pcar964

I'm also leery of statistics

Think of where your arms are at any given moment while driving. Ever cross your arm over the wheel as you make a sharp slow speed turn? Ever think what would happen if the airbag went off in that position? The cases I'm talking about are not short women sitting 3" from the wheel, but rather accidents where the driver was not sitting in the "correct" position for an impact (the "correct position" being: hands at 10 and 2 with no fingers wrapped around the wheel, facing dead straight, not bracing for impact, etc).

Statistics can say anything you want them to say. How do these statisticians know how many lives or injuries were actually saved by airbags? How do they know the person wouldn't have been equally uninjured without an airbag? Again, I mistrust government, and I mistrust any official reports that have a vested interest in confirming the government's policies.

Caveman

So do you only wear a seatbelt because the law says that you "have to"? If you carried a bale of hay in your car you could claim to be a fast tractor and get an exemption? All those people saved from going through the front windscreen on impact would probably not agree with you... Or are you going to say that ploughing through a toughened glass (perhaps we should change that to a regular glass screen that shatters more easily?) windscreen into whatever you are hitting or onto the road is preferable? Why would the government implement this policy if it wasn't to save lives?

Arena993

Butter please

Air Kuul TT

Its friday...I'll bring the

Arena993

I like the way you think!

Caveman

Good point, it's home time!

pcar964

Just because I generally mistrust government policymaking, doesn't mean I ignore the benefits of a seatbelt. You really are ignorant if you think the government is responsible for seatbelts. The private sector developed seatbelt technology, and the government later made legislation requiring them. Same with airbags - with one caveat - the automobile manufacturers developed the technology on their own accord, and tried to scrap the idea because it was not yet safe. The government stepped in and forced manufacturers to include these "safety devices" before they were properly comfortable with the technology.

You obviously have an innate trust of government policy as being "for the general good," whereas I have a natural cynicism about government's motives. I share that sentiment with our founding fathers. Your sentiment is shared by... socialists.

wayne325

Oh good, another cat fight.

pcar964

It's not a cat fight. It's a disagreement on an important issue. Some people I guess aren't able to cope with conflict so they mock it?

jdistefa

I really hate popcorn, so I'm going to close by saying that the data I've referred to comes from independent medical/trauma case reviews and not "the government".

Caveman

P-car,

Sorry for the time delay; I had to go home.

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm ribbing you a little as I strongly disagree with some of your views. I distrust our government (right or very right wing, we no longer have socialists) as much as you. However, where we differ is that safety over here is generally pushed for by benign organisations rtaher than the government, that's why our crash testing was so much more demanding than yours for years.

I have survived an 80mph crash into a barrier and my wife, who was run off the road by a lorry, survived a 70mph head on into 40ft tall central reservation light so I value the protection our seatbelts, and in her case seatbelts and an airbag, provided.

I grew up with seatbelts front and back in a car (even when they were not required by law) so I feel unsafe even going 50 yeards down the road without one. Thank god New York cabbies have finally started having them in their cars!

I cannot get my head round why anyone would so disagree with the basic proposition of travelling more safely. I know in the US there is a very strong reaction to any mandating of things by the government but in this case I fail to see why people are so against it. I'm sorry if you don't see the joke but you do come across as one of those people that hide out in the badlands waving a gun around sometimes.

Let's face it, the govenments recognise the lower cost (in our case for healthcare, you don't have that problem!) and greater revenues resulting from less people dying in car accidents so they push for safety measures. In the old days, the US car manufacturers were aware of safety features but held off giving them as long as possible because the additional cost of providing them far exceeded the lawsuits/claims resulting from not providing them. I would like to think that nowadays the car manufacturers can sell some features on the basis of their improving safety.

Cheers,

David

rj777

...from Gert. I just couldn't stand looking at the factory four-spoker anymore. Have been 100% satisfied with the Momo Rennsport wheel. It looks like it 'belongs' in this car. It's not as thick as I thought it might be, but I'm digging it every day. It really transforms the entire interior.







- rick

tankertoad

A friend of mine was in a collision a decade ago and I think was bracing the wheel at impact. The air bag inflation threw his arms back (like the motion you make when exclaiming "I don't care") causing some nerve damage that, while slight, still impacts him today. Granted, what may have happened without the bag will remain a mystery.

wayne325

Actually some of us are tired of how your normal mode of operation seems
to be telling people they're stupid or ignorant or whatever when they
disgree with you. So yes you are correct, some people are not able to
cope with conflict.

Coleman

Airbags are for pussies! They belong in SUV's and cars prone to hitting other cars and objects. I took mine out and detonated it in a field! that was the most interesting activity I have had with my airbag.

C/