >>>> Bob Ward > wrote
>
> >>>>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
> >>>>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.
>
> >>>> bull****.
>
> >>> This paramedic disagrees,
> >>> <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>
>
> >> No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
> >> injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.
>
> > "It is always important to be seat-belted when you are in a car with
> > the engine running. As a paramedic I have seen many wrecks where
> > the lack of a seatbelt turned a minor wreck into a major wreck.
>
> Thats clearly talking about the injurys that are the result of the wreck.

Please, I know you're dense, but this is really stretching it. That's
why he follows with talk of the driver being throw from his seat and
losing control of the vehicle. Even though he clearly states this, your
stupid pride and inabilty to admit when you're wrong has you grasping
for straws.
Even you cannot bull**** your way out of this.


> > If a driver is not seat-belted in and a minor car wreck
> > happens, it is common for the driver to be thrown into
> > the front or back passenger seat when the car is hit.
>
> That only happens with the most drastic accidents
> where there is no possibility of steering the car to
> avoid the accident once that has happened, stupid.

Bull****! And yes, you are stupid.

> > Once the driver is no longer in the front seat
> > holding on to the steering wheel, it becomes
> > impossible to steer the car to a safe stop.

> Its the sudden stop that has pitched
> the driver out of his seat, cretin.

Funny how he's talking about loosing control and not about injuries.
The only person you're kidding is yourself.

> > When it is impossible to steer,
>
> The sudden impact that has pitched the drive completely
> out of his seat that has ensured that anyway.

Uh huh, sure Rod. I'm beginning to think on top of not having a job,
you don't have a car either.

> > the car may veer into a highway, bridge support or a river thereby
> > causing much more damage that otherwise would have occurred.
>
> Bull**** with such a severe impact that the drive
> has been completely pitched out of his seat.

Keep grasping, ******.

> > Wearing a seat belt keeps you in the
> > drivers seat so you can control the car."
>
> Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

That's the paramedic talking. Get a clue, moron. I doubt he's reading
your inane drivel.

Rod Speed wrote:
> bicycle > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > max wrote
> >> Bob Ward > wrote:
>
> >>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
> >>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.
>
> >> bull****.
>
> > This paramedic disagrees,
> > <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>
>
> No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
> injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.
>
> > Why do you think it's BS?
>
> Because it is. Novel concept eh ?

Novel concept to so many doesn't make it novel anymore, ******.

Conn.DOT:
In an emergency, safety belts keep you behind the wheel and ready to
react if necessary. Being in control can help you keep minor crashes
minor or avoid them altogether.

Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation:
"Seat belts hold you securely in place. If you are a driver, this helps
you control the car in a crash situation."

Ontario Ministry of Transportation:
"A seat belt keeps the driver behind the wheel and in control in a
collision."

Colorado DMV:
In a car crash, wearing a seat belt keeps you from being thrown from
the car and helps you keep control of the car.


California DMV:
If you were struck from the side, the impact could push you back and
forth across the seat. Belts and straps keep you in a better position
to control the car.

US Army, Division of Safety:
"One of the best reasons to wear a seat belt is to keep you in the
driver's seat where you can control the car."

Utah Safety Council:
"Safety belts:
Distribute the impact of a crash over the stronger parts of your body,
Keep you in your seat and inside the car,
Let you keep control of the car."

Roadtrip America:
"Belts help keep you in your place, in control, and better able to
avoid a crash. "

US Navy, Naval Safety Center:
"Seat belts keep you behind the wheel and in control of the vehicle."

And on and on...

Some gutless ****wit welfare bludger desperately cowering behind
bicycle > desperately attempted
to bull**** its way out of its predicament in message
oups.com...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

No wonder the best it has ever been able to
manage is to bludge off the welfare system.

bicycle wrote:
>
>
>
> Please, I know you're dense, but this is really stretching it. That's
> why he follows with talk of the driver being throw from his seat and
> losing control of the vehicle. Even though he clearly states this, your
> stupid pride and inabilty to admit when you're wrong has you grasping
> for straws.
> Even you cannot bull**** your way out of this.
>
>

Sure he can. He will whine "bull****" or "irrelevant". You will know
that he has admitted failure when he goes into the "****wit" or
"flushed down the toilet" modes.
The child has a mental defect that prohibits him from ever admitting
than he does not know something.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

Rod Speed wrote:
> Some gutless ****wit welfare bludger desperately cowering behind
> bicycle > desperately attempted
> to bull**** its way out of its predicament in message
> oups.com...
> and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
>
> No wonder the best it has ever been able to
> manage is to bludge off the welfare system.
>
>

Thanks for proving my point for me, little boy?
And your job is...................?


--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

Some terminal sales ****wit claiming to be
George Grapman > wrote in message
. com...
just what you'd expect from a terminal sales ****wit.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is sales ****wit.

Some terminal sales ****wit claiming to be
George Grapman > wrote in message
. com...
just what you'd expect from a terminal sales ****wit.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is sales ****wit.

bicycle > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> bicycle > wrote
>>> max wrote
>>>> Bob Ward > wrote:

>>>>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
>>>>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.

>>>> bull****.

>>> This paramedic disagrees,
>>> <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>

>> No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
>> injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.

>>> Why do you think it's BS?

>> Because it is. Novel concept eh ?

> Novel concept to so many doesn't make it novel anymore, ******.

That was sarcasm, ****wit.

No surprise that the best you've ever been able to manage
is to bludge off the welfare system, bludging ****wit.

> Conn.DOT:
> In an emergency, safety belts keep you behind
> the wheel and ready to react if necessary.

If you're in a bad enough collision that you get chucked out
of the driver's seat when you arent wearing a seatbelt, you
wont be in any position to 'react' when wearing one, ****wit.

> Being in control can help you keep minor crashes minor

Soorree, those cant see you tossed out of the
driver's seat when not wearing a seatbelt, ****wit.

> or avoid them altogether.

Soorree, those cant see you tossed out of the
driver's seat when not wearing a seatbelt, ****wit.

> Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation:
> "Seat belts hold you securely in place. If you are a
> driver, this helps you control the car in a crash situation."

If you're in a bad enough collision that you get chucked out
of the driver's seat when you arent wearing a seatbelt, you
wont be in any position to 'react' when wearing one, ****wit.

> Ontario Ministry of Transportation:
> "A seat belt keeps the driver behind
> the wheel and in control in a collision."

If you're in a bad enough collision that you get chucked out
of the driver's seat when you arent wearing a seatbelt, you
wont be in any position to 'react' when wearing one, ****wit.

Reams of stupid pig ignorant shinybums mindlessly respouting
the same stupid pig ignorant drivel, likely from the same pig
ignorant drivel, flushed where it belongs.