Steve B. wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:15:30 GMT, Brian Nystrom
> <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Ben wrote:
>
>>That's exactly the point, but people still refuse to wear belts, perhaps
>>even moreso when they have airbags, despite the warnings that come with
>>every car. The stupidity of the American public never ceases to amaze me.
>
>
> I don't understand why anyone, other than their family, cares if they
> are wearing a seatbelt. I think it is stupid to be in a car without a
> seatbelt on but it is your body and your life. Why do I get to decide
> that you have to wear a seatbelt?

I never said I was against freedom of choice, I just opined that not
wearing a seat belt is stupid. Whether it's legal doesn't change that.
Here in NH, we don't have a seatbelt law and you can ride a motorcycle
without a helmet, too. Both behaviors are blatantly stupid, but
perfectly legal, as they should be.

What pisses me off is when people exercise their right to be stupid,
then turn around and try to blame the consequences of that choice on
someone else and cash in on it. The flipside of personal freedom is
personal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message > I never said I
was against freedom of choice, I just opined that not
> wearing a seat belt is stupid. Whether it's legal doesn't change that.
> Here in NH, we don't have a seatbelt law and you can ride a motorcycle
> without a helmet, too. Both behaviors are blatantly stupid, but
> perfectly legal, as they should be.
>

YAY! A sane person.


> What pisses me off is when people exercise their right to be stupid,
> then turn around and try to blame the consequences of that choice on
> someone else and cash in on it. The flipside of personal freedom is
> personal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.
>

You are right, unfortunately,as long as there are lawyers and lawsuit
lotteries
(that's the only incentive for blaming anyone else for your choice) there
will be those people.

Michelle
Italy

 

Atom1 wrote:

> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message > I never said I
> was against freedom of choice, I just opined that not
> > wearing a seat belt is stupid. Whether it's legal doesn't change that.
> > Here in NH, we don't have a seatbelt law and you can ride a motorcycle
> > without a helmet, too. Both behaviors are blatantly stupid, but
> > perfectly legal, as they should be.
>
> YAY! A sane person.

Actually a (relatively) free state. We also have no income tax or sales
tax. As one would expect, state services are limited to what's necessary
and we're not burdened with the "welfare" mentality. You can't move to
NH and expect to live off the public dole, as there isn't much of one.
That all suits me just fine, thank you.

> > What pisses me off is when people exercise their right to be stupid,
> > then turn around and try to blame the consequences of that choice on
> > someone else and cash in on it. The flipside of personal freedom is
> > personal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.
> >
>
> You are right, unfortunately,as long as there are lawyers and lawsuit
> lotteries
> (that's the only incentive for blaming anyone else for your choice) there
> will be those people.

Exactly. "Lawsuit lotteries" is a good way to put it. What was it that
Shakespeare said: "First, kill all the lawyers."? While I can't say I
subscribe to anything so Draconian, thinning the herd would certainly be
beneficial. When you have a country with ten lawyers for every engineer,
something is seriously wrong.

 

same thing down here in florida. to be helmetless on a motorcycle you only
need $10k in insurance. Dang if you wack your head and live my tax dollars
will be helping you out for the rest of your life.

 

"John" <lillapoyka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uB3Fc.10133$uK.4119@twister.tampabay.rr.com.. .
> same thing down here in florida. to be helmetless on a motorcycle you
only
> need $10k in insurance. Dang if you wack your head and live my tax
dollars
> will be helping you out for the rest of your life.

We just had a fatal bike accident of a young woman on the back of a
motorcycle who was wearing a helmet....she didn't have it strapped though.
they were traveling about 120kmh. She was thrown off the back-her skull was
broken open she died but probably wouldn't have if she had just strapped the
helmet. It took along timefor the blood to get out of the concrete- it
served as a reminder for a longtime.

Michelle
Italy

 

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 00:38:46 -0700, "Atom1" <cknospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "John" <lillapoyka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uB3Fc.10133$uK.4119@twister.tampabay.rr.com. ..
> > same thing down here in florida. to be helmetless on a motorcycle you
>only
> > need $10k in insurance. Dang if you wack your head and live my tax
>dollars
> > will be helping you out for the rest of your life.
>
> We just had a fatal bike accident of a young woman on the back of a
>motorcycle who was wearing a helmet....she didn't have it strapped though.
>they were traveling about 120kmh. She was thrown off the back-her skull was
>broken open she died but probably wouldn't have if she had just strapped the
>helmet. It took along timefor the blood to get out of the concrete- it
>served as a reminder for a longtime.
>
> Michelle
> Italy
I laugh every time I see a biker wearing the T-shirt that says:
If you can read this, the bitch fell off the back of the bike --AGAIN.

 

"William Hopkins" <whopkin1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:40e5534c.55363056@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
skull was
> >broken open she died but probably wouldn't have if she had just
strapped the
> >helmet. It took along timefor the blood to get out of the concrete-
it
> >served as a reminder for a longtime.
> >
> > Michelle
> > Italy
> I laugh every time I see a biker wearing the T-shirt that says:
> If you can read this, the bitch fell off the back of the bike --AGAIN.

That's horrible!

 

Mitsubishi's Shame
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...658372,00.html

A string of safety scandals has left a Japanese carmaker facing the scrap heap



_george@excite.com (George) wrote in message news:<b411569f.0406231339.7f5cdf0e@posting.google. com>...
> Hyundai Admits Major Airbag Problem
> By Andrew Colton
> ABCNEWS.com
>
> F O R T L A U D E R D A L E, Fla., June 23, 2004? Hyundai Motor
> Company admits that its most popular vehicle has a serious airbag flaw
> that it doesn't know how to fix.
>
> The problem, in the company's 2004 Elantra, is a sensor system
> intended to prevent the airbag from deploying while a child sits in
> the front seat. But it's also preventing the airbag from activating
> for adults who weigh less than roughly 150 pounds and don't position
> themselves in the center of the chair.
>
> "I'm worried. I'm seriously concerned that this isn't a safe car,"
> said Charlotte Kramer, 28, a hairdresser from Fort Lauderdale who
> purchased her 2004 Elantra late last year. "It's a risk every time
> someone sits in the car as to whether their passenger side airbag is
> going to be activated or not."
>
> Kramer became concerned when she saw a warning light appear on her
> dashboard that read: "Passenger Airbag Off." The light stayed on when
> an adult weighing less than 150 pounds sat in the passenger seat
> off-center ? meaning that the airbag would not deploy for the
> passenger in the event of an accident.
>
> Kramer sought help at the dealership where she purchased the car. But
> she was told there's no way to fix the problem, which could mean the
> airbag would not have deployed in an accident.
>
> Mike Anson, a Hyundai spokesman, said the only thing passengers not
> heavy enough to activate the airbag can do now is sit somewhere else.
>
> "Either move to the back seat or move to another Hyundai vehicle," he
> said.
>
> Complicated Instructions
>
> In a technical service bulletin obtained by ABC News, Hyundai advises
> service technicians to tell customers to try the following in an
> attempt to activate the airbag: "Turn the vehicle off, place the seat
> back in the full upright position, sit upright in the seat, centered
> on the seat cushion, with legs comfortably extended. Restart the
> vehicle and have the person remain in this position for about 30
> seconds."
>
> Agreeing that the instructions may be a bit too much for many
> customers to remember, Anson suggested that new customers take his
> company's cars for a long test drive before making a purchase.
>
> "Before you buy the vehicle, put the people in the front passenger who
> will be in there to make sure they're compatible," he said. "That way
> you won't have a problem."
>
> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which now requires
> some new cars to use a sensor system for passenger-side airbags, is
> investigating Hyundai's problem and response. They said they need to
> investigate more before determining whether there's a need for a
> recall of the vehicles.
>
> Hyundai said it has sold 50,000 2004 Elantras.

 

_george@excite.com (George) wrote in message news:<b411569f.0406231339.7f5cdf0e@posting.google. com>...
| Hyundai Admits Major Airbag Problem
| By Andrew Colton
| ABCNEWS.com
|
| F O R T L A U D E R D A L E, Fla., June 23, 2004? Hyundai Motor
| Company admits that its most popular vehicle has a serious airbag flaw
| that it doesn't know how to fix.
|
| The problem, in the company's 2004 Elantra, is a sensor system
| intended to prevent the airbag from deploying while a child sits in
| the front seat. But it's also preventing the airbag from activating
| for adults who weigh less than roughly 150 pounds and don't position
| themselves in the center of the chair.

I've never been clear on exactly who is at risk from an airbag (and perhaps
more importantly, why). Is the problem here that 150 pounds is too high
a requirement or is the goal really to distinguish "a child" (whatever
that means). If being under 150 pounds presents a risk, wouldn't it be
good to detect an adult with that characteristic as well? If the problem
actually relates to age (i.e., not size/weight/etc.) because of some issue
with, e.g., bone development then it's probably going to be impossible (or
at least not economical) to automate detection. In this case, wouldn't a
manual switch be better?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

 

>
> I've never been clear on exactly who is at risk from an airbag (and
perhaps
> more importantly, why).

Imagine a half stick of dynamite buried in your dash, set to BLOW UP at the
slightest brush of your bumper on anything. An airbag is inflated with an
explosive charge. It inflates so quickly, that it can literally take your
head off. This has nothing to do with age or weight, except that it is LESS
LIKELY that you will be gravely injured if you are a full grown man of
average weight, as that is what the explosive charge was designed to
"protect". The problem is, the airbags only help in severe collisions . . .
the kind where your car suffers enough damage to be deemed unrepairable by
your insurance company ('totalled'). But then, the airbag can explode if
your car is hit by a runaway shopping cart, or if it's hit with a strong
wind gust . . . or for no apparent reason at all. And in any situation
other than a life-threatening, car-crushing collision, the airbag is
guaranteed to to more harm than good. That's why consumers (the smart ones,
anyway) want to DISABLE the airbag. But car manufacturers want to make this
damned near impossible, as they are afraid they will get sued if the airbag
does NOT deploy in a bad collision. -Dave

 

> Imagine a half stick of dynamite buried in your dash, set to BLOW UP at the

bullshit. the power is nowhere near that much.

> slightest brush of your bumper on anything.

bullshit. it takes a significant hit to make it go off- enough to cause
major front end damage.

bet you didnt know its possible to go straight on into a pole, and have
neither sensor trip. or under the rear bumper of another car.

An airbag is inflated with an
> explosive charge. It inflates so quickly, that it can literally take your
> head off.

more bullshit. you ARE at greater risk of breaking a wrist or arm.

This has nothing to do with age or weight, except that it is LESS
> LIKELY that you will be gravely injured if you are a full grown man of
> average weight, as that is what the explosive charge was designed to
> "protect". The problem is, the airbags only help in severe collisions . . .

yet they "go off at the slightest brush of a bumper"? i guess everyone
who parks in new york city must be driving around with popped airbags!

> the kind where your car suffers enough damage to be deemed unrepairable by
> your insurance company ('totalled'). But then, the airbag can explode if
> your car is hit by a runaway shopping cart,

eeee....yeahhhh.

or if it's hit with a strong
> wind gust . . . or for no apparent reason at all.

yes, there ARE occasions of airbags going off for no reason. its roughly
equal to the amount of japanese mormons who have been struck dead by
lightning.

i will grant you that it has happened.

guess what? seatbelts have failed too? wanna ban those as well? they can
leave nasty bruises, or break ribs!

And in any situation
> other than a life-threatening, car-crushing collision, the airbag is
> guaranteed to to more harm than good.

guaranteed... hm. everyone ive known thats been in an accident has had
more damage done from the friggin seatbelt, as in bruising and/or broken
ribs.

you going to ban evil seatbelts too?

im sure most people on these groups have known someone thats been in an
accident with an airbag-equipped car, and lived to walk away. and still
have their HEAD even!

>That's why consumers (the smart ones,
> anyway) want to DISABLE the airbag.

yes- there are DROVES! lines around the block! wide pandemonium!

But car manufacturers want to make this
> damned near impossible, as they are afraid they will get sued if the airbag
> does NOT deploy in a bad collision. -Dave

if someone purposely defeats the airbag, and dies in a collision, they
dont have a legal leg to stand on. in fact, they pretty much deserve to die.

or, as youd say- theyd have died anyway, when the airbag takes their
head off.

so are you a troll? or a netkook?

 

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> writes:

>The problem is, the airbags only help in severe collisions . . .
>the kind where your car suffers enough damage to be deemed unrepairable by
>your insurance company ('totalled'). But then, the airbag can explode if
>your car is hit by a runaway shopping cart, or if it's hit with a strong
>wind gust . . . or for no apparent reason at all.

And the reason for this is stupid American standards which make airbags
go off at ludicrously low speeds because they are trying to save idiots
who refuse to wear seatbelts.

The sensible way to do it is to set the airbags to only go off in high-speed
crashes. And if you want to save lives, you make it illegal to not wear
seatbelts and actually enforce it. Unfortunately, the US authorities prefer
to allow people to not wear seatbelts and then attempt to make car makers
design their airbags to do a job that they are not well suited for. Don't
blame the car makers.

--
Craig Macbride <craig@f8d.com> http://www.f8d.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen

 

craig@f8d.com (Craig Macbride) wrote in message news:<1088924631.983636@irys.nyx.net>...
> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> writes:
>
> >The problem is, the airbags only help in severe collisions . . .
> >the kind where your car suffers enough damage to be deemed unrepairable by
> >your insurance company ('totalled'). But then, the airbag can explode if
> >your car is hit by a runaway shopping cart, or if it's hit with a strong
> >wind gust . . . or for no apparent reason at all.
>
> And the reason for this is stupid American standards which make airbags
> go off at ludicrously low speeds because they are trying to save idiots
> who refuse to wear seatbelts.
>
> The sensible way to do it is to set the airbags to only go off in high-speed
> crashes. And if you want to save lives, you make it illegal to not wear
> seatbelts and actually enforce it. Unfortunately, the US authorities prefer
> to allow people to not wear seatbelts and then attempt to make car makers
> design their airbags to do a job that they are not well suited for. Don't
> blame the car makers.

All states except New Hampshire have seat belt use laws.

 

In article <27bc6c79.0407041457.b0064e6@posting.google.com> ,
bicycle@charter.net says...
> craig@f8d.com (Craig Macbride) wrote in message news:<1088924631.983636@irys.nyx.net>...
> > "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> writes:
> >
> > >The problem is, the airbags only help in severe collisions . . .
> > >the kind where your car suffers enough damage to be deemed unrepairable by
> > >your insurance company ('totalled'). But then, the airbag can explode if
> > >your car is hit by a runaway shopping cart, or if it's hit with a strong
> > >wind gust . . . or for no apparent reason at all.
> >
> > And the reason for this is stupid American standards which make airbags
> > go off at ludicrously low speeds because they are trying to save idiots
> > who refuse to wear seatbelts.
> >
> > The sensible way to do it is to set the airbags to only go off in high-speed
> > crashes. And if you want to save lives, you make it illegal to not wear
> > seatbelts and actually enforce it. Unfortunately, the US authorities prefer
> > to allow people to not wear seatbelts and then attempt to make car makers
> > design their airbags to do a job that they are not well suited for. Don't
> > blame the car makers.
>
> All states except New Hampshire have seat belt use laws.

Good thing New Hampshire isn't dependent on the Fed to keep it's
highways running.

 

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> And in any situation
> other than a life-threatening, car-crushing collision, the airbag is
> guaranteed to to more harm than good. That's why consumers (the smart ones,
> anyway) want to DISABLE the airbag. But car manufacturers want to make this
> damned near impossible, as they are afraid they will get sued if the airbag
> does NOT deploy in a bad collision. -Dave

An accident happened in front of our house where the only injury to one
of the parties (the one in the Explorer) was a cut on his head from the
airbag. The other (airbagless) driver was just shaken up. More damage
to her car, of course. Stupid woman drove right into the SUV without
looking.

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx
"It is a matter of regret that many low, mean suspicions
turn out to be well-founded." -- Edgar Watson Howe