bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

yup, we shouldn't have to!

if someone wants to be stupid, and get hurt, that should be their deal.

we all know riding motorcycles is pretty dangerous particularly with cars around, but i sure don't want them banned. my euro relatives are always amazed when they see riders in FL without helmets.

LexFather

Semantics.....

SW17LS

+1 lol. Sorry if I spelled your handle wrong and hurt your feelings gengar.

As for the benefit outweighing the cost, fewer injuries and deaths lower insurance costs, reduce the strain on the healthcare system and lower healthcare costs. People getting hurt and dying affects everybody. Plus, there's a human benefit that's not quantifiable....we all want to be safe. You and I can choose to buy safe cars, not everybody else can.

You can always move to a country where there are no safety regulations and you'll have options for cheap, unsafe cars you'd never buy anyways.

bagwell

hehe...cheap and none of those useless pesky safety features.

gengar

You should be sorry that you're attributing statements to people who never made them. Any member of this forum deserves more respect than that. It's too bad that we can't seem to have mature and rational debate on these forums anymore and instead just lash out at those with opposing points of view - even on car chat.

SW17LS

Huh?!? Who is being immature or disrespectful? I added an "R" in your handle by mistake...and apparently when looking back I attributed a comment to you that came from bitkahuna. I am PROFOUNDLY sorry. I think your ire towards that is more than a little bit of an overreaction.

Obviously we disagree, but I cannot see where I was immature or disrespectful anywhere in my posts, innocently misappropriating a comment to someone who didn't say it during a 6 way conversation is hardly being "disrespectful". You and bit and marshal have disagreed with me just as strongly as I have with you and I don't feel disrespected in the slightest...even with you calling my position "absurd", "selfish" and "self-serving"...

gengar

Wasn't all directed at you specifically, and I'll acknowledge I may have misconstrued one of your past posts as being sarcastic. In any case, I just don't think anyone has actually addressed a single point I've made on its substance, and frankly I'm just tired of the one-line snark responses. As far as why I labeled your argument "selfish" and "self-serving", it's because you claimed my opinion would change if I were in a different circumstance. That's a purely self-serving argument because it assumes that everyone behaves in the same selfish way, and that's unfair. That's exactly what I mean by a disrespectful argument. You shouldn't have assume things about me to make a point.

In any case, it's obvious my attempted contributions here have not been received meaningfully, so we'll just leave it at that.


EDIT: modfiied post to answer quoted poster's later edit.

SW17LS

If your intention was not to direct that statement towards me specifically, you probably shouldn't have quoted me and accused me directly of disrespecting you.

One line responses? I've posted several multi-paragraphical replies to your points, and I feel like I've made a pretty substantive argument. Other people have done the same. Instead of replying directly towards my arguments, you dismiss me as disrespecting you, being self serving and selfish. But...somehow I'm part of the reason why "we can't have respectful conversations anymore without attacking the opposing viewpoint"?!?

Dumbfounded.

gengar

I'm not going to comment any more on the interactions in this thread nor am I going to bother with multiple-edit responses to mutliply-edited posts. I already explained that the entirety of the post wasn't directed at you specifically. If you still want to take it that way, that's up to you.

mmarshall

An interesting fact, though, with the new-car seat-belt requirement back in 1968, was that it couldn't force people to actually USE the belts. Drivers and passengers refused to use them for a number of reasons....discomfort and confinement among others. A Federal seat-belt interlock law in 1974 prevented the car from starting unless belts were fastened....but the seat-sensor technology of the time, which prevented cars from starting with just a grocery bag or package on the seat, led to such a consumer outcry that the law was rescinded in only six months. Today, of course, sensors are far more sophisticated, and we have state seat-belt use laws that mandate usage....Click it or Ticket.

I've actually seen cops at checkpoints,, standing on street corners, just looking at cars as they go by, to see if the passengers in front are belted or not....and if the tint on the windows is dark enough that a cop can't see in, that alone can also get one a ticket.

SW17LS

My Dad never wore a seat belt. He only started wearing one when he got a car that beeped at him unless he didn't. He would pull the belt across his chest when he passed a cop lol

Blackraven

The same with my Papa as well.

I guess this is what happens if you're born in the early 50's (afaik seatbelts weren't invented back then)

What's more hilarious though are those Middle East drivers that drive like more than 200 km/h (more than 100 miles per hour) without seatbelts.

These guys are all over on Youtube.

Apparently, some arabian guy said: "No need seatbelt.........because the Great Allah will always keep us safe."

mmarshall

Yes and no. Automotive seatbelts, of course, were first taken from the airplane industry, and their first attempt in a car was in the ill-fated 1947 Tucker Torpedo, which also pioneered a number of other safety ideas, like disc brakes, rack-and-pinion steering, a third swiveling center-headlight, unibody construction, safety-glass which crumbled rather than shattered, and a padded dashboard. Not only did safety generally not sell in those days, though (the public, in general, particularly younger people, paid little attention to it), but the Torpedo itself was the object of an orchestrated campaign (which succeeded) to prevent it from reaching full-scale production and competing with other Detroit companies.

Ford, in 1956, also tried to market a "Safety Package" on its lower-priced cars which included belts and a padded dash, but, again, there were few takers. The public, in general, despite an injury/death rate that would be clearly unacceptable today, was not particularly concerned with safety until Ralph Nader came along in the 1960s.


A little off-topic, maybe, but Allah doesn't always protect these guys when they mess with Israelis.