jj@alice.UUCP (01/21/86)
Gnewsgropus: nut.politics.straw-men-strike-again > From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mtblue!bottom_david Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > Some amusing points that have been made against airbags: > > 1. They will inflate when they want to blinding me causing an accident. > > Not true. This is a grevious mistatement of at least one set of arguments. I don't think that PROPERLY functioning airbags will inflate at random. What do you have to say for the system when it's 15 years old, never been used, and all the contacts are corroded to bits? (of course, it could just fail to fire, ever. In that case, why bother with them?) The assumptions about direction of impact are pretty weak, though, and you'll have a tough time convincing me of the ability of all the sensors to tell WHAT is the proper accident. Yes, they work, sort of, but there's no way that any automatic system, BEFORE THE FACT, can allow for all kinds of collisions. > ... The eyeglasses one isn't very sane, indeed. > 3. They will stay inflated and cause the accident to be worse since I > won't be able to control my car. > > If the airbag has inflated due to an accident you cannot react faster > than the airbag will defalte, you most probably wouldn't even notice the > airbag inflating or deflating, you would just find that it had, and that > it had saved you from injury. > "You cannot react faster than the airbag will defalte <ed. deflate?>" That's not the point. Just as in 1), you answer a false question. The question in 1) isn't as you've stated it. You've stated it in a way (unrelated to my concerns, at least) that you CAN ridicule. Why? In any case, the point is not that you wind up with a life-raft inflated in your car, you don't. The point is that you, if the airbag is good enough to do ANY good, are pushed back against the seat, and your arms are likely pushed away from the steering wheel. This alone is more than enough reason to ban airbags as dangerous and life-threatening, if you belive in government mandated safety, rather than individual responsibility for safety. I maintain that your insistance on airbags IN MY CAR represents an act of compulsion that endangers me. I always wear seatbelts, evenif I'm backing up in the driveway. They've saved my butt once, and they may again, although I'd rather not have the chance to find out! I DO think that 4-point center-buckle harnesses should be generally available,but that would require good seat and ceiling engineering (oh, woe is GM, woe is Ford ...) in order to work. I'm not holding my breath. In any case, I elect to use seatbelts, and ONLY seatbelts. Don't try to save me by killing me. George Orwell would be sick to see that. Anyhow, what's so amusing? Perhaps the fact that you can occlude the real issue, that of individual responsibility, with straw-man arguments? Is THAT news? HAven't we all been doing that for years? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, THEY NEED THEIR McVities! "By the Cross old Andrew wore, By the sword e'er William wore, ..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
rjb@akgua.UUCP (rjb) (01/23/86)
Why does this problem always boil down to Government Action
or do nothing ? Where are our friends the Insurance companies
when we need them ?
How about seat belt user car insurance rates and non-user rates ?
Non-users would have a higher premium and in the case of liars
(those who claim to wear the belt but don't) I think we can determine
most of the time after the wreck who did and didn't. The liars would
be penalized (by an appropriate clause in their policy) so as not
to receive full benefits.
There are non-drinkers and non-smokers life insurance rates, why can't
we make this valid discrimination about the use of safety equipment
and keep the Federales out of this one altogether ?
Idealistically yours
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}